In rising to appeal most earnestly to the Government to give further consideration to their decision to permit the construction of the Bankside power station, I realise that I can add little to what has already been said or written. All I can hope to do is to underline certain factors which seem to me to deserve the further careful attention of the Government. The outstanding feature of this whole discussion has been the force and universality of the reaction which the proposal to create this station has evoked. The Bankside power station, if it is erected, will supply first and foremost the immediate neighbourhood of the Borough of Southwark. The Southwark Borough Council, with its Labour majority, is whole-heartedly opposed to the project. It will also supply the whole area of Greater London, and it is well known that the London County Council, with its Labour majority, is equally solidly opposed to this project. The Corporation of the City of London, which also would use electricity from Bankside, is, I think, unanimously opposed to this project As hon. Members know, the voice of every kind of relevant society—the Institute of British Architects, the Royal Society of Arts, the London Society, and the whole of the London Press, with one inconsiderable exception—is raised in opposition to this scheme. We have in office a democratic Government, democratically elected, claiming, quite justly, to enjoy a mandate from the electorate.

I would ask the spokesman of the Government what heed they propose to pay to these impressive democratic voices. It is possible to say, "We know what you want, but you are not going to get it; you are going to get what we want you to have." Such words are familiar. They have been used constantly by Hitler and by Stalin, but they are the antithesis of everything that is democratic. Alternatively—and as I hope—the Government, who have showed once that they know how to yield gracefully to a minority, may on this occasion heed the voice of a great majority and give further consideration to this project which they have provisionally approved. As to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning, we know exactly where he stands. He has summed up the opposition to t his project as consisting of "a few highbrows who probably saw St. Paul's Cathedral only once or twice a year, and who possibly would not know a power station if they saw one." All I will say about one of these highbrows, the Lord Mayor of the City of London, is that he must lead a strangely cloistered existence if, domiciled as he is in the Mansion House, he only sees St. Paul 's Cathedral twice a year. However, this pronouncement was uttered in a moment of postprandial exuberance, and no one demands meticulous accuracy on such an occasion.

The real difference between us and the Minister of Town and Country Planning is that while he is concerned about electricity we are concerned about town planning, to which the consummation of this project would deal a shattering blow—because if once you have a fine plan prepared and the moment anyone desires to drive a coach and horses through it a coach and horses are driven through it with the approval of the Government, then you take the heart out of all planning and no great planner is going to put his pencil to paper again. Why should he? Because if it happens once there is no reason why it should not happen twice and much more than twice. We have in office a Government who are devotees of planning, and in this, as in so much else, I count myself their humble follower. One can no doubt have too much planning. Equally, one can have too little, and when it is a question of the construction or reconstruction of our cities planning is essential. In the great plan for the City of London we have something finer and more imaginative than has ever been produced before in our history.

Hon. Members are roughly familiar with what the County of London Plan involves so far as concerns the river Thames particularly. The outstanding feature is the treatment of the South bank of the Thames, and the outstanding feature of the South bank is the treatment of the Bankside area. The conception is that from Lambeth Palace, almost opposite here, right down to Southwark Cathedral by London Bridge, there shall be a new and embellished South bank of the Thames containing the old London County Hall, a range of Government buildings, a national theatre, a cultural centre, colleges, open gardens and road-side walks. As regards Bankside in particular, there is the fine endeavour to make it what it was in Elizabethan days—the days of Shakespeare, Jonson, and Richard Burbage—a great cultural and recreational centre in London. We had it then, with its Paris Gardens, the Globe Theatre, the Rose Theatre and the Palace of the Bishop of Winchester with its gardens. To return to that is a great and imaginative conception which we ought not lightly to jeopardise.

In that connection I would add one point. It is known that King's College is prepared to move from the Strand to the Bankside site if that site is developed in accordance with the plan drawn up by Abercrombie and Forshaw, but it is quite certain that King's College is riot prepared to be a good neighbour—as the Minister would put it—to a power station. The matter goes a little further than that. I have spoken only of King's College, but we know that within the next 10 years there is to be an immense educational development in London and elsewhere. The university facilities in London must be increased twofold. Can one imagine a better site for educational development, perhaps with the establishment of a new university, let us say the University of Southwark, with a Silkin College—how much better to be remembered by than by "Silkin's folly"—as its chief constituent, there on the banks of the Thames at Bankside? That is, perhaps, imaginative. No one knows whether such a development will take place, but—and this is the point—I appeal to the Government not to take action which will make it impossible for that ever to take place—as would unquestionably be the case if the power station were erected where it is projected.

I do not, of course, suggest for a moment—and no opponent of the scheme has suggested—that a power station need necessarily be unsightly. I know nothing finer—in its situation—than the power station at Battersea, which seems to me to typify impressively all that is finest and most vigorous in industry. But industry is the one thing which it is desired to keep out of this Bankside site because part of the conception—and a very proper part—is that this area shall be kept for residential, recreational, educational and cultural purposes, and industry left to the great area below London Bridge. We have been told that a power station can, in its way, be as beautiful as a cathedral, and I do not challenge that. A hyena can be as melodious in its way as a nightingale, but we do not like the way, and we prefer the nightingale, and while I admire Battersea power station intensely where it is I should he very sorry to see it transplanted to Bankside. We have had a very interesting model of the projected power station in the tea-room and I know that it has impressed some hon. Members. But I think we ought to approach these models with a little mistrust. They look so nice and white and clean and, after all, in the model the projected power station is only about 8 inches long and 5 inches high. That could do no harm to anyone. But, if we want to imagine what the power station will really be let us speak in terms of feet and yards. As projected it would be nine-tenths of the length of St. Paul's, and its chimney is to rise as high in one case as 300 ft.—that 'is as high as the summit of the topmost tower of Big Ben—or, alternatively, a little higher than the clock face of Big Ben.

I am not concerned with the question whether a structure so designed would dominate St. Paul's—I think that that argument has been a little overworked—but I am very much concerned with the question of its dominating Bankside, because to place it there would destroy the whole character which has been assigned to Bankside in the London Plan, and it will invest it with a character which it was never intended to wear. That would be a disaster which the Government ought never to countenance. Why in fact is it suggested that this station should be put in this particular place at all? I am not qualified to discuss the technical questions, but it is quite certain that the reason the power station is to be put there is because the experts say that it must be there and nowhere else.

I have a great respect for experts; they are invaluable and indispensable, which is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives the universities so much money to produce them. But the function of the expert is to serve the community and not to dominate it, and there is some danger today of our being ruled a great deal too much by experts. The successful Minister in Whitehall is the man who uses his experts wisely, hearing all they have to say in their particular sphere, puts their conclusions into a larger setting, relating them to other considerations winch are not the concern of experts, and then makes his own decisions accordingly. The experts themselves have an invariable technique. They say a particular thing must be in a particular place, and they buttress their contention with arguments which are quite unanswerable—except by other experts, who are always available. What they mean is that that is the most convenient spot, and I do not doubt for one moment that Bankside would probably be the most convenient spot for this projected power station. But what happens? We have had an example at Durham. There was only one spot there where a power station could be placed. It would destroy a historic view, but that did not matter. But when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury and Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison)—it will be strange if history has to tell of a Conservative Minister saving Durham and a Labour Minister refusing to save Bankside—when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury refused to allow that station to be built there it was moved somewhere else and no one was any the worse.

We had the same thing the other day, White Horse Hill. They were going to erect a television station on the top of it. But the Postmaster-General, with a public spirit which I hope will spread rapidly along the Treasury Bench, went down to White Horse Hill and said that the projected television station should not be put there; it is being erected somewhere else and the operation of television in the United Kingdom will go on unimpaired. For these reasons I am impressed only to a very limited degree by the contention of the experts that the power station must be on Bankside and nowhere else. I cannot believe that the resources of civilisation in the field of electricity will be exhausted if Bankside is ruled out, or that, with the two banks of the Thames from London Bridge to Tilbury on the North and London Bridge to Gravesend on the South available, there are no other sites where an alternative station can be erected.

But let us assume for a moment that the station is erected at Bankside. The Minister of Town and Country Planning, by a decision which we all applauded, has decided that if it is erected it is to be fuelled with oil and not with coal. As I understand it—and again I speak with no technical knowledge—in that decision we are very much making a leap into the dark. There is no example of a power station of anything like this magnitude being fuelled with oil. We do not know what the results may be. We do not know what kind of noxious fumes are going to come out of that vast chimney. The experts assure us that there will be no noxious fumes. If there are none, the experts will be proved to be right; if noxious fumes do emerge, well, then the experts will be proved to be wrong.

But if there is much that we do not know about an oil-fuelled station there is one thing we do know definitely—on the authority of the Minister of Fuel and Power himself, who gave an answer to the House only yesterday to the effect that the change from coal to oil will increase the cost of production by between £400,000 and £500,000 a year. If we capitalise that sum at 2½ per cent. the station is going to be increased by either £16 million or £20 million, which is substantially more than double what the cost of erection would have been in the first instance. And what are we going to gain by it? We are told that we are going to gain two vital years. If that is true we have to balance it against other considerations, because no one is going to suggest that all the considerations are on one side, Are we going to take the short or the long view? Are we going to be concerned only with our own immediate needs? After all, when this power station is constructed and when it is in full production it will be producing—what? It will be producing rather less than 5 per cent. of the whole consumption of the London area. We are not unaccustomed in these days to shortages. What commodity is there about which we would not say that to have 95 per cent. of it would be, in Dr. Johnson's words:

"riches beyond the dreams of avarice."

Moreover, let us remember we are legislating in this matter for posterity. It is possible for the Government to say, "Posterity! What do we care about posterity? We cannot be always facing the future. Let us consider our own needs and our own material advantages in these years immediately before us?" That is an unworthy and ignoble attitude, which I am convinced would not be endorsed by the Prime Minister or by many of his colleagues whom I could mention. This is not a conflict between good and evil; it is a conflict—and such conflicts are often much more difficult—between good and better. We have to decide whether we are legislating for the immediate or for a distant future, for a finer future than anything we enjoy in the present. It is not a question of selling our birthright for a mess of pottage; it is selling our children's heritage for a trifling percentage of kilowatts in the years immediately ahead. That is the choice before the Government, and I by no means abandon hope that their decision will be the right one. If they do decide to choose the lesser good the verdict of history on them will be justly stern.

I am glad that I caught your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so early in this Debate, and I am going to make no excuse to the House for following my notes rather closely, because, firstly, I have a closely knit argument to put to the House; and, secondly, I know that a large number of other Members wish to speak. I think I can claim to be as loyal a supporter of this Government as anyone on this side of the House and this, I believe, is the first time that I have felt myself obliged to challenge and oppose a decision taken by the Government at Cabinet level. I recognise the good faith of those who have made that decision. I would even go so far as to say that I believe the promoters and especially my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning have acted with a cue if somewhat panicky sense of responsibility. A cast-iron case, we are all agreed, can be made out for expanding the production of electric power, but a temporary and rather dramatic fuel crisis has, I feel, led to a judgment which appears to be principally based on the shaky premise that some 12 months would be gained in providing a comparatively small extra amount of electricity at a very great extra cost if a generating plant were to be put down on Bankside rather than on some other site.

What are the other sites?

I am coming to that question in a few minutes. I ask the House to believe that I have made a close and conscientious study throughout this controversy of both sides of the case. As is inevitable when feelings are aroused, there has been some exaggeration all round, and on some aspects of the pros and cons we, who have remained opponents throughout, recognise that the argument one way or the other is fairly evenly balanced. For instance, to insist that the power station may dwarf St. Paul's is a mistake. I have visited the site three times so as to check my facts on this and all other aspects of the question

What are the considerations which have led me to hold the view that the Government are wrong in their case? They are three. Firstly, the erection of a large power station at Bankside will have a decisive effect on the planning of the South bank. Those in favour of the scheme and those against it will, I think, equally agree to that proposition. I personally think that this station on Bankside will have an adverse effect on the South bank and on its whole vicinity. The model we have seen, as the hon. Gentleman the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) has just pointed out, is persuasive enough. I admit that it would indeed be an abuse of language to call the austerely elegant temple of electricity shown to us in model form a mere power station. But we would do well to remember that no amount of Cubist beauty, silver bricks or architectural genius can make up for a vast building on a wrong site.

The presence of a huge power station as the central feature of a redeveloped South bank opposite St. Paul's involves, in my opinion, an anti-climax there, in what otherwise should be the harmonious continuity of one vista embracing both sides of the river and having as its focal point Wren's great cathedral. An inevitable and incongruous duality is here involved, and the architectural unity of an all-embracing scheme will be completely shattered. Its siting on Bankside without a specific guarantee regarding the emission of sulphur and other fumes would, I think, be an act of folly unless the promoters want to kill and blight the area stone dead before they start.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he was Chairman of the Housing and Health Committee of the L.C.C. he received serious complaints about sulphur fumes from the power station at Battersea and that, despite the installation of a gas washing plant, the nuisance has never been fully eliminated? Battersea, I would point out, is a coal-fired plant. The sulphur content of oil is very much greater than that of coal, and in murky, muggy and foggy weather it is not difficult to imagine what might happen at Bankside. Would such a development encourage trees, flowers and shrubs to flourish in the gardens we have been promised; would it benefit the fabric of St. Paul's and other buildings, or would it he likely to attract the high-class commercial developers and flat dwellers, who, we are assured, will scramble to live and work under the shadow of this great station? In any case, I am one who believes that to site the station on Bankside, will industrialise an area which the Abercrombie plan asserts should be solely for cultural, recreational, educational, commercial and residential uses. The argument that if this plant is not put down on Bankside, nothing else will be, is a singularly weak one, and it seems an odd thing for my right hon. Friend publicly to have stated that he is not interested in what happens 30 years from now, when the very essence of planning is to look several generations ahead. I have always thought, during the 20 years I have belonged to the Labour Party, that one of its main political beliefs was to protect the long-term objectives from the encroachments of opportunist, parochial and panic decisions.

My second point has been most ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris). Do we or do we not believe in democracy in local government, and in bowing, where it is well-informed and strong, to public opinion? The local authorities, speaking for the people of South London, the leading architects, town planners, all the amenities societies and countless individuals, including many Members of this House representative of all parts of the British Isles, are against this scheme. Is their judgment to be over-ridden, because it is decreed that what is only a mere four or five per cent. of the total output of the electrical energy we need in the London area must come from Bankside, and can come from nowhere else? Thirdly, I want my right hon. Friend to tell the House what alternatives have been considered, and why they are unsuitable. I know that after first regarding Rotherhithe as an alternative to Bankside, the promoters, following Questions in this House, suddenly changed their tune and asserted that they wanted both these sites. But what about Poplar, and what about Woolwich? Have these been vetted? I should also like to know whether the possibility of putting the station underground, here or elsewhere, has been explored and examined. Has it even been thought of? It is quite easy to construct an underground railway; why not a power station? I am credibly informed that at a comparatively small extra cost this could easily be done, and that gas turbines could be used for generating the power. The security angle is specially relevant here.

These are all points upon which we are justified in asking for enlightenment. Before I sit down, I should like to ask the Minister to confirm that the whole scheme, before it is proceeded with, will be subject to the approval of the Royal Fine Arts Commission. I mention this because I have a feeling in my bones that this last hurdle, if he reaches it, may not he a very easy one to surmount. In all friendliness, and with a full share of responsibility, I ask my right hon. Friend to take back this scheme to the Cabinet, and to say, "I will not have it." If he will do that, posterity will bless him. If he will not, then I prophesy that the central feature of the proposed new power station will come to be regarded as a gargantuan monolith, erected to celebrate the negation of genuine and far-sighted Socialist planning.

I shall detain the House only for a few minutes, because I know that many Members are anxious to speak on this subject. I wish to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), to whom the House is indebted for raising this topic today. Let me say at once that there is one argument, raised against the Government's project, which I certainly do not support. I do not suggest for one moment that there is any aesthetic objection to a power station as such. A power station can be an extremely good building, and there is no reason to think that the power station in this case would not be an excellent building. The objection, which I believe is an overwhelming objection to the Government's present proposal, is on planning grounds—it is the wrong use of these particular acres. It is not a small area. It is an area of eight acres, and if it is devoted to this use, it cannot be devoted to the use which all the local authorities concerned, all the planning authorities and all the technicians in this sphere say is the right use of this site.

I was sorry in a way that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University spoke about the experts as if the experts were against us. There is such a thing as an expert technician in town planning, and in this particular case the body of expert opinion against the Government's scheme is quite overwhelming. I am not going to say very much about the plan of Professor Abercrombie and Mr. Forshaw. I should certainly not lightly disregard a plan upon which so much work has been done, and upon which so many hopes have been placed. Here I would refer the House to a letter by Professor Abercrombie which appeared in the "Times" this morning. I would, however, ask the House to remember a more recent plan, known to many Members only since yesterday, namely, the plan produced by Dr. Holden and Professor Holford for the City of London, which is bound up with the development of Bankside. The closest consultations took place between those experts and those responsible for the London Plan, and their scheme is one which the House, unless it is mad, would not wish to disregard. Let me say, in defence of the right hon. Gentleman, that I think he has been misrepresented when it is said that he expressed the opinion that he did not care what happened 30 years hence. I do not think that is what he said, and I am certain it is not what he intended to say. I think he was addressing himself simply to a financial argument, and not a very good one. In the matter of town planning, it is our duty to take the long view. Town planning has no meaning at all unless we take a long view. If you take the long view then I ask the House to remember that Dr. Holden, who has given his views publicly in "The Times," is not likely to say that his plan will be ruined if his fear is purely fanciful, and exists purely in his imagination. He and the co-author of the plan have thought out these matters quite as thoroughly as the right hon. Gentleman. Lord Latham's views, given in another place, and elsewhere, are well known. He is not a mere amateur, coming to this matter for the first time. He, also, has given great thought to this topic. You have, here, the nearest thing to unanimity among all planners who have devoted their mind to this subject that I can remember in any case of the kind.

Finally, I want to say this: admittedly, this power station will, apart from everything else, be an inefficient power station. The figures have been given by the Minister of Fuel and Power, I think, and certainly by the Lord Chancellor in another place. There is a great extra cost if the Government persist in this project. I concede to the right hon. Gentleman everything he asks about the possibility of this station being admirable in design and aesthetically right. But I say that this is a wrong use of these acres, and that, if the Minister considers town planning to be the science or art of the right use of land, he is using this important piece of land wrongly. I support the opposition which has been raised to this project.

I regard this dispute, which has, unfortunately, come up so early in considering town planning in relation to this area, as being of a somewhat symbolic character. We have, here, the challenge of the new world to the old. We are now testing the possibility of bringing into being new ideas, new methods, and new demands in relation to those which are existing. That is symbolic of what, at any rate, my party in the House are trying to do, and this scheme is a challenge as to whether that is possible or not. It is not without significance that the main opposition to this scheme comes from those who are imbued with, and put their faith in, old ideas.

The L.C.C.?

The opposition are basing their opinions and points of view, on the advice of people who are bound up with old ideas. Let me draw the attention of the House to the London County Council plan, which was published two years ago, and which said:

"The reconstruction of industrial premises, particularly on the river-front, must offer great opportunities for a modern treatment, expressive in form and silhouetting the character and importance of their function and their service."

Those words are illustrated by a photograph of the Battersea power station. Do those words mean what they say?

Yes, in their right place.

It has been admitted by previous speakers that there is no aesthetic objection to this project. I suggest that this matter has been dealt with in a rather unfortunate way, which has induced certain opponents to rush into opposition without fully appreciating what the scheme is, and what it entails. It is a great pity that when the announcement of this scheme was made all those drawings we have had in "The Times," and models were not immediately available for examination by everybody concerned If that had been the case I believe that a great deal of this uninformed criticism, based on lack of knowledge of what was actually intended, would not have been forthcoming.

I must agree—and I hope that this will be a lesson for the future—that it is particularly unfortunate that much more discussion did not take place between the authorities concerned. Had the London County Council been prepared to adapt their plan in accordance with requirements they could have made it obvious that good development, embracing this scheme, was possible on the South bank of the Thames. But no opportunity was given to them of seeing what were the possibilities We have got that only at the last minute. The approach of the Government and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning to this proposal has been wrong. They are placating the opposition. This scheme must be right or wrong. To discuss this power station as if it were to be a sort of public library, with a campanile is entirely wrong. Why not put a clock on the campanile, why not a peal of bells? Alternatively, why not have a crematorium there, so that the smoke which went up would not be distinguishable from the smoke coming from the power station itself? The opposition in attempting to disguise this building as something which it is not—

Does the hon. Gentleman include among the opposition the London County Council, and the Southwark Council? Are they among the opposition whom it would be a crime to appease?

The people who opposed this scheme before they understood what the implications were had not been given an opportunity of studying the project sufficiently. Had they studied the plans and models that are now available we should have not had this great burst of opposition at the present time. I hope that the Government will reconsider their proposals, and having decided that a power station can be properly erected, will make it a real power station. I deprecate this attempt to disguise a building and to make it something which it is not. I suggest that two chimneys as originally planned would not depreciate the building. In fact tall chimneys in that position would be a good thing. When Sir Christopher Wren designed St. Paul's, he designed the City churches with tall steeples in order to provide a contrast to the dome of St. Paul's. There is no reason why chimneys should not do what Wrn would have been glad to do if he had had this opportunity.

I ask the Government, and the promoters of this scheme, to have the courage of their convictions. The plans and details which we have had show that there is no aesthetic objection to a power station on this site. The question of whether a power station is necessary here or not, is a matter for the technicians, and I do not pretend to judge on the technicalities of the matter, and I do not think other hon. Members can do so. But, as far as town planning and the possibility of erecting a power station on this site are concerned, I stand by the Government, and hope that they will have the courage of their convictions. I hope they will see that the best possible power station is built there, and that they do not attempt to disguise it as a clock tower, or anything other than what it is.

Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) the Minister must be saying "God save me from my friends." If we take the hon. Member's words seriously I think it is only fair to remember the funny story which was heard during the war about a fond mother watching her boy marching with other soldiers and saying "Everybody's out of step except our Silky."

This is no party matter, it is simply a matter of judgment, taste and knowledge. Who are those in favour of this proposal? They are first the Minister, the firm responsible for the building and the architect. The architect is one of the greatest men in the profession and he will certainly make the best of a bad job but if he were asked whether he would like to put the power station on that site or on some other one we know what answer he would give. Who are those against the proposal? I will not go into a brig description of why they are against it but I will itemise a few of the leading opponents. There are the London County Council—all the members except two who abstained, but did not oppose—Southwark Borough Council, the Corporation of the City of London, the London Plan, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the London Society, the Royal Society of Arts, the Joint Parliamentary Amenities Group and the South-Eastern Board of Architects. Those are some of the larger societies and organisations which have officially recorded their point of view. Then there are the experts who include Professor Sir Charles Reilly, of Liverpool University, who trained a great number of practising architects of today, and Professor A. E. Richardson, R.A., of London University, another great instructor of the younger architects. These professors are two of the best men in the country who are definitely against the proposal. I think that if there were a free vote in this House the House would be against it. We have to face the fact that practically all informed people are opposed to this scheme, and most are informed for it has been fully described in the Press and there is a model seen by all those speaking, so it cannot be said that people are not informed about it.

Is this an example of how the new Town and Country Planning Measure is to work? Is the Minister to turn into a dictator one who if he endorses this scheme may well be known as a dictator for bad taste—because that is what he will be called if he insists upon this being carried out? If he were going to build a college or cultural building would he want to put it beside a power station irrespective of what is on the outside of the power station? The Minister and I were both members of the London County Council at the same time and then he was very sound and never did funny things like this. Why do the Government and the Minister advocate this scheme? It is primarily because they think it would be approximately two years quicker than to use the alternative proposed site at Rotherhithe. But is that a fact? I doubt it. Let me cite an example of what has been done elsewhere and if it can be done elsewhere it can be done here. In 1911 the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway built a headquarters in Richmond, Virginia, which was a building of 20 storeys, and the builders had to go down 80 feet for foundations. They did it in nine months. If they could do that in America we could do it.—[Interruption]—I know I was the architect.

Wherever the power station is built the same bricks, steel, concrete and other materials will be used and it is only a matter of organising the construction properly to get this building completed with great speed. The real difficulty is going to be in getting the plant made and put into the power station. Is the time saved to be due to the acquisition of the site? Has not the Minister all the power he needs for the acquisition of the land needed now under the Town and Country Planning Acts? He has had vast experience of such things in the course of his life. I do not think there is any need for two years' delay; the building can be built and the land acquired on either site with great speed if necessary. Why do the public object to this proposal? A power station is very much like a purgative pill. Put as much sugar on the outside as you wish but it is still a pill inside and it is no good putting fat boys and bulbous ladies on the outside of the building, it will still be a power station.

Years ago the London County Council considered cutting a main highway from the end of Vauxhall Bridge to the end of London Bridge and it was found that the rates on the South side of the river were about one-eighth as much as those on the North side. Putting a power station on the South side in this position would jeopardise improvements. A building of this type cannot be put in the middle of an area of that kind without drawing other buildings of the same sort around it and we would never get a cultural group of buildings like the London University group built there beside the power station—[Interruption.] Do not let us be funny about it; we are all grown-up people, and we must be real. A power station attracts factories, not fine buildings for cultural or semi-cultural purposes. What is the good of a plan if we are not going to carry it out? The best men obtainable make the plan. In regard to the question of oil, it has not been possible to deal with the fumes successfully in other places. They have tried washing the fumes and all kinds of things have been attempted but have not by any means been always satisfactory. There is no certainty that fumes can be thoroughly cleaned yet. It may be done in the future, but no one as yet has thoroughly and invariably succeeded. Again electricity from Bankside is going to cost a third more if made from oil than if it were produced from coal.

The Minister is Minister of Town and Country Planning, but he cannot plan the Gulf Stream. It is the Gulf Stream that gives us our damp, heavy climate, and whether we like it or not, we are always going to have a damp climate. The dampness in the atmosphere and the fumes will hang together in the air. So, although we should like to avoid this, we cannot do it if the fumes are emitted. Those of us who have been in this House a long time have seen how the fumes come across the river from the other side, and how the front of this building, of this Palace of Westminster, has had to he repaired and restored to a very large extent. It has cost more to repair and restore it and change it than the face stonework of the building cost originally to build. We do not want to have a similar trouble to arise from a new power station on the face of St. Paul's Cathedral. The ground under St. Paul's is over 40 ft. higher above sea level than that under the power station. The damp in the air will keep the fumes down. They will waft across the river. The Bankside site and St. Paul's are near the river level—at the bottom of the surface of London as a matter of fact where the bad and vitiated air settles down and so affects the stonework to the utmost. A spotty appearance for this building—the Palace of Westminster—is not vital. We could put new stones in a Gothic building without much damage. But in a classical building like St. Paul's we must keep the harmony in its appearance uniform in the colour and tone of the stones, and were we continually to replace damaged old ones with new stones it would ruin the appearance of the cathedral and that would be one of the greatest needless sacrifices we could make. It would be most regrettably sad.

I do not think the Minister has asked the Royal Fine Art Commission whether they believe in this site. He says he will ask about the building, but what about the site? That is the thing to which we object. We are not objecting to the building. The building for such a purpose may indeed be a very good building, quite functional and in good taste. But not the site. That is indeed incongruous. Let us be truthful. The Minister has made a bad decision. He knows it; I feel sure that in his soul he knows it himself. He is stubborn and fights hard and we respect him for that. But why should he not be wise and correct this undesirable decision? For we must never forget that once this building is built in the wrong place it cannot be removed and if a failure it will be the Minister's memorial for as long as he lives—and for, well, all time.

The hon. Members who have opposed the scheme have expressed the view that the argument was well balanced on both sides and that it was difficult to decide on which side they would come down. They finally decided that the weight was on the side of the opposition to the Government's proposal. Let us look at the County of London's plan for the scheme. It says that there should be a riverside walk of about 150 feet in width, that there should be gardens, that there should be trees, and that further from the river than 150 feet there should be buildings of educational, residential, cultural, and commercial value. But at the particular point that we are discussing, at Bankside, there is proposed the erection of blocks of offices and flats. These blocks are to be, in accordance with the County of London plan, 100 feet high if they are offices, and 80 feet high if they are residential buildings. Incidentally, we should remember that Faraday House, on the other side of the river, is 120 feet high.

It is an appalling blunder.

The present Government cannot be blamed for that. Behind these blocks of offices and flats we are going to get, according to the County of London plan, light industry. As Lord Latham said a few days ago, speaking on this subject in another place, nothing could be more fatal to good planning than rigidity in detail.

The hon. Member may not quote a speech made in another place.

I was only paraphrasing. This scheme, as put forward by the Minister, in contrast with the 150 feet wide walk along the river, gives a walk of about 230 feet wide. The power station, apart from its chimney, is going to be 87 feet high. That is not so high as Faraday House, and is below the maximum limit allowed by the County of London plan. It is going to have a chimney, but we will talk about the chimney in a moment or two. Its total length and width will take up the space of two or three blocks of warehouses or flats, which does not seem extensive.

Across the river we have St. Paul's. St. Paul's is 370 feet high. It stands on an eminence in the City that is 42 feet high, so that it will be, in total height, more than 100 feet above the top of the proposed power station chimney. St. Paul's is more than half a mile away from the proposed power station.

Are you accurate in the statement that St Paul's is half a mile away?

The hon. Member must not question my accuracy. Furthermore I have not made any statement.

I got the figure from the experts, and I do know something about London. St. Paul's is half a mile away. It is separated from the proposed power station by gardens, by the river, and by the stretch of the City which lies between the river and St. Paul's. St. Paul's is surrounded at the moment by a mass of half-derelict property, where there is a great deal of squalor, a great deal of poverty, a great deal of dirt, and a great deal of decay. It is true we are going to have a new City scheme, but the new City scheme is not going to be a very great improvement upon what we have had in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that hon. Members opposite and some hon. Members on this side regard the new City scheme as the last word in planning; I know that nearly all the newspapers regard it as the acme of planning; but it is based upon nothing beyond a miserable, commercial outlook, which is characteristic of the City in the past and is characteristic of the City today. The possible floor space available in the City is something like 80 million square feet. There is going to be a vista opening up St. Paul's; there are to be steps up from the river to St. Paul's; there are to be circuses, there are to be roundabouts, there are to be open-air spaces where people can have their lunches. In spite of all that, the total reduction in the available floor space is going down only by 5 million square feet to 75 million.

Will the hon. Member allow me? I am very interested in the Bankside scheme. I do want to understand the relation between St. Paul's and the Bankside power station.

I will try to elucidate. There is going to be a great deal of opposition by the City interests to the Bankside scheme. The replanning of the City is going to involve very little reduction in floor space, and that reduction in floor space is more than accounted for by the increased amenities of the City. So that the eyesore one sees when one looks along the river on the North side will not be improved by the kind of City replanning suggested with such a flourish of trumpets today. The real danger to London amenities lies there and not in the Bankside scheme at all. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) enumerated long lists of experts who, he said, were opposed to the Government plan. He accepted the word of those experts, but when the Minister tells us that the new Bankside scheme will not produce any noise, smoke, grit, smell or sulphurous fumes, he then says, "But your experts are wrong. I will accept the experts who tell me that I am right, but I will not accept your experts."

Can my hon. Friend produce clear-cut evidence that anyone has stated categorically, that there will be no fumes whatever from this new power station?

I understand that the Minister has definitely stated that he has received advice from his experts that the arrangements for filtering and washing the gas and fumes will eliminate the smell—[HON. MEMBERS: "May."] The Minister has not said "may"; he has said "will." In a speech in another place recently the Lord Chancellor gave the same opinion.

No.

I have read the speech very carefully, and I am prepared to accept the views which he gave rather than the views of my interrupters. Then there is the question of oil versus coal. I agree that oil is to be used and that it is a more expensive fuel than coal, but there is one thing to be said for it. It will not drain our coal supplies, neither will it drain the lifeblood of our miners. We shall be using a more expensive fuel but it will be one which is more in accordance with the industrial needs of the community. Recently we have had a crisis in which we were short of power and warmth. The total percentage of the shortage of fuel production compared with what we are able to produce was small. The four per cent. of our total energy output which we shall get by the use of this new station, will make a great deal of difference to the comfort of our people and the efficiency of our industries if we get it within the next two years. I know that there is criticism of the experts who say that the station will be working and that we shall get our power supply two years sooner, if we have this scheme than if we do not have it. Two years is not a lifetime. It is a very small time in the history of our people, but two winters of cold give quite an appreciable time in which to acquire a sense of beauty. I do not think we ought to ask people who are cold, and unable to switch on their lights, to admire the beauty of St. Paul's, when they are unable to keep themselves warm and unable to keep their industries working efficiently.

I now come to some of the artistic aspects of this question. It has been admitted on all sides that a power station need not be ugly. Indeed, Professor Abercrombie said so in his letter to "The Times" today. I do not think any hon. Member would say that a power station need necessarily be more ugly than a block of flats or offices. The alternative to the power station is blocks of flats or offices. People standing on the promenade on the South bank, when the power station is erected, will see blocks of warehouses on the other side of the river below St. Paul's. People standing below St. Paul's and looking towards Bankside will see beside the power station blocks of flats and offices. It seems to me that the beauty of the vista will not be adversely affected in either case. The opponents of this scheme have no monopoly of artistic taste. The hon. Member for Maidstone accused the Minister of bad taste. I should like to point out to him that he possesses no monopoly of knowledge of what is good or bad taste in artistic matters.

I did not accuse the Minister of bad taste. I said that if he carried out this scheme he would be looked upon as the dictator of bad taste.

That is a matter of opinion with which some of us cannot agree. Art is a matter of opinion. It depends on when one happens to be born, it depends upon historical and geographical factors and, almost entirely, upon the sort of influences to which one has been subjected. One's opinions on art are determined by one's environment. The last word has not been said either on the artistic or on the architectural aspect of this subject. Wren was not the last great architect, and neither is St. Paul's the supreme last word in beauty.

But it is a pretty good building.

No one denies it, but I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who has recently achieved eminence in a new sphere of activity, would, in discussing this and cognate matters, point out that the beauty of the picture that one sees from some point of vantage in London, would depend upon the kind of contrast one got and upon the balance of the various masses at which one was looking and, to some degree, upon the perspective. There is no place that I know, apart from the heights of Hampstead, or immediately behind the proposed South bank site, from which one could see both these buildings at one and the same time.

What about the large traffic on the river of people in pleasure craft who will be able to see both these buildings at the same time as they approach this point?

The answer is that they will not be able to see both sides at once.

Surely, people on London Bridge will be able to see both at once

I would remand the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Dr. Jeger) that time is limited and other hon. Members want to speak.

I have nearly finished. Even as people approach this spot they will love to look first at one side and then at the other. St. Paul's achieves a great deal of its artistic eminence by a certain amount of deceit. On all sides when one looks at St. Paul's one gets an impression of two complete storeys. As everybody knows, there are not two complete storeys. There are rows of windows which are pure dummies hiding empty air above the aisles. If Wren could that kind of architecture, I see no reason why the people who design the Bankside power station should not use campaniles, and other methods of disguising some of the defects, if they exist, in their scheme. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) does not like campaniles. He wants a building to appear to be what in fact it is. He wants functional architecture. I also want functional architecture, and that is one of my objections to some aspects of St. Paul's. When the arguments of both sides are carefully weighed, there is a great deal to be said against the scheme, but I feel there is a lot more to be said for the scheme, and I would say more, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would allow me to. However, I ask the Government not to withdraw their plan and not to yield to the clamour of so-called aesthetes when the vast majority of the people of London say that this is a storm in a teacup, that they want warmth and light and energy and that they do not believe that this is destroying the beauty of London. I hope the Government will go ahead with their scheme. I have talked with a great many of the ordinary citizens of London and have not heard a single objection. I assure the Minister that his determination to proceed with his plans will earn the blessings of all Londoners.

The House will be grateful to the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) for raising this important issue. So far there have only been two defenders of Bankside, the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), who wants to beautify London by building bigger and bigger chimneys, and the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Dr. Jeger), who feels qualified to criticise Sir Christopher Wren's quality as an architect.

Where chimneys are necessary.

Surely that is a laughable concession. We have just listened to a speech by the hon. Member for St. Pancras in which he jeered at Sir Christopher Wren, called St. Paul's a disputed building, whatever that may be, and, generally speaking, posed the view that we should have no nonsense about aesthetics.

That is an utter travesty of what I said.

No party issues divide us today, nor really is it required of us to give up much time to the utilitarian arguments for this Bankside scheme. They have been demolished, not to say atomised, in another place, in the Press and in some of the speeches we have heard today. Unconvincing indeed are these utilitarian arguments. The most fervent advocates of the Bankside power station admit that it could make only a comparatively small contribution to our needs—I think the Minister will admit that. They also admit that the cost would be fantastic because of a harassed Government's penultimate decision to substitute oil for coal. What a fatuous but futile way of appeasement. None of the utilitarian arguments advanced by the promoters can convert a considering person to support this Bankside scheme. A much better utilitarian argument can be put up by any hon. Member of this House who follows what the Government say about the great tourist traffic they expect in the future. We have all read the announcements of the plan to bring such a number of tourists to these islands that we shall actually earn a revenue of, I think, £100 million a year in scarce currencies, or much of it in scarce currencies. I aver that 20 power stations bigger than the transformed Bankside station could not create half such a revenue, and therefore I say that on utilitarian grounds alone, it is a pretty poor argument to advance, that this scheme should attract men of practical minds.

I have something to say today about a matter of far greater importance than mere utilitarian considerations. If we diminish what is left of our inheritance of beauty we shall attract few tourists to these islands, and that we are in danger of doing, as I shall try to show in the few remarks I make today, even though I limit myself to places in sight of St. Paul's. London was once a city of great beauty. One is sick at heart when comparing the London painted by Canaletto and Samuel Scott with the London of 1939. If one looks at the drawings of Paul Sandby or Boys of the beautiful buildings demolished or spoilt by the Victorians or by this generation how can we resist the accusation of being a nation of vandals? Our home-bred vandals have done much more harm to London than the Luftwaffe. We boast of the incomparable Sir Christopher Wren and our reverence of his work. "Incomparable" is a word of double meaning. Certainly twenty of Sir Christopher Wren's churches were "incomparable" long before the German air raids on London for they were pulled down by English vandals and utilitarians. The vandals who destroyed so much of Sir Christopher Wren's works were no less active in pulling down or spoiling noble buildings by Inigo Jones. Chambers, the brothers Adam, Soane, and Nash.

I think it may be said that we have an unerring eye for demolishing or spoiling the work of architects of genius, and I furthermore say that the best way of describing our approach to architecture is to quote from Swift, who said:

"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by the sign that the dunces are always in confederacy against him."

I ask the House to compare London's attitude to fine buildings with the attitude shown by Paris or Rome. In those cities the vandals have long since been curbed. It is impossible for utilitarians like the Minister to destroy good buildings in France or Italy. Does anyone believe that the French would allow any vista of Notre Dame to be interfered with by a vast power station, and what would the Romans say or do if St. Peter's were threatened by such a building? Does anyone believe that the people of Rome would tolerate the erection of this power station in the shadow of St. Peter's? Of course not.

On the banks of the Tiber.

In the United States of America where they have not got many old buildings of great merit they show the greatest care for preserving anything of historic interest or of architectural merit. I believe that in this country we are now getting conscious—slowly conscious—of the harm done by our vandals and utilitarians. If I am right, let us prove it by rejecting this Bankside scheme and by giving eager support to the plan for redeeming the South bank of the Thames. The present litter of building horrors is unworthy of a second-rate mining camp, and instead of the maze of ugly or dilapidated buildings, let us have, as so many hon. Members have said today, fine public and residential buildings and gardens and long paths by the Thames. We were all greatly attracted by the description given by the junior Burgess for Cambridge University of a Thames where one could go from Southwark to Waterloo Bridge and see nothing but noble buildings and then carry on right up the river to this House of Commons. It is a fine concept, and it can be accomplished provided that we do not now destroy the foundations of the two great plans for improving both banks of the Thames

Furthermore, the Minister must consider the many opportunities that these two plans will give to the many good but unadvertised architects who are now under-employed. I hope very much that travellers from New Zealand or elsewhere will never have an opportunity of sketching the ruins of St. Paul's, but I trust that they will see St. Paul's from a South bank graced by good buildings and gardens green, and I hope that if they have the time, they will go to Rotherhithe or Poplar to see a great power station designed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. So long as they go to Poplar and Rotherhithe to see it, I hope they will, in great numbers, visit a building which in some ways, I suppose, will serve as a monument to his talent and versatility, but which could never be fitted in to the plan for redeeming the South bank of the Thames. I am sure that the Minister, in his heart of hearts, must admit that. He has been a great supporter of the scheme for replanning London and I do not believe he can really support the placing of this power station on Bankside. I think he is behaving like a good and loyal colleague and bearing the burdens of some of his fellow ministers. Nobody can tell me that a Minister so long connected with planning and architecture, could possibly support this Bankside project.

These are but a few of the arguments that could be advanced against this ill-contrived Bankside scheme. I do not wish to take up too much of our precious unguillotined time today, and so I shall say no more save this: I beg the Minister to remember that he is the Parliamentary guardian of what is left of the amenities of Britain. That is one of his most important functions, if not his most important one. He should never have drifted, or been pushed, into the position of being an actual champion of this Bankside plan for, as we have been reminded today, it is opposed by the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Corporation of London, the London County Council, the civil authorities of Southwark, the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's—to mention but a few of the representative bodies against it.

I want to ask the Minister a question. How does he think he can persuade the owners of ugly factories now situated near the South bank to depart when he himself is sponsoring a vast industrial building there? It would be unreasonable for the Minister to say to the proprietors affected, "We cannot have any industrial buildings in this area," because they will turn to him and say, "But what about your own?" So I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he persists in championing his Bankside scheme, he will dishearten the many civic bodies which are now anxious to preserve and increase the amenities of our country. Worse stir, he will not have a shred of authority in restraining the dunces or the vandals or the utilitarians who threaten our countryside and towns—and, believe me, the vandals will be very busy in the next 10 years if I know anything about their plans and movements. We want the Ministry of Town and Country Planning to succeed, and more especially to succeed in dealing with this most important matter of preserving our inheritance of beauty. So we beg the right hon. Gentleman not to set the worst of precedents by forcing this deplorable Bankside scheme upon London.

I promise the House not to speak very long, although there is a good deal I would like to say in an effort to persuade the Minister to change the decision on the Bankside proposal. It is true that the London County Council and the other local authorities immediately concerned with that area are opposed to it. I confess that I was very surprised when I first heard that the Minister had decided in favour of the scheme because I was vice-chairman when he was chairman of the London Town Planning Committee when the London Plan was first introduced. One of the many aspects of that plan, of which we were both proud, was the effort to try to recreate the South bank of the Thames. When I saw the mode) in the Tea-room, it only confirmed my opposition to the proposal to go on with the building of that power station I could say one or two things about that model, which I think is incorrect, but it seems quite clear, even on the basis of the model, that you cannot expect this area, which is full of British history incidentally, to be other than a strictly industrial area if a huge building such as the proposed power station is allowed to be put up there.

May I put in a plea for the people of Lambeth and Southwark who live in that area of London? I have spent my whole political life in South London and I know that the ordinary person who does not normally get excited about politics was enthusiastic at the idea that we would one day recreate the South bank, bring back the gardens and the promenades along the river, and give the people of Southwark and North Lambeth a chance to see the river again and to enjoy the health-giving breezes that blow there. In spite of the very pretty gardens indicated in front of the model, and the very false lawns indicated at the back of it, if this monstrosity is allowed to be put up there, inevitably we shall lose the chance of that great sweep along the river which is envisaged in the County of London Plan. I know that as far as the County Council and the Southwark Borough Council are concerned, they are anxious that nothing should be done to prevent that development. I do not profess to be in any way a technical expert on these electrical power matters, but I am impressed by the fact that there are quite a number of technical people who say that it is not necessary to put the power station there. So keen were the county council on getting this power station off that site, that they were prepared to spend upwards of a million pounds in order to provide an alternative site somewhere else. I think the Minister must bear that in mind as evidence of the strength of feeling there is against the proposal. I hope, therefore, that the Government will change their mind, and will tell the City of London Power Company to build their station on one of the many other sites which could be suggested

I am sure the House will feel that the discussion this morning has been worth while. I think all hon. Members, from whichever side they have spoken, have been agreed upon two things: that we want to preserve the amenities of London, and that we want to do nothing which will damage the redevelopment of the South bank. I should like those who are opposing the Bankside scheme, and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), who made such an admirable speech, to believe, that those of us who think it is right that there should be a power station at Bankside are just as keen as he and his associates on the two objects that I have stated. In the time at my disposal I want to try to establish to the House that those two objectives will not be interfered with. I think that is probably what the House would wish me to do. First, I should like to make one or two general observations. The hon. Member the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) referred to democracy, presumably assuming that the majority of people were against this scheme.

By "democracy" I meant the elected members of the London County Council, the elected mem- bers of the Southwark Borough Council, and the elected members of the City Corporation.

Of course, out democracy is a very complex system, and it imposes duties and responsibilities upon elected bodies, individuals, Parliament and so on. In this particular case the duty is imposed upon the Minister of Town and Country Planning to make a decision on this most difficult matter after having heard evidence from all sides. There has been a public inquiry, which lasted a considerable number of days, in the course of which the case was fully argued. All sides of the case were presented, and it rested upon me to come to a conclusion from the arguments so presented. I have read every word of that evidence, not once but twice, and in the result I came to she conclusion that, with the safeguards that have been incorporated in that decision, it is in the interests of London that a power station should be built at Bankside. I think it fair to say that I regarded this decision as so important that I thought I ought to. get the support of my colleagues, and I have done so.

Now, why did I come to that conclusion? I think a great deal of hysterical talk has taken place in the course of the discussions about the kind of building that was to be put up. Except for one he n. Member who referred to it as a monstrosity, I do not think we have had that sort of talk today. It has been generally accepted that a power station can be an attractive building. I do not intend to enter the argument whether it should be functional or otherwise. I believe, in fact, the model indicates that the power station is functional. I see no unnecessary lines or excrescences, it is a purely functional building, and to me it looks attractive. However, there may be differences of opinion about that. At any rate, it is not argued here this morning on the basis that the power station is an unattractive building; nor has it been seriously argued that it is wrong in relation to St. Paul's.

We have heard a good deal of talk in the Press about the dwarfing of St. Paul's, and the overshadowing of St. Paul's. In fact, it has not been seriously contended today that this power station will overshadow St. Paul's, or rival it in any way. I should like to say a few words about this overshadowing of St. Paul's and what it means. Is it seriously contended that it would be bad planning to have industrial buildings of any kind within sight of St. Paul's? After all, the view of St. Paul's extends over many miles. I can understand the contention that St. Paul's, this noble edifice in this historic land, should be in splendid isolation; that nothing should be near it at all, and that it should stand out as a memorial to the ages, and so on. I can understand that concern. But nobody is seriously putting that forward. The conception of St. Paul's is that it should stand in the midst of the life of the City, surrounded by all forms of activity, by shops, warehouses, wharfs—and why not by a power station? At any rate the argument has not been seriously contended today that in relation to St. Paul's a power station is bad. I thought the main argument put forward today was that this would prevent the redevelopment of the South bank, and it is to that argument that f propose to devote myself.

Before leaving the question of St. Paul's, would the Minister address himself to what appears to me a much stronger point? Would he promise, before he allows the scheme to go forward, to publish authoritative expert evidence to show that the sulphur fumes, in conjunction with the damp atmosphere, can and will be dealt with in such a way as not to give rise to the dangers described by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom)?

I certainly give an assurance that I will satisfy myself on that print before the scheme goes forward, naturally.

It is not merely a question of satisfying the Minister, but of satisfying the public. If, in fact, St. Paul's Cathedral is to be subjected to the acid fumes created by the sulphuric acid, it might easily destroy the cathedral. Therefore, the public have every reason to wish to read the evidence that in no circumstances will the fears of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) be fulfilled, and that, in fact, the fumes will do no harm whatever to the structure of St. Paul's.

As far as smoke is concerned, the Minister will take into account the fact that there is already a power station on the site emitting smoke and grit in greater quantity than will be the case in the future project. But—and this is a new point—is it in the interests of the district of Southwark that, say, one month's supply of oil, about six million gallons, should be stored there available to be bombed or set on fire?

These are additional points that have been raised and thrust at me. I appreciate the point raised by the hon. Member. I think there ought to be general satisfaction on the question that the sulphur fumes will not destroy St. Paul's I am proceeding on the basis that there is a satisfactory solution to the sulphur problem, and that, in fact, there will be no injurious effect to the structure of St. Paul's. I ask the House to deal with the proposal on that assumption If that assumption is wrong, then I freely admit that the case goes.

There is one other thing I wish to say before getting on to the effect on the South bank, namely, that this discussion is very reminiscent of one which took place some years ago about the Battersea power station. I remember the same sort of objections were raised; not identical, but the same sort of objections, including even objections from learned ecclesiastics, to the erection of a power station at Battersea. Today one hears only that the building is an admirable one, and one hears nothing about any nuisance caused to the neighbourhood That is very interesting

What is going to be the effect of the new station on the redevelopment of the South bank?

rose—

I am sorry, I cannot give way, I am eating into other people's time. What is to be the effect on the redevelopment of the South bank? It is said, and with great force, about which I do not complain at all, that once you have an industrial building fronting the river—set back 110 feet, but still fronting the river—it will be impossible to prevent other industrial buildings going there. It is said also that the type of building which the County of London Plan contemplates as suitable, blocks of flats and offices, will not go there 'because there is a power station. Incidentally, I should like to correct the hon. Member for Cambridge University, who made a very moderate speech. It is not correct that the County of London Plan provides in this area for a national theatre, for colleges and educational institutions.

rose—

This is a length of 1¾ miles, and we are dealing with the particular area between the two bridges.

I am thinking of a different area.

But nobody is going to interfere with the rest of the area. The rest of the area beyond Blackfriars Bridge is not concerned. We are dealing with the portion between Blackfriars and Southwark Bridges, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks are not relevant to that part. The hon. Gentleman is not the only one who has fallen into the error. Others have said the same thing. They have said that this has been zoned as a cultural centre for colleges. educational mstitutions—

So it ought to be Shakespeare's theatre was there.

The fact remains that the County of London Plan provides for offices and flats, with light industrial buildings behind. Let us have a word about the County of London Plan. This is a document which was prepared by that most eminent man Sir Patrick Abercrombie with the help of Mr. Forshaw as an indication to the London County Council of how London might be developed in the future. It was not intended to be anything more than that. Here I speak with some knowledge and authority. I was the Chairman of the Town Planning Committee at the time, and I had many discussions right into the early hours of the morning with Sir Patrick Abercrombie this matter, and I know exactly what his point of view about this plan was. It was never intended to be something which could be taken absolutely literally. It was a 50-year plan, and this particular part of the South bank was to be dealt with in the last of the three stages he had in mind. That is to say, he had in mind that roughly in 30 years or so that part of the South bank would be redeveloped.

So far, the London County Council has not committed itself in any way to what is to happen to this part of the South bank. It is committed to the redevelopment between Westminster Bridge and Waterloo Bridge, and has actually acquired the land under a private Act which was got through some years before the war, but it has not committed itself at all to the nature of the development beyond Waterloo Bridge. Quite rightly so, because it has so many other urgent priorities that it would be a mistake to deal with this particular redevelopment in the very near future. That, I suggest to the House, indicates that it does not in the least follow that when the time comes for considering the redevelopment of this part of the South bank, perhaps in 30 years' time, the London County Council will take the same view as Abercrombie took two or three years ago. It might well be that the Council will take an entirely different view of the proper form of development in this area. But suppose they still adhere to the view that Abercrombie put forward. Then I ask the House to consider very seriously, and without prejudice, what is the objection to a power station which is admittedly well designed and attractive, which does not emit fumes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Surely hon. Gentlemen—

That is not proved, it is not designed yet.

What is the objection to a power station which does not emit fumes, or smoke, or grit, or make a noise? I ask the House, because nobody has suggested—this is a rhetorical question which I am entitled to put—I ask the House, on that assumption, because nobody has established that these things will happen—

They might.

The case was not based on that assumption at all. The case against the power station was not based on the assumption that there would be grit or noise, or smoke, or fumes, it was based upon the contention that, because it was a power station, because it was an industrial building and for that reason alone, it would interfere with the redevelopment of the South bank.

rose—

I am not giving way I ask the House to apply its mind to that What is the objection. on those assumptions? I will admit, as I admitted about sulphur, that a power station on this site would be objectionable if it were going to be noisy, or smoky, or otherwise a nuisance. Obviously, were that so, I agree at once that it would have the effect of industrialising the whole area, and I admit that it would follow for that reason, and only for that reason, that the Plan could not be carried out. But nobody has attempted this line of argument. The hon. Member for Cambridge University did not base his argument on the contention that the power station would be noisy, smoky. or otherwise a nuisance. The argument has been put forward merely on the ground that it is a power station.

It is inappropriate

Yes, that it is inappropriate. I therefore ask hon. Members, why is a building which is not injurious. or a nuisance in any way inappropriate or incongruous in any area? I am not asking for an answer; this is a purely rhetorical question. I fail to see how a building of this kind, which I repeat is attractive in its design and which is not a nuisance in any way, which does not overshadow St. Paul's and which provides amenities such as gardens and so on, can be incongruous or offensive in any way.

Would the right hon. Gentleman object to a gaol there?

if it were an attractive gaol and not a nuisance, why should I? We must clear our minds of a great many prejudices of this kind. In the past we have taken the view that all industry must be segregated in one part of the town, all buildings which are single family dwellings segregated in another, and flat buildings in another. That is not town planning. It is all based on the assumption that industry is undesirable, and at the back of their minds hon. Gentlemen who oppose this, in spite of the fact that they have not been able and have not attempted to establish that the power station is in itself undesirable, still have a feeling that there is something wrong in having a power station—that it is all very well to send it to Poplar or Rotherhithe or ether areas that do not matter; but that it should not be put in the centre of London. I submit to the House, therefore, that there is no reason whatever why the kind of buildings contemplated in the County of London Plan should not be accommodated next door to the power station. I believe that they will come. I could take hon. Members to a high-class block of flats, the front of which overlooks Lord's cricket ground while the back overlooks a power station built in 1891.

A horrible place.

These flats were put up after a power station had been erected, and they are fully let.—[Laughter.] They always have been, and they are very fine premises. I am dealing with the argument that no one will put blocks of flats in the neighbourhood of a power station and I am entitled to say that they have been put up in circumstances which will not arise in the case of Bankside. There is no knowing what private enterprise will do.

There are other controls. After all, town planning is progressing as a result of the Town and Country Planning Bill, and it will be possible to prevent industrial buildings going up in such a way as to frustrate the County of London Plan. It will be possible to prevent any kind of undesirable building there, and if the fear is that there will be other undesirable types of buildings, then town planning can control those effectively too. It is entirely in the hands of the London County Council. Furthermore, the London County Council can themselves, if they so desire, acquire land on which to put up flats. They have done that in the past. They have put up flats in other parts of London, and they can put up flats here; it would be very desirable.

I am convinced, after the most serious consideration, that the erection of a power station on this site, under the circumstances and with the conditions that are attached to it, will not in any way injure the amenities of the area and will not prevent the proper redevelopment of the South bank. I ask the House, further, to consider this proposal in the light of the electricity situation. One cannot ignore that. I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman saying that I am being utilitarian, but if I thought that any real damage would be done to the redevelopment of the South bank, I have that cause too much at heart to be a party to any step that would prejudice it.

Having said that, I ask the House to consider the utilitarian aspect. We need a vastly increased quantity of electricity in the coming years. Up to 1951, we shall require an increase of 67 per cent. on the existing quantity of electricity. Between 1951 and 1960, we shall have to double our output again. That must involve the erection of power stations. Certain conditions have to be satisfied in getting those stations. I know that it can very easily be suggested in this Chamber that we can put up power stations anywhere, but that has not been borne out by the advice which I have received. I have been advised that power stations have to be by the side of a river—that there has to be a plentiful supply of water. There are about eight acres of land or thereabouts needed, and the number of alternative sites within the vicinity of Bankside or miles of it is strictly limited. If it were a question of getting one site in the place of Bankside, that might be possible, but a large number of additional sites will be required in the next few years, and every available one will be needed for this purpose. Whether you use Rotherhithe or not, Bankside will still be needed, unless this country is to be short of electricity within the Greater London area.

Will the Minister allow me?

No, I will not. I ask the House to have a sense of reality about this.

There is more than one reality.

It is a fact that if we cannot use this site, the Greater London area will be short of electricity. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] If it is 240,000 kilowatts, they will be short of 240,000 kilowatts, and that must mean that very frequently electricity will be shut off and some people will not have electricity when they need it. It must also mean that some industries will go without the electricity they require. We have to weight all these things against what I regard as the academic objections—

By all the expert town planners in the country.

—and the out-of-date objections which have been put forward in discussion. I believe that this House as a whole—and I am convinced that the country as a whole—are in favour of this decision. I am convinced that if the issue were fairly put to the general public they would be definitely in favour of the decision which the Government have made in this matter.

Would the right hon. Gentleman leave it to a free vote of the House?

There is no possibility of that. It so happens that responsibility is put upon me after a public inquiry. If we want to change the law and to allow decisions on the allocation of power stations to be carried by a free vote of the House, that is one way of doing business, but it seems to me that it would be a rather stupid and inefficient way.

It would be preferable to this.

The Government have taken into account all the views that have been expressed from time to time but I am bound to tell the House that having reconsidered the whole matter in the light of the discussions that are taking place, both publicly and in another place, the Government feel obliged to adhere to their decision, and I propose to give consent to the erection of this power station subject to the conditions which I have laid down.

I desire this afternoon to raise a question, certain aspects of which have been discussed recently, but the precise point which I desire to raise has not been discussed for some little time The subject is the deferment of call-up of apprentices at present, and during the period which must elapse before the National Service Bill comes into force on 1st January, 1949. I want at the outset to make it clear that the question which I am raising has nothing whatever to do with the Bill which the House has been recently discussing. It concerns the exercise of the powers of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour with respect to those young men who are called up, which powers, of course, derive from the emergency powers taken by the Government during the war.

I am very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place. I very much regret that after his very considerable labours in the last fortnight, it has been necessary to raise this matter with him this afternoon. He knows as well as I do that it would have been disposed of earlier had it not been for the somewhat strenuous hours which the House has been keeping. I am particularly glad he is here this afternoon, because I know he has personal knowledge of the case to which I desire to refer by way of illustration of the main argument. I make no apology for raising this general issue because the matter is one of very great importance to the young men concerned, and it is also of some considerable importance to industry generally. It is, of greater importance to the young men concerned than will be a similar situation after 1949 for the reason that the young men concerned today are subject to a call-up of greater length than their successors will be after 1949, and, therefore, anything affecting the interruption of their apprenticeship at the moment is proportionately of greater importance to these young men than it will be to their successors a little later on.

I had hoped a little time ago that this matter would be satisfactorily settled. The hon. Gentleman, on 1st April, when he was good enough to intervene in certain observations I was then addressing to the House, said:

"Students and apprentices may have their calling up deferred during 1947 and 1943 in the same way as after the Bill comes into effect in 1949."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 1st April. 1947; Vol. 435; c. 1854.]

Were that in fact, in literal truth, being done at this moment I do not think that it would have been necessary for m to raise this subject this afternoon. It will become apparent to the House from the example which I am now going to quote that that is not in its fullest sense a full and strictly accurate description of the position.

May I now trouble the House with the details of a particular case? I will put them briefly, because the right hon. Gentleman has given full and careful consideration to the case, and, therefore, is himself in possession of all the details. What has given rise to this is the case of a young man, Mr. R. R. Hall, who lives at 26, Park Road West, in the royal and ancient borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. This young man was born on 26th November. 1928, and is, therefore, at the moment approximately 18½ years of age. His parents, who are not people with any great means, made a very great sacrifice to secure that he would receive at elaborate training to enable him to earn his living in the important trade of dental mechanic. He was apprenticed on 7th February, 1944, being then 15 years of age, to a dental mechanic who is, as think the right hon. Gentleman knows, in a very substantial way of business in the vicinity. I understand the normal period of apprenticeship for dental mechanics is five years. Under war conditions and with the agreement of the Ministries of Labour and Health that period was shortened to four years, and, therefore, it followed that this young man to conclude his apprenticeship requires deferment till February of next year. Under the existing machinery the normal way is to apply for that deferment, which he did a few months ago.

I want to emphasise this because it is material to the merits of this case. In making this application this young man was, I am fully satisfied, making no attempt whatsoever to evade performing his military service and by way of supporting that I may quote the fact that he is a corporal in the Army Cadets attached to the East Surrey Regiment, which will commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman. This young man made application and it was rejected for reasons that were not made particularly clear to him or indeed, on reading the documents, to me. I understand that the basis of the decision of the hardship committee at that time was that he could not conclude his apprenticeship within nine months of becoming 18 years of age, which was perfectly true, for he would require approximately 14 months. Therefore, some regulation of the Ministry prevented the granting of deferment. I need not trouble the House with the intervening details. I raised this matter in the normal way, as all hon. Members do, with the Minister and I received, as hon. Members generally do from the Ministry of Labour, courteous and punctual replies. Not being satisfied with the position I put down a Question to which the right hon. Gentleman gave a written answer on 4th March. The Question was merely to ask whether he would reconsider the question of refusal and I would like to read the right hon. Gentleman's answer:

"In view of his age, Mr. Hall is not eligible for deferment as an apprentice dental mechanic Deferment on industrial grounds could only be granted to a man of his age and occupation if the work he was doing was regarded as vitally necessary for the civilian needs of the country. After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I am satisfied that this condition is not fulfilled in Mr. Hall's case. Mr. Hall applied for postponement of his call-up on grounds of exceptional hardship, but his application wasrefused by the Military Service (Hardship) Committee, and there are no grounds on which I can contest their decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1947; Vol. 434, C. 226.]

The House will immediately see that the right hon. Gentleman, as he says in the first part of his answer, acted in a manner quite reasonable under wartime conditions when the national need would not be helped by deferment, but to my mind those are not relevant grounds today, because it is in the interest of this young man that he should be allowed to finish his apprenticeship. It is because there seems to be in the interim period between the war and the coming into effect of the National Service Bill this clash between the war-time doctrine of the national interest and what I hope will be the peace-time doctrine of priority for the interest of the apprentice, that I think that this matter has some importance even beyond its obvious importance to the young man in question individually. Further discussions went on and the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to see me on the matter. Then, on 14th April, the right hon. Gentleman gave an answer which I think shows clearly his reasons for refusing deferment—reasons which, I hope he will allow me to say, are not valid at the moment however valid they may have been a little time ago. In 2 letter on that date the Minister made this point with regard to deferment:

"The provisions under which deferment may be granted to apprentices in 1947 and 1948 are set out in paragraph 9 of the White Paper … (Cmd. 6831). The apprentices concerned are those who were born in 1929 and later, i.e., those who reached the age of eighteen on or after 1st January, 1947. The conditions under which deferment may be granted to such apprentices are set out in detail in the attached leaflet."

Further on, the letter continues:

"Mr. Hall was born in 1928 and his case is therefore not covered by the provisions of paragraph 9 of the White Paper and the attached leaflet. In order to be eligible for deferment, he was required to fulfil the more stringent conditions that apply to apprentices born in 1928 and earlier."

As I understand it, that is the basis of the Minister's ruling, and it amounts in my submission to an injustice to say that if a young man happens to have been born, as Mr. Hall was, six weeks before the end of 1928 he has, even now in 1947, to satisfy what the Minister himself calls the more stringent conditions that previously existed before he can be deferred, whereas had he been born six weeks later there would have been very little difficulty in his obtaining deferment. The right hon. Gentleman's statement to the House of 31st March which I quoted, and which, needless to say, I accept as being given in perfect good faith, does not clear up the point about this young man. As I understand it, what the Minister meant was that deferment on these easier conditions would be given in 1947–8 merely to young men born after 1st January, 1929. That distinction seems to me indefensible. If we are to apply now, as we should, the doctrine of priority for the interests of the man in all—to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase—bona fide cases of learnership, it seems absolutely wrong to take that right away from that class of man who is a little more than exactly 18 years of age at the moment, having been born before 1st January, 1929.

Finally, in his answer to me, which was expressed with all his usual courtesy and helpfulness, the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not feel able to defer Mr. R. R. Hall because he did not think it right to make an exception. I agree with him, but I do say that it would be right to apply this principle—which he himself is applying to those born after 1st January, 1929—not only to Mr. Hall, who happens to have been born in November, 1928, but to all young men in the same position who make similar applications. It would not be fair to this very public spirited young man, nor consistent with my duties as a Member of this House, to press for a particular privilege for a particular young man. I have merely quoted his case in support of what is, in my view, the general plea that all young men who are in course of apprenticeship at this moment should be given the chance to conclude their apprenticeships provided they are bona fide and genuine, before doing their military service.

I make that appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not only for my own constituent but for all young men in a similar position. What public interest is served by breaking the period of apprenticeship and by putting a man into the Army, or wherever he may go, with the knowledge at the back of his mind that when his military service is over he will still not be trained to earn a living? Surely he would do his service more happily, and the public interest would be better served if he did his apprenticeship, qualified for his trade and went into the Army knowing that when he came out his future was assured. He would have that feeling of confidence which I know the Minister appreciates and which any man feels if he knows he is master of a trade at which he can earn his living. Not only on behalf of my own constituent but of everybody else in the same position I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to modify his ruling.

I should like briefly to support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd Carpenter) in its general aspect. So long as compulsory national service obtains in this country there must necessarily be some degree of hardship among young people whose working lives are just starting. Our task should surely be to mitigate that hardship if it is possible to do so, and I think the House will be in complete agreement that certain categories of people are in a position of special difficulty. We are not concerned in this Debate with the position of students but with that of apprentices, and I think it must be quite clear that a young man who is in the course of serving his apprenticeship suffers a particular hardship if that apprenticeship is interrupted. I am therefore asking that most careful consideration should be given to the arguments which have just been advanced.

I have some concern in this matter because I recall, in the early days of the recent war, asking the then Minister of Labour—the present Foreign Secretary—for an assurance that members of the Forces who had had their apprenticeships interrupted by their service might be enabled to complete those apprenticeships after their release. That assurance was, of course, given and arrangements were made. That seems to me to recognise the real importance of this matter. Finally, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider most sympathetically endeavouring to assist to the utmost those young men who, as I have said, have already embarked on their period of training under a genuine apprenticeship.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for raising this matter, and I appreciate the careful and courteous way in which he and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) have approached the question. I am satisfied that they are both moved by the urge to help these young apprentices and to have these matters straightened out. That is also our own objective. It must nevertheless be borne in mind that war-time circumstances and legislation have placed certain obligations on Ministers, but within our duty to the Government and without detriment to it it has been, and will continue to be, our anxiety to help these young men on whom the industrial efficiency of the country in the future will depend. The young man to whom reference has been made is a dental mechanic, but no doubt it has a bearing on industrial efficiency that we should have skilled dental mechanics. When the war was over and we began to consider the intake into and maintenance of the Forces there was a tremendous desire for demobilisation, and we were urged to get everybody who had served a long time out of the Army and back into civilian life, and to see that if possible interrupted apprenticeships should be resumed. It is to the credit of the wartime Government that they carried out a number of excellent schemes in conjunction with industry for picking up broken apprenticeships. The trade unions, the employers and the State joined together, with valuable results.

I appreciate the hon. Member's action in raising this matter because it gives an opportunity to set out briefly the situation as it stands, so that those concerned can see how the matter has developed. During the war, the deferment of call-up was granted to apprentices only if they were in occupations of vital national importance, and provided they satisfied certain other conditions concerning age of entry into apprenticeship and so on. In these circumstances, deferments were granted until the apprentice's 20th birthday, or until the completion of apprenticeship, whichever date was the earlier. That created a bit of trouble, because in many industries apprenticeship was not completed until a man had reached 21 years of age. We had many apprenticeships broken at a most important time, and many apprentices called up before they had completed their training. The position was carefully considered when we came to the end of the war, owing to the need for young men to maintain the Forces at proper strength, while men with long service were being demobilised. We had to impose more stringent conditions, and under these arrangements deferments were confined to apprentices in a limited range of occupations. In other words, we had to go into other occupations to pick up men. This limited range was confined mainly to engineering, building and civil engineering. Besides being in one of these occupations, the apprentice, other than an apprentice in building or civil engineering, had to qualify for the deferment by showing that he had attained certain educational qualifications, or that he would attain these qualifications within a specified time limit. The qualification required was possession of the ordinary certificate for mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemistry, naval architecture, or building.

In considering the call-up arrangement for 1947–48, the Government examined the question of deferment of apprentices, and these arrangements were announced in the White Paper entitled "Call-tip to the Forces in 1947–48." That White Paper was issued in May, 1946, with the aim of encouraging efficient schemes of professional and industrial training. The Government decided, as from 1st January, 1947, that apprentices in the 1929 and later age classes should be eligible for deferment for the period necessary to complete their training. There is a proviso there, but you have to draw the line somewhere, which puts a man just in or just out—that cannot be avoided. Wherever we draw the line, someone will be on the border. The proviso is that the apprentice is able to show a genuine apprenticeship existed, that it was entered into at the customary age for that occupation, and that the period of deferment was necessary for the purposes of apprenticeship. The result of this decision has been that since January, 1947, two separate sets of rules have been temporarily in operation, one applying to men born in 1928, who became liable to call-up in 1946, and the other to men born in 1929, who became liable to call-up in 1947. This transitional situation is largely disappearing. Apprentices born in 1928 cannot be granted deferment, unless they satisfy the stringent conditions laid down during the immediate post war period. The majority of the apprentices, not granted deferments, were called up in 1946, and in the few cases where call-up was delayed because of exceptional circumstances, the men did not become available for call-up until 1947. If the few apprentices born in 1928 who have not yet been called up because of exceptional circumstances, were allowed to qualify for deferment on the same conditions as those born in 1929 and later, it would be unfair to those other apprentices born in 1928 whose deferment was refused and who were called up in 1946. That is the situation generally.

In regard to the special case which has been mentioned, this man is an apprenticed dental mechanic, born in November, 1928. He made application for postponement, and a separate application to enable him to complete his apprenticeship. The application for deferment was refused on the ground that the occupation of dental mechanic is not one which satisfies the conditions already mentioned. The young man in question was therefore not eligible for deferment as an apprentice. His application for postponement on grounds of hardship was refused by the hardship committee, on the grounds that he could not qualify for postponement because of one of the conditions laid down by the Umpire, who is the final authority, that the apprenticeship must terminate within nine months of the applicant's 18th birthday. The umpire is an independent statutory authority, and the Minister has no power to alter his decision.

This is very important. Does that mean that a decision of the umpire, which some of us regard as unsuitable today, cannot be challenged in any way?

That is so. The umpire's decision is absolutely final, and on many occasions that has been very useful, because of the pressure Members have put on me to do this that and the other. It was felt in the early days that the Government should take this matter outside any possibility of political influence, and that that was best done by making the umpire the sole authority in the matter. This provision was not satisfied in the case in question, because the young man would not complete apprenticeship until 14 months after his 18th birthday. Apprentices born in 1928 or earlier, whose training has been interrupted, are in certain circumstances eligible for assistance under the Government's interrupted apprentices training scheme, which enables them to complete their training and qualify as craftsmen on their return to their civil jobs. Under the scheme agreed to by the J.I.C. of the craft of dental technicians, which includes dental mechanics, those called up in the last year of their apprenticeship qualify as journeymen on their return to civil employment. This apprentice is in the last year of apprenticeship and therefore should benefit under this arrangement.

It is a tragedy that it should be necessary to interrupt the career of anyone, whether it is in the case of an industrial career or of a scholastic career, but while the State requires that there shall be this service, these cases of hardship have to be faced. I can assure the hon. Member, however, that wherever the Minister of Labour, acting for the Government, can ease the burden, it will be done. There is some feeling as to whether a lad would be better if he was left to complete his apprenticeship before going into military service, and then coming back, having no contact with his trade, or whether it would be better if he went into such service now, came back, and had another year or so at his trade. The Government's refresher courses and training schemes are designed to enable such lads to pick up where they left off.

Perhaps owing to the persuasiveness of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, I have tried to see whether I could get this young lad into the dental section of the Army. If we have a young lad who is an electrician, or an engineer, or is a skilled artisan in some other respect, we have to try—and we ought to continue to try—to put him into a Service where he can continue his training, where he can give useful service to the branch of,the Service in which he goes. That we shall continue to do. Where it is absolutely impossible to make a concession without being unfair to others these apprenticeship and training schemes, and other schemes, will be worked in such a fashion as to give the best possible assistance to the individual. I am glad that an opportunity has been given to me of explaining the position, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he put his case.

About a fortnight ago, about half a dozen housewives in Leckwith, Cardiff, came to see me to talk about their present difficulties. They expressed themselves extremely moderately, reasonably, and sensibly, and did not indulge in the passionate hysteria which serves the British Housewives' League in place of a policy. Nor did they put forward the mixture of cheap abuse, self-pity and political propaganda of the kind which has been so ably reinforced by the party opposite, much to their eventual discomfiture. The ordinary British housewife rather resents being depicted as a poor half-starved creature, dragging herself miserably from queue to queue trying to get a little sustenance with which to maintain her pallid frame. These housewives put their case to me, and I promised that I would say, on the Floor of the House, what they said to me. These are questions which the sensible moderate housewives of the country are asking, and I think it is a good thing that an answer should be given publicly to the points they raised.

I suppose it is a little improper for a man to put a woman's point of view on this matter, even although I am, like most of us here, married. Although there is a legal fiction which says that we are husbands and fathers whose duties in this House prevent us from carrying out our responsibilities in a practical way on many occasions, I wish to dare to translate what those housewives said to me. First, they put to me the burning question of fats—butter and lard. Housewives really do need more fats. I told them about the Government's groundnuts scheme, that this was a great experiment that might have been put in hand 10 years ago if only the trouble had been taken, but which was, nevertheless, being put in hand now. But the housewives want to get a glimpse of the top of the hill. What is the fats position likely to be in the next year or two? No one wants the Minister to say that in June, 1948, the ration will be increased, because no one in a responsible position could say such a thing. But could the Parliamentary Secretary give a general trend as to whether we are likely to get more fats? Is it true that, according to the merchants on the Baltic Exchange, large quantities of copra are coming from the Philippines? Could we have an indication of the trend of things in the future? If so, I am sure that housewives, if they could see the turning point, would march towards it more bravely and hopefully than they are doing at the moment.

A more detailed point they put to me was about the quality of cakes and biscuits since the increase in prices. They told me that they varied a great deal. Indeed, one said that the sponge cake she bought tasted like india rubber when she came to eat it the day after, and that her biscuits had a smell of camphor about them. Some reputable firms still turn out good products, but it is a great irritation to the housewife to see high prices charged for goods on which, apparently, no standard can be set. The housewife says, "If only I could make use of the fat given to restaurants and cafes to make the things of second-rate quality which they sell to me." That brings me to the question of cafes. The housewife says, "What principle governs the opening of cafes? How do local authorities work in this matter?" The housewife sees new restaurants being opened. We know that the quantity of fats and other materials they consume is negligible, but ought not the principle to be reversed and the emphasis put on private feeding? Should not we take the fats from the cafes and give it to the housewives to use in their own houses? That is a minor point but it is, nevertheless, one which has a very irritating effect on the housewife. I read, recently, that something like 190 million meals a year were served in public places, works canteens, and other institutions. That is a lot of meals. The housewife feels—and I am inclined to agree with her—that the emphasis should be turned from the direction of public feeding back to private feeding. We should give what we can to her, instead of to the cafes.

Next, I was asked about vegetables. We know the arguments against control of prices, and that if a price control is pot on, goods tend to disappear under the counter. But in the case of vegetables they put this point to me, and I do not know the answer: "Vegetables go stale very quickly. We do not want to buy them two days after they come into the shops. If you put a price control on the shopkeeper will not tuck them away under the counter, because he will not be able to sell them when they become tale." Now vegetables are becoming more plentiful—I understand that prices have dropped slightly—why should not the Ministry of Food consider this question of price control? Does my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary now think that if the Ministry imposed price control of vegetables they would disappear under the counter? If she thinks that, could she say why? Housewives ate reasonable people, and would be satisfied if they understood the reasons

Then there is the question of luxury fruit, which is very disturbing. Housewives dislike seeing shops well filled with grapes and pineapples, and all the rest of it, when the prices of essential vegetables are so high. I disagree completely with the Ministry when they take the view that this is a difficult matter, or that it involves only a small proportion of our sterling. That is not the criterion which the housewife applies. She has become used, during the war, to a considerable measure of equalitarianism in this field, and thinks that that should be continued. I hope the Ministry will reconsider this policy of bringing in these fruits except where they are a conditional sale. I have been told that we can only get steel from one country provided we take grapes also. In that case we must buy the grapes. But, is that true in the case of pineapples? I do not know, and these housewives would like to know the answer.

They raised questions about things in the home itself. There were two newly married women among them, and they said, "We cannot get blankets. Since they came off dockets we have not been able to get them at all. Do not be pushed into taking them off dockets by political pressure until you are quite sure that they are in sufficient supply for us to get what we want." They were able to get Army blankets and in the absence of carpets one woman had dyed Army blankets and was using those as rugs. They said that we should keep Army blankets off dockets if we liked, but should put back ordinary blankets on dockets. What is my hon. Friend's opinion on that? Is it just a temporary disappearance of blankets from the shops? Are they to come into supply very quickly? Are the newlyweds to get hold of them or not? I am sure it would meet with the general approval of the people if he were to reimpose the docket system on these articles. Then there was the question of staircarpets. There was a second-hand piece which cost £50, and covered only about a dozen stairs. They asked why we cannot manufacture some utility fabric. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us whether it is possible to enter that field and do something a little more cheaply by public enterprise than private enterprise has been able to do so far.

Then there is the question of crockery. There are thousands of egg-cups. One can buy as many as one likes, but not a teapot, or cup and saucer. What about halving our exports, say for three months? I think they amount to something like 12,000 tons or 14,000 tons a month. How would it affect the export trade; would we lose a market? I can understand my hon. Friend's difficulty, and I sympathise with him. I know I am making it more difficult by my suggestion, but the people need cups and saucers, and unfortunately egg-cups are no substitute. If for two or three months we could ease up, and keep this crockery at home, I think it would be extremely valuable. The next problem was perambulators. I looked at the "Statistical Digest" and I saw that we exported 126,000 prams last year. I do not know whether my hon. Friend takes credit for that or not, but he is a father, so am I, and I say every baby ought to have a perambulator. There is no point at all in exporting a single perambulator until every baby in this country can be assured of having one. I was snubbed by the President of the Board of Trade on the last occasion when I mentioned this, snubbed lightly, but snubbed even so, but I still say we ought not to send them abroad—I do not care what the dollar position is—until we are certain that there are sufficient in this country.

Has the hon. Member any idea where the prams are going, as they are not going to America?

I was hoping my hon. Friend could tell us that. He is in a weaker position if they are not going to dollar areas. Then there is the question of clothes horses. Do you know—

No, I did not know.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Do hon. Members know that half a dozen laths held together by a carpet tack cost 22s. 6d.? Do they know that an ironing board with a bit of felt on the top and a strut costs 34s. 6d.? I think it is utterly disgraceful. Cannot we put some sort of control on this sort of thing? After all, the party opposite are converted to it now, and there would be no dissension. We would have a unanimous vote, and the whole country would rise up and call the Minister blessed. I was also asked about the next clothes rationing period. I venture into this field with considerable diffidence. They ask, if the Government is going to lower the number of clothes coupons in the next rationing period, could they be given as much advanced warning as possible because they would like to plan ahead. They would like to know if they could afford an extra summer dress, or if they ought to keep their coupons for a winter coat. That seems to me to be sensible. It does not matter to us men, because we wear the same suit summer or winter. Can the Minister raise their hopes in any way, or even dash them to the ground, so that they will know where they are likely to be?

They made an admirable suggestion. The Royal Ordnance factories are manufacturing taps and a lot of things which are necessary for the home. These housewives said, "Why not manufacture a utility vacuum cleaner, or washing machine, which a working-class housewife could afford to buy?" She is entitled to as much leisure as those who can afford these things, and she has less help in the home. Why not have a go at that job? Cannot we do something by public enterprise at which private enterprise has failed? These were some of the questions that I was asked, quite moderately. They are not interested in calories, and indeed I am bound to say that a calory is just as much a mystery to me as an atomic bomb, or nuclear fission, or even permutations on a football pool coupon. Although I am very impressed and overawed when the scientists tell me we want 3,000 calories, I would be equally impressed if they told me that the number was 300,000, and I would know just as much about it. I do not need a slide rule to tell the House what is being said about these things. Let us start from the women's end, and say what they think, instead of talking about calories and differential calculus, and the rest of it. They have complaints, and feel that they have a most difficult task at the moment, and everyone agrees. On the other hand, they say that if they could be told the reasons for this sort of thing, they would understand. I will conclude with the words with which they concluded: "Do not believe all the nonsense you hear. We know that if the food was available and if the goods were available we would have thorn, because no Government would be stupid enough, for its own peace of mind, not to provide them." But, having said that, the questions still remain in their minds, and I hope my two hon. Friends will reply to these questions. I apologise for having given them the details at such short notice.

In my constituency, and whenever I make a speech at women's meetings, I always make a point, as other hon. Members probably do, of getting all the information I can about the difficulties of the ordinary working-class housewife, especially of those with small incomes. I have found, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), that the great majority of housewives do understand the difficulties of the present situation. They understand that many shortages are due to world shortages. But there is a number of problems that afflict them that appear to them to be unnecessary irritants. Let me quote a list of apparently unnecessary irritants that I have drawn up from recent women's conferences at which I have spoken, some of which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend, and about which I am in the process of writing to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.

Cups and saucers. One often cannot buy them, but one can buy any number of pie dishes, for example. Very often one can buy cups but not saucers. Secondly, there is an acute shortage of baby clothes. Baby clothes are just as important to babies as perambulators, and vet in many places one just cannot buy them. Third, a very real problem to many people, is the acute shortage of outsize clothes. I had an example in my constituency recently, about which I have written to the Parliamentary Secretary. Men and women who are above the ordinary size find it extraordinarily difficult to buy footwear and clothing. The fourth and last example I would give, about which I have had complaints, is that one can go into shops in the big cities and can without coupons buy very expensive curtain material, some of which, I am told by women—I am not an expert on this, and am but quoting what I have been told—can be used for making clothing—dressing gowns, for instance. People with good incomes can buy this material and use it for such purposes, whereas for the cheaper kinds of curtain material one must give up coupons. The expensive curtain material, even though it cannot be used for other purposes than making curtains, uses up yarn which could be used for making materials useful for the ordinary housewife.

Those are the kinds of complaint I get. Working class housewives bring these complaints to me and say, "Why cannot these difficulties be avoided? Are they not making our job unnecessarily hard, though we do understand the difficulties of the situation generally." I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff in asking these two things. First, if these irritants are not avoidable, people should be told the reason. Where people are told the reason they are very ready to understand, and to make every possible allowance. But they should know the reason why it is possible to buy certain expensive things but not to buy the cheaper things, and why it is possible to buy cups but not saucers, and so on. Secondly, if these difficulties can be removed, then they ought to be removed at the very earliest opportunity. If they were removed a very considerable amount would be done for those who, I think, are the hardest working section of the community, without exception; a section of the community which has put up with difficulties probably more patiently than any other section.

When my attention was drawn to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) was going to raise the question of the grievances of housewives on this Adjournment Motion, I did hope that he would, in his characteristic fashion, tackle some of the more fundamental problems of her whom I consider to be the Cinderella of the world—the housewife, who toils seven days a week and does overtime. We do, I feel, have many Debates on economics in this House, but we never, apparently, devote a full day to discussing the conditions of the most important producer in the country—the producer of babies; babies who will become workers, and solve some of our most difficult economic problems. I was disappointed that my hon. Friend was not a little more bold in his approach, and did not tackle some of the housewives' deeper problems. Next time he proposes to speak on the subject I would ask him to allow me to brief him. I could give him some excellent tips

I think that, in his peroration, he said that the final thing that his little group of housewives had said to him was, that they knew that, if the Ministry of Food had the food, we should let them have it. How true that is. We do not withhold the food from the housewives because we are sadistic, because we are careless, because we are bad administrators. The food is withheld simply because there is a world shortage of food and we have not got the food to give them. On the question of fats, I am sorry that I cannot satisfy my hon. Friend's curiosity. He knows as well as I do that it is impossible to get groundnuts from India; that our fat imports are very limited; and that the outlook has been so difficult that we have had to embark on a very large scheme in Africa; and he knows full well that that scheme itself is only just getting under weigh. So, I am afraid he cannot go back to his housewives to satisfy them on the question of when the fat ration is going to be increased.

On cakes, I am very pleased to have this opportunity of explaining why the maximum price of cakes had to be raised. It was raised in February to 2s. 6d. from 1s. 6d. a 1b., because the prices of the ingredients of cakes had increased. The price of dried egg had increased by 4s. 6d. a 1b.; the price of fats by sixpence a 1b.; the price of dried fruit by threepence a 1b., and the price of sugar by penny a 1b. We had, of course, very long discussions with the bakers and all those people concerned in the baking of cakes, and we were convinced, having examined their costings very carefully, that it was necessary to increase the price if we were going to give the country a good quality cake. My hon. Friend says he knows about the housewives—

I did not.

Having had those very long conversations with them, he ought to know about them now. I can assure him that the housewives would have been very annoyed if they had been offered a cake of very inferior quality. Perhaps the lower priced cake may not be as palatable as he and they would wish, but it is possible at 2s. 6d. a 1b. for the bakers to bake a cake which is very acceptable to most people in this country. To safeguard the housewives we have compelled the bakers to observe certain conditions. At least 40 per cent. of the cake, by weight, must consist of fat, sugar and egg. The selling price of the cake must not exceed 2½ times the price of the ingredients. Our enforcement officers have been given special instructions to make a point of seeing that these conditions are observed. I emphasise that we want the full co-operation of the housewives. For instance, if the lady who said her cake tasted like india-rubber had taken a specimen to the Food Control Committee and had complained, it might have been possible to have traced the unscrupulous trader who, probably, was exploiting her.

I must point out to the hon. Member that we make these orders, and rules and regulations, but if they are to be operated satisfactorily we must have the co-operation of the public. I ask him to ask his housewives to help us to trace these people.

I think that several housewives have suggested that bakers' allocations of these ingredients should be added to the domestic ration. Surely, this would be wrong. The people of the country would not cheerfully face the prospect of being denied cakes. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that many housewives have not the facilities to cook cakes in their own homes. There are 30,000 people concerned in the manufacture and sale of cakes. We should be presented with a very difficult problem, if we decided to re-allocate the ingredients to the housewives.

What does that mean? Does the hon. Lady mean that there would be an ensuing unemployment in the cake-making industry, if these ingredients were reallocated?

Certainly. There are 30,000 traders making cakes. Obviously, if we decided to withdraw the ingredients and to distribute them with the domestic rations, these men and women would have to find other jobs. With regard to the quality of the cakes in general, it must be remembered that bakers are restricted to 45 per cent. of their pre-war usage of dried fruits, 55 per cent. of the sugar and 75 per cent. of egg and jam. Therefore, it is quite impossible for them to make cake of the quality to which we were accustomed before the war.

On the question of vegetables, I think the hon. Member knows why we took the controlled prices off vegetables in the autumn of last year. As a rule, we consider taking the control off a commodity if it is in more than adequate supply. If we left controls on it would simply mean that the maximum price might become the minimum. Therefore, in the case of vegetables, we lifted the control. I am afraid that the Ministry of Food could not foresee the bad weather we experienced during the winter, and the ensuing shortages. We were then faced with the problem of the short supply of cauliflowers and other vegetables. What should we do? Should we re-impose control and thereby perhaps force the limited supply under the counter, or leave off the control and allow the available amounts to be distributed throughout the country? We decided to leave off the control.

Since then, we have given an open general licence to importers. That meant that we were presented with another difficulty. If we imposed control at this stage, it would mean that our imports necessarily would be limited. The hon. Gentleman said that prices are gradually coming down, and I agree. We hope that very soon we shall see a great change.

Finally, in regard to catering establishments, this question has been raised time after time I must remind the House that anything from a coffee stall upwards where food is sold is a catering establishment. The description covers industrial canteens, police and fire service canteens, school canteens for the children, cafes and restaurants for office workers and shoppers, and residential hotels. Most of the food is sold to workers and consumed by workers. Not more than 10½per cent. of the national consumption of rationed food is eaten in catering establishments. Two-thirds of it is consumed by workers and young people in works and school canteens, and one-third of it in restaurants. I was asked what factors determine whether or not an applicant should have a licence. In the first place, an ex-trader automatically gets a licence Then we come to another category to which we give preferential treatment. A disabled ex-service man who can prove that he is incapable of undertaking any other work is put on a special preferred list. He is given a licence when a vacancy occurs. Of course, we take into consideration consumer need

Lately, we have been more flexible and have taken into consideration the degree of congestion in an area, and whether or not there are large queues outside catering establishments. I think it is absolutely wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that catering establishments should be closed and the available food distributed on the domestic ration

I did not say closed.

Limited—

What I said was that before we add to existing licences we should look very carefully, to see whether the emphasis should not now be placed upon private people, because many of the licences issued seem to be adding abundance to already adequate facilities.

I think I have proved that most of the cafes are used by workers and their families. If the hon. Gentleman believes that cafes should be limited, I do not think his attitude is consistent with the one which he has presented to the House today when he said that he was speaking for the housewives. Nothing helps the housewife more than to know that rations can be supplemented by one or all the workers in a family having a meal in a cafe or canteen.

Not in the countryside.

I agree. I have already said that we cannot supply canteens everywhere. What we are trying to do is to give more licences now in an endeavour to relieve those parts of the country which so far has not benefited by the existence of a cafe We have taken these other factors into consideration. I am prepared to say that the housewives of the country would be dismayed to discover that cafes are being closed, with the result that they would have to give their menfolk, their sons and daughters, an extra meal at home. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised by the hon. Member. I assure him that the Ministry of Food is a consumers' Ministry. I have said before that the housewives are our masters, that we are very conscious of their needs and only limited supplies prevent us from increasing the rations.

I imagine that it is unusual for two Ministers to reply to an Adjournment Debate even though they happen to be junior Ministers. On this occasion it is fully justified, because the subject is of the utmost importance. I doubt whether there is any subject in the domestic field which is exciting more comment at present than the difficulties and grievances of the housewives of this country

I welcome the opportunity to discuss these difficulties in the reasoned atmosphere of this House. It is far better that the subject should be dealt with in this way than in the way it is being dealt with outside by some organisations who appear to think that good slogans will see us through. I do not think they will. I think it is far better that we should discuss in the House these difficulties and the reasons for them and the possibility of eliminating them so that the subject can be fully understood by all concerned. My one regret is that we have not really time in an Adjournment Debate to discuss the whole range of the issues which affect housewives at the present moment.

The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Colman) referred to two specific shortages in clothing—at the two ends of the scale, baby clothes and outsize clothes. I am very well aware of the shortage of baby clothes. The hon. Lady knows that I have a personal interest in that matter. The birthrate today is about 250,000 per year higher than it was before the war, and 250,000 babies take an awful lot of clothing. The hon. Lady will be aware of the general shortage of clothing, beginning with the yarn and ending ultimately with the clothes. We are doing all we possibly can to encourage manufacturers of baby clothing to go ahead and manufacture more than they did pre-war. It is extremely difficult, particularly because the baby clothing industry depends on a few specialising firms. The matter is really an extremely difficult one. The hon. Lady did not mention baby shoes, but I can tell her that today we are actually making more baby shoes than we did before the war. The reason for the continued shortage of baby shoes in the shops is, I am convinced, that today parents have more money in their pockets and are therefore able to buy more new shoes for babies than they could in prewar days. That creates a problem for us.

There is again a problem in the case of outsize people. Quite understandably the manufacturers of clothing are reluctant to spend available cloth on clothes which take a larger proportion of cloth than the normal ones. We do our best to deal with that situation, not only by exhortation. I am continually talking to manufacturers and begging them to look after the outsize people, of whom there are a very large number. It is not generally realised that between a quarter and one third of the women of this country qualify for that size. We have some personal experience of that matter, I know. In addition to exhortation we go further and make available to these people additional coupons in respect of the outsize clothing they make. Having regard to the overall shortage of clothing, it is bound to be extremely difficult to deal with these end-of-the-range classes.

Curtain material presents an extremely difficult problem for the housewife. She sees comparatively expensive curtain materials in the shops which she can buy off the ration but which she cannot really afford. The reason for the price of those fabrics which can be bought off the ration is that they are expensive to weave. they use particular grades of yarn and the weaving of them is a specialised operation, and there is in addition a 100 per cent. Purchase Tax which makes a very considerable difference to the price of any article. It would be a mistake to imagine that it is not possible to buy materials outside the ration. Whether they would be regarded as satisfactory by the ordinary housewife I am not in a position to say, but it is possible without coupons and dockets to get certain cretonnes and other curtain material of which there is an increasing amount coming along. It is possible to get dyed hessian and plastic sheeting. In the early days of plastic sheeting it was not the kind of stuff I would like to see hanging up at my windows, but recent examples I have seen are at moderate prices and are quite pleasing, and supplies are fairly good and should improve.

With curtains and clothing and other materials we have been handicapped by the reluctance of people to return to the textile industry. Our people are not anxious to go and work in cotton and woollen mills. Cotton and woollen mills are not terribly pleasant places to work in. Prior to the war the conditions and wages were very poor. In a time of full employment in those areas at any rate it is not easy to persuade people to return to industries which have not had too good a reputation in the past. With the improvements which are undoubtedly taking place in the textile industry at present, I believe we shall see a steady return of workers. Indeed, we are seeing that now. We have also been handicapped by the fuel shortage and by the extremely bad weather, and that was bound to cause a certain amount of dislocation, which we are just 'beginning to get over.

The hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) began by asking questions about blankets. He queried whether we were right in taking blankets off dockets. We thought a great deal about it before we did. It is true that retaining blankets on dockets meant, that the priority classes—people setting up home for the first time and those who had had their homes blitzed and were now rebuilding them—were able to enjoy a real priority, but after seven years it is not only the newly-weds and those who have been bombed out of their homes who are feeling the pinch. A housewife who has been married ten or 15 years whose home was not bombed out finds herself after these seven years in very serious need of replenishing her household linen. As the supply was becoming better we felt justified in removing blankets from dockets, especially as supplies of Government surplus blankets were available.

As to Government surplus blankets, I am inclined to think that a lot of people are too finicky. I do not wish to be misunderstood in this direction. I do not suggest that anything is good enough for those who are in need of blankets at the present time, but I am not going to accept that Government surplus blankets are not good blankets. When I was a small boy we had to use these rather coarse coloured blankets because we could not afford anything else, and as far as I can remember—it is a long time ago—they were not too bad. I suggest that if Government surplus blankets can be obtained they should be got. My mother had a way of dealing with them which made them both brighter and softer. Large quantities are available. As I come here every day I pass shop after shop with their windows full of them. Until the supply of white blankets improves, people would be very foolish if they neglect to take advantage of the opportunity to use these Government surplus blankets.

My hon. Friend went on to speak of carpets. There is a very grievous shortage. Hardly any were manufactured during the war years. The firms were concentrated. They have now been de-concentrated, but they have been rather slow on getting off the mark, partly because of a shortage of yarn and partly because of a shortage of workers in the industry. Secondhand carpets are sold at a controlled price. The price control Order is rather complicated but the general rule is that the secondhand price must not exceed the firsthand price. That means that the secondhand price today must be related to the selling price of the goods themselves or to comparable goods when they were new. I know that there are some dealers—I do not suggest for a moment that they are a majority—who do not observe these conditions as carefully as they should. That is where the public come in. We have local price regulation committees, and if anybody is asked to pay for a secondhand carpet more than he or she thinks that carpet is worth. it is their duty to themselves and everybody else to report it to the local price regulation committee who will be only too pleased to go into the question with a view to enforcing the price control Order which is designed in the interests of the public.

In the case of new carpets, the prices are regulated at all stages. There have been recent increases. The price is related to the cost of manufacturing the article. The cost of manufacturing the article has increased considerably partly due to a very considerable increase in the wages of the operatives, partly to the increase in the cost of the raw materials and partly to incidental increases in costs such as fuel. It might interest the House to know that the margins which are being allowed today in the carpet industry are a good deal lower than the margins which were allowed in the prewar years. I think the cure for the shortage of carpets can only be an increased production, because it has to be remembered that the demand today is higher than it was in prewar years since quite a number of people today re able to afford carpets who in prewar years could not do so.

Would the hon. Gentleman, tell us what percentage of carpet production in utility ranges is being exported and, if it is a large percentage, is anything being done to cut it down, so that housewives can have more supplies?

To the best of my knowledge no utility ranges of carpets are being exported at all, but I am prepared to check up on that. On the subject of crockery, I am aware that there is a serious grievance. I take a keen interest in these matters and I keep my eyes open, and I have seen considerable supplies of crockery available in some districts. In others I am told there is none available and I have frequently asked for an investigation into the distribution of crockery I am always told that, with small variations, distribution is achieved smoothly over the whole of the country. The manufacturers do their best to see that there is an adequate distribution. We were picking up at the end of last year, but crockery is an industry which is peculiarly susceptible to interference from anything that happens to the fuel supplies, and there has been a serious interference with the crockery industry recently because of the coal shortage. That, again, is something which I hope will pick up before long, because we have been able to make an adjustment in an upward direction.

My hon. Friend mentioned the subject of egg-cups. I was rather struck when he told me that it was possible to buy any amount of egg-cups but that you could not buy cups and saucers and other crockery. It would certainly be wrong if egg cups were being manufactured to the detriment of cups and saucers or tea pots or anything else, so I made an investigation and the answer was that there are large quantities of egg cups being manufactured, and there were during the fuel crisis. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is familiar with the crockery industry. I am not familiar with the terms, but I know that there is a round sort of plate which is pushed into the kiln containing cups and saucers and, in an effort to make the utmost use of the space available inside the kiln, when they have filled this round plate with cups and saucers, they fill in the space in between with eggcups. That is the reason for the large quantity of egg cups, and it is not an attempt to meet the additional demand for egg cups arising out of the Ministry of Food's great success in providing us with more eggs during the last six weeks than we have seen over the last six years.

Is the Minister suggesting that they were prepared to waste china clay, so as not to waste drying room in the kiln?

It was not a shortage of china clay, but a shortage of coal; although china clay is not in wonderful supply, there has never been any interference with pottery production because of a shortage of china clay.

Why waste labour and materials? They have to mould in the same materials.

Because there was not enough room on the plate for more cups but there was room for egg-cups. There was the labour and raw material, and it would have been a shocking lack of economy and use of labour and material when the space was there. My hon. Friend asked why we did not halve exports in an attempt to relieve the home market. There are one or two answers to that. In the first place if we halved the exports of crockery—and crockery at the present time is one of our most valuable exports, and I would like to pay my tribute to the crockery industry of this country both for the quality it is producing, as will have been seen by visitors to the British Industries Fair, and for their magnificent export achievement, because they are exporting this crockery all over the world and it is the finest thing in its kind to be found anywhere—if we halve those exports, while it would mean some accretion to the home market it would make no appreciable difference to the needs of the British housewife.

Furthermore, the greater part of the crockery which we are exporting is decorated. Decorated crockery is extremely difficult to control in price because you have to differentiate between different kinds of decoration and it is not an easy job. If it were not price-controlled and you released on to the home market 50 per cent. of that which is now being exported, it would represent only a very small addition to the total amount of crockery available and, since you could not effectively price-control it, you would not be meeting the needs of the most deserving poor housewife; you would be making available to those who have most money to spend a limited quantity of decorated crockery. The answer here again lies in an increase of supplies. We are doing all we can to secure them, and I believe that with the better fuel allocation to the pottery industry, we may expect to see some improvement, if not a dramatic improvement, in a very short time

I am doing my best to hurry along to the important question of perambulators. There is a good deal of nonsense talked in the country about perambulators, and I suppose the biggest piece of nonsense of all which is talked is that we are exporting large quantities of perambulators at the expense of the mother in Britain. That is not true. Exports of perambulators at present are well below 10 per cent. of our total production and, as against that, we have recently been importing large quantities of perambulators from countries on the Continent of Europe. I can give some interesting figures. In 1938 this country produced 572,000 prams and bedfolders; in 1946 production was 563,000—only 9,000 short of the 1938 figure. I cannot advise the House as to what are the possibilities for 1947, but I can say that, as a result of the recent improvement in the steel allocation to the perambulator industry, I have every hope that there will be some increase in the production of perambulators and bedfolders this year. I sincerely hope there will be.

There is an interesting feature about this. One of the reasons for the shortage of new perambulators today the fact that people are insisting on buying new prams for their babies. I was the oldest of a family of six and the perambulator which was used for me was used for my youngest sister, the sixth child It was handed down through the family At the present time, however, people do not want secondhand prams for the same reason—that they have more money in their pockets. It may interest the House to know—and I hope that as a result of what I am about to say I shall not be bombarded with a fan mail—that I possess in my home a twin perambulator. We have been trying to get rid of it at a knockdown price; in fact, we would give it away if we heard of a deserving case. So far, however, we have not been able to get rid of it, and every time I enter the house in the dark I bang into the perambulator and think of the Questions and Debates in this House on the supply of perambulators. If any hon. Member is anticipating twins in his family, and is prepared to accept my twin perambulator he can have it with pleasure.

An incentive to production.

But you cannot determine production in those things in advance. On the subject of ironing boards, I admit it seems ridiculous to pay so much for such an admittedly simple article but, again, these things are regulated under the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, and the distributor's prices are controlled by percentage ratios. At the present moment we are reviewing those prices. So far as the manufacturer's prices are concerned, the manufacturers must be prepared to justify them under the Prices of Goods Act. So far as the consumer end is concerned, if any case of excessive, or apparently excessive, price is brought to our notice, we shall be prepared to consider it and take action if necessary. If my hon. Friend has cases of what appear to him to be excessive prices, and he will let me know, I will certainly inquire into them.

A word about utility washing machines and vacuum cleaners. I do not know that the suggestion of adding to the domestic market at the present time a large quantity of electricity consuming articles would be a very wide one, but from my observation in the factories up and down the country which I have visited, I should say it is to be expected within a comparatively short time that there will be large quantities of these goods coming on to the market. I am aware that vacuum cleaners and washing machines do not use large quantities of electricity as compared with the service they render, and I agree flat it is high time the working class housewife was spared the drudgery of rubbing her clothes out in the scullery in the way so many have done hitherto.

Finally, on the subject of clothes rationing, of course I cannot say—it is impossible for me or for anybody else to say what will be the clothes ration in November. We are all the time limited by the labour factor in Lancashire and in Yorkshire.

Last year it was said that one of the limiting factors was the high speed of demobilisation and the clothes which were issued as demobilisation suits. Now that demobilisation has been drastically slowed down, does it not mean that there will be more material available?

It certainly does. But as against that plus sign we have to put a minus sign, because all those people who have been demobilised are- now drawing civilian rations, which almost counterbalances. It is impossible for me to say what will be the next clothing ration issue in November, but as against what has happened—against the postponement, for instance, of two months—it has to be remembered that the children's supplementary 10 coupons will be made available in August as usual, and that calls for a considerable amount of clothing. So far, we have not made any increase expressly for growing children, but I hope it will be possible to give them that increased scale which was introduced last year so that the children will suffer much less than other people from the cut male as a result of the fuel crisis. I think that will be of some comfort to the housewives.

I must reiterate that this shortage is not only the result of fuel or labour shortage or shortage of yarn; it is due very largely to the increased standards of living. People are demanding more and better goods than they had in pre-war days, and I am very glad they are, although it creates a problem. These shortages, while they are bound to be with us for some time will, I believe, be gradually overcome if the people of Lancashire and Yorkshire respond, as I am sure they will, to the call which has gone forward from us for modernisation, and reorganisation. If, under the better conditions undoubtedly existing at the present moment in the textile areas, more people will be prepared to return to that industry, then we need not be despondent about the future. But at the present moment we have to face these difficulties. We are well aware of the trials of the housewife; I think her patience has been remarkable—apart from a very small minority who, in the main, I do not believe are housewives at all, certainly not the sort of housewife with whom we are concerned this afternoon. I am very grateful indeed to my hon. Friend for having raised this matter on the Adjournment today.

We have listened with very great interest to the replies made by representatives from the Ministry of Food and the Board of Trade, and I apologise for intruding on these vitally interesting subjects of perambulators and washing boards. I am afraid my speech will be very factual and dull, on the question of foreign affairs. However, I think it is a matter which concerns this House. We have had the return of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from Moscow, after spending seven weeks there, and this is the time when this question, if it is to be raised at all, must be raised in this House, because it is not merely a question for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but a question for individual Members of the House of Commons.

The first point I desire to establish is that His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of responsibility, in view of the incorporation of the three independent Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the Soviet Union. I appeal to three, very important documents. The first, of course, is the Atlantic Charter of 14th August, 1941, which says, in Clause 2:

"The signatories desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned."

In Clause 3 of the Atlantic Charter they

"respect the rights of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they live …"

and they wish to see sovereign rights in self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.

Then again, we have the vitally important treaty of alliance between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, signed on 26th May, 1942, in Article 5 of which we find:

"The high contracting parties … will act in accordance with the two principles of not seeking territorial aggrandisement for themselves, and of non-interference in the internal affairs of other States."

We can surely all agree that those very important statements have been summarised and amplified in the Charter of the United Nations, because I find in Article 1:

"The purposes of the United Nations are: … to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."

In Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations I find these words:

"Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

In the months preceding the pact of non-aggression signed between Germany and Russia on 23rd August, 1939, there were a large number of negotiations carried on between His Majesty's Government on the one hand and the Russian Government on the other, with a view to inducing Russia to join in the guarantee which we had given on 31st March to Poland, and afterwards gave to Rumania. These negotiations were extremely prolonged. In the very interesting life of Mr. Neville Chamberlain recently published, written by that great historian Keith-Feiling, we have had some interesting revelations, which show fully that if the negotiations broke down between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Union it was on the question of the independence of these three Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

We already knew a good deal, because Lord Halifax had published a very interesting volume of his speeches which gave us a considerable amount of information on this subject. But at Nuremberg we had laid before us the sworn evidence of the legal adviser to the German Foreign Office, Frederick Gauss, giving the full terms of the secret protocol which was signed simultaneously with the published treaty of non-aggression on 23rd August, 1939:

"Russia and Germany agree that the northern frontier of Lithuania will automatically be established as the boundary of the spheres of interest of Germany and the U.S.S.R."

That was a sacrifice to Russia on behalf of Germany who thus agreed to throw to the wolves the two Northern Baltic States of Estonia and Latvia. Subsequently, however, there was a second secret protocol signed between Russia and Germany on 28th September, 1939, from which we see that now Lithuania itself was to be sacrificed as it is stated:

"The territory of the Lithuanian State is included in the Soviet sphere of influence."

So those three Baltic States were finally handed over to the tender mercies of Russia, with the possible exception, however, of a small corner bordering on East Prussia. In exchange, Germany received the whole of the Polish district of Lublin and part of that of Warsaw. Mr. Frederick Gauss, legal adviser to the German Foreign Office, swore at Nuremberg on 15th March, 1946, a statement, only a very few extracts from which I will inflict on the House. He said:

"Agreement was reached quickly and without difficulty on the text of the German-Russian non-aggression pact, but in the pre. amble which I had prepared, Mr. von Ribbentrop had himself made insertions about the friendly relations between Germany and Russia to which M. Stalin objected with the remark that the Soviet Union, after being covered with buckets of filth—"

I beg you to excuse this expression, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; it is not mine, it is actually the words of M. Stalin—

"the Soviet Government, after being covered with buckets of filth by the National Socialist Government of Germany for six years, cannot suddenly come out with assurances of German-Russian friendship."

Consequently, Mr. Gauss said:

"the relevant parts of the preamble were then cancelled or altered."

I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that on the very same day, 28th September, 1938, while Russia was taking over and virtually incorporating—which she finally carried out—these three independent Baltic States, she made a pact of mutual assistance with Estonia. Article 5 of that pact contains these words:

"The execution of the terms of the present pact shall not affect in any way the sovereign rights of the Contracting, Parties, especially their economic systems and their State organisations"

Russian troops, under various pretexts, advanced and occupied these three very lovable, very wonderful Baltic States—States with such marvellous history going back for thousands of years, made up of races like the Estonians, akin to the Finns, whose origin is lost in far antiquity, and the two magnificent Nordic races, not Slav, not German but purely Nordic breeds, the Latvians and Lithuanians.

I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that while Russia was making this unholy bargain with Germany she was still a member of the League of Nations, and was bound by that most solemn pact. In fact, her representative had been present at Geneva on 11th March, 1932, when the Assembly adopted the principles formulated by the French Prime Minister in his declaration of 10th December, 1931:

"that no encroachment on the territorial Integrity, no attack on the political independence of a Member of the League of Nations committed in contempt of Article 10, could be recognised as valid and effective by the members of the League of Nations. The Assembly proclaimed the obligatory nature of the above-mentioned principles, and declared that the members of the League of Nations were' bound not to recognise any situation, any treaty or any agreement which might De obtained by means contrary to the covenant of the League of Nations."

At the time when Russia was making these annexations she was bound by those most solemn declarations made at Geneva on 11th March, 1932. The House will recollect that it was not until December, 1939, that Russia was expelled from the League of Nations on account of her attack—I will not qualify that attack, because I want to remain very moderate in all my statements—on Finland.

It must never be forgotten that after the first great war Russia had most solemnly recognised the complete independence of those Baltic States. She had signed a treaty with Estonia on 2nd Feb- ruary, 1920, a corresponding treaty with Lithuania on 12th July, 1920, and finally with Latvia on 7th August, 1920. I have the text of these treaties, but they are very similar, and I will only just inflict upon the House a short extract from one, which is characteristic of all the others:

"Treaty between Russia and Lithuania signed at Moscow on 12th July 1920. 'As all peoples have the right of free self-determination, a right which includes complete separation from the State of which they form a part, Russia recognises without any reservation the independence and sovereignty of the Lithuanian State with all the legal consequences resulting from this recognition, and renounces for ever all sovereign rights over the Lithuanian Nation and its territory.'"

The treaty signed with Estonia on 2nd February, 1920, as I have said, is very similar, but I cannot refrain from reading this short passage:

"In consequence of the right of all peoples to self determination to the point of seceding completely from the State of which they form a part, a right proclaimed by the Socialist and Federal Russian Republic of the Soviets, Russia unreservedly recognises the independence and sovereignty of the State of Estonia … From the fact that Estonia has belonged to Russia no obligation whatsoever towards Russia shall fall on the Estonian people and on their land."

Russian troops entered these three Baltic States in June, 1940. The first thing they did was to dissolve all three Parliaments and hold new elections. How were those elections carried through? We have not to rely upon the reports of newspaper correspondents, because we have the trial which came before our own High Court. We have the judgment delivered in the High Court of Justice in the King's Bench on Friday, 25th January, 1946, by Mr. Justice Atkinson, in a shipping case turning on the question of whether the ships of Estonia had been legally confiscated or not. Sworn evidence was given before the judge which the judge accepted in his judgment in these terms. This is how he described the elections which took place:

"The candidates were all to be nominated by 9th July. There was one candidate for each constituency on the so-called 'working peoples' list.' There were many other nominations, in some cases three or four candidates were entered. After the time for nomination had expired a new decree was published requiring every candidate to present his political programme by two o'clock on the following day. All but four of the candidates managed to do that, but on the day following the newspapers published the decision of the Electoral Committee that every candidate except the 80 on the working peoples' list was declared disqualified."

The consequence was that there were 80 candidates for 80 seats, and those candidates were all declared to be elected by overwhelming majorities. The radio, under threats, exhorted the electors to go and vote, and even those who did not listen to the radio were brought to the polling booths and forcibly made to vote. Now, the Soviet Republic is always to be praised for its marvellous staff work; but, on this occasion, there was an unfortunate hitch because the results of these Baltic elections were published, by an unlucky oversight, in the London Press before the count had been completed. The elections in all three countries took place on 14th July and 15th July, 1940, but the counting of votes was not to take place, and did not take place, until 17th July; however, on 15th July, the British Press reported that, for instance, in the Lithuanian Parliament, 79 deputies had been elected, 80 per cent. of whom belonged to the Communist Party. The elections, therefore, had all been carefully arranged beforehand, and were announced to the British Press. In fact the results were published in the London Press before the counting took place.

What has been the result of the Russian occupation? In Latvia, alone, the Soviet secret police imprisoned 6,000 people, executed 1,480 and deported 37,500. In Estonia it was worse, for 60,000 people were deported: husbands were separated from their wives, children separated from their parents, and, in the overwhelming number of cases, they have never been heard of since. Germany, on 22nd June, 1941, declared war, drove out the Russians, occupied these Baltic States, and held them for three years. Consequently it was not until 1944 that the Russians again recaptured them, with similar results, except that the people, thoroughly scared and frightened, profiting by the experience of the first war, fled across the border, and that is why it is necessary to deal with this difficult question of displaced persons.

I would appeal to His Majesty's Government to show the utmost humanity in regard to the treatment of these people. I heard the other day of an authentic case. His Majesty's Government have fixed the age limit at 50. If one is over 50 one is supposed not to be a desirable person in this country. Now, a woman arrived here. She said, "I am 49 and my husband is 52, but I am in a far worse state of health, having suffered from the first Bolshevik invasion, than my husband, but because my husband is over 50 he is not allowed to join me." This unfortunate separation of husband and wife is very painful and very distressing. I admit that there must be a rule, but I would appeal to His Majesty's Government to deal in the most humane way they possibly can with these magnificent people. I heard from Manchester that 1,000 fine girls are working like slaves washing out and cleaning hospitals, and relieving the nurses who otherwise would have had to do this work, which is really not part of their job. Now, His Majesty's Government, in accordance with the reply given to me by the Under-Secretary of State here on 10th February, 1947, recognise that the Baltic States have de facto been absorbed into the Soviet Union, but they do not recognise this de jure. That is the position contained in the answer I have received from the Under-Secretary.

I appeal to His Majesty's Government to contrast their attitude with the attitude adopted by the United States of America. The United States have recognised this annexation neither de facto nor de jure. The diplomatic representatives of these States are enjoying in America all the privileges that His Majesty's Ambassador or any other diplomatic representative enjoys in America.

This is what Mr. Sumner Welles said on 23rd July, 1940, when he was acting-Secretary of State:

"During these past few days the devious processes whereunder the political independence and territorial integrity of the three small Baltic Republics—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—were to be deliberately annihilated by one of their more powerful neighbours have been rapidly drawing to their conclusion.

From the day when the peoples of these republics first gained their independence and democratic form of Government the people of the United States have watched their admirable progress in self-government with deep and sympathetic interest.

The policy of this Government is universally known. The people of the United States are opposed to predatory activities no matter whether they are carried on by the use of force or by the threat of force. They are likewise opposed, to any form of intervention on the part of one state, however powerful, in the domestic concerns of any other sovereign State, however weak."

I would ask the representative of the Foreign Office to explain this difference between the noble attitude adopted by the United States Government and—I will not call it ignoble, because I do not s ant to say anything offensive—the less noble attitude followed by His Majesty's Government.

I have followed minutely all the references which have appeared in our papers to what has taken place in Moscow, and I have not heard—I may be wrong and I hope I am wrong—that this question was raised at all in Moscow. If it was not raised in Moscow surely it is our duty herein the House of Commons to raise it and to let our views be known. We may not be able to do very much. We may be compelled by physical force to accept a fait accompli, but I do feel it is a point of honour with us Members of the free British House of Commons to raise our protest on this very important matter.

In conclusion, I only want to say that I wish my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) were here, because I have a quotation from Lenin with which I desire to conclude my few remarks. This is taken from Lenin's collected works, Volume 22, page 13, where he says:

"If a small or weak nation is not accorded the right to decide the form of its political existence by a free vote—implying the complete withdrawal of the troops of the incorporating or merely strong nation—then the incorporation is an annexation, that is, an arbitrary appropriation of a foreign country, an act of violence …

No words better than those of Lenin himself can be used to characterise the annexation of these three independent Baltic States.

I wish to conclude on a personal note. I have been attacked by the Moscow radio and I want to say, therefore, that I have never said, either in this House or outside, single word against Russia. On the contrary, I am an immense admirer of Russian literature and of the Russian people and have always gone out of my way to express our gratitude for the magnificent victories of the Russian Armies. Nevertheless, I am denounced by the Moscow radio as a Fascist, a reactionary and—can you believe it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—as a warmonger—I, the most peaceable and peace-loving Member of this House.

rose.

Mr. Mayhew.

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I point out to you with great respect that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) has raised a matter of vital importance and interest? May I ask you if we are to be allowed to have no Debate on that subject at all and, if so, under whose Ruling and on what authority?

By agreement Mr. Speaker has allotted appropriate times for these Adjournment subjects The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast has certainly exceeded his allotted time.

You said just now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there had been an agreement. The Adjournment is one of the occasions upon which Private Members have an opportunity of ventilating their views. We are not conscious of any such agreement, and if it exists, I should like to know who made it, and upon what authority.

May I point out that no agreement has been made by the Opposition Front Bench in this matter?

I do not suggest there was any formal agreement, but quite obviously when one hon. Member takes an excessive time, other hon. Members are precluded from speaking, which is a thing that happens every day. I much regret the fact, but I have to look at the matter from the point of view of the House as a whole.

May I point out that this particular Debate started very late?

A quarter of an hour late.

It is obviously the desire of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this Debate should continue. I have been allotted the next Adjournment and in view of the desire of the House I am perfectly prepared to forgo it if that would meet with the agreement of the Minister, who has been kind enough to attend for the purpose of replying.

In that event, if the House is in general agreement, and no objection is raised from any quarter, I, of course, have no personal objection. Mr. Hollis.

I am sure the, House will not wish me to take up too much time so I will not attempt to repeat the sad and pathetic story which my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) has just told. It is one of the saddest stories in the world and these three republics are almost symbols of the kind of countries for which we fought the recent war. Their peoples have been crucified between two thieves. Russian-German friendship, a German victory or a Russian victory—each has led to greater suffering for them. The only practical question with which I will deal is whether we can do anything about it, and in this connection I would make three points. In the first place I would reinforce my hon. Friend's contention, and express the hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to reiterate the pledge which was previously given that there will be no de jure recognition of the Russian annexation of these territories. The reasons for that are two. First and most important, the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government should not be based upon a lie. To recognise this thing as de jure would be to recognise something which was not so in fact. The second reason is that at present Europe is divided into two parts. The picture of Europe is very different from that of the United Nations to which we look forward. We hope that one day there will be a chance of a better Europe. I hope that these differences will not be ironed out by a policy of appeasement, and that we shall reserve our right to bring up these points in the future.

I would also reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast that if we cannot do anything more at the moment for, the citizens of these countries, we should treat them with the greatest consideration in connection with all questions concerning displaced persons. I have heard from the mouths of most responsible people that the position of the displaced persons from these Baltic countries is most unsatisfactory. I hope that there is still something the Government can do. I ask the Under-Secretary to explain just what is the meaning of the statement made by the Minister of State, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). My hon. Friend asked:

"Is the Minister aware of the immense contribution which this country made to the liberty of these three republics in days gone by and the number of institutions started there by the munificent help of this country, and is anything being done to preserve the condition of these institutions?"

The Minister stated in reply:

"The answer to all three parts of the question is, "Yes, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, '947; Vol. 433, c. 5.]

Apparently something is being done at the moment to preserve the condition of the institutions in the Baltic countries which have been started under British patronage. If that is so, it is most welcome. It is very important that the House should be told what the Government are finding it possible to do now, and with what success.

I do not think the long and highly contentious historical review by the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) has been very useful, or has made any decent contribution to the business of this House. Everything he said happened before we accepted the Russians as our Allies. We accepted them as our Allies with full knowledge of everything which had happened, and in these circumstances it is surely rather indecent to dig up these ancient grievances. Heaven knows, we have sufficient reasons for quarrelling with the Russians today. I believe there are substantial grounds for taking a very strong line with the Russians, and I have never concealed my opinion on that, but we do not strengthen our case by digging up from the past things we have so clearly condoned. It seems to me to be far too like the tactics of Hitler, when wishing to pick a quarrel with someone with whom he had been on the most friendly terms for a considerable time.

Having said that in regard to the historical background, I think we owe a debt of humanity to the displaced people in Europe. They are human material of the very highest quality. Everyone who has been to those camps has come back and said it is unbelievable how these people, in their appalling circumstances, have maintained not only decency, but a cultural life. Surely, these are the people who should be a beneficial addition to our population. I do not feel that any of us should be divided on that, but to bring these Baits to this country, with the idea of showing the Russians what cads they are, is wrong. That is no good reason for doing it. The good reason for doing it is that the Baits are decent people whom we want here, and who can make a contribution to our civilisation.

I would like to support, briefly, the case which my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) has put to the House. During the long time I have been here I do not think that I have ever heard a case, put forward in such touching terms. I happen to have had some association with the Baltic States in the early stages of their evolution after the first world war. I visited them repeatedly, and I took a modest interest in the development of their ecnomic schemes, in negotiating loans, and in assisting them in the development of their local interests and the agricultural methods which they introduced into their Tural life. Before these States were absorbed in merciless fashion by the Russian Government I entertained for them the greatest respect. These three little States retained, in spite of the Russian tyranny exercised over them for centuries, a tradition, language, and patriotism which are rarely to be found in any other people. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) seems to disregard lessons of history.

I remember making an appeal, in conjunction with a distinguished lady, Lady Muriel Paget, for books for the university of Dorpat in Estonia. The people of this country responded generously. Indicative of the way in which these three little States tried to re-establish their national culture, was the vigour with which their universities showed enthusiasm for the introduction of Western methods of research and vocational training. I think it is the most pitiful thing in modern history that the British Government, which is based on principles of humanity, justice, and decency, should be associated with the de facto recognition of the absorption of these three States by Russia. It is one of the tragedies of our time. It is all the more pitiful when we realise what these three little States have accomplished in raising their national culture and economy to such a high level in the years between the two wars. I associate myself with the observation that there should be generous sympathy and understanding for these people who, are scattered throughout Europe. But, at the same time, we who have stood for freedom for all these years cannot but acknowledge the tragedy which has been committed against these three States. We have an obligation to continue such representations as may be within the diplomatic opportunities of our time.

I want, in a few words, to endorse very strongly the appeal which has been made in regard to the treatment of these Baits among the displaced persons in our zone of Germany. I have visited them in their camps, and I cannot overstate the impression which was made on me as to the quality of these men and women. With nothing but tragedy in their past and, at the time when I went there, nothing but blank uncertainty for the future, they maintained their moral in a perfectly marvellous way. They had trained a first-class choir, were teaching their children without the aid of books or paper, and had built a place of worship. They maintained their moral with great skill, and an obvious desire to take any reasonable form of work which was allowed them. I make this appeal particularly because my impression was confirmed by everyone with whom I talked, and who had experience for years in Germany. It is particularly relevant at this moment, because we have a scheme for bringing some of them over here. It is a matter of taking more or less and of interpreting the arrangements and rules we have made. We want a little more elasticity, and I appeal to the Government to take more rather than less, particularly in such cases as the pathetic case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory).

The historical survey by the hon. Member for Queen's University (Pro- fessor Savory) was one-sided and inaccurate. It endeavoured to convey the impression that these three Baltic republics, prior to 1939, were independent little Western democracies. Of course, they were nothing of the sort. Between the years 1920 and 1933, they perhaps bore some resemblance, though entirely superficial, to the democracies of the West. They had elections, and there was a certain amount of free criticism. In 1933 that vanished in all three republics, and historians may reflect why it was that all in the same year—the fateful year of 1933 when Hitler came to power in Germany—there was a coup d'état in each of these republics. Democracy was destroyed, and there was certainly no democracy there in 1939 or 1940. In each of these countries there was an immense gaol population of political prisoners. In Latvia, which I visited last summer, there were in 1940 somewhere about 2,000 or 3,000 political prisoners out of a total population of 2,500,000.

How many are there now?

About the same

And how many are there in Siberia?

According to the accounts of the hon. Member, the whole of the population have been sent to Siberia, or have fled. Believe me, Riga, and the cities of Latvia are full—

Russian Mongols.

I will deal with the point if hon. Members will allow me. I have had the disadvantage of having been to these countries, and of having seen. Probably I cannot speak with the same authority as hon. Members surveying the country from a thousand miles away.

It is true that there is not democracy there in the sense that we know it in the West—we cannot expect that after a revolution there would be liberal and democratic rights such as we appreciate in this country—but those countries are very far from being assimilated economically to the rest of the Soviet Union. I was interested to notice that it was the one place in the Soviet Union that I visited where there were still private shopkeepers. Somewhere about 30 per cent. of the trade in Riga was done by small shopkeepers. The countryside is still run by individual farmers. There has been a land distribution. The land of Germans and collaborators has been distributed among the population there, and that has gained considerable support for the Government from the local peasantry. Not only that. There is another interesting point. A Latvian division fought with the Red Army during the war, a division about 30,000 strong. A large number of those men, of course, perished. That division is being built up at the present moment to an army corps of four divisions consisting entirely of Latvians. I suggest to hon. Members that a very good test of whether a country has got the support of its people is whether you can trust the people with arms. When this army corps is created the purely Russian part of the army will leave the country.

I am not suggesting that in a few days' visit to a country like Latvia it is possible for me or anybody else to get the political atmosphere, and find out exactly what the strength of the opposition is. Opposition there is. It is not allowed to express itself. I cannot say how strong it is. But my impression was that the majority of the population, certainly the overwhelming part of the industrial population, the workers, were behind the Government. I would remind the House that in 1905, the workers of Tallinn and Riga rose with the workers of Moscow and Leningrad in the revolution; and that applied in 1917. The Soviet republics of those States in 1919 were crushed, not by the resources of their own people but by the resources of German arms, and, General von Goltz marched into the country with, I believe, 11,000 German soldiers.

Would the hon. Gentleman allow me? Will he recollect that at the same time a British army saved the republic from extinction at that time?

Yes, but the point about it is that von Goltz's troops crushed the Soviet revolution in that country. What is the position today so far as the state of those countries is concerned? It has been said by the hon Member for Queen's University that the Americans have not recognised, de facto, the incorporation of those countries. I venture to disagree. I would refer him, not to what was said at Moscow, but to what was said at Potsdam, because at Potsdam there was an agreement which throws a great deal of light on the subject. It is in relation to the incorporation of the city of Konigsberg and the adjacent area into the Soviet Union. At the Conference, which included the Americans as well as the British,

"the proposal of· the Soviet Government was agreed concerning the ultimate transfer to the Soviet Union of the City of Konigsberg and the area adjacent to it, subject to examination of the actual frontier."

I would point out that Konigsberg was the capital of East Prussia. Konigsberg has nothing whatever to do with these Baltic States. At Potsdam it certainly was agreed that Konigsberg should be handed over.

Really, I am not entirely ignorant of the elementary facts of geography. What I am pointing out is that it clearly could not be intended that this little area of East Prussia should be delivered over as a disembodied entity to the territory of the U.S.S.R. without any contiguity to any other part of Soviet territory. The implication is inescapable. As this particular territory is adjacent to the Soviet territory of Lithuania, it implies the recognition of the Baltic States being Soviet. I do not see how one can escape that conclusion. It is true that the Soviet Union did not raise this point at the Peace Conference, for two reasons; in the first place, it said that these territories had been part of the Soviet Union before the Soviet Union came into the war. It was not prepared to discuss this territory and its being a part of the Soviet Union any more than we are prepared to discuss the status of India, or the Americans the status of the Philippines. In the second place, I suspect that the Soviet Union considered that this point should not be used as a bargaining counter against her in the sort of way that happens in these negotiations. None the less, I think she would have been wiser to come to this country and to America and to say frankly, "We want you to recognise that these territories are a part of the Soviet Union." There is no doubt, in view of what has happened, that at that time this country would have been prepared to do that.

There are some other things which: found about Latvians. Latvians in all Government positions, Latvian journalists and those in charge of factories want to know why the former Baltic diplomats are given diplomatic privileges. That is a very small matter, but it creates a certain amount of friction and concern. Latvians want to know whether it is possible for them to have greater access to tell their D.P.'s what are the conditions in Latvia at present. Those are small points with which I hope the Under-Secretary will deal.

In the short time at my disposal I will do my best to reply to the numerous questions which have been raised.

It is not a short time. We have three quarters of an hour.

I will leave aside the question of the next subject to be raised on the Adjournment. This is hard Debate to which to give a reply. As the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) said, he was registering a protest. He said that we may not be able to do very much about it, and that we may have to accept the fait accompli. He was not at all specific in his speech about where this Government were at fault or what he expected us to do. Adjournment Debates are mainly for the purpose of enabling a Minister to reply to criticisms of his work, to accept suggestions about what he ought to do, and to accept blame for what he has done. It is very hard for a British Minister, particularly a Minister of this Government of two years' duration, to reply to a very large proportion of what has been said in this Debate.

Perhaps I can explain our position best if I give an entirely un-coloured and unvarnished brief history of the events since 1940. At the beginning of that year these States were independent neutral countries. During the year they were accused by the Soviet Press of conspiring with certain other countries against the security of the U.S.S.R. In June of that year Soviet armed forces occupied the three countries. The existing Governments fell. Provisional Governments took their place to draw up new electoral rolls and hold fresh elections. This was done. At the elections a single block of candidates fought. There were no opposition candidates, The result was therefore a fore- gone conclusion. The new Governments elected made it their first task to send an appeal to Soviet Russia requesting incorporation—

Is this an unvarnished account?

This is an entirely colour-less, unvarnished account of events since 1940. These requests were granted in August, 1940. The arrangements for incorporation were carried out under the supervision of -high Soviet officials, Marshal Zhdanov for Estonia, Mr. Vyshinsky for Latvia and Mr. Dekanozov for Lithuania, and the administrative pattern of these Baltic States was brought into relation with the administrative pattern of Soviet Russia. Widespread nationalisation measures were passed which had the incidental effect of eliminating British and foreign interests. His Majesty's Government subsequently made a general reservation of their right to claim compensation for damage to the British interests concerned.

Then, in 1941, the Germans launched their attack on Soviet Russia. They swept through the Baltic States and occupied them. It was not until 1944 that they were expelled and the Russian administration took over. It was restored over practically the whole area. Since those times the Soviet administration have done their utmost to remove all traces of German occupation and to make those countries normally functioning constituent republics of Soviet Russia. That is a bald, un-coloured picture of a dramatic story which has many tragic features. The Soviet Press since then has contained statements by responsible Soviet authorities to the effect that the Baltic States are now incorporated permanently in Soviet Russia. They have made their views quite plain that this is a permanent matter, and that these States form part of the Soviet Union for ever. Similarly, they have established effective administrative control over these countries. No one on the other side has questioned that. No one has suggested that there is not effective administrative control over these States. That was begun seven years ago, and, with an interval, it has lasted seven years. There is no prospect at present of any change in that arrangement.

Therefore His Majesty's Government have recognised Soviet administration defacto. There is no other sensible course for us to take. We have simply got to take the facts as they are It is no good thinking wishfully about it, as hon. Members opposite do. It is no good hiding our heads in the sand. The hon. Member for Queen's University constantly has his head in the sand. If I may say so, the deeper his head is in the sand, the louder, longer and better his speeches are.

It is very good sand—better than Margate sand.

It is necessary for us to deal with these facts as we find them. We have not however recognised these countries de jure. I cannot, give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) that we will never recognise these countries de jure. No responsible Government would give an undertaking of that kind. But to go further than merely to ask for an assurance of no de jure recognition, and to suggest, as quixotic hon. Members do, including the hon. Member for the Queen's University, that we should, somehow, enforce the principles of the Atlantic Charter, and somehow restore independence to these countries as they formerly enjoyed it, seems to me a totally fantastic, unrealistic approach. Individuals like that cannot seriously have considered this matter in an ordinary, serious, responsible way, or else they have never been faced with the job of trying to build up and maintain peaceable working relations between sovereign States in the 20th century. Is it seriously suggested that we should make an attempt to restore the independence of these countries, contrary to the wishes of Soviet Russia? Is that seriously intended?

If the hon. Gentleman is addressing the question to me, I should say it is a question of honour not to acquiesce in what is going on there at the present time.

That is an answer to a question I did not put. The question I put was, What does the hon. Member actually intend us to do about it? He has made a speech in his familiar tone of indignation, but indignation does not make a foreign policy; however sincere you are, you need more than indignation if you are to face the facts of this problem, and I have not heard one single, sensible, responsible, constructive suggestion as to what His Majesty's Government are supposed to do about this problem.

There was reference to the deportations from the Baltic States. This is a good illustration. We were urged, somehow or other, to get the Soviet Union to stop deportations from the Baltic States or to return to the Baltic States those deported. I have not sufficient reliable evidence on this point, but even if the reports that came into London were all true, Soviet Russia would unquestionably regard it as a problem entirely for their own internal jurisdiction; they would unquestionably say that we had no right whatever for any official intervention, and I cannot conceive that making any kind of representations on this subject would have the slightest beneficial effect whatsoever. No one should or need or does think that the British Government are indifferent where questions of civil liberties are at stake. We care deeply about civil liberties, and in the conduct of foreign affairs in the past two years we have consistently acted in accordance with democratic principles and have shown our respect for civil liberties. We have to regard not only the truth of these reports about deportations, not only the justice and propriety of making representations about them, but what effect, if any, such representations would have if we made them, Might they not have just the reverse effect of what we want? My own view is that they would have no effect whatever, but if they had any, it would be a bad effect. It is easy enough to play the game of Palmerston from the Opposition benches, but a, responsible Government has to deal with this in a, responsible way.

The question of the displaced persons was also touched upon by the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) and the hon. Member for Devizes. I associate myself entirely with everything that the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University has said. Like him, I have been to see for myself the Baltic displaced persons' camps in Germany. I bear out entirely what he says about the fine spirit and courage of the Baltic displaced persons in the camps. Also I pay tribute to the great work done in the camps by the British and U.N.R.R.A. officials there. I think we should realise the importance of the work that we have done and that we are still doing. He mentioned education and wel- fare. He did not mention the Baltic University at Hamburg for which we have given facilities. We agree that those people, who cannot go back to the Baltic States, should have what hope we can give. We want to help them to return to the Baltic States if they want to go; but in the past, and today, we have said that we shall not force them back contrary to their wishes.

In conclusion, I say we do realise that this is not only a political, but also a human problem. If I may say so, perhaps an enemy might say that the speech of the hon. Member for Queen's University contained some signs of political prejudice; but I should say that when that had been subtracted there was a real sympathy for the people of the Baltic States. We share that sympathy for the people of those states, and we are anxious and want to do all we can to help them. There are two ways of showing sympathy. There are the practical way and the utterly unpractical way. We say we are going about it in the best possible way in the circumstances, and that to adopt the indignant, vigorous, protesting, I might almost say irresponsible, attitude of the hon. Member for Queen's University does no good to the Baltic people, no good to British interests in the Baltic States, and no good to British interests in Soviet Russia.

What is the meaning of the very important statement which was made about everything being done to preserve the condition of these institutions?

Up to 1940 there were British institutions in the Baltic States. When the occupation took place they were taken over by the Soviet Government; the institutions were then run by British officials, who have since left. I understand they are now being cared for by the Soviet Government, but I cannot give any very specific assurance, other than that, without notice.

I should like an opportunity of asking the hon. Gentleman a question of some importance, and of making some comment on his speech, although I do not wish to hold up the following Debate. He assured us that 'it was not the intention of His Majesty's Government to alter their present views As I understood it, he said His Majesty's Government would not give de jure recognition to the annexation of the three Baltic republics. May I have an assurance that they have no intention of changing that view, and that they would not change that view without some prior consultation with the House of Commons, or without some prior announcement to the House of Commons?

I think I stated the position in my speech; if not, I meant to. We have taken no decision about de jure recognition.

May we have an assurance that no decision will be taken without some prior announcement to the House of Commons?

And an opportunity for Debate?

I think I am right in saying a decision has to be taken, first, in consultation with the Dominions, and then by the Government.

Whether it is taken in consultation with the Dominions or the Government, may I have an assurance that the House of Commons will be given some prior opportunity, by means of Debate, before so great a change of policy is made?

I am inclined to think that in this matter the Government have the right to take a decision first.

They certainly have the right, but I am not asking about the legal right—

rose—

Are we to have no answer to the Debate?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Minister gives what answer he thinks proper. I have no authority over him. The right hon. Member has addressed certain questions to the Minister, and I think we must now proceed. Mr. Skinnard.

I am very sorry to have to raise, at so late an hour, an entirely different subject, and to detain the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power when I know he has a most important public engagement in Southampton and ought to leave the House, at the latest, by quarter-past four. Therefore, I assure him I do not expect a long reply to any of the points I may raise, because I am sure he will give them due consideration, and will enlighten me as to any steps he may take at some later date.

At the beginning of this month the House will recollect that there were two important Debates on the fuel situation, which took place in succession on the same day. The first was on a Motion to annul the Control of Fuel (Restriction of Heating) Order, and the second was of a more general character, on the Motion for the Adjournment. I listened with very great attention right throughout the day to practically all the speeches made, and I came away very disappointed, because so little attention was paid to the practical everyday problems of the housewife on whose efforts, equally with those of the miner, will depend the success or failure of the campaign to avoid a repetition of last winter's fuel crisis. Much was said about the target at which she was to aim. an overall saving of 25 per cent. on her fuel consumption, including the prohibition of space heating, and there were many rather gloomy prophecies made about the domestic circumstances which would force her to ignore the Order. There was even mention of the short-sighted few people who might attempt to sabotage the saving campaign, such as one lady I met, who boasted that in order to embarrass the Government she had turned on every gas tap and every electric switch in her house. As a matter of fact, I do not think that such bad citizens are very numerous, in fact I am sure they are not, because when she actually made that statement she was taken to task not by myself—I did not get the chance—but by her fellow housewives around her who told her off in no uncertain fashion Her husband informed me that he had also suggested to her that she should defray the quarterly bills from her dress allowance, as he did not propose to pa them. Such bad citizens are, fortunately, rare; women on whom we rely to co-operate with the miners in the difficult task of fuel conservation are mostly co-operative and understandings They are fertile in domestic expedient, economy is second nature to them—and they take a pride in passing on to their neighbours any useful experiences they may have gained. I am proud, for instance, that in my own district of Harrow it is mainly from the housewives that has come the plan for a "Fellowship of Hearth and Mine," to equate a fuel saving target in each non-mining district to the coal production target in whichever mining area wilt be the partner in this experiment. The housewives backing this Fellowship scheme, which has had, I am glad to notice, the blessing of the Minister and of the chief officials of the mine workers' union, have come to me with certain difficulties which they find over achieving their target for the summer period. Like so many of the new suburbs and periphery towns which have developed between the wars, Harrow has literally thousands of small modern house; in which very little gas or electricity is normally consumed during the months of May to September. The small boiler of the "Ideal" or "Redfyre" type installed in the kitchenette, or the slow combustion fireplace of the "Esse" type which is very popular in my area in the dining room, is relied upon to heat water for baths, to do the family wash, to air the clothes and to burn the rubbish from the garden as well as from the household, and to mitigate in one room at least the occasional rigours of the English summer. Those units are most economical, as the Minister well knows, the more so because there is a general rule only to use them at the weekend. They are normally lit on Friday nights and let out at the latest on Monday, and nowadays, with so many mothers going out to work, they are even let oat on Sunday. Most of them can be kept going all day on one morning stoking and a raking out and making up at night, if suitable coke or, better still, processed boiler fuel such as anthracite, anthracite nuts or phurnod is available.

The housewife, aware of the gravity of the position, would be able, by exercising unusual caution and by keeping a careful watch on the household, to achieve the 25 per cent. overall saving, but she cannot, in view of the present chaotic position with regard to fuel for this modern type of house. There is no very great difficulty in getting coal delivered in small quantities, but it is almost impossible to obtain slow combustion fuel. On 10th May—I have carefully checked this—there was in the whole of Harrow, the largest urban district in this country, at six depots to serve some 50,000 householders, only 340 tons of boiler fuel, including very poor quality coke.

There were 340 tons for 50,000 houses in that large district, and when the coke is obtainable it is of such inferior quality that it is frequently incombustible. I would like to quote a letter which I have received about one delivery of coke—and the delivery itself was unusual and was hailed with joy, but it is now not regarded with such delight:

"I tried several times to burn it in my Ideal boiler, but it would not burn—"

As the Minister knows, this boiler is famous for burning almost anything down to father's old boots—

"I went to the fuel office, and they sent a man to show me how to burn it. He could not do so. I asked them to go to the place from where I got the coke and take it away. They have now done so. I do not want coke of that kind."

The answer is, possibly, that the extraction rate from coal from which the coke is formed in the gas ovens is now much higher, something like 75 to 80 per cent, I have been told. So the coke received is more or less clinker. Processed fuel is the greatest need at the moment. The correspondent I have just quoted says that the next door neighbour got delivery on the same day, and he has used the coke as the foundation for his new garden path because he could not get the coke to burn.

There are a few suggestions which I would like the Minister to consider. I know that he is in a hurry, and I am trying my best to beat the clock. I want him, if he can, to readjust the priorities of deliveries on the advice of his local fuel overseers, so that in areas like the one which I have quoted, rather than the accent being on coal deliveries, it should be on processed boiler fuel, or coke of a better quality than that which is so sparingly delivered now. Secondly, I would like him to take a leaf out of the wartime expedient of appointing regional coal allocation officers to see that there is an equal distribution for their areas. I do not think that there is such an officer for boiler fuel. If there are these officers, they do not appear to be working very effectively. The concentration of the Ministry is desired on the boiler fuel allocation and a priority of the better kind—the more economical kinds, although they are dearer, such as Phurnod and anthracite nuts. If they have to use coke, please can he arrange to have it carefully graded so that the housewife knows how much combustibility to expect from a load, and that the fuel allocated to her is of such a kind that her husband will not have to use it to build the garden path.

There is a strong case, I submit, for an allocation of coke and boiler fuel separate from coal. At the moment, where they are getting coal in many of these areas they are using it, instead of preserving it to build up winter stocks, because they cannot get the week-end boiler lit except by using the small stocks of coal now arriving. The coal allocation might be worked out in consultation with the regional fuel officers in each area who know the special circumstances Ana type of house.

I now come to a very important point. Where a householder is registered with a gas company for coke, he should not be permitted to take any boiler fuel from a coal merchant without a permit from the local fuel office. I understand that in some areas people have been beating the ration and in fact getting two lots of 34 cwt. per annum, because they have a dual registration. In my own area that is not now possible because the coal merchant is notified immediately a registration with the gas company is taken out. I should be glad to know if that rule is general.

If these economies are not effected I can foresee difficulties for large coke users like bakeries. There is one in my constituency which has had its coke allocation cut from 78 tons to 53 tons per annum. That means great difficulty for it. The savings effected by the dis- appearance of any dual registration whereby people can get two lots of fuel, would, I think, help the large users. It would also prevent the curious position where people with small allocations of coal are using coke upon their fires to supplement coal, and other people are unwisely using their coal in boilers in order to provide the necessary hot water at the weekend.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for the opportunity he has given me to reply to this Debate and also to catch my train. Let me say first, I fully agree with his remarks about the importance of getting the co-operation of the housewives, and I feel myself one will get that co-operation if one shows one understands their difficulties. That is what we are constantly trying to do, and I am sure we shall get from all the constituencies the greatest possible assistance in connection with the fuel saving campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) concerned himself almost wholly with the problem of the domestic boiler fuel supplies and I want to concentrate on that, too.

Let me say at once that this is a particularly difficult problem for a number of reasons. For some years from 1943 on-wards, or indeed going further back, there was no special difficulty about the boiler fuel. Indeed, in 1943 it was actually removed from the ration altogether for a short time. Then in 1944 there was a maximum allowance of 42 tons a year, which seems handsome to us now, and from 1945 to 1946 it was two tons. From then onwards we had to bring the maximum down to 35 cwts. What the reasons for that were I should like briefly to explain. It is not due to any long-term decline in output. There has been an actual increase amounting to about 10 to 15 per cent. in the supplies of coke available for the home market, which is naturally to be expected in view of the increased demand for gas.

There has also been a substantial increase in the demand, partly as a result of new building, for coke to be used for boiler fuel. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that some consumers were putting their coke into open fires. It is perfectly true that they are, but I do not take too hard a view of that. The ordinary consumers who have an open fire—and there are quite a few in Harrow as well as elsewhere—were short of fuel last winter and a little coke helped them to keep the fires going from time to time. A second feature is the construction of a number of prefabricated houses with "Siesta" stoves in them, which require additional supplies of coke. A third factor, which is of some importance, is that in gas works we have deliberately encouraged the production of gas by the use of coke and by adding oil to the water gas which is produced, which gives it a high calorific value. That means the proportion of gas to coal is increased and coke supplies are accordingly reduced in relation to what they were before. Also for the purpose of saving coal we have introduced a degree of oil carbonisation, but these factors alone would not, I think, haw led to the undoubtedly serious shortage of coke which exists at present had we not been obliged during the recent winter to tell the gasworks to reduce their carbonisation by 10 per cent. We had to do that for the simple reason that we wanted to avoid a breakdown in gas supplies Pressures were reduced and as a result coke supplies were reduced too. Against that I am bound to say that during those months of the winter there has been an almost corresponding increase in supplies of other forms of boiler fuel such as anthracite and steam coal.

I should like to see some.

It is all a question of demand and although, as I say, the supplies have been kept up quite well there is this difficulty, and it is true that the coke stocks at the end of the coal year were extremely low. I make no apology for that fact because coal stocks were also extremely low, and it would have been a very wrong policy to have had large stocks of coke unused while coal consumers could not get anything to burn. After all, there are limits to the extent to which they can use coke in ordinary open grates. It is fundamentally a question of a choice between coke and coal. That is not an easy choice to make and one has to balance the hardship that would be imposed by having more coke and less coal and that which would result from having the opposite. The coke consumer has been in a more favourable position than the coal consumer for a number of years; we are now pretty even, but We have to watch the position to make sure that it does not get out of balance.

My hon. Friend made a number of suggestions which I should like to touch upon briefly. He suggested that coke should be given priority in the matter of deliveries, but I do not think that at the moment there should be any difficulty in this field because weather conditions are favourable, and as far as coal merchants are concerned the labour situation should be all right. I think the difficulty is simply one of production: that is to say, the total supplies of coke coming from the gas works are small for the reason that we are trying to stop gas being consumed. Indeed, the very policy of fuel economy is having this repercussion on coke supplies. It may be possible to help areas where coke is very scarce by switching back from the carburetted water gas policy to ordinary coal carbonisation, and we are considering that at the moment.

My hon. Friend mentioned the desirability of the regional coal officers co-ordinating the machine. I will certainly look into that point, but I do not think that there is any weakness in our coal organisation there. He also suggested that there should be an improvement in the grading of different types of boiler fuel.

As regards anthracite and fuel of that kind, which is produced in its natural form although it may undergo some process afterwards, that is a matter for the Coal Board, and I can assure my hon. Friend that they are giving it very close attention. When it comes to the grading and quality of coke, one has to deal with hundreds of different gas works all over the country, with coke ovens and other forms of carbonisation, and it is not so easy to get the kind of arrangement we should like.

Finally, my hon. Friend spoke of the separate allocation of coke and the desirability of avoiding dual registrations. I entirely agree on the last point. Dual registration is not allowed, and if he knows of any cases where people are obtaining coke from two different suppliers, I hope he will inform me

It is really a matter of checking the methods by which the fuel overseers watch for this kind of thing, and I think my hon. Friend will find that there has been dual registration in a large number of metropolitan areas.

I will certainly check that point. My hon. Friend asked for a separate allocation of coke. If he means that the local fuel overseer should decide how much coke each house should have, that raises a great many complications. It would be a considerable task, because the demands for coke vary tremendously. We have been pressed from time to time to restrict supplies of coke so as to help domestic consumers with domestic boilers. There is obviously a case to be made out for that, because they need it most, but it would be very difficult and unfair; it would mean that a house with a domestic boiler might have two tons of coke in addition to the coal allocation, whereas A house with no domestic boiler, which might be able to use coke to supplement the coal ration, would receive none. I do not think we can contemplate any discrimination of this kind. Important as coke is in providing necessary hot water, the ordinary consumer needs coal not merely for hot water, but for space heating. I think the position is pretty evenly balanced at the moment. If we had devoted more coal to provide more coke, greater hardship would have been caused, and that is really our difficulty. I will, however, look into the points raised by my hon. Friend. We are acutely conscious of the difficulty of housewives at the moment in this matter of boiler fuel, and we shall do our best to see that it is overcome.