House of Commons
Tuesday, May 25, 1948
The House—after the Adjournment on 14th May, 1948, for the Whitsun Recess—met at Half-past Two o'Clock.
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]
Private Business
BIRMINGHAM UNIVERSITY BILL [Lords]
Ipswich Corporation Bill
Smethwick Corporation Bill
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Pensions (Educational Allowances)
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the recent change in policy, he will reconsider applications for educational allowances which had been refused prior to 6th April, 1948.
Yes, Sir. I am glad of this opportunity of stating again that education allowances are no longer refused on the ground that the father would have been unable to provide the type of education proposed had he not been a war casualty, and of inviting pensioners whose applications have been refused on that ground to renew their applications.
British Army
Chilwell Depot
asked the Secretary of State for War how many civilians are at present employed at Chilwell depot; and what are they doing.
Five thousand three hundred and eighty civilians are employed at the ordnance depot, and 1,259 at the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers workshops at Chilwell. Those at the depot are engaged on the receipt, storage, preservation, maintenance and inspection of mechanical transport and spare parts, and on issuing them to the Army at home and overseas; an appreciable proportion are occupied on the work of clearing up still remaining over from the war. Those at the workshops are employed on the overhaul of tanks, self-propelled artillery, tank transporters and other vehicles, and machinery required for issue to the Territorial Army, and for replacement of worn equipment in the Regular Army.
Is the Minister satisfied that the stores personnel are fully employed, and all doing useful work?
I am satisfied that they are fully employed, but I am looking into the number of persons employed at this depot.
Palestine
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it was on his instruction that General Stockwell, G.O.C. in Haifa, issued the announcement on 22nd April that he was unable, and therefore not prepared, to fight the Jews in order to stop the massacre of Arabs in Haifa, but was prepared to prevent the entry of armed Arabs coming to the defence of their co-nationals; and if he will make a statement.
No announcement was made by General Stockwell in the terms suggested in the Question.
As a number of prominent Arab leaders assert that he did make this statement to them, will the Minister have the matter looked into further?
I prefer to rely on the report which appeared in "The Times," which I understand is substantially correct.
Is it a fact that the High Commissioner stated there was no massacre, and that the Arabs started the fighting?
The High Commissioner may have made a statement to that effect, but that has nothing to do with this Question. All I am concerned with is that the allegation about General Stockwell has no foundation in fact.
In view of the fact that Arabs are coming into Palestine with British arms, British officers and British money, can nothing be done to stop that?
What about the American arms?
Arms have nothing to do with this Question.
Release Deferments, Middle East
asked the Secretary of State for War the total number of men serving in M.E.L.F., whose release has been deferred, or who have been warned of deferment, because their duties are operationally vital; in which arms and in which release groups these men are serving; and how soon he expects that it will be possible again generally to release men serving in such arms by the dates originally scheduled.
On 30th April there were 1,549 officers and men serving in M.E.L.F. whose release had been deferred, or who had been warned of deferment, as operationally vital. They were serving in the Royal Corps of Signals, Royal Army Service Corps, Royal Engineers, Royal Army Medical Corps, Army Catering Corps and Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and in age and service groups between 65 and 74. I cannot yet forecast when it will be possible to stop using compulsory deferment, but I hope the situation will improve as the evacuation of Palestine progresses.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether the case of each individual officer and man has been considered on its merits; and have they all been made aware of the possibility of appeal on compassionate grounds?
On the first part of the supplementary question, I cannot say whether that is procedurally possible; I will look into it and advise my hon. Friend. The men have been advised from time to time that they can make the usual appeal on compassionate grounds.
Is the large number of deferments which has taken place the result of the lack of recruiting in these particulars arms in the years since the end of the war; and if so, what steps is the Minister taking to overcome these shortages?
I hardly think it is associated with any short-fall in recruitment. It is due to exceptional difficulties that have emerged in Palestine.
In that case, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether sufficient reinforcements have been sent out in order to make up the number who should be going home?
It is not always possible to provide sufficient reinforcements; but, as I say, this was exceptional and purely temporary, and we hope to overcome the difficulty.
Hill Camp, Westbury
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the hon. Member for Westbury has been informed by the Ministry of Works that a final notice of redundancy has not been issued by the War Department in respect of Hill Camp, Westbury; and, in view of the announcement that this would be done immediately, why notice of redundancy has not been issued.
It has been found necessary to retain part of the site at Hill Camp, Westbury. The local authority has, I understand, raised no objection, but the case has not yet been considered by the Inter-departmental Committee on Services Land Requirements. The remainder of the site containing a number of huts and some ancillary accommodation is being put on the redundant list and the Ministry of Health will then have an opportunity to bid for them on behalf of the local authority for housing.
Personal Case
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the case of the trooper of the Royal Armoured Corps, whose name has been communicated to him, stationed at the R.A.C. Depot, Barnard Castle, who was recently refused permission to see his commanding officer although he had been advised by his department to seek such an interview.
This soldier applied to see his commanding officer to obtain 48 hours' compassionate leave. When asked by the squadron sergeant-major why he wanted compassionate leave he said that it was to play rugby football for his local club. The sergeant-major told him that he could not see his commanding officer for this reason and rejected his application for a leave pass. Although an application for compassionate leave on the grounds stated would not have been granted, no soldier should be refused permission to see his commanding officer irrespective of the grounds put forward. The district commander has taken action to make this clear to all concerned.
Territorial Army
Annual Camp, Altcar
asked the Secretary of State for War why the date on which the annual camp of the 127th Infantry Brigade, Territoral Army, is to be held at Altcar has been changed three times; and why the duration has been shortened from 15 days to eight days.
The date on which this camp is to start has twice been slightly changed because the dates originally chosen proved inconvenient. The length of the camp has been reduced to eight days in conformity with a general decision that Territorial Army camps should this year last for eight days in order to reduce interference with civil employment.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that these changes of plan are extremely inconvenient to the men and also to their employers? In view of the difficulties of recruiting for the Territorial Army, will my right hon. Friend impress upon the officers concerned the importance of being firmer in their intentions?
I have no doubt that they are firm in their intentions, but we all know with what intentions the road to a certain place is paved.
Radar Equipment
asked the Secretary of State for War why A.A. Territorial units are being supplied with obsolete radar equipment.
Obsolete radar equipment is not being supplied to Anti-Aircraft Territorial Units. It is true that the radar equipment being supplied to these units is not of the very latest design, but owing to the large number of equipments involved it is impossible to introduce the latest equipment except by stages.
Will the Minister take steps to ensure that all Territorial units have opportunities for training with the latest types of equipment?
Yes, we are certainly doing that. As far as camp training is concerned, I have recently looked into the whole matter. The position regarding other forms of equipment is also under active consideration.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the equipment to which he refers is mostly American? Will he give a high priority for these men to get the latest British equipment in order to encourage recruiting?
I will look into that and see what can be done.
Questions
Prisoners of War (Civilian Status)
asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate number of applications for civilianisation received from German prisoners of war married to women of British stock; how many have so far been approved; how long it will take to deal with outstanding applications; and what restrictions will be placed on the residence and employment of those who become of civilian status.
I have received 215 such applications which I have forwarded to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for consideration; 108 have so far been approved; I understand that the outstanding applications should be cleared in four or five weeks; no restrictions not applicable to British subjects are placed on the residence or employment of those who are granted civilian status.
In view of the time taken in dealing with some of these applications at the Home Office, will my right hon. Friend make such arrangements as will prevent anybody from being sent back to Germany whose application is before the Home Office but is not decided by the end of June?
My function is to receive the application. The matter is then passed to the Home Office. I should prefer my hon. Friend to address his Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Will the Minister try to bring about the "re-Englishment" of the horrible word "civilianisation"?
Town and Country Planning
North-West Kent
asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when he anticipates that work will start on a new town to accommodate the surplus population of north-west Kent.
I have not been able to find a virgin site to the south- east of London which satisfies all the requirements for a new town. I am now examining alternative possibilities of accommodating the surplus population of the overcrowded districts of north-west Kent by the expansion of existing communities.
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the extreme urgency of this problem in constituencies such as my own, where there is a population probably of about 10,000 which can never be housed in that area, even though it is wholly built up?
If the hon. Member can offer any suggestions, I shall be obliged.
Will the Minister make sure that, when this virgin site is found, it will not be the best agricultural land that is used?
I have given up hope of finding it.
North Staffordshire
asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the present position of the promised planning survey of North Staffordshire; and what progress is being made.
In reply to my hon. Friend on 5th November, 1946, I explained that the outline plan for the West Midlands would be prepared in two parts; part one, covering the whole of Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire, excepting North Staffordshire, would be prepared first; part two, covering North Staffordshire, would follow shortly thereafter. I understand that part one will shortly be submitted to me and that work on the plan for North Staffordshire is proceeding steadily. It is hoped that it will be completed by the end of October.
National Insurance
Retirement (Pensionable Age)
asked the Minister of National Insurance the average number of insured men and women who from 5th July will reach pensionable age each week and who will, therefore, be subject to the retirement provisions of the new scheme, and what is the estimated increased cost in contributions and Exchequer grants, respectively, of giving these persons the option of drawing 10S. a week non-retirement pension as an encouragement to stay on at work in lieu of their entitlement to an increase in the retirement pension for every year worked beyond the pensionable age.
It is estimated that from 5th July about 3,000 insured men and 1,300 insured women will reach pensionable age each week. As regards the second part of the Question no increase in the rates of contributions of insured persons and their employers would be required. I am unable to give an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer in the absence of any reliable data as to the probable effect of the proposed option on the rate of retirement.
Will my right hon. Friend watch the working of the new scheme carefully to see whether the increment of pension due to those who go on working proves a sufficient incentive for them not to retire? If it does not, will he consider giving the option suggested in the Question?
Yes, we shall watch with very great care the influence of this scheme on the age of retirement. The whole intention behind the new provisions is to encourage those who are able to continue at work.
War Disability Pensioners
asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he has now received the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee; and if he can make a full statement as to the liability of war disability pensioners, who cannot work, to make National Insurance contributions as from 5th July, 1946.
No, Sir. I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make the statement asked for.
Unemployment Benefit
asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is satisfied that there will be no difficulty in changing over to the new rates and conditions for unemployment benefit on 5th July having regard to the large amount of work falling on employment exchanges at that time in connection with the exchange of insurance cards.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service and I have considered this point. In order to spread out the extra work being undertaken by the employment exchanges, I am making the National Insurance (Increase of Unemployment Benefit) Regulations. These regulations anticipate changes which would otherwise have to be made at 5th July. The substantial effect is that payments of unemployment benefit due to be made on and after 3rd June will be at the rates, and subject to the main conditions, of the new scheme.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the great assistance which the Ministry of Labour and National Service, with its network of employment exchanges, have given and continue to give to my Department in launching the new National Insurance scheme.
Employment
European Voluntary Workers (Dependants)
asked the Minister of Labour how many of the European Voluntary Workers brought to this country from displaced persons camps in Germany have left their families or dependants behind; and how many have brought them with them.
About 750 of the European Voluntary Workers here have left dependants behind, and about the same number now have their dependants here.
Have arrangements been made for those dependants who have been left behind to come to this country in due course?
Yes, Sir. They will have priority over other foreigners coming here with dependants.
Is it the policy that in any further recruitment the dependants shall come over with the men to this country?
That is our policy, but it is difficult to carry it out, because it is more awkward to provide accommodation for families than for individual workers.
Will there be any difficulty for those whose dependants are in the Russian zone?
Employment Exchange Practice
asked the Minister of Labour what investigations have been made into employment exchange practice following the sentence on two employment exchange clerks for receiving bribes for supplying a builder with skilled workmen.
I have considered the existing employment exchange practice and am satisfied that no change is necessary.
In view of the very scandalous revelations which, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the trial exposed, surely the situation calls for a very close examination in other places as well? What reason is there to believe that this corruption is exclusive to this particular employment exchange?
I prefer to believe the fact that these two men have misbehaved themselves, which is reprehensible and to be regretted, rather than that this corruption is prevalent in all employment exchanges. In spite of everything we may do, we cannot always prevent a man from being dishonest.
Is it not the experience of the Minister and all those who take an interest in this matter that the officials are extremely courteous, efficient and honest as a general rule?
Coalmining
asked the Minister of Labour how many men at the Liverpool employment exchanges have been offered, and accepted employment in the coal mines from January, r947, to date; and how many men have refused offers of employment in the coal mines during the same period.
Figures are not available for the period before 22nd September, 1947. From that date until 15th May, 1948, 5,582 men were offered coalmining employment, of whom 2,035 accepted the offer and 3,452 definitely refused.
As this is a serious matter, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that this represents 25 per cent. of the men unemployed in the whole area, and that the figure suggests to many of us in the area that the employment exchanges have been offering this type of work to men who are not suitable, with the result that people are being disqualified from benefit?
My hon. Friend has raised a point which does not relate to this Question, but I will look into it to see whether there is anything in it
Have any of these 3,000 men who have refused been directed to other jobs?
That is a different question. We are not compelling a man to go down a mine if he does not want to.
Hostel, Featherstone
asked the Minister of Labour on what date his Department propose to take over the hostel at Brinsford Lodge, Featherstone, in the County of Stafford; and if he will ensure that the standard of comfort in this hostel is maintained at the same level as in the past.
The date proposed is 17th July, but this has not yet been definitely decided. The hostel, when taken over, will be managed by the National Service Hostels Corporation in conformity with the general standards at their other industrial hostels, and I see no reason to expect any legitimate grounds for complaint on the score of comfort.
Will my right hon. Friend say why it is impossible for the National Hostels Corporation to take over furniture belonging to the Ministry of Supply which has been housed in the hostel? Furthermore, is it true that the Department have notified the residents that they cannot any longer carry on their club?
I have no information with regard to the furniture. With regard to the club, the hostel has for some time been running as a hostel for workers and not as a club. We do not propose to run it as a club.
Are not the Department prepared to allow the residents' committee to carry on the club which they have been running under the Ministry of Supply?
If they want to carry on in a normal way there is no objection, but if they want to run a licensed bar there are objections.
Furniture Industry (Short-time Working)
asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of workers in the furniture manufacturing trades who are at present working short time.
Statistics of short-time working are not available for any date later than the week ending 3rd April. Returns from employers covering, 89,000 operatives, showed that whilst about 1,700 workers in the furniture and upholstery industry in Great Britain worked less than full time in that week, losing about III hours on the average, about 7,100 operatives worked over-time in the same week to the extent of about five hours each on the average.
Is the right hon. Gentleman in touch with the manufacturers as to the cause of this short-time working? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade who is very largely responsible for this short-time working?
If he is responsible for the short time, then he is also responsible for the over-time working.
Questions
National Service (University Students)
asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements are being made to expedite the call-up of persons who reach the age of 18 after 30th June to enable them to be released from the Forces to attend universities in October, 1949.
Arrangements have been made for these young men to apply to be called up before the end of July which should ensure their release from the Forces not later than October, 1949. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a memorandum giving details which has been circulated to headmasters.
Scotland
Scottish Council
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, what interests are represented by the Scottish Council, Development and Industry.
The Scottish Council is an independent and non-party organisation constituted for the purpose of helping to further the economic welfare of the Scottish people. It is directly representative of the local authorities, chambers of commerce, trades unions and banks in Scotland; and membership is open to corporate bodies such as firms, trades associations, co-operative societies and trades councils, as well as to private individuals. It is entirely free to stimulate and co-ordinate Scottish enterprise and the Government give it all the assistance which is practicable.
Has the Secretary of State given consideration to the observations made by Douglas Young in regard to the proposed Development Council?
I have not seen those observations.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the financial appeal recently made by the Scottish Council, Development and Industry, has his full approval.
Yes, Sir. The Scottish Council, as an independent and nonparty organisation, is doing most valuable work to uphold and strengthen Scotland's economic position. The financial appeal recently made by the Council deserves the fullest support of all sections of the community in Scotland as the Council is an independent Scottish institution representing Scottish views and interests.
Does the Council receive any Government financial aid?
That is another question; but I think that the Government give a grant.
Forestry Workers (Transport)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will provide transport for labour allocated to private owners for forestry work on dedicated estates where no other transport facilities exist.
I regret that I am not in a position to provide transport for labour employed on forestry work by private owners. If the hon. Member has in mind the case of Mr. Kennedy about which he has written to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I am looking into the matter and will write to him as soon as possible.
National Finance
Unemployment and Insuranee Funds
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to transfer the Unemployment Fund and other National Insurance Funds from the National Debt Commissioners to the Public Trustee so that the management of such Funds shall be independent of his Department.
No, Sir.
May I ask the Chancellor when the National Debt Commissioners last met, and whether he agreed with the statements made by the Financial Secretary on 14th May that the Treasury must have control of these Funds, and that the policy must be laid down by the Government of the day?
Within the scope of the Act which provides how the Funds shall be invested, that is quite right.
Will the Chancellor give an undertaking that in future this Fund will be managed in the interest of those who should benefit from it and that other interests shall not be taken into account?
It will be administered in accordance with the Act of Parliament which laid down how it shall be administered.
Is the Chancellor aware of the criticisms being made, namely, that he or those responsible for the management of this Fund, who are the trustees, are taking into account other considerations than the interests of the Fund, and in consequence grave losses to the Fund have occurred?
I am quite aware of the criticism, which is wholly unjustified.
Would it not be better to put out of reach of the Treasury the temptation to use these Funds for market manipulations?
No, Sir.
European Recovery Programme
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what goods have so far been received from the U.S.A. under the European Recovery Programme.
None, Sir. But the Administrator has already authorised supplies from Canada totalling 41.5 million dollars.
Is there any particular circumstance, such as a shipping strike or some other circumstance, holding up the commencement of these E.R.P. goods from the United States?
No, Sir—none.
Will the supplies from Canada include any newsprint?
No, Sir.
Has the Chancellor received any money under the scheme, and if not, will he contradict the statement made in the United States that money received under the scheme has been used by us to assist the Arabs in Palestine?
No, Sir; we have received no money.
Savings Campaign (Circular)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Weekly Campaign Circular, Number 327, issued by the National Savings Committee, contains political propaganda in favour of his Budget; and if he will require the Committee to desist in future from such interventions in party politics.
The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." The second part does not therefore arise.
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman observed the statement in the circular that his Budget contains skilfully contrived changes in taxation, and is he aware that that enthusiasm for his Budget is not shared by the majority of his fellow countrymen?
I was under the impression that it was.
Tobacco Concession
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the appeal of the Fife and Kinross Area Council of the British Legion, transmitted to him by the hon. Member for East Fife, for a special concession of cheaper tobacco and cigarettes to 100 per cent. disabled ex-Servicemen; and what answer he has returned.
Yes, Sir. I fear that for administrative reasons the concession cannot be extended to this class of persons.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman encourage disabled ex-Service men to grow their own tobacco?
Works Publicity (Broadsheet)
asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury what is the purpose of the publication, "Target"; what quantity of paper per year will be required for it; and what is its estimated annual cost.
There is, as yet, no publication of this name. Plans for the issue to industry of a broadsheet about methods of works publicity are being considered, but no decision has yet been taken.
TRADE AND COMMERCE Motor Vehicles (Import)
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an undertaking that no motor vehicles will be imported into this country from the United States under E.R.P. or any other arrangement.
No, Sir.
Motor Vehicle Exports (Portugal)
asked the President of the Board of Trade what types of motor vehicles have been exported to Portugal during the past year.
As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's permission, circulate the information required in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the reports that although cars have been exported to Portugal they have not been sold?
I cannot explain them, but I can deny them. There is no question of cars being exported for which orders were not placed in advance, but because of difficulty and delays at the Portuguese Customs, a number of cars were on the dockside for a considerable time. They were not only British cars.
Following is the information:
UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO PORTUGAL—APRIL, 1947, TO MARCH, 1948 — Number £ Cars (including taxis) 5,133 1,418,621 Commercial vehicles— Delivery vans and dual purpose vehicles (utilities) 1,181 247,932 Coaches and omnibuses 27 96,556 Tractors 8 4,031 Other descriptions 183 106,052 Chassis— For cars 92 13,953 For commercial vehicles— Coaches and omnibuses 55 79,942 Other descriptions 344 225,350 Motor cycles and tricars 693 67,862 7,716 2,260,299
Bathing Trunks (Size Ranges)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that only one pair of out-sized bathing trunks is being put on to the market for every four medium-sized; that the proportion of the population as between medium-sized and out-sized is two and half to one; and whether he will take steps to meet the shortage.
I do not control the size ranges which manufacturers produce, and which they are free to adjust in accordance with the orders they receive.
Are they being made in sufficient sizes to suit all eventualities?
Before the war, according to one of the largest producers, the demand for sizes above a 36 inch waist—which, I think, is the size the right hon. Gentleman has in mind—was one pair in eight.
Clothing Coupons
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the feeling in the trade concerned that women's coats, half-lined, using the same cloth as costumes, shall have coupons reduced in conformity; and will he reconsider the matter.
Yes, Sir. I would ask my hon. Friend to await a statement which I shall be making later today.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will endeavour to make his announcements of future alterations in the value of clothing coupons at the beginning of a rationing period instead of in the middle; and whether he is aware that his recent announcement has been the cause of discontent among those who had already made purchases at the former coupon value.
I shall certainly try to arrange coupon values so as to avoid alterations during the course of a rationing period, but exceptionally, special circumstances, like those which have developed in this period, necessitate changes before a new rationing period arrives.
asked the President of the Board of Trade for what reason the special allocation of clothing coupons given to mayors is denied to chairmen of urban district councils.
The dividing line between the claims of mayors and chairmen of urban district councils is admittedly a fine one where clothing needs are concerned, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I am afraid I cannot extend this concession.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are only 572 urban districts in the country? How can he justify making a concession to the Mayor of Winchelsea, which has a population of less than 1,000, while he denies it to the Chairman of the Rhondda Urban District Council, which has a population of over 100,000?
Mayors do not receive extra coupons automatically. Regional controllers are authorised to give coupons only in cases of exceptional need, and consider cases on their merits.
Will my right hon. Friend allow the same discretion in the case of chairmen of urban district councils?
Utility Furniture Units
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many utility furniture units were issued in 1947; and how many remained unused.
About 42 million units were issued in 1947. Units are valid for one year, and it is therefore impossible to say how many of those remain unused.
Pilot Census of Distribution
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied with the progress of the pilot census of distribution.
Yes, Sir, so far. The pilot census of distribution, which covered only 5 per cent. of the country, was voluntary and in spite of the attempts made to discourage traders from taking part, more than 10,000 completed returns and many letters containing useful suggestions have already been received. I should like to thank all those traders who have given up the time to complete their pilot census forms.
I propose shortly to set up an Advisory Committee under the terms of the Statistics of Trade Act to assist the Board with the preparation of the forms and with other matters concerning the national census of the distributive and service trades to be held in 1950 in respect of the year 1949. I am anxious not to place more burdens on traders than are necessary, and I therefore propose asking the Committee to consider, in the light of information obtained from the pilot census, how the forms may be made easier to complete while at the same time eliciting the information which should be collected at a first census of this kind.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the greatest discouragements came from an organisation in his own Department? I have an example where at least three identical forms were received by one firm?
Old Age Pensioners' Hostels (Equipment)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant a special coupon issue to voluntary committees for the furnishing of old age pensioners' hostels, especially in respect of utility curtain material.
No, Sir. Special arrangements are already in force by which essential equipment for such establishments is made available by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. On the particular question of utility curtain material, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which I shall be making in the course of today's Debate.
Curtain Materials
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the retail price of curtain materials on dockets in Wolverhampton is 4s. 6d. per yard upwards; of similar materials on coupons 9s. 6d. to 17s. per yard; of coupon-free material 13s. 6d. to over 30s.; and if he will take adequate steps to reduce margins and prices of the two latter categories.
The maximum retail prices of the utility curtain materials which are available on dockets range from 2s. 7½d. to 13s. 1d. per yard; they are closely price-controlled and free of Purchase Tax. Non-utility curtain material bears Purchase Tax at 66⅔ per cent. and varies greatly in quality and price; it is frequently made from expensive yarns and in speciality weaves which involve high production costs. As regards the last part of the Question, I shall shortly be reviewing distributors' margins for these and other goods and reductions will be made if they are justified, but I can hold out little hope of a substantial reduction in prices so long as world prices of raw materials continue to rise.
Is it not clear that price as well as coupons plays a very important part in the ability of the average housewife to purchase this type of material? Would my right hon. Friend say whether the Government's appeal for reductions in prices has had any effect on the price of curtain materials?
I shall be saying something about curtains later today.
Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that very poor people cannot get all the material they want unless they are granted special facilities?
Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is world prices which are causing curtain materials to be so costly to the housewife? How does he justify adding insult to injury by another 66⅔ per cent. Purchase Tax on the price?
Purchase Tax applies only to non-utility curtain material, which is a very small proportion of the total production.
War Damage Claims
asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is intended to commence payments under the War Damage Act (Part II) Business Scheme.
I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13th November last to the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton).
Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that he has not yet fixed a date for general payment under this scheme?
Yes, Sir.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this question is causing considerable anxiety to a large number of people?
Persons who are suffering hardship can make a special application.
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this repayment is delayed much longer, it will be quite impossible for those who have suffered losses to re-equip themselves with the articles which they have lost? Will he consider extra compensation over the statutory fixed allowance, as has been done in the case of private chattels and buildings under the War Damage Commission?
We have already made it clear that, in addition to hardship cases, payment can be made, in whole or in part, where we are satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest to do so for the repair or replacement of equipment.
Questions
Colorado Beetle
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many Colorado beetles have been detected in the course of the last six months in the import of vegetables to the United Kingdom.
During the past six months 18 Colorado beetles have been found on or are believed to have been associated with imported vegetables. In addition, a consignment of lettuce in refrigerator trucks from Italy was found to be infested; the truck was re-sealed and returned to that country.
Is the Minister aware that this is causing very grave concern to agricultural and horticultural interests, and can he state whether any of these beetles have been imported into the West Country or Cornish ports?
Is the Minister aware that there was a Tory beetle detected in the members' gallery at the Scarborough Conference?
Did the Minister study this Question? Have any beetles been detected importing vegetables?
Australia (Immigration Policy)
61 and 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) if he will protest to the Australian Government against the treatment of Mr. Joseph Addison Martin, a British subject, who has been ordered to leave Australia because his mother was Burmese;
(2) if he will give assistance to pay for the passage to this country of a British subject, of whom he has been informed, threatened with expulsion from Australia on account of Australian racial laws.
It would not be possible for His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to make representations to His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia in a case of this kind. Australian immigration policy and its administration is a matter solely for the Australian Government and the United Kingdom Government is not in a position to intervene. There are no public funds here from which a passage from Australia to this country could be paid in such circumstances.
Cannot His Majesty's Government make representations on behalf of a British subject who is being treated in this way in a Dominion in the same manner as undoubtedly they would if this were being done in a foreign country? Surely a British subject is entitled to the protection of this country?
I do not think a British subject is entitled to enter a country of his own will. Apparently this gentleman had no grounds to think that he would be allowed to settle in Australia.
Is my hon. Friend aware that, in fact, he was given permission to go from Burma to Australia, and since he arrived there he has been ordered to leave after all his money had been spent on going to Australia?
That is not the information that I have. If my hon. Friend gives me that information, I will l00k into it again, but the main position remains that the immigration policy of Australia is a matter for the Australian Government.
Will the Minister consider, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, what can be done to relieve the injustice caused by this expulsion? I am now referring to his answer to Question 62.
I cannot admit that an injustice has been done.
Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is not so much a question of local immigration laws as the application of a colour bar, and cannot any steps be taken to coordinate the policy of Governments within the Commonwealth on matters of this kind?
It is certainly possible to co-ordinate the policy of Governments within the Commonwealth, but that is not the question I was asked. What I was asked was whether this Government was going to make representations.
Surely my hon. Friend asked whether, since this bar would not have been applied in this country, we were not entitled to make representations to Australia to have a similar policy there?
I was asked in the Question to protest.
As the Minister has not directed his mind to the first part of my supplementary question, may I ask whether he will consider, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, what can be done to relieve the ill effects caused to Mr. Martin by the treatment that has been accorded to him in Australia?
The Home Secretary does not come into this until Mr. Martin returns to this country.
National Coal Board (Organisation)
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of Sir Charles Reid's resignation and his condemnation of the present operations of the National Coal Board and the nationalised coal industry, he will set up an independent commission of inquiry to report to Parliament on the work of the Board and the organisation and progress of the industry.
No, Sir.
Is it proposed to take no steps whatever as a result of the resignation of Sir Charles Reid, who is the greatest mining expert in the country, and who has condemned the Coal Board wholesale?
I do not think we should assume, because one member of the Coal Board resigns when he is unable to persuade the eight other members to accept his views, that the one member is necessarily right.
Will the findings of the internal committee set up by the National Coal Board be made public?
That must be a matter for the Coal Board themselves, for they have appointed the committee.
Does not the Minister agree that it is about time the country was told something about the Coal Board which would relieve the great anxiety felt generally about it?
The country hears quite a lot about the Coal Board.
Will the Minister agree that it is vitally necessary to have some evidence from a commission of the sort suggested before further experiments are made with the nationalisation of other industries, particularly steel?
I would not agree that the resignation of Sir Charles Reid leads to any such conclusions as have been arrived at by the hon. Gentleman.
Since Sir Charles Reid's resignation follows that of several other leading production engineers in the mining industry, is not the Minister himself disturbed, particularly by the disappointing production of coal, and is he going to pass over this without anything being done about it?
I am certainly not complacent in any way about the production of coal, but the National Coal Board can claim up to date that they have been moderately successful, considering the circumstances in which they took over the industry. I would certainly not agree that they are indifferent to the possibility and the need for reforms in their organisation. That is why they have set up this committee.
Is not the Minister disturbed by the remarks of his predecessor on this matter?
No, Sir.
As the Minister appointed Sir Charles Reid, is not the House entitled to some information from him as regards that gentleman's resignation?
The House is entitled to ask me questions on the subject, and I have answered a great many already.
Is the Minister aware that the miners of Scotland do not regard Sir Charles Reid as an industrial know-all superman, and are very glad that he has disappeared?
Is the Minister aware of what the miners in Scotland think of the National Coal Board?
Has the Minister had any report from the Coal Board on Sir Charles Reid's resignation, and if so, in view of the dissatisfaction of the public in regard to the Coal Board, will he ask them for one?
Full statements have been made to the Press both by Sir Charles Reid and the National Coal Board and there is no reason for calling for any further report.
Palestine (Situation)
( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation in Palestine.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety on the subject which he has mentioned. I shall be very glad to make a full statement, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are good reasons for not making it today.
Our whole efforts have been directed towards, first, the adoption of a resolution by the Security Council which, while calling on all parties to cease fire in Palestine, would be sufficiently objective and impartial to have a good chance of acceptance by both sides. Secondly, having secured the adoption of a satisfactory resolution, we have been using our utmost influence to ensure that the call to cease fire was accepted. The present position is that extra time has been allowed and that we are waiting to hear whether the Arab Governments agree. The Jewish authorities have stated that they agree, but inquiries are being made to confirm that this undertaking covers all sections of the Jewish forces in view of the previous occasion on which the ceasefire in Jerusalem was broken by Jewish forces, thus leading to the present fighting there.
Any statement which I might make today, and any exchange of opinions in this House which might follow it, would necessarily be prejudicial to the important discussions which are still taking place, and I am sure the House will agree that it would be in the best interests of the re-establishment of peace in Palestine if I said no more for the time being. I will undertake to keep the House fully informed as s00n as we have further reports.
While we will defer to the wish of the Foreign Secretary not to press for further information on this matter today, when I understand many critical negotiations are going forward, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to include in his statement, when he makes it, references to the position of the Arab Legion and to the status of British officers serving in it in relation to the terms of the Treaty of 1948 between Great Britain and the Kingdom of Transjordan?
I understand there are Questions on the Paper tomorrow about it, and I will try to answer them.
Is it not a little hard that we should call upon the Arab States to cease fire after we have supplied them with fire-arms?
Really, I must ask the House, in view of the present delicate negotiations, not to prejudice the position. After all, I think that my hon. Friend wants peace. Well, let us pursue it.
I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement today which would prejudice the answers he will give tomorrow to Questions on the Paper. I only asked that, when he makes his considered statement, he will include in it references to the two questions which I have raised.
Certainly.
I gather that the answer is in the affirmative. I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the great importance of our pursuing an even-handed course of strict impartiality, at a time when we are resigning our responsibility in Palestine.
I have done that. I have quite a clear conscience on that matter.
In view of the non-intervention policy which the Foreign Secretary has propounded, may I ask him to consider making an appeal that no British person should take part in the fighting on either side?
I would prefer not to make any further statement on the matter today.
As we have armed and financed these Arab forces, may I ask whether the Government recognise any responsibility for the action of those forces? Will the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, when it is made, include any advice or admonition or reproof towards Transjordan, in attempting to get them to cease fire?
The only admonition I would venture upon today is to ask hon. Members not to pursue this matter.
While I understand the difficulties that exist at the moment, may I ask the Foreign Secretary now, even while he is preparing to make a statement later on, to make it clear that, in view of all the decisions that have been taken at various conferences, he will support the maintenance of the new State of Israel?
I am making no further statement today.
Why not?
Orders of the Day
Supply
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Civil Estimates, 1948–49
Considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a further sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services relating to the Board of Trade and Distribution of Industry, for the year ending on the 31st March, 1949, namely:
£ Class VI., Vote I, Board of Trade 10 Class VI., Vote 2, Services in Development Areas 10 Class VI., Vote 3, Financial Assistance in Development Areas 10 Class V., Vote 4, Ministry of Labour and National Service 10 Class V., Vote II, Ministry of Town and Country Planning 10 £50" —[ Mr. Glenvil Hall. ]]
Board of Trade
3.24 p.m.
In Committee of Supply about a year ago, that is to say on 26th June last year, I used these words:
In the war years, the chief function of the Board of Trade, under the administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttleton), was to reduce the civilian demand. As a result of his administration, some 750,000 people were released for duties which were then regarded as more important. When my right hon. Friend passed on to higher and more responsible duties, the Board of Trade was administered by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). After the Socialist victory of 1905—
That shows where the hon. Gentleman is—40 years behind.
Of course, I should have said 1945. After that victory, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer took the distinguished office of President of the Board of Trade. Later, due to an indiscretion of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was taken for other duties, and the office of President of the Board of Trade fell into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman who at present holds it.
Thus, for six years, except for a few weeks during the Caretaker Government when again my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot was in control, there has not been a business man at the head of the Board of Trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer. Let me tell them that the results of having no business man at the head of the Board of Trade have been exactly what I should have expected. I propose to show how grievously the department which cajoles, bullies and exhorts the business community lags behind in ordinary business methods of administration. I 'hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not regard anything that I say this afternoon as being in any way personal. None of us doubts his sincerity. To all of us in this House he is courtesy itself. I find that he always reserves his discourtesies for important foreign Powers, such as Egypt, from whom we have to buy essential supplies. The country might as well face the fact that controlling their comforts and their essentials on the civilian front they have one of the youngest Ministers of all time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Oh, yes, youth is grand, provided that it is coupled with some practical experience in the sch00l of life. The present Minister is entirely without business experience and without political experience either. I am sorry for him that he should have to learn in so hard a school and under the tuition of so ineffective a band of teachers.
Now I will turn to the administration of the Board of Trade and to certain specific items. In the forefront of those items I put newsprint. The matter has been raised quite recently in this House. As recently as yesterday a statement was issued by the Newsprint Supply Company setting out the case against a further cut in imports. I believe the facts to be well known to all Members of the Committee. Certain comments are made in a leading article in "The Times" today. As they are so moderate they will bear repetition. They are:
I mentioned "The Times" leading article a moment ago. Towards the end of that leader, "The Times" says this: misdeeds of the Government, in the homes of the people?
The Government should, in this matter, revert to the principles of ordinary business morality and should honour their contracts with the Canadian suppliers, not only because it is the honest thing to do but because it is the expedient thing to do. Unless we secure Canadian newsprint supplies in this country we shall be dependent, as the "Financial Times" points out, on supplies that come either from the other side of the iron curtain or very close to it. What is the Government's approach to this matter? Is it in terms of dollar expenditure because, if so, newsprint is of far more importance than films and tobacco. I want to make a plea on behalf of the weekly provincial press. I do not believe that in this allocation of newsprint that group of newspapers, which performs such useful duties—and on the whole performs them so well—on behalf of the dwellers in our countryside, has received all the attention it should do. I hope that in any observations the right hon. Gentleman may make this afternoon he will bear very closely in mind that point and that group of interests.
Another item about which my hon. Friends are concerned is the distribution of industry. I do not propose to speak on that a great deal because my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has far more knowledge of it than I have, and if he should be so fortunate as to catch your eye, Major Milner, he may develop the point.
Is the hon. Gentleman booking a seat for him?
All I would say is that I express deep misgivings, which I believe are felt in all parts of the Committee, at the way in which this matter has been handled by the Government. I believe that there should be changes of policy and that the number of Government departments concerned has led to the greatest overlapping, to delay and to the waste of essential resources.
Now I turn to the question of furniture. Here let me say that my sympathies are at once with the President. Doubtless in this age of planning, in this government of planners, he received elaborate estimates from the Minister of Health of the number of houses which would be built. Very properly as a planner he conceived it his duty to see that if the houses were completed, there was at least a minimum amount of furniture available to put in them. However, as the House knows, the housing programme has fallen very far behind the expectations of the country and further still behind the election promises of the right hon. Gentleman's friends. So the poor President of the Board of Trade is faced with the position that a substantial accumulation of furniture is piling up, the prices of secondhand furniture have reached fantastic levels, and many persons who need to re-equip their homes are unable to do so. The furniture makers, on the other hand, are so limited and so controlled in their activities that their output is far below what it should be and their skilled workers are either unemployed or, what is perhaps even worse in today's position of the national economy, under-employed.
Furnishing fabrics were referred to at Question Time by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) and the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes). These high price fabrics are, in many cases, brought into the country and increased by a substantial Purchase Tax, and then sold without coupons to anybody who has the money to pay for them. What happens to the ordinary working men and women when their curtains are worn out? They are not entitled to dockets, even for the very limited yardage which is available on dockets. They have to give up their precious clothing coupons if they are to hang something at their windows to preserve decency in their bedrooms.
I turn to another question which ought to be reviewed—the black market. The right hon. Gentleman has been discreetly silent in some of his more recent utterances on the question of the black market in furniture and clothing coupons. His fellow Minister, equally inexperienced—the Minister of Fuel and Power—suddenly woke up to the existence of this black market last August and introduced planning measures to stop it. Recently the House has given the Third Reading to a Bill imposing most severe penalties on anybody contravening the petrol regulations. How much longer is the President of the Board of Trade going to live in a fool's paradise—or ought I to say a Ministry of Fuel's paradise—or should I say how long will he exist here until he wakes up to the very widespread black market in furniture units and clothing coupons? These coupons and units are bought, sold and given away on the widest possible scale, and a recognised tariff exists for furniture units and clothing coupons. I believe this is the reaction of the normal man and woman. They still remain fundamentally law-abiding citizens, but it is their reaction to a system which the bureaucrats tell them provides fair shares for all but which their experience tells them does nothing of the kind. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking in this matter?
Before I turn to petrol coupons, I would like to give two instances from the town of Holbeach in my constituency which indicate the lack of business methods characterising the administration of the Board of Trade at present. The first one concerns a small shopkeeper who took over a business at the end of March and on 1st April made application on compassionate grounds for an increased coupon allowance. The only acknowledgment he received was a postcard giving him a serial number. He waited patiently for three weeks, until 23rd April, when he again wrote explaining his very difficult circumstances. This was promptly acknowledged by the return of a form. One is inclined to ask why the form was not sent on the first occasion. Nevertheless, a form arrived, and he completed it immediately and returned it on 26th April. Since then he has heard nothing.
Contrast his experience with that of a fellow trader in the town of Holbeach who made an awful mistake. He cut nine coupons from a customer's ration book before they became valid and included them in the numbers sent to the bank under the banking scheme. Only a short period was to elapse before an official of the Ministry arrived by car. I cannot say whether he came from London or Nottingham. Down he came, either from headquarters or from the region, to collect those nine coupons and take them away with him. Hon. Gentlemen opposite often say to us when we complain of the high Government expenditure, "How would you secure a reduction?" I reply that these two small instances could be multiplied in the experience of e very Ministry, and they point the way to economy in Government administration. The way to administer a Department efficiently is to answer letters promptly and not to waste men, cars and petrol on doing a job that a courteous letter would do equally well.
I now ask the Committee to turn its attention to what I call the clothing muddle, for clothing muddle it was according to the Minister's statement of 6th May, muddle it still is, and muddle it still will be if it is allowed to continue. It is interesting to note that clothing rationing was introduced in the Whitsuntide Recess of r94r, so that to discuss it after this Whitsuntide Adjournment is singularly appropriate. The system of clothing rationing instituted in r94r by the right hon. Member for Aldershot was designed to mobilise the resources of the country for the prosecution of the war by reducing the demands of the civilian population to a minimum and releasing labour for the war effort. I believe that as a result of that measure nearly a quarter of a million people were made available. For that purpose the clothing coupon system worked extraordinarily well, and the country is under a deep debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman, but the Socialist theorists now in office have been prepared to take the scheme and to use it for entirely different purposes—the scheme which they inherited from the Conservative businessman. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh, but what is really required is an entirely new scheme to meet the present problem, for the old system in its present form has entirely outlived its usefulness.
Moans and groans are heard in every queue—for most of which queues the Minister of Food is responsible—the black market is rampant, hardship and inconsistencies abound, and I believe that the whole system is in danger of a complete breakdown. The Board of Trade should approach this matter by an entirely different method from the one it has pursued up to now. The President of the Board of Trade should realise that clothing rationing no longer exists to restrict civilian consumption in time of war and that it should be entirely remodelled to restore to the citizens of this country a far greater measure of choice than they have at present. He should try to re-establish the system in public confidence, to destroy the black market, to make sure that those with more money cannot buy expensive fabrics while those with limited incomes are unable to do so.
I think the President should go further than that. He should consider seriously whether by a new system he could not aid our export drive. Accordingly, I venture to make one or two constructive proposals to him. I believe I am correct in saying that fabrics have the same points value per yard as they had in war time when the need was to conserve wool for uniforms. That system might now be overhauled. I believe it would be wise to give a preference in coupons to articles made of rayon. We have there a new and a most progressive industry, and we would give this new industry the advantage of a strong home base from which to move forward into export fields. Equally w00l, which derives largely from Empire countries, could probably be given the next favourable treatment. Cotton comes from dollar countries or countries from which the President finds it difficult to secure adequate supplies, as witness his petulance with the Egyptians, and thus it might be quite proper to increase the coupon rating for cotton goods. Clothes rationing thus amended might be used to assist the export drive, to increase and improve inter-Commonwealth trade, and also to save foreign currency.
That, however, is a matter requiring long-term discussion with all concerned, and I hope that there will be no rash decision, because in this matter there should be adequate consultation with all concerned. And when I say "all" I include the housewives. During the last few days there have been reports of consultations with the trade. I do not know how many committees or deputations have been to see the President or his officers, but I have looked in vain for any notification that any representative body of consumers has been invited. One almost feels that it is the considered policy of the Board of Trade to ignore them, and, by doing a deal with the trade concerned, compel them to accept whatever the officials, on the one hand, or the organised trade, on the other, decide is good for them
Now I turn to the immediate short-term policy and a consideration of what should be the President's action in these matters. How can the President extricate himself and the clothing industry from the terrible position which he has allowed to develop either by over-work, which I believe may be an adequate answer, or alternatively, by lack of foresight and imagination? What is the position? Anyone making inquiries through the proper channels will be told that fashion garments have been in stock in London shops for 18 months and more. Meanwhile, the wholesale houses are completely full of stock which they are unable to deliver because the retailers have not the coupons available, and already unemployment and underemployment is developing amongst those engaged in the making-up trades. Of course, it may be that it is the deliberate policy of this Government to create unemployment in this way, and, by retaining coupon rationing in its present form, force people in the wholesale clothing and retail industries to change their jobs. Is that the Government's policy? I pause for a reply. Apparently the President will not commit himself at the moment.
If that is the Government's policy, the right hon. Gentleman will go down to history as the first Minister who deliberately created unemployment and took the shirt off the back of the working man. Of course I may be misjudging him; he may have no intention of creating unemployment at all. But then let me say to him that the changes he announced on 6th May in the House were entirely inadequate to reduce the present accumulation of stocks and enable normal full-time employment to continue in the clothing industry. In that industry 200,000 of its pre-war labour force is facing serious unemployment owing to the present position which has been allowed to obtain. The concessions which the President announced then were ludicrous and, in the light of his subsequent behaviour, they bear every indication of having been just a panic policy to fob off rising public indignation.
I made a few inquiries in my own constituency on this matter. I found in one shop with a coupon float of some 3,000 coupon range that there was not a single article in the whole stock which was down-pointed following this announcement. In another shop with a coupon capital of about 10,000 coupons, the reduction applied to only 5 per cent. of the coupon capital, and despite the announcement that children's shoes are off the ration, this does not apply to girls of nine years of age. Age in the case of girl children is determined not by the date of their birth but by the size of their feet. The newspapers, who are well informed on these matters, have told us that in a few moments the President may have some modifications to announce on this matter of clothing coupons[ Interruption. ]—I will take my time, and if hon. Members provoke me I will take all the longer. The newspapers have told us that we may expect some announcement from the right hon. Gentleman, and there will be widespread disappointment unless we get some very satisfactory increase from him. But, if we are to hear this afternoon of increased allowances made available to the ordinary civilian consumer, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman what basis there was for the statement he made at the Press conference. I judge only by the report in the "Board of Trade Journal" of r5th May. I do not doubt that he will recollect the words which appeared: abolished. I would not go so far as that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I will tell hon. Members in half a minute. Certain well-informed people, notably those concerned with the wholesale side of the trade, take the view that clothing rationing could be abolished immediately. I believe that a Government of planners ought to be able to give a definite date when clothing rationing could beabolished. I see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury smile, but what is the use of planning, if one is unable to plan very far ahead?
Might we not just as well face the fact that there is a widespread belief that the Government are saving up this announcement of the general abolition of clothing rationing in preparation for a General Election? [ Laughter. ] I notice that many hon. Members opposite are very eager to laugh, but not one of them is eager to rise in his place and to deny that statement. The stock of goods in the shops at the present time is sufficient to justify a substantial issue to everyone. Let us compare the figures for 1948 with those of r945. In that year there were 40 coupons for everybody, and at the same time there were made available about 90 for every man demobilised, in all about 1½million. That was when the wholesale stocks were only 76 per cent. of wholesale stocks of 1942. At the end of March this year, the stocks, calculated on the same basis, were r88 per cent. of the r942 figures, even allowing for the fact that those stocks had been diminished by drawings by the civilian population of coupons at the rate of 48 in the full year and those stocks themselves had finally borne the burden of the new issue made available—
Why does the hon. Member select the year 1942? The normal year, prior to the war, was 1937. How did stocks compare with that year?
The year 1942 is that on which the figures are calculated in the Economic Survey. I should be most happy to give way, at a later stage, if my figures are in any way inaccurate. In 1937 there was no plan and no rationing. [An HON. MEMBER: "And no money."] The proper place for additional clothes is not in the shops, but in the wardrobes of English housewives and on the backs of the people. But what is the position? At the moment shops are chock full of fashion goods and the unwillingness of the public to buy is due to three causes: first, the shortage of coupons; second, the shortage of cash; and third, the uncertainty as to fashion. It ought not to be necessary to tell the Board of Trade that people do not normally buy sleeveless cotton dresses in the middle of December, nor purchase heavy winter coats in the middle of June. But that is the position which the Board of Trade have allowed to develop by their lack of foresight in these matters.
In regard to the fashion aspect, how can we expect London to be developed as a fashion centre of the world when visitors coming to the Olympic Games, or as tourists, see our women going about in fashions two or three years out of date, and find when they go into the shops that they are not able to secure the same line of goods as is offered to them overseas as British products? The retailer is unable to keep these fashion goods in stock. In view of the known facts, it is essential that there should be some relaxation of the coupon position, and that relaxation should take place immediately. The question is how many coupons should there be? [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I hope hon. Members opposite will not think me impertinent if I say that their interjections are not characterised by clarity or intelligence. On 26th June, in the Debate to which I have referred, the then President of the Board of Trade, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, used these words:
For those reasons and, because of the increasing prices which have taken place in recent months which are in themselves restricting purchasing power to wide ranges of the community, certain prudent experts estimate that 20 coupons could and should be made immediately available. I find myself unable to feel that that is a safe and cautious estimate, and I am a safe and cautious and moderate man. I believe, however, that unless the President makes available an issue of at least 12 coupons—and, given diligence, there is no reason why they should not be available for encashment in the shops tomorrow—the evils which I have ventured to bring to the notice of the Committee will continue to exist—shops full of goods, fashions going out of date, unem- ployment in the clothing industry and black markets. I believe that an issue of 12 coupons is the minimum which the President can make.
I have tried to open up certain subjects. I am well aware that my remarks may have been disjointed because I did not wish to trespass on the time of the Committee for too long. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we realise the almost superhuman task he has to do at the moment and that he and his Department are trying to do too much, but that he is trying to the best of his ability. We wish him well but, in the light of his reply to the observations I have made on the questions of newsprint, furniture, the distribution of industry and the issuing of clothing coupons, we must seriously consider, at a later stage, moving a reduction of the Vote.
4.2 p.m.
I will not follow the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) into the impersonal personal remarks with which he began his speech. I will readily confess to the crime of youth. I will admit, as he said, that I lack business experience. It is a fact, as he has said, that with the exception of the short interval during which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was at the Board of Trade in r945, there has been no businessman at the Board of Trade for six years. Perhaps that is why—I will not say that it is why—after those six years we have vitually no unemployment in the country today. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether it was our policy deliberately to create unemployment. I can tell him definitely that it is not.
The Government have done so.
Those remarks come singularly ill from the right hon. Gentleman. Seeing that he apparently wishes to make a speech, I would like to ask whether it was the policy of the businessmen at the Board of Trade before the war to create unemployment then? Either it was their policy or they were very incompetent in carrying out the contrary policy. I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for having raised the three subjects which he has referred to. They are three subjects upon which I think the House would naturally wish to have a statement today. Had it not been that the hon. Gentleman has raised these matters, I would certainly have wanted to make a statement on two of them, clothing and newsprint, today.
I would like to begin, as did the hon. Gentleman, with newsprint. Naturally, the newsprint supply position is a matter of great concern to the Government. Newsprint consumption by newspapers at present is running at the rate of 355,000 tons a year, about 32 per cent. of the prewar figure. That is, of course, a considerable advance on the lowest figure reached during the war, when it fell as low as 225,000 tons. The size of newspapers was temporarily increased in June, 1946, and circulations were freed at that time. Their size is now down to the pre-June, 1946, level, but the increased circulation is accounting for about 50,000 tons more than was being consumed at that time.
The cuts in dollar expenditure which led to reductions in imports of newsprint already contracted for in North America have already been fully debated in the House, and I do not propose to go into those arguments again. I am dealing with the present position, which has been the subject of a statement by the Newsprint Supply Company within the last 24 hours. The result of the cut made last year has been that the import of newsprint from Canada and Newfoundland has been running at the rate of 104,000 tons in the 12 months ending June this year instead of the 180,000 tons or so previously contemplated.
The main feature of the present position is not only the fall in imports but the extremely low level of stocks mainly due to the partial failure of Scandinavian supplies of mechanical pulp caused by drought last year, which made rivers abnormally low and caused hydro-electric power plants to operate at a reduced level. Home newsprint production fell from one-third of the prewar figure to one-fifth, and at one point last winter it appeared as though even a four-page newspaper, on present circulation, could not be maintained. In fact, the newsprint using industry made heroic efforts during the spring, partly by using up all kinds of odd sizes and running down stocks almost to danger level. The pulp position is now improving. Home production is now back to 25½ per cent. of the prewar level, and we hope to raise it to about 35 per cent. by July. This, together with Scandinavian newsprint supplies already contracted for, and the remaining 50,000 tons due under the existing North American contracts in the second half of this year, should bring stocks to a more reasonable level by the end of this year.
I would like to say a word about North American supplies, which have been the chief subject of public discussion in the last few days. The Government recognise the importance of long-term arrangements with the Canadian supplying companies. In fact, bulk purchase in this matter is a very important policy to follow. But quite obviously imports for r949 from North America must depend upon the dollar situation, and it is not possible at this stage to put any definite figure upon them. The Committee is well aware that prospective dollar aid under the European Recovery Programme is likely to be considerably less than the drains on our gold and dollar reserves, even allowing for the maximum possible rate of exports to the dollar areas and the continuation of imports at a severely restricted level.
The whole question of the payments for Canadian supplies of all essentials—food, raw materials, etc.—still remains a matter to be settled in relation to the development of the European Recovery Programme. It is frankly impossible at this stage to say what import programmes will be possible. I am sure that the Committee would feel that it was wrong for me at this stage to pledge a definite programme for Canadian newsprint and put in greater danger supplies of foodstuffs£
Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Canadians to hold these contracts open? The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot make any promise. How are the Canadians to keep the proposition open if there is nothing definite from his Department?
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, because of his interest in the Canadian position, realises that there are many other Canadian suppliers involved in this matter apart from the newsprint suppliers—suppliers of timber, foodstuffs and various other important commodities. If we were to allocate t00 much to newsprint at the present time other Canadian suppliers would be in exactly the same position as the hon. Member says the newsprint suppliers will be. We are hoping to review the position later this year when we shall be in a better position to consider the effect of E.R.P. upon the general position.
It is clear that in 1949 supplies from all sources should enable the present rates of consumption to be fully covered, even if it proves impossible to allow any increase in consumption. There have been statements in certain places suggesting that there is likely to be a cut in supplies of newsprint for use in this country. I think we can certainly say that, with the supplies in prospect, we can fully cover the present rate of consumption, even if there is very little left over for any increase. It is not possible to say, therefore, what the size of the newspapers are likely to be in 1949. I would like to say this, and it is relevant to the statement put out by the Newsprint Supply Company. If the dollar position means less newsprint from North America next year than this year, this does not involve a cut in the size of newspapers, but the Government do regard it as their objective to get what is called the five-page newspaper as early as possible, and certainly in 1949, if that can be achieved without sacrificing food and raw materials essential to our industrial production, and without involving a further drain on our already dangerously low reserve of gold and dollars.
If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, he said that most manufacturers in Canada had to be kept in a state of suspense, one producer after another. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a satisfactory situation?
Certainly it is not, but the dollar position is not satisfactory, and we are certainly not going to prejudice other parts of the dollar supply programme by taking undue liberties here.
Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up one important point? He said he was hoping in 1949 to get to the five-page newspaper, if possible. Is he banking on Canadian imports to do that, or on imports from Scandinavia?
This is the assurance I have given to the Newsprint Supply Company. Subject to the considerations I have just mentioned, we shall look to any increase in home production, which we expect, or any increase in exports from easier currency sources, to help us to attain the objective of the five-page newspaper as quickly as possible, and we would not propose to use any improvements in supplies from non-dollar areas as a reason for any further cut in the 1949 North American programme below whatever figure is settled in the light of the dollar position.
Am I to understand that the policy recently announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now reversed?
By no means.
That is exactly the opposite to what was said a few days ago.
No. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to look up the statement. Then perhaps he may catch your eye, Major Milner, and I shall be happy to reply to whatever he has to say.
With regard to the question of the supply to periodicals, two-thirds of their consumption is of paper other than newsprint. But in cuts last autumn and winter they were cut to 31½ per cent. of pre-war consumption. With the prospective improvement in supplies in the second half of this year, to which I have referred, it is now possible to restore the level of allocations to periodicals to the rate which applied previously, that is, to 35 per cent. prewar.
I turn now to the subject of clothing in general. As I said in the House on 6th May, it is undoubtedly true that stocks at the present time are a good deal higher than they were at this time last year. I should like to spend a few moments explaining to the Committee the facts of the present situation. In the first place, stocks a year ago were far too low and that meant that consumers had far too little freedom of choice and were certainly in no position to discriminate between the goods of varying quality.
May I ask the Minister this question? It is an important point. The Minister is saying that, last year, stocks were too low, and therefore the customers were not given any choice. Is he trying to suggest to the Committee that there were not sufficient stocks to meet all the coupons available?
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman cannot follow that perfectly simple statement. There were certainly enough stocks to meet the coupons, but not to give a sufficient choice. It was quite possible, and, indeed, it was not altogether unknown, for certain shops to have supplies in stock, which gave little freedom of choice to the consumer. They had to spend their coupons on what was there, and then had not that degree of freedom of choice which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee would like to see the public have. Some of the piling up of stocks in recent months has been caused by consumers—especially those who had to plan their expenditure very carefully — exercising a natural and healthy resistance against paying high prices. If, in fact, it is true, as I believe it is, and as the hon. Gentleman suggests, traders have ordered goods, and manufacturers have made g00ds of poor quality, in the sheltered conditions which coupon trading gave to them, it is not for the Government to pull their chestnuts out of the fire for them.
Then there is a second factor, that is, changes in fashion. The suggestion has been made in some of the rather more hysterical organs of the Press that the piling up of stocks of unwanted goods was due to bad planning on the part of the Government. I would make it quite plain, if it needs to be made plain, that the precise types and designs of goods bought by traders are in no sense dictated by the Government. The Government do not make the goods, or dictate the types or quantities of goods to be made, and, except in a very broad sense, do not allocate the raw materials of the clothing trades among different kinds of production. Much less do they dictate designs, styles, fashions—or quality. If traders have miscalculated public demand, as in some cases they have, it is one of the normal and inevitable risks of trading. It happened often enough before the war, and it will pro- bably happen again. The normal way of dealing with changes in public tastes or miscalculations of what the public would want has been by clearance sales at low prices.
That is why, in my statement of 6th May, I laid such stress on the discussions I proposed to have with the trade on clearance rates. But I will go one stage further. Quite apart from this piling up of stocks of particular goods, which the public did not appear to want in great quantities, there is certainly an increase in stocks generally and not merely of stocks affected by fashion and changes in taste. In many cases these stocks are now rising to a level which should affect the incentive to order replacements and to produce new stocks. Before I indicate the lines on which I think these problems should be solved there are one or two general considerations about the rationing system as a whole which I would put before the Committee, and on which I am sure the Committee will agree.
In the first place, it is certainly our aim to make available on the home market the maximum amount of clothing and household goods which can be made available from our present resources, subject to one overriding consideration. That is, that the Government are not prepared to divert goods from our very necessary export trade to the home market, or indeed, to allow the diversion to the home market of resources in the shape of manpower, machines, materials and so on, which are capable of producing the goods for which there is a very ready demand abroad.
Would the right hon. Gentleman reply to this point? If, on his own showing, the export market is drying up in many directions, and it is true that certain lines cannot be sold overseas, owing to overseas competition, is he going to be obstinate, and not allow them to come into the home market?
That is a special point. I was dealing with exports generally, but I will reply to that particular point.
The Minister has cast a slur on manufacturers, and said that they have been piling up stocks wrongly. I think that there are two points involved. Does not the Minister realise that the manufacturers of these commodities know, better than he does, that to keep dead stock is against business policy, and they would not do that? Is he not aware that his policy of rationing has restricted the demand and that has affected the manufacturers' supply of goods?
I was casting no slur on the manufacturers. I was saying that miscalculation of the public demand is one of the natural and inevitable risks of the clothing trade. There have been demands in certain quarters in the past few weeks that we should abolish the whole system of clothes rationing. Whoever put that suggestion abroad, I can only say that they were responsible for a most cruel deception of the public or they were entirely ignoring the need of the export trade. I think that they must be people counting on being able to meet all their current demands from stocks and, if a famine developed, hoping to be able to bring enough public pressure On the Government to divert large quantities from the export market to the home market.
That is not fair.
The hon. Gentleman will probably have a chance to make his speech in full instead of in interruptions.
It would not require a big increase in public demand not only to clear off the existing stocks, but to create conditions of shortage, because, as I have already told the Committee, the supplies of textiles, especially cotton textiles, coming forward for the home market are likely to be less in the next six months than in the last six months because of the heavy export programme. If we think for a moment, there are many things that are still scarce now—men's suits and shirts, industrial overalls, nylons, wool gabardine raincoats and one or two other things. In the past three or four months there has been a most welcome increase in textile production, in cotton, in the woollen and worsted industries, in rayon as well as in footwear, hosiery and linen. Hon. Members in various parts of the Committee have expressed their welcome for this long delayed improvement in textile output. Out of this increased production, the textile industries are being called upon now to supply greater and greater quantities, not only to the dollar areas but also to the Commonwealth and other markets where, if we can supply them, we shall save in dollars by making it unnecessary for the people in those markets to buy their clothing and textiles from the dollar areas.
At present in the cotton industry we are aiming at a rate of exports of 0o million yards a year to Canada, compared with eight million yards last year. In the case of wool, we are aiming at a rate two to three times above last year's exports both to the United States and to Canada. The result is that there is less textile material coming forward for the home market than there was a year or six months ago. If we did give way to the clamour in certain sections of the trade and of the Press to abolish rationing, we should be faced within a very few months with a famine in clothing which would cause us either to let the famine go on unchecked or to meet the situation by diverting more material from the export trade. Although from every point of view no one would be happier than I if I could abolish clothes rationing, I am certainly not prepared to do it at the expense of our export trade and, therefore, of the food ration. Nor am I prepared to do what many people would like me to do—
rose —
No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his points later. I will try to answer them then.
I am not prepared to do what some people quite blatantly are asking me to do and that is, to substitute rationing by price for rationing by the coupon system. There are sections of the trade and of the Press who want that to happen so that those with the longest purses and the greatest amount of time would be able to get the supplies. We have had experience of that before. It is a policy which will not be followed by this Government. Before we can take off clothes rationing we need not only a temporary increase in stocks but an assurance of production at a rate sufficient to meet all the real needs of the country. This means continuing supplies at a very much higher level than we have today and indeed probably very much higher than it was before the war. As the Committee knows, to instance an item which I recently took off the ration, children's shoes in the last few months have been produced at a rate of something like 40 per cent. above the prewar rate, and that has been barely sufficient to meet the needs of the country with full employment and with enough money to enable children to go about with shoes on their feet instead of barefoot.
The present situation in the shops, warehouses and factories is, therefore, one which would certainly not justify the removal of the rationing system altogether or the removal of a large number of goods from the rationing list. When the stocks began to increase it was the deliberate policy of the Government to allow them to increase for a time, partly in order to allow greater consumer choice, as I have said, and partly for the other reason I have mentioned—because with the diversion of textiles to the export market it was clear that we should need a considerable portion of these increased stocks in the coming months. Even by the end of March—when some sections of the trade were already calling for the complete abolition of clothes rationing—the general level of stocks of clothing was no higher than it was in the same month of r944. But, as I said three weeks ago, it was clear that stocks of certain goods were becoming too high and that special steps should be taken to bring them down wherever this could be done without interference with the export drive.
That was why I announced the reduction in coupon rates for certain lines—shoes, gloves, raincoats and garments made of certain utility woollen cloths. That was why children's shoes and plastic raincoats were taken off the ration altogether. But when these announcements were made in this House, I made it clear that in my view the right way of dealing with the special problem of women's outer wear wherever excess stocks were due to fashion changes and other changes in demand would be by selling them off at lower prices. That is why I laid stress, as I have done since, on the discussions on clearance rates which my Department have been having with the trade. I was not prepared to accept the advice of some of those who wanted to try to clear these goods by selling them at full price for no coupons. I was prepared to alter the regulations in order to allow them to dispose of them at half price at half coupon rates. Our discussions on this subject have now been completed—[ Interruption. ] It was not an injustice to anybody. In fact, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that some sections of the trade were so unimpressed with this idea of bargain sales, which were quite common in this country before the war, that they even walked out of the talks.
An Order will be made coming into force on 7th June allowing sales of rationed products generally at half coupon rate for half prices. In the past, goods could be cleared at half coupon rates only at very low prices indeed. For women's outer wear the price was not to exceed 2s. for every coupon in the coupon rate for the garment. Therefore, an unfashionable style of woman's coat, the value of which was perhaps £20, could be sold at half coupon rate only if the price did not exceed 36s., which was obviously far too low. Under the new arrangements, it can be sold at half coupon rate at a price not exceeding £10. I hope that at the summer sales traders will take full advantage of this concession to clear off excess stock. I know that the public will welcome the reintroduction of bargain sales.
The Committee will realise that the arrangements I announced on 6th May had to be got out quickly in order to deal with an emergency situation in certain particular lines. At that time I had it in my mind to make further changes in the near future, but I am sure that the Committee will realise that I could not say so at the time, nor indeed could I make any public statement in reply to the barrage that has been put up by certain sections of the trade and the Press in the past few weeks. If I had given the idea that any further downpointing was in contemplation, the public would certainly have kept out of the shops until the reduction in coupon rates had been made. This would have made the situation worse. I think the Committee ought to be quite clear about this. One of the principal factors bringing about this deterioration in the position in the last two or three weeks has been the state of confusion in the minds of the public due to the Press campaign. Very many people, because of this publicity, have held off buying clothes they otherwise would have bought because they hoped that they would shortly be getting them at a lower coupon rate. Those sections of the trade who are quite openly claiming credit for having started this campaign literally have only themselves to blame for having kept people out of the shops.
Since the statement I am making now is in the nature of a clothing budget statement—I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) who suggested that we should have a full clothing budget statement as quickly as possible—I am sure that the Committee will agree that serious results might have followed any statement on my part that further changes in coupon values were in contemplation. I have already said that the situation is not one which could or should be met by the removal of clothes rationing. Similarly, apart from certain changes which I will come to in a moment, I do not think that it is one which should be dealt with by a general downpointing, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase. If we were to remove from the rationing list altogether, or to reduce the points value of a wide range of goods, this might lead not only to the clearance of the present excess stocks but also to a larger number of orders being placed for these particular garments, thus involving us in a serious diversion from exports to the home market.
Certainly, the most serious problem at the present time is that of women's outerwear. Many traders increased their orders—and manufacturers increased their production—of women's woollen outerwear at the expense of men's wear last year, because they felt that it was a more profitable thing to do. I think that recent events will probably have reversed that idea in their minds. One of the first steps which we took to ease the situation was to bring about a diversion of materials from women's goods to men's goods, as far as that was possible, though, of course, the men's greater need for worsteds could not be met owing to the high export demand for worsteds. If we were to take women's woollen outerwear right off the ration altogether, there would be continuous pressure to have more and more of it made, at the expense both of men's wear and of the export market.
I feel it is right to down-point or de-ration only those goods where there is a reasonable assurance that the present rate of supply can be maintained with no interference to the export trade, or, alternatively, if it does not matter if supplies become scarce again. Working on that principle, I have reviewed again the supply position of all items now covered in the rationing scheme, and have come to the following conclusions.
First of all, I would like to deal with items to be taken off the ration altogether, and here I include ties, gloves, non-woollen handknitting yarn, and women's seamless rayon stockings. Secondly, I come to items on which the points value is to be reduced. Other seamless stockings of cotton and silk were reduced to one coupon on 11th May; seamless stockings of wool will now be reduced to the same level. Fully-fashioned stockings made of rayon, about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) showed some interest on 6th May, will be reduced to one and a half coupons per pair, and other fully-fashioned stockings, except nylon, will be two coupons per pair. Nylon stockings, whether seamless or fully-fashioned, will remain at three coupons per pair.
Some further utility wool cloths—where there is little or no danger of loss of exports—will be added to the previous list for a reduction in points values. These include blazer cloths, Derby tweed and dress cloth made in Northern Ireland of wool and rayon mixture. I am publishing tonight the exact specifications involved. Women's half-lined coats made from down-pointed wool cloths will be reduced from 15 points to 12. There is one further down-pointing, and here should declare my interest, or at least a family interest, and it affects babies' napkins. I am interested in these for purely family reasons. These at present cost three-quarters of a coupon each, and they will henceforth be half-a-coupon each, putting them on the same basis as ordinary towels made from the same material. All these changes will be embodied in the Order which will come into effect on 7th June. I would have liked to have done it earlier, but it has not been possible, because of the dates of publication of the trade Press, to get this in at an earlier date than 7th June.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one question? In regard to the items on his first list, which are being de-rationed altogether, could he give an assurance to the public that this is intended to be a permanency?
I am going to say something about that in a moment. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised it, because there were some misunderstandings about the earlier announcement, and it was believed in some quarters that it was a temporary down-pointing, when we were intending it, in fact, to be permanent.
In changing the points values of these articles, we are trying to bring demand and supply into line, and, therefore, it follows that, with certain garments which are in short supply and may become scarcer, it is necessary to raise the points value. So shirts, other than those of wool, will be raised from five coupons to seven, and similar garments for children will be raised from four to six. Even now, shirts are scarce, and shirtings are very much in demand in export markets, especially the United States and Canada. Unlike the other pointing changes, which must take a little time to work out and formalise, this change will come into effect tomorrow, to prevent anybody getting an undue advantage. A counter-concession to men, or to some men, is provided by the reduction in the rate for men's wool vests and long pants from six to four coupons, or from five to three coupons for sleeveless vests or trunks.
I only wish that the supply position enabled me to do something on household textiles, apart from a measure which I shall be coming to in a moment. I am very well aware of the serious, and in many cases desperate, state of the housewives' linen cupboards, due to seven years of rationing and restricted supplies, but also due, in hundreds of thousands of cases, not only to wartime and postwar shortage of coupons, but more particularly to pre-war shortage of money. There were very few households in Yorkshire or Lancashire, South Wales, the north-east and Scotland which had even a reasonable supply of sheets and curtains before this war, because the dole and the means test, and low wages, imposed their own rationing.
They are worn out.
The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. I admit that there has been seven years of wearing out, but there were some people who had no curtains to wear out. [An HON. MEMBER: "Politics."] It is not politics; it is the fact. The hon. Gentleman, who represents a Yorkshire constituency, and the right hon. Gentleman in front of him, who used to represent one on the North-East coast ought to have more knowledge of the situation.
I should be glad if it were possible to do something about sheets. Although stocks have risen a little, this is an item where the diversion to exports, especially to earn or save dollars will mean a heavy and growing drain. We shall need our stocks. I feel, however, that there is some anomaly as between certain sizes of sheets, and I therefore propose to reduce the rate for the very broad double sheet from 14 to 12 coupons a pair.
As I have undertaken, in response to questions from some of my hon. Friends, I have gone into the question of curtains very carefully. Up to now, utility curtain fabric has been at a rate of two coupons per square yard, and has been reserved for the so-called priority classes, by being available only on the production of dockets. I now propose to remove the docket system for curtains, and to make utility curtains available for sale to the general public at one-third of the full coupon rate; that is, at two-thirds of a coupon per square yard, or if it complies with the present definition for non-utility, coupon-free fabric, it will be taken off the ration altogether. This will mean, on the present distribution of supplies, that nearly half the utility curtain fabric will be coupon-free, and the remainder will be at two-thirds of a coupon per square yard. This will, I hope, help the curtain situation in many households. It will also remove the apparent injustice, which a number of my hon. Friends have talked about, that the only types of curtain material free of coupons are the very high-priced ranges. Now, not only the high-priced, but also a large proportion of the cheaper utility curtains, will be coupon-free.
The measures which I am applying will, I hope, deal with the items where stocks have piled up most. There is one further step which I propose to take to deal with the general building-up of stocks. As I have said, the present more satisfactory level of stocks results from the fact that the home trade is at present enjoying the benefits of the substantial increase in production which has taken place before the diversion to exports became fully operative. In other words, at the moment, there is a hump of supplies which is impeding business and is causing a loss of confidence in certain sections of the trade.
It is definitely a temporary problem, because the manufacture of cloth for the home trade is now very much below the level of a year ago. Already, home supplies are falling, and will continue to fall unless we get the really striking increase in textile production for which we are working. So far the reduction in home supplies can be seen only at the earliest stages of manufacture; this is one of those things where the Government, with their responsibility for all stages of production, can see the position better perhaps than the retailer or the wholesaler. In both cotton and wool cloth, supplies for the home market at the present time are coming down by about 25 to 35 per cent. of the supplies of a year ago. At that time about 130 million square yards of cotton cloth and about 80 million yards of wool cloth were going to the home market each four months. Unless production increases, supplies later this year will be 80 to 90 million yards of cotton material, as against 130 million, and about 60 million of wool. In view of the present level of stocks, I have decided to allow, for the time being, unrestricted export of all types of utility clothing except shirts and industrial overalls and I shall also be prepared to consider applications for permission to export utility cloth, again with the exceptions of shirtings and overall cloths. This will do something to clear up part of the "hump," but only something.
Is the right hon. Gentleman going to open all these stocks to the three categories A, B and C, or will they be open only to one or two?
They will be open to all categories, but we shall take steps to see that they go to either the dollar earning or dollar saving markets.
The pointing changes which I announced today, together with those which I announced on 6th May, will, with a ration of four coupons per month, take up current supply for the home market, but this will not do much, if anything, to draw off the accumulated stocks to which I have referred. In order to deal with this temporary stock position and to give to the people their first share in the dividend of increased textile produc- tion, I intend to take measures right away to move some of the excess stocks from the warehouses and shops into the people's wardrobes and linen cupboards. I am, therefore, increasing coupon purchasing power by a special and temporary issue of 12 coupons per person as from tomorrow, 26th May. The two crimson tokens marked 0 on page 6 of the current ration book will be valid at the rate of six coupons for each token, and they will be valid, in order to clear up the stocks, for a limited period only; that is, up to and including 30th September. I shall, of course, keep the situation closely under review between now and the beginning of the next coupon period, so that coupon supplies for that period can be related to the prospective supply of clothing coming forward into the shops.
Since I have already admitted to the Committee that at the time of my statement of 6th May I was considering preparing further points changes, I should now make it clear, to avoid leaving the public in any doubt, that I have no specific changes in mind at the present time, and that none are likely to be made at least until the new rationing period begins in September. In answer to a question which was put to me a few minutes ago, I want to make it clear that although the special issue of coupons is a temporary issue, the down-pointing to which I have referred is intended to be a lasting one and will not be met by further up-pointing.
Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not in any way altering the pointing or the availability of boots and shoes?
No further changes will be made in respect of boots and shoes, apart from those which I announced on 6th May.
Is the up-pointing of shirts also to be permanent?
I hope sooner or later we shall have an increase in textile production, which will make possible not only the realisation of our export target but also of increased supplies for the home market, but until that happens and until we can meet our export orders in full for shirts and shirtings, I am afraid we must regard the present up-pointing as permanent.
I think it will be clear to the Committee that with the changing production and export situation there are likely to be from time to time many changes in the relation between the demand and supply for different kinds of clothing. I therefore feel that it is desirable, in addition to the full statistics of production, sales and stocks at every point in the system, to have all the advice we can get from the trade. I have, therefore, decided to set up an advisory committee or committees drawn from the distributive and manufacturing trades concerned, though, of course, if only because of the number of the different trades involved, I cannot say that the committee or committees will be fully representative of all the trades. I want the committees kept small, and I want the membership confined to persons who can take an objective, unbiassed and, where possible, an unemotional view. The exact form of the committee or committees will need further discussion with the trade interests concerned, but there will probably be one small committee representing the retailing and wholesaling trade, and one to cover the manufacturing side. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston referred to the question of consumers, and I am sure he will be glad to know that I have decided to provide for the representation on this committee of consumers, including housewives. When I say "housewives," I mean real housewives.
My right hon. Friend will recall that I have a special interest in the export trade, and have brought along a delegation to see him. Can he say whether the export trade will be considered in some way so that manufacturers of articles for sale in this country may take into account also the export requirements—so that they can be related to some extent, to allow a switch from home to export manufacture should circumstances necessitate it?
I will consider the point, but I cannot say anything about it just now.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when goods which cannot be sold for export come into the home market, or when the reverse process takes place, he will not get the whole view of the situation unless on these committees there are export representatives?
I shall have something further to say about what I believe are called frustrated exports later on.
There is one thing which will be clear to the Committee from this fairly full survey which I have given of the clothes rationing position, and that is the continued urgency of the need for increased production and increased manpower in our basic textile industries. The changes which I have announced today represent the first dividend, but only the first dividend, of increased production. This bonus issue of r2 coupons is a special measure to clear what the trade has called the "hump" of stocks. It should be adequate to do it, and I am fortified in that belief by the advice of those sections of the trade who are best fitted to judge; but I do not rule out the possibility that it will be followed by shortages, particularly in certain lines. Certainly there will be no doubt in any part of the Committee about the need for increased production.
The needs of export mean that we have got still further to increase our production even to maintain the recent rate of supplies to the home market, let alone to increase them. For instance, even if we achieve our cotton export target in full this year—and that is a very big task for Lancashire to achieve—our cotton exports will be barely four-fifths of the exports in 1938. Therefore, to increase our textile exports to the level that they should be if the textile industries are going to play the part they ought to in our export trade, and to increase supplies to the home market to the level that we can take off rationing, will mean everything that the textile industries can do in the recruitment in manpower, in the maximum effort of those in the industry, mechanisation, modernisation and in the working out and application of new methods of production. New methods on a more or less radical scale are being applied in a number of mills in every part of Lancashire. With the needs of the export trade to pay for our f00d and raw materials, with the needs of our housewives, children and men for increased supplies, it will be a crime against our people if any mill is for any reason prevented from reaching the maximum level of efficiency of which it is capable and from producing the very fullest amount that it can produce.
In concluding this survey of the clothing situation, and announcing the measures which I hope will clear away many of the present difficulties, I am sure that the one thing we can all be united about in all parts of the Committee is that from now on, the first and most urgent need is for increased production of textiles throughout our textile industries.
4.49 P.m.
I do not wish to intervene in the Debate for very long, but I had a special interest in two of these subjects and an interest in all of them. One special interest, of course, is in the clothing ration, because I was responsible for its introduction in 1941, and the other special interest was the Distribution of Industry Act, for the same reason, that although the Act which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade now administers was introduced in the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), I was in charge of it in the Committee stages and I actually rushed that Act—if that is not a disrespectful term—on to the Statute Book during the last few weeks of the life of the Caretaker Government. I think it is well to remember that, because right hon. Gentlemen opposite frequently claim that the Distribution of Industry Act was a Measure initiated by this Government. That, of course, is an inaccuracy, although no doubt an unintentional one.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Distribution of Industry Act. If he will allow me, I want to make clear to the Committee that in not dealing with the Distribution of Industry Act in my remarks, I did not mean any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. He himself dealt very lightly with the question, and I understand that it is later to be dealt with more fully. The remarks I wish to make on this and on furniture I will make at a later stage in the Debate.
I understand that will be dealt with later on. Turning to clothing rationing, I first of all want to ask the Committee to remember that the 66 coupons—which was the original number of coupons issued—was no hit or miss figure. The statistical department of the Board of Trade, in conjunction, if my memory serves me, with the Bank of England, had been collecting statistics about the annual purchases of clothing by various sections of the community for or 12 years before 1941. I think this will help to put into perspective some of the subjects which hon. Gentlemen have been dealing with in a rather Scarborough atmosphere just now. When I asked for a foundation on which to build the rationing system the figures were available; the Department had them. The collection of these figures, if I may say so, is a typical piece of the sort of conscientious work which His Majesty's Civil Service perform, and it was all the more laudable, I think, because at the time these figures were being collected it must have appeared to the Board of Trade that they were largely of academic interest.
The Board of Trade were prepared to say within a reasonable margin of error—five or 10 per cent.—what the lowest paid part of the population bought before the war. Basing it on the sort of pointing we then contemplated, the lowest paid part of the population bought considerably more than 50 and rather under 60 coupons-worth of clothing per annum and, therefore, the original scheme was on the basis that the lowest paid part of the population should have an opportunity of buying rather more than they were accustomed to buy. Two and a half years after the end of the war the coupons available are far below the amount which used to be spent by the lowest wage earners before the war. I think we ought to get that straight first of all.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear whether those figures cover the unemployed?
They cover them all. The President of the Board of Trade has now announced a few further, and I think very tardy, concessions upon the clothing ration. I want first to examine the stocks of textiles. I draw the attention of the Committee to these very striking figures, and I would like to begin in October, 1947. These figures, by the way, are those of the Wholesale Textile Association, in collaboration with the Bank of England. Taking the year 1942 as Too—and I think one of the reasons why this reference year is taken is because it was the year after clothing rationing was introduced; that is why 1942 is taken as a reference year—taking that as 100, stocks in October, 1947, had risen to 141. They then went on, month by month, like this: November, 142; December, 156; January, 176; February, 185; March, 188; April, 191. It was this sharp rise and the unmistakable trend and tendency—I mean unmistakable to the ordinary businessman: it would be a bold fellow who said that anything was unmistakable to His Majesty's Ministers—which caused me to say on the last occasion when the subject was before the House, and when the right hon. Gentleman made a statement, that the action of the Board of Trade had been tardy and hesitant. That was received with some ribaldry at that time. Events have proved how accurate was my imputation.
That is not all. The Government, who are so ready with advice to everybody else as to how to run their business, and threatening to take over this or that in the cause of efficiency, show every day a total inability to run their own business. While wholesale stocks of textiles were rising in this very marked and significant way, we received a number of pronunciamentos from what I may call the Delphic section of the Cabinet Office and their hangers-on. We were indebted on the subject of changes to one of these pronouncements by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. Far be it from me to read out the original speech he made; that I have been warned never to do. I waited, of course, for the errata, addenda and apologia which always follow his public announcements. I am quoting largely from the apologia which followed these words, part in a letter to the "Manchester Guardian." That is rather a curious thing from an official Member of the Government, on 2nd May, when these very large alterations in the clothing ration are announced by the President of the Board of Trade on 25th May. I am not going back to what somebody said about the Reform Bill or what Mr. Gladstone said in 1886. I am merely going back to what the Government said a few days ago. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in one of the lamest speeches I have heard from a Minister during the course of this Parliament, also tried to make out that on 6th May, when he announced some concessions, he warned the House that further concessions were coming. I do not get that impression at all from the words. I quote some of them:
I do not withdraw it. All I say is that the right hon. Gentleman either misheard me or misunderstood me. I did not say this aftern00n that in my statement of 6th May I warned the House that further concessions were coming. What I did say was that I could not on that occasion inform the House that further concessions were coming because of the effect it would have upon the shopping public.
That is not at all the point. The right hon. Gentleman is purposely eluding the point. In this statement there was a warning to consumers that in order to balance the reduced pointing there might have to be a general cut in the ration in September. Now, 19 days afterwards, he has told us he is going to downpoint a great many articles in the rationed goods and on no account are these going to be up-pointed in the foreseeable future. This simply shows the complete and absolute lack of foresight which the Government always display.
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks I did not answer his question, perhaps I may make another attempt? He, as the initiator of the rationing would have realised, I should have thought, the difference between the number of coupons issued in a rationing period and the number required for particular articles. When I said that down pointing—which, as he knows, is of the number of coupons required for particular articles—is to be regarded as permanent, that is what I meant. It did not mean there may not be a reduction in the number of coupons in the hands of the public in the September-March period or in some subsequent period. The bonus issues which I have announced are designed to clear present stocks.
If the right hon. Gentleman is going to stand up and tell the Committee he is now going to make bonus issues of coupons but still reserve the position in the expectation that there may be a general reduction in the ration in September, I think the futility of the Government has reached a point unexpected even on this side of the Committee. Either stocks have grown so that there should be a bonus issue of coupons, and the Government think they can maintain the present ration indefinitely, or they do not. But to tell the Committee there is going to be a bonus issue now of coupons cashable in any form, though they may reduce the ration generally in September, is an argument utterly unworthy of a Minister on the Treasury Bench.
These further concessions have been made; and, as usual, they have been made after the event and not in anticipation of it. I have proved that by reading out the remarkable figures of the stocks of textiles. A very fair definition of Socialist planning would be, "Succumb to events." That is all we get. On this side we have always urged that we should work energetically towards the removal of all superfluous controls. Partly from administrative incompetence and partly from doctrinaire obstinacy the Government like to keep them on as long as possible. There are many experts in the textile business who believe that clothing rationing ought to be abolished altogether. I should myself not be prepared to agree with that at this moment, but I do not think, on the other hand, that the abolishing of clothing rationing is so far away as such experts on the matter as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General think it is. We should be able to work towards it much more rapidly than they think.
Another consideration about the tardy action over these stocks is that the Board of Trade, in common with many other Government Departments, is actually serving to create and plan further shortages. In the clothing industry, there are now about £60 million worth of frozen stocks of textiles, whereas the working stock of readily saleable textiles at this time of the year is usually about £35 million worth. These textiles are unsaleable for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it is because they are unfashionable. I think that the revival of fashion and of ideas about fashion is, on the whole, not a bad thing: it is evidence of the revival of consumers' choice.
Producers' choice.
That is a Scarborough-like interruption. I rather regret the form in which fashion is reappearing. For example, I am not a great admirer of bustles. I think, perhaps, they may lead the male population to look backward at a time when they ought to be looking forward—or, as hon. Members opposite may prefer to say, when they ought to be facing the future. But there it is. Many of these garments are unsaleable because they are unfashionable. Some utility clothing is shoddy and uncomfortable. Some underclothing is really terrible, I am told.
There is a large part of the community who cannot afford to buy clothes at the present prices. That is an absolute fact. For example, I think one of the hardest hit classes in the country is that composed of what are called "the black coated workers." They find it very difficult at present prices to maintain the standard of appearance which is expected of them. Of course, everyone in the Committee knows that clothing coupons are freely sold in the black market. A man—he was a Cockney, and so had a trenchant way of expressing himself—said to me only yesterday, "Coupons are 10 a penny at 18 pence a piece." That is rather a pictorial way of putting the situation. The main reason for this is that many coupon holders cannot afford to use their coupons, cannot afford to buy clothes. Apart from the price deterrent, now that there are no more old stocks—
Is it not an acknowledged fact that the only people who can find coupons in the black market are people who are looking for them?
Personally, I always make inquiries about where people are trying to break the law, in order that I may bring the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the fact. I am not one of those ostriches who bury their heads in the sand like the hon. Gentleman, and so think that everything is going along well. It is a fact that there is a very large market in coupons. But, apart from the price deterrent, now there are no old stocks of clothing in warehouses or wardrobes, the circulation of 48 coupons a year is quite inadequate for the majority of the population.
How are they able to sell them then?
The hon. Gentleman is not following my point. Perhaps, I may reiterate it. There are certain sections of the population who find it difficult to buy clothes and so to use their coupons, and consequently they sell their coupons; and the majority of the population who want to use more than they have got, if they are not law abiding, are able to buy them.
Perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would explain how that portion of the community which is unable to benefit by the existing ration would benefit by increasing the clothing ration?
That is quite irrelevant.
Oh.
Answer.
Certainly I will. But that interruption had nothing to do with the argument at all.
Answer it.
The point I am making is, apart from the price deterrent, which deters some— [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member wants to interrupt me he must get up—
rose
I am not going to give way. I do not think the hon. Member heard what I said. I said that if he wanted to interrupt me he should get up, but that if he did get up I should not give way.
One of the rather unworthy excuses which the right hon. Gentleman produced was that he liked to see a rising stock of textiles because there might be a shortage of clothing in the winter. I really do not think that was quite up to his usual form, because the articles I have in mind are, very largely, summer garments which will not be readily bought, particularly by women—
Women's coats?
—and which will not prove extremely useful reserves against the rigours of an English winter.
I do not want to touch for long on the subject of furniture, but the same general remarks are true. There is no action until after the situation has arisen and no foresight whatever has been shown. I want to supplement the argument of my hon. Friend on that subject. In 1947, 43 million furniture units were issued, but 8,500,000 were not taken up, owing to the shortage of houses. This is another instance of how Government Departments co-ordinate their actions. It would have been easy for the Board of Trade even to have guessed that the programme of the Ministry of Health would not have been realised. There are two other matters with regard to furniture. The first is that a new line of utility furniture has caused the old line to be largely unsaleable at the old prices. That is a commercial phenomenon which should surely not have been beyond the anticipation of the Government. There is also the matter of administration. As I understand it, there was to have been a new issue of utility furniture on 15th April, but the prices have not yet been fixed, and it is now 25th May. These two things—the unsaleability of old utility furniture in the face of the new, and this very inefficient delay in administration—are two of the reasons why the stocks of utility furniture are mounting.
I do not want to say much about the distribution of industry, although that is a subject in which I have a very strong personal interest. In the Committee stage of the Bill dealing with the distribution of industry, I said that I did not believe that very much compulsion would be required in order to get a large redistribution of industry, particularly in the Development Areas. I think that that has proved true within the limits of what is available. I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade should lose any opportunity of paying tribute to industry as a whole for the great help it has given in this respect—voluntary help—for which the information which the Board of Trade has provided has proved very useful.
Then there is the subject of the Government factories. To listen to some right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench, it might be thought that this was a policy initiated by the present Government. That is wholly inaccurate, and I have a personal reason for knowing that it is so. Even while the war was still in progress, when I was Minister of Production, I was able to obtain the agreement of my colleagues of all political parties to the erection of certain factories in Development Areas against the time when peace should reign again. They were begun at that time and since then the policy has naturally be extended.
The last subject on which I wish to touch is newsprint—and the story is really terrible. At the beginning of the war, the newsprint supplies available annually to the newspapers were about 1¼ million tons. In 1948, the supplies available were 338,000 tons. I was surprised to be informed that before the war the consumption of newsprint in this country was 60 lbs. per head against 56 lbs. per head in the U.S.A. Last year, British consumption was 15 lbs. per head against 70 lbs. per head in the United States, and the gap is not narrowing but widening. Furthermore, if one looks at the international figures the picture is still more sombre. I will give the Committee some comparisons with prewar consumption. The U.S.A. are using 137 per cent. of their prewar quantities, Canada 142, South Africa 174, Australia 116 and Russia 115. Great Britain is using 28 per cent. of its prewar supplies.
What about the defeated enemy and the occupied territories? Germany is using 72 per cent. of its pre-war quantities of paper, Italy 93, and of the occupied countries, Belgium 85, Denmark 67 and France 62. Taking the 21 nations which account for the bulk of the consumption, we have succeeded in the Olympic Games for newsprint in occupying the 20th place Hon. Gentlemen opposite may derive some satisfaction from the fact that we are not last, but they will derive less satisfaction from knowing that out of the 21 nations responsible for the bulk of the consumption, there is only one country—Japan—which has a lower percentage now than ours.
It is unnecessary to stress the very great need for us to conserve dollars whenever we can. I am informed that the total newsprint supplies asked for by the newspapers from Canada and Newfoundland in 1949 would absorb only about £2½ million in dollars. That is a figure which I will ask the Committee to examine in relation to the fact that we are now importing according to my information £2 million worth of American periodicals and books. Furthermore, as the Committee is well aware, under the recent agreements we are spending £4½ million on American films. I find it difficult to escape the conclusion that the Government with their Press commission and their greater and greater squeezing of newsprint are either consciously or unconsciously rather more pleased than pained that the British public is rapidly becoming the worst informed people in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Certainly, if we on this side of the Committee had had to produce some of the arguments which we have had to listen to today, we should not wish them exposed at great length in the newspapers.
If the planning and programming of our hard currency purchases is necessary, and I think that it is, the newspapers have had an entirely inadequate and unfair share by way of newsprint of the dollars which we have to spend. What is even more serious is that the British Government have succeeded in lowering the national prestige and the national reputation for honouring contracts by going back on two firm contracts entered into with Canada. One was repudiated in the Autumn of 1945, and the other in July last year. They are now about to repudiate a third contract in circumstances worse than the other two. In 1947—I think that was the year—some outside mills in Canada were brought into this arrangement. As these two previous contracts had been repudiated by the British Government, they said that they would not come in without a specific undertaking being written into the contract by the Treasury that the dollars would be availa- able for the supplies in 1949–1950. That was done. Now the Government propose to repudiate that contract as well. That will be a severe blow to our reputation for fair-dealing abroad.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give the source of the statistics with regard to newsprint consumption in the 21 countries?
Canadian Newsprint Association.
I have the information here, and if the hon. Member is interested I will be glad to send him a copy. It is a platitude to say that the very heart and soul of democracy depends upon free expression of views, but so many facts and so much material have to be crammed into the four pages of the present newspapers that the amount of space left for the individual views of the newspapers is wholly inadequate.
I should also like to know—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us this—whether the current reports that the Socialist Party are organising a new chain of newspapers are true; and, if so, how that is compatible with their policy of cutting down newsprint for the established Press, whatever its political complexion. I implore the Government to look at this whole question again, and, when they come to review the expenditure of dollars outside essential foodstuffs, to try to be reasonably fair over this matter and see that newsprint gets its proper share, and to cease to starve, by an administrative famine, the free expression of opinion to which on other occasions they are accustomed to pay lip service.
5.21 p.m.
I wish to detain the Committee for but a few minutes on the subject of newsprint. I am not staggered by the figures given by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) because it has to be underlined that he was making a comparison with prewar percentages. It may well be that before the war in this country we did use, or perhaps misuse, too much newsprint, and it may be compatible with an informed democracy that, let us say, the "News of the 'World," or even some publications of the party opposite, should be smaller than they were before the war. What worries me about the newsprint situation is the future. According to reports published by the newsprint companies, if we go back on our Canadian contracts supplies of Canadian newsprint may be diverted to the United States, or to other countries capable of entering into long-term contracts, with the result that Canadian newsprint will be permanently lost to Great Britain. It is clear from what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon that there is a limit to the newsprint which can come from Scandinavian sources. Looking five, 10 or 15 years ahead, we might find ourselves down to a figure permanently of about 300,000 tons of newsprint a year, which in my view would be wholly deplorable.
I look forward to great developments in the Colonial Empire, particularly in the African Colonies. Indeed, I do not believe that this country can secure economic stability unless there is a great development in those Colonies. During the war the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) produced a report on mass education in Africa, which looked forward to the time, within a very few years, when there would be a great growth of literacy. In that report great stress was rightly placed on the development of newspapers in the African Colonies. At present, in Nigeria, the largest of our Colonies—one-third the size of Europe, with a population of almost 25 million—there is a total of 25 publications, and the total daily circulation of newspapers does not amount to more than 33,000. In the Gambia, with about a quarter of a million population, there is not one daily newspaper. So one can go on, Colony after Colony, with roughly the same story. If the Colonial Secretary is to succeed in his attempt to eradicate illiteracy in the African Colonies there must be a great increase in the number of newspapers, particularly in English but also in the vernacular. But where is the newsprint coming from to supply the newspapers?
It is idle to talk about the growth of democracy unless, as the right hon. Member for Aldershot said—although I think he was speaking a little with his tongue in his cheek—there is a growth of informed opinion. I say I think he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek because I do not believe that the Conservative Party ever want an informed public opinion, because that would condemn them permanently to a minority position.
The hon. Member has no right to call in question the sincerity of a statement of that kind.
So far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, I gladly accept his assurance. I was dealing with his party as a whole, and looking at their record rather than at his own personal record.
The hon. Member should look at his own record. It will be a black one.
The point I want to make is that I think that the President of the Board of Trade has, very naturally, looked at this problem of newsprint from the narrow angle of the present dollar position, and that the newsprint companies have looked at it from the point of view of the needs of the great newspapers in our own country. I very much hope that the President of the Board of Trade will consult with the Colonial Secretary and examine the future needs of not only our own country but of the Colonies; and, moreover, that in assessing the demands for newsprint he will not be obsessed with the needs of the great national newspapers, but will also bear in mind the needs of local newspapers.
In my own area we are very well served by a good independent evening newspaper, the "Wolverhampton Express and Star," and a local weekly paper, the "Dudley Herald." They are not on my side of the political fence, so I cannot be accused of being biased in their favour on that account. It was brought home to me by the editor of the "Wolverhampton Express and Star" that he continually receives complaints from local authorities, particularly in rural areas, about the non-reporting of local council meetings and the like. That is a deplorable situation. I very much hope that the question of newsprint supplies will be re-examined from the social and—if I may so use the word in its widest sense—political standpoint, to ensure that we do not find ourselves pegged down to a basis which even in two or three years may be incapable of improvement.
5.27 p.m.
It would be very ungracious of me if I did not take the earliest opportunity of acknowledging to the President of the Board of Trade the service he has rendered, particularly to the class of political publication with which I am concerned, by raising us from our present percentage of 31½ to 35½ of our prewar consumption. I know the personal interest he has taken in this matter, and the efforts he made to prevent a reduction at an earlier date. I can assure him that when we get some extra pages for our issues we will endeavour to fill them with, if possible, even higher quality material than occupies the existing pages. In that regard I ought perhaps to disclose a private interest, but that is not incumbent upon me in regard to all I am about to say, because I want to deal briefly with the position of the daily newspapers, with none of which I have any connection at all.
Even after what the right hon. Gentleman has said today, the position is extremely serious. It was very difficult to follow precisely the figures he gave. I am not quite clear how far the position has improved, particularly in the vital matter of stocks which, as he said, have been reduced almost to danger-point. If I permit myself to express satisfaction now at his remarks, it may be that when I see the figures in print tomorrow that may rise to the level of positive enthusiasm. But I should not like to go as far as that at this moment. As has been said, the consumption of newsprint, even at the present reduced level, is 353,000 tons a year. In 1948 the figure of supplies was only 338,000 tons; this year it will be 340,000 tons, and next year, 350,000 tons. The Government estimates for 1949 give an almost precise balance at 350,000 tons of supplies. That makes no allowance whatever for any unforeseen eventualities. There have, moreover, been further inroads on socks, which are almost, if not completely, below the safety level. Therefore, I shall carefully scrutinise the published figures tomorrow to see to what the extent the position has been improved.
Like the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I view with grave disquiet the possibility of the diversion of essential Canadian supplies to other destinations. In this matter, as in so many others, Canada has treated us with extraordinary consideration and generosity, but we have tried her very hard. Three times the contracts entered into have had to be revised downwards at the behest of the Government. The three reductions brought a total contract figure of 608,000 tons down to 304,000; it is probably an accident that that comes to exactly 50 per cent. That is obviously a very grave matter to the Canadian supplier, who can sell his products almost wherever he wants and in any country, for there is an unsatisfied demand for newsprint everywhere. It is a serious matter that contracts which were made by us should have been broken time after time. If we now make another serious cut, the whole long-term position, as the hon. Member for Dudley has said, will be gravely prejudiced.
I would emphasise particularly the vital importance of increasing the size of papers, if that is possible, in the year 1949. We do not expect it for this year, but a reversion to the average five-page paper in 1949 is a matter not merely of professional importance—that is a secondary consideration—but of national and, as I shall show, of international importance. With the present allowance of paper, the popular newspaper—which in London means some II or 12 million copies daily—cannot fulfil the first function of a newspaper, that of providing an adequate and accurate news service. This House some time ago proposed the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate various shortcomings of the Press. What has emerged primarily so far from the proceedings of that Commission is a general testimony that by far the greatest evil from which the Press is tcday suffering is a shortage of newsprint. The papers are prevented from fulfilling their function, but the shortage means less to them than to the public they serve.
It prevents the public from getting the news to which the public is entitled and without which it cannot form a reasoned and instructed opinion on the vital questions of the day. It leads also to a great discouragement amongst journalists, who try day after day to get what they call a story, obtaining interesting and important news, but finding that there is no more than an inch of the paper, or not even that, in which their story can appear. I remember sufficient of my younger days to know the utter discouragement which falls on a young journalist who brings in a good story and cannot get a line of it into the paper.
We have been reminded today by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and others of the danger of an uninstructed democracy. I believe profoundly that democracy is a better political system than any other, but its dangers at the best of times and in the best of circumstances are very great, even when the papers are providing all the materials they should. It is almost inevitable that democracy should grow up uninstructed under present circumstances, for it has no opportunity, or next to none, of being anything else so far as current events are concerned.
I am alive, of course, to the faults of existing papers. I wish they did not give so much time or space—as so many of them devote their back pages—to sport and sporting events of one kind and another particularly to speed-competitions between various kinds of quadrupeds. I should like to see important news given on one or two of those columns instead of their being devoted solely to sport. We can all make suggestions as to the improvement of papers, but that is not relevant in this connection, because the worst thing which could happen would be for paper-rationing to be used for anything like a censorship of papers. There may be other ways of achieving improvements. The Royal Commission will no doubt discover them. That question does not come within our province today.
The inevitable result of the present stringency is that a paper, however much it desires to do so, cannot give both sides of a case adequately because there is not the space to do so. In the case of political papers it is natural that a Labour paper would give mainly the Labour side of the case; a Conservative paper would give the Conservative side. If it were independent it would do its best to keep a middle course. Even under the most skilled treatment a paper would be open to the criticism now and then that it leaned more to one side than to the other.
The real gravity of the situation lies not in what the papers are suffering—which is a secondary matter—but in what the public is suffering. It is a calamity, not to journalism but to the public, that "The Times," for example, today has eight or sometimes ten pages instead of its prewar 30. It is a calamity that the more serious papers like the "Yorkshire Post," the "Manchester Guardian," the "Daily Telegraph" and the "Birmingham Post" must give their public as inadequate news, both foreign, home, political and local, as they are compelled to do today.
All these arguments must be weighed when we are considering the amount of newsprint which can be imported into this country and from what sources. Even the Government, as an administrative machine, suffers from the lack of newsprint. There are announcements which the Government want printed for their own benefit. They maintain a Central Office of Information, which is always putting out announcements which it wants the papers to print. An innumerable multitude of public relations officers are maintained, who are perpetually sending to newspaper offices something which some Ministry wants to see inserted. In existing circumstances it simply cannot be done. If the Government really want these announcements made they must somehow enable the papers to get more material on which to print them.
There is an even worse and more serious aspect — the lamentable reduction in foreign and international news from which we are suffering today. It is impossible to understand other countries and what happens in them because we do not get news about them. The reason why we do not get news about them is again, that there is nothing to print it on. Many papers no longer keep correspondents, as they used to do, in foreign capitals, because when the expensive cables are received in London they must be cut down to a few lines or discarded altogether. It is no wonder that America, with 137 per cent. of its pre-war consumption, as against Britain's mere 28 per cent., complains that while American papers are giving a most adequate service of news about Britain, as they are, our papers are giving a quite contemptible service of news about America. In view of the importance of good relations between this country and the United States, it is a very grave matter that we are unable to treat the news from that particular country in the way it needs to be treated. General Smuts, only this week, spoke of the vital importance to the world of the association between the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States. That association cannot be built on any solid basis unless the two countries understand one another, and they cannot understand one another unless they get a daily service of adequate news.
There is one other point I wish to raise. I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade how we stand for newsprint under the European Recovery Programme. It was announced by Mr. Hoffman on l0th April that a large number of specific commodities were to be supplied to this country under E.R.P. Among those items was one of 22 million dollars worth of newsprint. What does that mean? Have we applied for that amount of newsprint or was the allocation made by Mr. Hoffman as administrator of Marshall Aid? I understand that under that programme part of—I will not call it the charity—the service rendered to us by the United States will be in the form of outright grants and, in some cases, in the form of loans. It is by no means clear whether Mr. Hoffman's offer was a grant of 22 million dollars for newsprint. If it is, I would like to know what attitude the Government are adopting towards it because at a news conference the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement which I confess I found incomprehensible. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade, when he comes to reply, can clear that up.
I realise, as everyone must, the difficult task which the President of the Board of Trade has to discharge in balancing one necessity as against another—they are all necessities of different degrees—getting demands made from this quarter and the other, and having somehow or other to judge between them and to compare things which in their very nature are not comparable. But I beg him to realise that there is such a thing as intellectual starvation as well as physical starvation. A people facing great problems and confronted by grave crises needs to be informed on the elements of these problems, and cannot be so informed unless the Government can at least enable the newspapers to have more pages next year. If that cannot be, the loss will not be primarily to the papers but to the whole community.
5.41 p.m.
I shall not follow the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) in what he said about newsprint, except to say that as one who has practised letters to some extent I have a good deal of sympathy with what he has said. I wish to speak on the question of coupons and then on a matter which has something to do with the distribution of industry.
As a housewife, I welcome very cordially the concessions which the President of the Board of Trade has announced today, both in regard to the bonus issue of 12 coupons for a limited period, and also the down-pointing concessions which he has been able to announce in addition to his previous announcement on 6th May. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has not succumbed to the pressure put on him in some quarters to abolish clothes rationing altogether. I hope that even when g00ds become very much more generally available than at the present time he will consider very seriously any steps in the direction of abolishing clothing rationing, because even though supplies in the shops may seem to be adequate the supplies in the home are very far from adequate. A premature lifting of rationing would mean, therefore, that there would be inflationary pressure on prices to the great disadvantage of families of small means and to the women in industry who cannot search the shops for the goods they want in the same way as their more favoured sisters can.
I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade did not find it possible to do something more to ease the claims which are being made today on the housewife's ration book on account of household linen and furnishings. I know that theoretically every member of the family should help in this regard, but I also know that this state of affairs is only theoretical, especially in those families where children are growing up and have ideas of their own about their clothing needs. This means that the pressure on the housewife's clothing ration is very heavy indeed. I am sorry, too, that the President of the Board of Trade has not been able to do something more with regard to non-couponed furnishing material. I admit that the concessions he has announced go some way towards meeting the difficulty, but I do not think they go far enough. During last week I studied the prices of furnishing materials of this sort, both rationed and unrationed, in towns as far apart as Scarborough, Bath, Bristol and Plymouth. I found that the difference in prices as between comparable materials subject to rationing and those that are coupon free amounts to as much as 10s. to ££1 a yard. That puts the unrationed materials entirely out of the reach of the lower income groups, and, indeed, out of the reach of large sections of the middle classes.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) at Question Time today, my right hon. Friend said that this additional price was due to some extent to the Purchase Tax which the unrationed furnishing materials had to carry. That may be true, but I would draw his attention to the fact that the difference in price is very often much more than the 66⅔ per cent. of Purchase Tax which has to be paid on these materials, and that there is a good deal of exploitation of people who can afford these heavy prices going on at the present time to the disadvantage of the working classes and middle classes.
I would draw his attention to the fact that there is a considerable sense of injustice among housewives on this subject. Only last night at a meeting in my constituency at which I was speaking this matter was raised at question time by one of the women present and it was quite obvious that her remarks were endorsed by all the women in the audience. I hope it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to do something more before very long to even matters up as between the higher income groups and the lower income groups in this matter of furnishing materials.
My second point relates to the urgent need for industrial and commercial rehabilitation in our heavily war damaged towns. In so far as I may refer to towns other than Plymouth, I should like to point out that I do so with the full approval and co-operation of my colleagues on these benches who represent these towns. I know the keen interest my right hon. Friend has in this subject. Indeed, at the same public meeting last night in Plymouth I was specifically asked by the audience to express to the President of the Board of Trade their grateful thanks for the help he has quite recently given to the City of Plymouth, in that he has made arrangements for the former building training centre to be used for the purposes of light industry, with a very considerable effect upon employment prospects within the City. I would point out, however, that there is a serious employment problem arising in a number of our heavily war damaged towns, first, because of the economic disabilities caused by war destruction, and, second, because of the very special problems in relation to economic rehabilitation that has been caused by the recent and quite necessary cuts in capital expenditure.
For instance, according to the latest figures in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," there were on 31st March nearly 5,000 people unemployed in the City of Hull; on the Merseyside, another heavily war damaged area, there were 21,131; in Plymouth approximately 2,000, and in Portsmouth 2,514. I would point out in relation to the last two figures that the position would be even worse than it is at present but for the welcome policy of the Admiralty in keeping the level of employment in the dockyards as stable as possible. Nevertheless, despite that policy, redundancy is occurring, people are being put out of work and recruitment of labour into His Majesty's Dockyards is practically at a standstill. The important point is that if more rehabilitation of industry in these areas was taking place this problem of unemployment in the blitzed towns would not arise. It is not a question of no work needing to be done in these towns but, in present circumstances, of not being able to do the work which so urgently needs to be done.
These facts are borne out by statistics of the destruction of industrial and business premises in some of the heavily war damaged towns and that still await reconstruction. For example, in the City of Portsmouth during the war, 94 industrial buildings were completely destroyed. One hundred and twenty-seven business and commercial buildings were also destroyed. As a balance to these figures and so that the Committee can get a true picture of the situation, I must state that 16 undertakings each costing £2,000 or over have been rebuilt during the post-war period. Undertakings costing less than £2,000 are hardly worth taking into consideration for my purpose. Plans for another five are being considered and another 10 have been delayed because of the cuts in capital expenditure. In Plymouth 106 acres have been acquired for industrial purposes, but of these only 27 have so far been taken up by lessees who want to build new factories in that area. There is very great difficulty in leasing the other sites, because it is not possible for the developers concerned to foresee the prospect of being able to put up the buildings they want to erect.
The same is true of the City of Liverpool where, during the war, 726 office buildings and business premises were destroyed; 292 were damaged beyond repair; a further 246 industrial establishments were destroyed by enemy action and another 154 were damaged beyond repair. Reconstruction of the vast majority has not yet begun, while, at present, there is little chance of getting them rebuilt. I understand that in Bristol, where industrial and business development has been practically stopped, the difficulty arises that if development is not allowed to proceed in an orderly manner it will proceed in a disorderly and undesirable manner. A great sense of frustration is felt both by the civic authorities and would-be developers because they cannot get on with the job.
Or I could take the criterion of the loss of rateable values to which, under normal conditions, business and commercial undertakings make so considerable a contribution. I will not weary the Committee with statistics on this matter, except to say that I have in my hand figures for Bootle, Plymouth and Swansea which, in detailing the loss of rateable values, show the great difficulties which the authorities and industries in these towns are experiencing at present. There exists a real danger that some of these towns will drift into even worse positions than those which obtain in the so-called Development Areas. Indeed, that is the actual circumstance now in so far as Hull and the Merseyside are concerned. Unemployment at Hull is now worse than it is in any of the Development Areas, with the single exception of South Wales. On the Merseyside the position is even worse—
Can the hon. Lady tell us what is the unemployment figure in Hull?
I gave the figure just now. On 3rst March it was 4,440, and is now rather more. I have not been able to get the exact figure, but I am assured by colleagues who sit for Hull constituencies that the present figure is around 5,000.
I would like the President of the Board of Trade to take four things into consideration. First, I would ask that whether or not he includes war damaged areas as Development Areas when he is reconsidering the schedule of Development Areas under the Distribution of Industry Act, he will afford to heavily war damaged areas the same treatment in all matters of priorities, and in industrial and commercial rehabilitation, as he is at present giving to the Development Areas.
Second, will he consult with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, both at national and regional level, to see that in the present crisis preparatory reconstruction work in the heavily blitzed towns is not impeded? I ask this particularly because, if we can get on with that preparatory work during this period of capital cuts, it will mean that when the crisis has passed, and present restrictions on industrial building are relaxed, there need be no further delay in going ahead with the rebuilding of the industrial and commercial life of the cities concerned.
Third, where, as in Hull and on the Merseyside and, to a lesser degree, in Portsmouth and Plymouth, unemployment is becoming serious, or is higher than the average for the whole country, will he take special steps to counter this, including the granting of extra licences for the rebuilding or building of industrial premises in these areas? Fourth, in the Service and Dockyard areas, such as Plymouth and Portsmouth, where there must be a tendency, inevitably, towards retrenchment in peace-time, will he see that plans are pressed forward with all speed for the greater diversification of industry, especially those complementary to the main industries, so that the slack in employment can be taken up in these towns?
Speaking for the City of Plymouth and, I believe, for all the areas that were heavily damaged during the war, I can say that there is an acute anxiety and a deep desire to play a full part in the solution of the nation's present economic problems. There is, however, a feeling that as things are at the moment that full part cannot be played. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to provide us with the means by which the desires of the people in these towns may be carried into effect.
6.0 p.m.
I shall not delay the Committee by going over the points so cogently made by previous speakers. As to newsprint, I cannot say how strongly I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and my hon. Friends who have insisted both upon the importance of expanding newspapers and of not breaking our contracts with our friends in Canada. I do not need to repeat those points because they have been adequately made. There is just one thing on that matter that I should like to ask, and I should be very grateful if the President of the Board of Trade would make it clear when he goes in to bat for his second innnings in the hope of averting an innings defeat, as I understand that later on in the evening he is going to do.
As I understood him, he told us that we need not fear a reduction in the size of newspapers to two pages, because he had every confidence that there would not be any further cuts in the supply of newsprint. If that be his argument I am not quite comfortable about it, nor can I follow it, because everybody knows, as he indeed admitted in another portion of his speech, that four-page papers are only maintained at present because the stocks of newsprint are being very rapidly run down. I do not see how we can be confident about maintaining newspapers at their present size unless we can have held up to us a promise, not of the maintenance of the present supplies, but of a considerable increase in the present supplies. I should be most grateful if the President of the Board of Trade would make it quite clear what is the answer to that point.
The right hon. Gentleman announced certain coupon concessions, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot has criticised that announcement. The position seems to me to be extremely difficult and it is not easy for the man in the street, and indeed for us in this House, to make up our minds what is adequate or what is inadequate in the way of concessions, for one reason which I should like to make clear to the Committee. All turns on the export position and it is impossible for the public at the present moment to discover what is the export position. A month or so ago I happened to have the good fortune to win the ballot, and I initiated a Debate in the Committee on the export targets for this year. I will not, therefore, further delay the Committee by putting before it again my general views about our export policy, but there is one particular point to which I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to give attention. At the end of last week certain figures in regard to our balance of trade were published and, at any rate to the uninstructed reader, they seemed dangerously alarming, and as such were treated by all the commentators in the newspapers both on Saturday and during the weekend.
Hon. Members are familiar with the details of those figures and I need not go into them in any great detail, because that is not my argument. As hon. Members are aware, broadly speaking it appeared that the adverse balance of trade had amounted to the alarming figure of £54,500,000 a month, and a simple multiplication sum seemed to show that our adverse balance was, therefore, running at £650 millions a year, which is practically twice as much as we are going to receive in Marshall aid. That was a terrifying figure. One responsible newspaper, which is not particularly favourable to this side of the Committee, on Sunday described it as equivalent to a major defeat in war and said that it was an extremely alarming state of affairs. It is perfectly true when one broke down the figures one found another factor which was slightly more reassuring and that was that, bad as the general adverse balance of trade was, the adverse balance with the Western hemisphere was somewhat diminishing while the adverse balance with the rest of the world was growing. Although it is not particularly comfortable to think that at this time we are sending out unrequited exports, however, that was certainly a modification of the picture.
That was the picture given to the world of this country's position on Saturday. In the Saturday and Sunday papers that was the way it was dealt with, while the dangerous position of this country was broadcast to every quarter of the world on those two days. Suddenly on Monday there appeared something called a Treasury statement, which is headed "Trade Deficit Explained." There we are given five reasons which tend to show that the situation is not as serious as it appeared to be on Saturday. With some of the reasons given most of us are familiar, but others are new to us and others rather difficult to understand. First, we are told that the months of March and April were two exceptionally high import months. Most people understood that that was so. Then in the next reason we are told that we had been given
There are two comments I should like to make on that. The first is that in so far as it shows that the Government are at last waking up to the value of invisible exports, which up to the present they have done everything possible to discourage, it is an entirely satisfactory if a last-minute conversion. Secondly, if the real adverse balance was only £107 million and that was discovered on Monday, what sense was there in telling the world on Saturday that the adverse balance of trade was £174 million and throwing people into an unnecessary panic?
We then come to the third point. Again, we are told that the recorded imports are not the same as the expenditure on imports. We are told that £5,500,000 on tobacco coming into this country in April was something about which we should not worry because it had been paid for a long time before—in November. There, again, I want to know what we are to make of this figure? If it means that the April figures are better than they appeared, it also means that the November figures were worse than they appeared when they were published. Also, if the figures are made up in that way and a lot of things paid for in November, which we did not receive till April, then are there or are there not figures in the April total for goods which we will not receive until next November? We do not know where we are in this matter. It is no good the Government through one Department issuing a rigmarole of statistics on Saturday, and then on Monday another Department saying that the statistics do not mean what they say. Supposing an Opposition paper had issued the Board of Trade statistics on Saturday and on Monday the Government issued a statement referring to gross misrepresentation in that paper, we would know where we were, but what is the sense of one Government Department criticising another Department and telling us that the statistics they issued are entirely unintelligible?
The Treasury statement went on to tell us that the increased deficit had been mainly with the soft currency countries in unrequited exports. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us in no uncertain terms on more than one occasion that we cannot afford any more unrequited exports, so why exactly we should congratulate ourselves that this type of export is increasing I do not understand. The Treasury statement ended by telling us that the reason for the increased prices of our imports was the rise in prices in exporting countries, and throughout the world, and the unfavourable terms of trade. With all that sort of explanation we are familiar as far as it goes, but it is impossible for hon. Members either on or off the Treasury Bench, or for anybody whether inside or outside the House, to make head or tail of the contradictory statements that appear from Government Departments.
There is still a great deal to explain about the Treasury's explanation. When the Treasury's explanation has itself been explained, I dare say by some other Government Department such as the Ministry of Town and Country Planning or the Ministry of Commonwealth Affairs—let them all have a whack—we shall perhaps know where we are. I am not denying that the Treasury explanation may perhaps be explained. My major point is a very much more simple one, to which there cannot be any conceivable answer. It is that if the explanation was there and was valid it should have been issued on Saturday, and should not have been kept back until Monday. It was an unpardonable blunder on the part of His Majesty's Government to have allowed those statistics, which by their own confession are bogus statistics and were damaging to the prestige of the country, to go out on Saturday and to have waited until Monday before issuing the explanation.
6.12 p.m.
There is a danger that the thunder of this Debate may be stolen by the concessions in clothing coupons. Indeed, it would appear that the ballyhoo and the political propagandising of the clothing trade during the past few weeks has paid substantial dividends this afternoon. All of us in the Committee welcome the concessions—
Where is the ballyhoo?
I was referring to the method of approach to the Board of Trade and not to the concessions. I want to bring some balance back to the Debate by referring to a subject which particularly concerns me and my constituency and which has been too little mentioned this afternoon, even by the President of the Board of Trade himself. It is the furniture industry. The shortage of furniture in this country is as noticeable as the shortage of clothing. It is equally vital that this country should be given more furniture as soon as possible.
What are the facts of the present situation? It is undoubtedly true that there is a very substantial glut of furniture in our retail shops. I only wish that the President of the Board of Trade could have come with me during the last few days to retail shops in the London area and to warehouses in my constituency. He would have seen exactly how big is the pile-up of utility furniture that could be made available. It is also undoubtedly a fact that there is considerable under-employment—let us call it, if you like, concealed unemployment—in the industry. I heard the figures which the Minister of Labour gave us this afternoon indicating the amount of short time in the whole industry. He said that something like 1,700 people were suffering an average short time of II hours a week. He tried to balance that by adding that 5,000 others were enjoying over-time on an average of five hours per week. Evidently, the industry is somewhat out of joint.
My constituency is particularly affected. The figures which I have obtained of under-employment in High Wycombe, reputedly the heart of the furniture industry, reveal that we have 9oo workers out of 6,000 suffering under-employment to the extent of from eight to 10 hours per week. That short-time reflects itself in the pay packet to the extent of from 30s. to £2 per week. I would be lacking in my representational function if I did not refer with some emphasis to what is happening. It is somewhat ironical that we have encouraged our workers to go all out and work hard. They have responded willingly. They now say: "That is the result of 'work or want'; it looks as if we are having a little bit of want at the moment." I regret to have to say these things, but some of my trade unionists may be saying that "go slow" was not a bad policy after all. I do not want them to get back to that frame of mind again.
The solution of our problem is easier than in the case of the clothing industry, where there are many special difficulties. I believe that the solution for the furniture industry would be very much easier. Hon. Members will be aware that the furniture industry does not suffer very much in its home trade from competition from the export market. Furniture is not one of our big export items. I have been trying to assemble the facts of the present situation. One of them is that the present priority classes in relation to furniture appear to be completely satisfied. Under the utility scheme there are two priority classes, the bombed-outs and the newlyweds. I am certain that we all agree that the utility scheme was magnificent in providing the people of this country during the war and immediately afterwards with furniture that they needed. Nor will anybody deny that many of our people had an opportunity under the utility scheme, with its price regulation, to obtain furniture which they would never have been able to get in prewar days. In that way the utility scheme has certainly produced highly satisfactory results.
I believe, however, that the balance of distribution under the utility scheme has broken down. In reply to a recent Question of mine, the President of the Board of Trade gave figures to which the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) referred this afternoon. It is clear that in 1947 some 8½ million, out of a total distribution of 42 million units, were not returned to the retail shops. That one-fifth is too much to allow for experimental error. I believe that my right hon. Friend recognised this, and that he took steps to try to balance the situation.
What are the reasons for the breakdown in the utility scheme? I believe that the Minister is well aware of some of them. I would draw the attention of the Committee to one point; I think we now have to go beyond the two priority classes, who have now been satiated. In addition, there is a shortage of money. Gratuities and payments of one kind and another have now ceased. I have here a catalogue of utility furniture. I am prepared to say that, even with the 60 units now permitted, very few families in the priority classes are able to buy up to 60 units' worth of furniture at present prices. It is interesting to note that the price of utility is three times that of equivalent furniture before the war, and of non-utility furniture it rises to six times the price of similar prewar furniture. I will argue in a moment that there is an opportunity there for others than the Government to make a contribution to the removal of the present glut. The President may well argue that he has had no response from the manufacturers in reducing prices, but there has been a small contribution in response to his recent appeal. I believe that it could be much greater, but let it go out from here that we hope the trade will make its contribution in the present situation too.
I would also like to submit that there is a certain degree of discrimination now among furniture buyers. It is probably true that utility no longer quite satisfies people in their search for home furniture. People are more "choosy" today. One big firm with many branches throughout the country told me yesterday that 90 per cent. of the suites they sold last year were of one particular model. Therefore, when we do introduce a new design into the utility scheme it is snatched up by everybody who wants to buy that particular item of furniture. It may also be true that one of the reasons for the glut is that there is a slight seasonal slump. I am told that this year it is particularly noticeable that holidays versus furniture may be a prevailing competition. The high cost of holidays has to be balanced against money saved in other directions.
I believe that the President is aware of these arguments, otherwise he would not have come to the House on 6th May and made the statement which gave very great heart to both sides of the furniture industry. He said on that occasion that he would increase the number of units to the priority classes. He finished with the statement:
The concession which the President has made is not sufficient to absorb the present glut. What can the President do? I should be particularly glad to hear when he closes the Debate that he will make to the furniture industry concessions such as those which he has made so handsomely to the clothing industry. He should at once open up the priority classes to other classes of workers. I recognise that it is extremely difficult to widen those classes and to make perhaps unnecessary discrimination. There may be administrative difficulties and the difficulty of definition, but he should at once open those classes to miners, agricultural workers and cotton operatives and give them 60 units as an incentive. That would be a contribution to more work in those areas.
I should like to pursue the President's remarks and see whether there is an area where we can release furniture to all. I believe we could introduce a ration to all in this country of, say, 20 units. It is a good beginning. It is an experiment. I hope the President will be courageous in this as he has been in his clothing concessions and as the Minister of Food was in regard to milk. The present ration book could be used for this purpose. The third thing he should do—I believe this is also immediately possible—is to release obsolescent models which are cluttering up some of our warehouses and retail shops. I have seen 1944 and 1945 models still available in the shops. If the President could release them and de-ration them, they would undoubtedly be taken. They are very serviceable pieces of furniture and they would certainly be sold.
Now, if the President is going to reply to all this that the timber situation does not warrant this widening of the field of furniture, I must give him some statistics in advance. After all, the furniture industry has been concerned about the timber situation. Let us see the situation now. When we raised this matter before December it was clear that we were worried about the future and about the supply of our dollar timber. The situation is easier now, and statistics prove it. Our timber yards are filled with timber. In February, 1947, the amount of hardwood in the country was 11.77 million cubic feet. In February this year it had risen to 25.94 million cubic feet, so that we have more than twice as much in the country as we had a year ago, and it is no longer necessary to be so extremely cautious about liberating, as was done in period two of this year for the furniture industry, only an additional 20 per cent. for furniture manufacturers. We can go much wider than that and there would be no difficulty in selling the furniture and keeping full employment in the industry if the area of priorities were increased.
Those may be short-term remedies, and I hope they are. I would like to think that we were also taking a long-term view. I would like the President of the Board of Trade, in his efforts to liberate to some extent this industry, to open up a zone of free design outside the utility range. If we had, say, 25 per cent. of the timber allocated to the industry given to furniture manufacturers for freedom of design, we would certainly have a restoration of craftsmanship in this industry. I deplore going to my furniture factories and seeing, as I did the other day, the long brackets of tools of craftsmen for whom there is no job in this industry. One of them was doing an upholstering job and another was brushing the yard—skilled craftsmen who cannot be employed while our utility furniture—.good though much of it is—is restricted in design. That zone of free design would give back to craftsmanship an opportunity in this industry. It would restore the heritage that is the craftsman's right.
I trust that my argument has been a clear-cut one. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will respond to this argument. I hope he will respond to the approaches which have been made to him in months past by both sides of this industry in what I consider was a very statesmanlike manner. For them there has been no prima donna-ish banging of the door and walking out on the Board of Trade. For them there was no ballyhoo. I suggest that if that is necessary in order to get results, the furniture industry might stage a sit-down strike on Millbank—there are certainly plenty of chairs available—and we might get results. I hope it will not come to that. I feel sure that the President is conscious of the need for helping industry along the lines I have suggested. If he does, he will not only be making a contribution to this industry, for which I feel a certain responsibility, but will also be enabling the people of this country to build homes instead of merely having houses.
6.30 p.m.
I am sure the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) will pardon me if I do not follow him closely in the admirable speech he has made, but I hope his recommendations will be listened to carefully by the President of the Board of Trade. Nor do I intend to spend much time upon the clothing rationing, important as that is, though I should like to say how welcome to the country will be the arrangement which the President has announced, particularly to those who wish to see some alleviation of austerity without affecting our vital export drive.
My main intention is to deal with the question of newsprint. I think we shall find tomorrow, when we read the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, that the only satisfactory assur- ance we have been given is that there will be no reduction from four pages in the foreseeable future. But that is not really the answer to the problem. It only touches the fringe of the problem, and therefore I want to put several points to the Government. This is not a matter out of which party political capital should be made, since all parties are equally interested in the maintenance and strengthening of democracy in this country, and in an adequate supply of newsprint to see that that democracy is carried on adequately.
I had hoped to get from the President of the Board of Trade a definite and clear recognition on the part of the Government that they regarded newsprint as of vital importance to our democratic way of life. In fact, I had the impression that it was treated merely as another product or commodity. d am not suggesting that it should be given higher priority than food and certain other raw materials, but we have the right to claim that it should be given treatment in the essential class and not be treated as a luxury, and that within the Marshall Aid and the dollar expenditure there should be a revision of priorities to see if we cannot get a progressive plan to increase the size of our newspapers.
The attitude which the Government have adopted up to now has to my mind been unsatisfactory. I say this not in a hostile sense but in the hope that it will be changed. It is not compatible with the fine assertions made by the Minister of State at the recent Conference at Geneva, to which reference has already been made. It is, however, worth while refreshing the minds of the Committee by recalling that the British delegation there put forward the principle that the true interchange of information and opinion is essential to the cause of peace, besides being a fundamental right. They asserted that adequate facilities for publishing newspapers should be provided, that what was required was not less publication but more, and that controversy was the breath of British life. We all agree with that, and we recognise that in the circumstances at Geneva the Minister of State was referring primarily to the clash between a free Press and a Government controlled Press, but my point is that it is possible to limit the exchange of views and opinion, to stifle controversy and argument just as much by inadequate newsprint as by a vigorous form of censorship. Therefore, if we accept that point of view, it becomes of paramount importance to democracy to have a plan for the progressive increase of our newspapers rather than to accept complacently a four-page newspaper for a number of years.
A four-page newspaper has to carry certain standardised items of news and reporting in order to be produced. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong that there should be racing and sporting results, Stock Exchange prices and radio programmes every day in every newspaper, but those things have to be included. Therefore, in a four-page newspaper the amount of space available for comment, Parliamentary reporting, foreign reporting, argument and controversy is extremely limited and it is significant that when the size of newspapers goes up, the increase in Parliamentary reporting and foreign reporting is proportionally higher than in the case of racing, sport and so on.
As I say, the acceptance of the idea of a four-page newspaper for a considerable time will have a serious effect upon the public of this country. The very small amount of foreign reporting in the British Press with a four-page newspaper is amazing to my mind. I do not want to make hostile criticism, but I do not think that the Nenni telegram would have arisen if there had been adequate reporting of exactly what was going on in Italy—certainly not as far as 19 of the members were concerned. Nevertheless, it is true that today we are ill-informed on foreign affairs at a time when we should be extremely well informed.
Was there not plenty of room in the papers to report the action of this House about the Nenni telegram?
The hon. Member leads me to my next point. It is an easy criticism to make that the newspapers select the wrong information and that they could put in speeches by the Archbishop of Canterbury or foreign Prime Ministers rather than a murder. That is quite correct, but if the hon. Member wants an example of the tragedy today of trying to sift news, let him visit as I did, recently, that very efficient organisation, the Press Association. I chose that because it is non-party and independent. Let him see the kind of news which goes into that Association every day compared with the amount that gets into the newspapers. It is a staggering comparison. Seven hundred word extracts come in of speeches by leading Churchmen on matters of Christian culture, but there is only room in the newspapers for about three or four sentences. Some newspapers will give more but in a four-page newspaper the job of sub-editing, of cutting, of discarding is absolutely heartbreaking. When I visited the Press Association, I was amazed at the amount of news which I was not going to get. Although it was being passed on to the newspapers, one knew that there was little chance of it appearing in print. If the hon. Member wants to see the measure of that, let him visit that place for a couple of hours.
It has also been mentioned that the Government are keen on seeing that the public are well informed. That was the burden of the speech of the Lord President of the Council in the Debate we had just before the Recess, so I hope that the Government will give serious consideration again to that problem.
I want to refer in some detail to the actual contract with the Canadians. The Committee should be grateful to the Canadians for the way they responded to the grave difficulties which confronted us, and I hope that the Government will bear that in mind when dealing with this question in the future. Reference has been made to the fact that the Canadian contract has been broken three times. There are four large new Canadian companies now coming into the British market for the first time. The Canadians have kept their contract in being, even though we have been playing ducks and drakes with them the whole time. We have now had to reduce the contracts for 1949 to 100,000 tons which, I understand, is the same amount which we are to get in 1948. Before any suggestion was made of any further cut, the intention was that there would be 100,000 tons of Canadian newsprint imported into this country.
The contract is a 10-year contract, and whatever figure we take from the Canadians for 1949 is to act as the basis for our 1o-year contract because there is an escalator clause in the contract saying that, based upon what the British take in 1949, the Canadians will agree to increase that amount by 50,000 tons a year progressively from 1949. If we took 100,000 tons in 1949 we could get 150,000 tons in 1950, 200,000 tons in 1951 and so on over the 10-year period. But if we take only 30,000 tons next year, we can only take 80,000 tons the year after and 130,000 tons the year after that. The decision the Government are to make is going to have a vital and far-reaching effect over a period of 1o years. The Government may, by a wrong decision, make it possible for this country to lose 700,000 tons of newsprint, and that is a great deal. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will bear that in mind all the time.
This is not just planning on a day to day basis; a 10-year contract is in jeopardy. The Canadians will want to know before September. Can we have an assurance that before September, a decision will be taken of what we are going to expend in dollars on Canadian newsprint before 1949? By that time the Canadians will have to know in order to get rid of their stocks and sign up long-term contracts to our detriment. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will remember that Canadian newsprint is a great deal cheaper than newsprint coming from Scandinavia. It is vitally important both for political reasons and to ensure supplies for the British Press, that the Government should not completely sever the contractual relations which have existed and do exist between British newspapers and Canada's largest industry. It is absolutely vital that this matter should be given the most serious consideration.
I am not asking for an increased expenditure of dollars. I am asking that there should be a revision and that newsprint should not be regarded as a luxury but placed in a category of essentials for democracy. Let us see if we cannot alter the expenditure of our dollars in order to achieve a reasonable amount of newsprint and get a progressive plan for increasing to five pages and six pages by a given date. If planners cannot achieve that—and I agree with planning—no one can do it. Figures have been quoted for expenditure on tobacco and films and so on. But in the tentative E.R.P. proposals I saw an item of 42 million dollars for fish. I do not know and have no way of knowing whether that is a wise expenditure or not. It may be. Fish may be in great demand in this country. But is it not possible to look into the question to see whether the fish could not be cut down a little and whether we could not be given a little more of the paper into which the fish goes eventually? The British public do not like dictated decisions. We see that 7½ million are to be spent on miscellaneous manufactured articles. I have no idea whether they are essential or not, but the Government ought to give more detail in order to prove to the public that they are importing really essential items and that in those essential items provision will be made for adequate supplies of newsprint.
I am not in the least worried by the fact that we have a young President of the Board of Trade. He was attacked by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) for being young and inexperienced. He can show he is experienced by taking a realistic line on this question of newsprint. Let me comfort him with these words, because I am the same age as he is, and I dislike these criticisms of youth. The point is that a lot of people who claim that they have 20 years' experience are in fact people with one year's experience, multiplied by 20.
6.45 p.m.
We have just listened to the second of two excellent speeches from below the Gangway opposite on the subject of newsprint. In both cases hon. Members have sought to prove what I think everyone in the Committee will agree with, the vital necessity of having more newsprint and larger newspapers. The essential problem is how we are to achieve that desire without curtailing something which is even more essential. If we are going to discuss this at all, it is to that problem that we should devote ourselves.
I am glad that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) did not make the suggestion which I have seen in the Press that the Government are curtailing newsprint as a form of censorship. I think that in this matter of curtailed newspapers, the Government, particularly in the battle for production, are the chief sufferers. It is impossible to stimulate production to the extent necessary unless we can get over to our people the vital information which is essential to production. Unless they can take an intelligent and informed interest, they cannot deliver the goods. Therefore, the decision must depend entirely on the importance we attach to the dissemination of information. It is not merely a case of being indispensable in a democracy, it is the case that adequate newspapers and adequate information were never more necessary than they are today.
The fact that some newspapers appear to devote considerable space to frustrating and sabotaging the production drive, and to the apparent reduction of morale, is not to my mind to be regarded as a deterrent because I believe the truth will out eventually, if given a chance, just as it did in 1945. We should consider it in the light of a recent remark by the Solicitor-General who said that the community must place even more reliance on the Press to ensure that State responsibilities in the realm of the industrial life of the nation are adequately met. They are not adequately met by four-page newspapers. In the interests of production alone, we must urge the Board of Trade to give high priority to newsprint as an essential second only to the very top priorities. We should make every effort now—not merely next year—even at the cost of sacrifices in other directions, to increase the size of our daily newspapers and to make corresponding increases in the size of weekly newspapers.
One point which rather intrigued me was the very tiny proportion of the total Canadian and Newfoundland newsprint production which came to this country even before the war. It only amounted to 6 per cent., and the 100,000 tons which we are importing now is only roughly 2 per cent. of the total production in Canada and Newfoundland, whereas the United States of America, which proposes to import nearly four million tons out of their total production of 4,750,000 tons, proposes to import 83 per cent. of Canadian production. That difference between 2 per cent. and 83 per cent. is really remarkable. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give all the heed he can to the possibility of increasing newsprint imports under E.R.P. and under any other arrangements. No protests from the United States printing industry, if they are made, can be reasonably heeded in a matter of this kind when there is such a wide disparity between what we are able to get.
I do not want to dilate on the points which have already been made by several hon. Members, but I urge once more that the matter should be regarded from the point of view of production. I wish to place special emphasis on the position of weekly newspapers, particularly in rural areas. They are really essential agents of production, particularly in regard to agriculture. One finds six or eight page weekly newspapers. In my own locality the size is alternately six and eight pages. It is not merely a question of revenue from advertisements which is concerned, but the fact that many of these advertisements are a part of the stock-in-trade of the farmer and convey essential information with regard to sales, implements and important educational meetings of all kinds at the present time. It is an impossible task for the editor of a local newspaper to attempt to find space for essential advertisements, and at the same time compress the whole week's local and important news into the few pitiful columns which remain. In the event of anything being done which permits us to increase the size of newspapers, I hope that the weeklies will be given adequate consideration. They had what was to me a quite inexplicable 12½ per cent. cut some time ago, and I hope it will be possible to restore this as soon as possible.
I wish to say something about furniture and to support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) in what was a remarkable exposition of the present position in the industry. I hope that my right hon. Friend will read that speech in HANSARD tomorrow; I am sure that he will do so with interest. I do not agree with everything which my hon. Friend said. I wish to make particular reference to his remarks about craftsmanship. Everyone in this Committee will pay tribute to British craftsmanship, particularly in furniture and in particular to the necessity for giving it free play whenever there is an opportunity. But if by referring to craftsmanship we tend in any way to denigrate the excellent work which has been done by utility furniture in the past few years, I would deplore any such impression.
I maintain that nothing has so served to raise the general standard of quality and design of furniture in this country as the introduction of utility models and the great care which has been observed in their design, specification and the maintenance of standards. I am sure that any furniture manufacturer would agree that the generality of utility furniture which is now offered to the public is infinitely better than the products which people with lower incomes bought before the war, which were more appropriate to the glue factory than to the furniture factory.
Is the hon. Member suggesting that all the utility furniture which has been produced to a specific design, for example, is of the same quality?
I am, of course, speaking not without experience in the field of furniture manufacture, though not in the case of wooden furniture. There is a considerable variety of specification and type of utility furniture and a correspondingly wide range of price and quality. I am saying that comparing like with like there has been a general raising of the standards of quality and of workmanship in comparable classes of furniture. That I believe is beyond doubt.
I wish to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said about the question of employment in the furniture industry. Undoubtedly there is at present unemployment and under-employment. I estimate, although this may be thought to be too high an estimate, that the actual amount of what I shall call unemployment is about 33⅓ per cent. of the productive capacity of the people concerned. The actual numbers of unemployed are nothing like those figures. That is because various expedients are being employed in order to avoid summary dismissals of a large number of people. Almost throughout the industry a 35 or 36 hour week is being worked instead of a 44 hour week. In some cases departments have been shut down for a couple of weeks; the employees have voluntarily taken two weeks' holiday without pay in order to avert what would otherwise be the unavoidable dismissal of a number of their workmates.
That, of course, is only putting off the evil day, unless the demand for utility furniture, which is at present pent up, but which cannot be satisfied because of the priority docket system, is allowed to have much freer play. This unemployment is not due to timber shortage. There are many firms which, for the reason I have stated, are not using their full timber allocation. Production could be increased within the terms of the present timber allocation, but I hope that heed will be given to the plea which has been made for an increase in the allocation. I am quite sure that it is not the intention of my right hon. Friend to stem the tide of production in this way when he has given the timber allocation; otherwise that allocation would not have been given.
I have made a rough but fairly detailed survey of the position in my own area, the south-west. I find that here is a superabundance in stock of certain types but of other types there is no surplus but indeed a shortage. I suggest tha1 this matter can best be dealt with, not in the way suggested by my hon. Friend of creating fresh classes of priority consumers, which must be intensely difficult and which would create a far greater number of hard cases and would add to administrative difficulties, but by selecting certain classes of furniture which can bed de-pointed and made available to the general public within the utility range That would cut out additional administrative work and everyone would get a fair and reasonable opportunity.
I hope that under no circumstances will the utility system be altered as far as the present arrangements for specifications, design, quality and price control are concerned, even in the case of classes of goods which are de-pointed. I would say that the classes which should be considered, and which are in greater supply are, firstly, bedroom suites; secondly three-piece upholstered suites and fireside chairs; thirdly, dining room suites; and finally occasional furniture. All those articles, in that order, are in very abundant supply. All of them are in considerable quantities on the floors of manufacturers' warehouses and in retail showrooms.
The position of retailers is indeed mud the same as that of the manufacturers For example, I found one manufacturer with 7,000 unsold suites of utility furniture, and several others with upwards of a thousand suites. Those manufacturers of whom I made inquiry report drops it sales of utility furniture in recent months varying from 30 to 75 per cent. compared with the same period of last year. Retailers report a decline of 40 to 50 per cent. in sales compared with those in the period January to March last year. In addition, they have large quantities of utility furniture in stock which has been purchased by young people, pending delivery to their new homes.
One of the prime reasons for this situation is that the priority class demand has practically dried up. It is no good giving those people more coupons. The fact is that we require to widen the field of those who have the ability to purchase. I would submit, too, that the recent concessions made by the President of the Board of Trade, such as the inclusion of people married before the war who had not set up a home, and children who are growing out of their cots, have not made any appreciable difference, and could not have any lasting effect on the total demand. There are many people who have dockets and no homes, and there is a far more numerous class of people who have homes with furniture of sorts, but no dockets, and they are very anxious to improve their homes.
The fact is that priorities decided during the war, and immediately after the war, have no relation to the present problems. Many of these people have been married perhaps 10 or 15 years. They could not afford a house, or a decent home, when they were married before the war, owing to low wages and unemployment, and they have never had a real opportunity since. Now, when they are fully employed, at a reasonable wage, and are in a position to buy reasonably-priced utility furniture, they are precluded from doing so by the regulations. Thousands of people housed billetees and other people during the war and had their furniture knocked about rather badly. Quite willingly and happily they did this service for their country, and now they cannot replace their furniture at a reasonable cost. They are compelled to have their furniture repaired and re-covered at a cost of £70 or £80 for the suite, as compared with the price of a utility suite at £40 to £60.
Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have this situation reviewed, and will do for the furniture industry precisely what he has now decided to do for the clothing industry, namely, to set up a responsible committee within the industry and with his own officials, to review the whole position. I am sure that he will find confirmation of the points put forward. The best way to deal with this problem is to free certain classes of furniture of which there are at present the greatest stocks and the greatest manufacturing capacity. I do ask him, therefore, to look into this, because there must be substantial changes. I hope that the matter will be settled urgently, in order that unemployment that does exist can be cured at once; in order that people who badly need furniture may have it made available to them and that, in the future, the range of people who can buy shall be greatly enlarged, and that they will be given the satisfaction for which they have been waiting so long.
7.3 p.m.
Unlike one or two other hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate, I wish to intervene to express my profound disappointment and dissatisfaction with the concessions which the President of the Board of Trade has made in connection with clothes rationing. I am pretty confident that this dissatisfaction will be shared by a considerable section of the trade, and also by a considerable section of the public. In my opinion, the concessions he has announced, which are balanced, in some cases, by additional extortions in other directions, will be utterly inadequate to solve the problem created and which, as the result of his statement, is now likely to persist.
I am not quite so timorous as the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), who opened this Debate, or indeed as the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). He certainly is not usually timorous, but very much the reverse. Some people may say, perhaps, that I am not so responsible as they are, but I am prepared to hazard the opinion that the only way in which the Government can now solve this problem which has arisen is by abolishing entirely this farce of clothes rationing. In saying that, I know that a large and important, and thoroughly responsible section of the industry—whatever the President of the Board of Trade may say about them—is supporting me in that view.
I say the "farce" of clothes rationing advisedly, because reference has already been made to the subject of the black market. The Government are still engaged in sedulously propagating the idea that because people find it is almost more than they can do to appear moderately respectable, and avoid going about in rags, that means that we have got what are known as fair shares for all. The President of the Board of Trade said that he would not be a party to substituting rationing by price for rationing by coupons. I am of opinion—and here I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Holland with Boston—that it is high time that this phrase "fair shares for all" was thoroughly debunked and shown up for the hypocritical nonsense that it is. The truth of the matter is that people who have plenty of money can get all the clothes they want. Everybody knows—at least everybody in authority should know, and I challenge the President of the Board of Trade to deny it—that men and women who have plenty of money can go to expensive tailors and dressmakers and buy just as many suits and dresses as they want, without any coupons at all, provided they are prepared to pay extra in order to cover the cost of the coupons. There are two sets of prices. One price is for a suit or dress, if the purchaser has the coupons, and the other price is for them if he has not.
Is not the hon. Member aware that any burglar can justify his actions in precisely the same way?
I am not justifying it. I am merely pointing out that this situation does exist, and that this phrase "fair shares for all," which the Government try to pretend arises from the rationing system, is absolute nonsense, and that no such thing exists at the present time.
May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I am asking only for information. How does he ascertain this?
Because I go about with my eyes open, and I happen to look around and find out what is going on. I make it my business to do so.
Would the hon. Member intimate whether he has the authority of responsible clothing organisations for making statements of this kind?
No, I have not their authority. I have nobody's authority except my own, which is quite sufficient, and I challenge the President of the Board of Trade to deny it.
Would the hon. Gentleman kindly let me have the information which he seems to get by going about with his eyes open?
It is not my business to let the President of the Board of Trade have any information of that sort. I am not employed as a Board of Trade snooper, and I do not intend to act in that capacity.
If the hon. Member is not prepared to substantiate these remarks, will he please not make them so freely in this Committee?
What about the President's own remarks the other night?
I am merely saying that these things do happen.
Is this statement as reliable as the statement made by the hon. Member some months ago that clothing coupons were being sold in this House to hon. Members?
Yes, it is just as reliable. Both statements happen to be completely true. If the President of the Board of Trade, or other Members of the Government, are not aware of what is going on, or if they pretend not to be, they are simply living in a world of dreams. The worst part of it is that people do not even consider that sort of thing to be wrong. They regard it as part of the normal scheme of things under these rationing systems. Never have there been so many privileges attached to the possession of wealth; never have there been so many incitements or temptations to break the law, never have there been so many examples of one law for the rich and another for the poor as under these rationing systems, some of which are being unnecessarily perpetuated by the present Government. I say let them do away altogether with the whole paraphernalia of clothes rationing and give everybody a chance to get some clothes, and at the same time provide a valuable incentive to people to work harder and increase production.
Never was so much nonsense spoken in such a short time.
This whole problem has been thoroughly mishandled for a very long time in a way that does not inspire confidence that what the President said this afternoon about what is likely to happen in the future is going to be fulfilled. The manufacturers' associations, or at least the largest and most important of them, the Apparel and Fashion Industries Association, warned the Board of Trade many months ago that this coupon crisis was going to arise. Their warnings were persistently disregarded, and no action was taken. At the same time prophecies were made by various Members of the Government, to which reference has already been made, to the effect that even the present clothes ration might have to be decreased.
Again during the period of panic which followed the fuel crisis at the beginning of last year, they warned the then President of the Board of Trade, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to take any hasty action and defer the coupon issue from September until October or November. If that were done, they foresaw that the consequences would be disastrous. Again, that advice was disregarded, and the coupon issue was deferred until October. The result was that by November of last year considerable stocks had piled up. The President of the Board of Trade said this afternoon that he intends to appoint an Advisory Committee composed of various sections of the industry to advise him on the whole situation in the future. What is the point of appointing an advisory committee if he never takes their advice? That is what has happened for a long time past in the case of clothing manufacturers.
Again, on 15th March of this year the manufacturers asked to be supplied with the Department's planning figures—what the Department had in mind with regard to production for export and the home market, and so on—in order that they might be able to make some constructive suggestions and recommendations with a view to overcoming the coupon crisis which they saw approaching. During the war they had been supplied with these statistics. After the war the statistics were no longer supplied. The Parliamentary Secretary apparently realised, quite rightly, that it was only reasonable that they should be given this information, in the absence of which they were obviously unable to make any constructive suggestions, and he promised that the statistics would be forthcoming immediately. A week later, on 22nd March, they wrote to the Board of Trade asking that the figures should be supplied urgently. In spite of that, they were not provided with figures until 3rd May.
Then again, my information is that when they went to the Board of Trade last Thursday, the manufacturers unanimously recommended the total abolition of clothes rationing immediately as being the only effective method of dealing with the situation. Once again, apparently, their advice has been disregarded, with results which are likely to be disastrous. I believe that it is also right that when they tendered this advice they asked that if the President was unable to accept it, he would see them personally before making his statement this afternoon so that they might be able to impress their point of view strongly upon him. I understand that he did not condescend to do that.
It is almost universally admitted that if clothes rationing is not abolished soon there will be substantial unemployment in the industry. What an ironical thing it is that the party opposite always used to say—I admit with considerable justification—that unemployment was caused by a deficiency in purchasing power, by the fact that many people could not afford to buy the goods that were being produced, and that now they themselves are creating unemployment by deliberately restricting purchasing power by means of this rationing system.
If I had to make a choice I would sooner see people queueing up to buy clothes in the shops than see the people who ought to be making the clothes queueing up outside the employment exchange. A large section of the industry, including most of the principal manufacturers, are confident that if the industry were given its freedom, if competition were restored among the producers with freedom of choice among the consumers, they would be perfectly well able from now on to supply both the home and the export market as they have done in the past. Apparently the Government are so ration- and restriction-minded that they cannot contemplate freeing anything at all. It seems clear that it must be left to others to set the people free.
7.16 p.m.
The hon. Member for West Harrow (Mr. Bower) appeared to me to be living in a world which ceased to exist a long time ago. He was talking about conditions which are no longer with us, for reasons which must be known to him. He suggested that we should abolish clothes rationing and that, apparently, we should leave the matter to the price mechanism to decide who should have clothes. We have seen how that system operates. The majority on this side of the Committee, at any rate, do not want to go back to the operation of price mechanism in conditions of shortage.
There are faults in the system. I agree with him that there is a considerable black market in clothes, and I should like the President of the Board of Trade to take more drastic measures to stop those activities. There is a necessity for a commission of inquiry into the clothing industry comparable to that which we had to deal with the black market in petrol. The sooner the Minister tackles that matter the better it will be for those people who want to buy clothes.
The hon. Member for West Harrow mentioned this crisis in the clothing industry. In the main it is a "phoney" crisis. It exists very largely in the minds of the people who happen to be in control of the industry. The President of the Board of Trade has been under considerable pressure from the trade itself to reduce coupon values on highly-priced goods which at present are meeting with a considerable sales resistance. The trade wanted coupon values reduced so that they could unload accumulated stocks of materials which in the past would have been liquidated by means of drastic price reductions. What is urgently necessary in this trade now is a slashing of prices. There should be drastic cuts in the price of those materials which, because they were outmoded and out of date, ought to have been unloaded at cost or less than cost. That was the system that used to operate. It was a system for which there was a wide enough margin of profit to enable the distributor to get rid of out-of-date clothes at a price which people would be prepared to pay.
We have seen pressure brought to bear by the industry on the President of the Board of Trade. We saw what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) has called that prima donna-ish walk-out, that temperamental leaving of the conference chamber by the representatives of the drapers. I would like to know whether the Minister asked those people when they came back why it was that in the conditions which exist today there is an immediate snapping up of all low-priced goods which are of good quality. Why is it that the utility rayon material and cotton goods which appear in the shops immediately disappear? Surely, it is not because there is a shortage of coupons, because coupons are given up by the people who buy those articles. The simple fact is that the prices charged for those good-quality goods are within the capacity of the majority of the people.
What we want today are good-quality goods at reasonable prices. When they do appear in the shops, they are immediately snapped up. I would say that, if prices are brought down, we shall immediately see what happens to the so-called excess of articles over the coupons available. They would not last very long in the shops. The fact is that, in the main, the lower middle-class and working-class people cannot afford the prices which obtain for most of the goods which are today cluttering up the shops. These goods stand at a figure more than three times the price operating in 1939. It would be ridiculous for any of us on this side to suggest that the existing inflation arises from the pressure of money in the pockets of the lower middle-class or working-class people. The fact is that, in this trade particularly, too many highly-priced goods are chasing too little money in working-class pockets.
Is the hon. Gentleman referring to utility goods without Purchase Tax, or to the ordinary range of articles which carry Purchase Tax?
I am referring in the main to the excellent quality utility articles which appear in the shops and are immediately snapped up, and not to the highly-priced goods which are still loading the shelves in the shops.
Is the hon. Member aware that there has been a 300 per cent. increase in price?
These figures are not given by me without some substantiation in a paper called the "Drapers' Record," which, I understand, is the authoritative paper for this trade. In this connection, I suggest that a hundred thousand rail-waymen who are paid less than £5 a week are not buying what they might buy with the coupons which they have, and the obvious reason is that they are not getting enough money. There are many hundreds of thousands of other workers today who are unable to purchase the goods they need with the coupons they have simply because many of the prices are very much too high. There is, undoubtedly, a surplus of higher priced goods, but there is an acute shortage of the lower priced ones in particular, and that will apply very largely to the garments about which people talked to me last weekend.
I have been approached by a number of people on this particular point, and specially in regard to shirts. Reasonably-priced shirts have completely disappeared from the shops, and as a result men are not using their coupons to buy shirts. Unfortunately, now, they are to be up-pointed. A highly placed member of the trade said quite recently that coupon relief alone would not solve the problem, a considerable price reduction being necessary to clear many articles. "Today," he said, "we hear no talk of a shortage of materials, but only of a shortage of coupons, and I wonder how long it will be before the trade, having unloaded present stocks, is crying out for more materials." That is a point which the hon. Member for West Harrow should remember when talking about taking these goods off coupons altogether. The fact is that, immediately these shelves are emptied as a result of additional coupons and price reductions, the trade will begin to cry out for more materials which are not available. Much of the available material has to be directed, in these days of the dollar shortage, towards those markets where we may hope it will earn dollars.
The trade itself has put this coupon question into the headlines, which has put the trade into prominent notice at this time. The more cautious people in the trade, however, recognise the fact that this might be dangerous for the trade itself. Mr. John Ramage, a director of the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, said:
I believe that now is the time, when the trade has forced itself upon his attention, for the President of the Board of Trade to take the necessary steps to ensure that all its workings are thoroughly inquired into. We want to bring out the fact that the distributive machinery is inefficient and costly, and that this does not apply only to the clothing industry, but applies equally to much of the distributive industry in our country. There is a wide retailers' profit margin which was designed for a system which has long since passed away. It was designed to operate in conditions under which much of the stock had eventually to be sold at or below cost. Today, the system operates as an umbrella for the inefficient and increases the profit of the efficient section of the trade.
Under the old system, we had the check of bankruptcies. We do not see so many bankruptcies today, despite the fact that it would be very good for the trade if we could have a few more bankruptcies as a means of weeding out the inefficient. There is an urgent need for a new check, and we have to devise one to take the place of the old check of bankruptcies. I certainly do not regard the Advisory Committee which the President proposes to set up as a suitable instrument for the purpose, composed as it will be largely of manufacturers and distributors. Though there will be a few consumers upon it, it will not provide what is necessary in this case—that careful inquiry should be made into the whole of the distributive machinery connected with the clothing trade.
Is the hon. Gentleman making the point that the black market is to be attributed either to the manufacturer or the distributor?
The point I made previously was for an inquiry into the black market, but I am now saying that it is time to examine the whole distributive machinery of this country.
Would the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will he say whether he attributes the black market to the manufacturers or the distributors, because, if not, I wish he would withdraw the remark?
I am not now talking about the black market. I dealt with that early in my speech and had passed on to another point. I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman must have been sleeping, because I long since passed that point and am now dealing with the point that the distributive machinery in this country is inefficient. It was fairly efficient, though not entirely so, in the old days under a different system. It is now necessary to have a careful examination into the machinery, but I do not think that the Advisory Committee which the President of the Board of Trade proposes to set up will be suitable for the purpose. I should like to see a very much stronger committee. The people whom the President has mentioned as constituting the committee, with the exception of the consumers, could not be regarded as unbiased. I suggest that he should resist all this pressure which is coming from the trade, and that he should keep the trade in the fierce light of publicity. He should set up inquiries into the black market and into the matters which have been raised by the hon. Member for West Harrow, and there should be a committee to examine the whole of the distributive and retailing machinery of this country.
7.31 p.m.
I am sure that the people are more interested in the matters which have been raised in this Debate than in anything which we have discussed for some time. Unfortunately, owing to the scarcity of our newsprint and the difficulty of giving anything like a tithe of what is happening in Parliament, a large number of people will be unable to follow much of what has been discussed today.
I must say I rather admired and envied the felicity and the apparent simplicity with which the President of the Board of Trade dealt with the figures relating to the numerous articles to which he referred while discussing the question of clothing. He reminded me, more than anyone else on the Government side, of the late William Graham, who was a very brilliant man of his time, whose early demise was a great loss to the party opposite. But even despite the ease and the felicity which the right hon. Gentleman displayed when he dealt with ties, gloves, ladies' costumes and shoes, curtains and the multiplicity of articles in the clothing industry, he showed convincingly that it is quite impossible for any Government to establish a fair system of rationing which will take into account the question of supply and demand and the change in fashion and tastes of the millions of different people in this country.
I endorse the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for West Harrow (Mr. Bower) that there is a case, certainly as regards clothing, for considering whether a better solution would not be found in derationing right through the whole field of clothing with all its multifarious branches. I have not the detailed knowledge of this industry that many hon. Members possess but it would appear that it is impossible for any Government to deal with it fairly and reasonably and at the same time to meet the requirements of the many diverse people who make up a nation.
I shall make no apology for reverting to this question of newsprint. If any visitor came to these islands today I think he would probably be struck not so much by the inadequate food supplies, the appearance of the people, the small number of cars on the road, the way we are clothed, the difficulty of transport, the inferior service in many of the hotels and the hundred and one aspects of the austerity which controls this country, as by the size of our newspapers. He would say to himself: here is a country which for over 1,000 years has led the world in culture, whose authors and poets have sent the written word to every corner of the globe; here is a country which has set an example to nations in printing and so forth, and yet it is worse off in the size of its newspapers than its defeated enemies in the war. I think it has been established that there is no other country in the world today where the newspapers are smaller than they are in this country, and I wish to make a plea to the Government to reconsider this question on the basis of necessity.
I wish to refer particularly to the country newspapers. The country local papers are the warp and woof of our national life. They cater for the social, economic and cultural life of the people more than even the daily or weekly national newspapers. The difficulties of the proprietors and editors of those local papers are ageing them from day to day. I do not know of any class or section of our people who are having more difficulty in carrying on their professional and business life at the moment than the editors and proprietors of our country local newspapers. They are in a different position from the editors and proprietors of daily newspapers, because they come into close daily touch with their readers. They meet them in the street. From day to day they are challenged as to why they have not printed news which is regarded of the utmost importance to some particular locality. In fact their lives are a burden. I ask the Committee to consider what this means to the economic life of the agricultural areas; in such areas this is a serious matter from the point of view of publication of prices, the markets, advertisements for goods, the question of securing employment, and so forth. From almost every aspect the industrial and economic life of the rural areas is affected and so is their cultural life.
I plead with the Government to regard newsprint as being just as much of a necessity as our petrol, and in some ways it is almost as necessary as our food, because it represents food for the mind. Democracy cannot survive and thrive unless the people can have the utmost access to information which it is right that they should have. I was looking in my locker just before I came into the Chamber at a London newspaper which before the war had 32 pages. The fact of the matter is that there is a generation growing up in this country at the present time which has become so accustomed to our austerity that there is a great danger that the Labour Government may electorally take great advantage of it.
We have heard today concessions announced by the President of the Board which would have been regarded with derision a few years ago—in fact, they would not have been regarded as concessions at all—yet such is the state that we are reduced to they will no doubt be received in the country today with much gratitude. If we continue the system of rationing which we are now developing I can see not only that the process of austerity will affect our people physically, mentally and morally, but a great danger that we shall have a perpetuation of a Socialist Government because each little concession is coming to be regarded as an improvement on our conditions to those who are unacquainted with any other.
7.41 p.m.
I think we all agree with the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) about the importance of this question of newsprint, but I think he over-stated the case when he made certain comparisons between the size of our newspapers and those of certain continental countries, including those of our ex-enemies. It is important not to exaggerate that matter, and if I may I will return to it before I conclude.
I do not think the subjects of clothes rationing and newsprint are entirely unrelated; and it is convenient for us to discuss them together today on the Board of Trade Vote. One of the effects of the shortage of newsprint is that it is practically impossible nowadays to get an adequate discussion in the Press on a technical subject like clothes rationing. Reference has been made to a Press campaign inducing the President of the Board of Trade to give concessions. I have seen very little indication of any such Press campaign, but what I have noticed is an almost entire absence of any serious attempt to discuss in the Press the conditions which have made necessary the announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon, and that I think is a typical illustration of the misfortunes from which we are suffering as a result of the shortage of newsprint.
In view of the elaborate and technical nature of the announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon, it is very difficult to attempt to discuss it in any detail in this debate. It is, however, important that the significance of what he said should not be lost on the country. I think it is unfortunate that some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have attempted to make political capital out of this matter. Some of the least responsible hon. Members on the Benches opposite this afternoon have been clamouring for the abolition of all clothes rationing. They have paid lip service to the ideal of fair shares for all, but they have not attempted to explain how the ideal of fair shares for all is likely to be promoted or advanced by the abolition of clothes rationing. It is important to underline this fact. As I understand it, the justification for clothes rationing is not merely to secure fair shares for all, as it is, for example, in the case of food, where there are conditions of shortage. In the case of textiles there is no absolute shortage; the clothes rationing system is an essential bulwark of the export drive. Unless we have an adequate system of clothes rationing we shall be unable to ensure that what is needed to meet the paramount claims of the export drive is not diverted to the home market. An adequate sale abroad of textiles is essential if we are to maintain our food supplies.
After all, the over-riding consideration which confronts the country today is still our adverse dollar balance and our shrinking gold and dollar reserves, and the figures recently announced for April do nothing whatever to encourage any feeling of optimism or reassurance in that respect. I hope, therefore, although it is very unpleasant to have to say it, that the concessions which the President of the Board of Trade has announced today—so-called concessions—of allowing a bonus of 12 coupons to be used before 30th September, will not be regarded as any indication of any general amelioration of our overall economic position. I think it was wrong, therefore, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) to suggest that there is any inconsistency between the announcement of a bonus issue of coupons today and the possibility of a reduction in the coupon ration for the next period. There is no necessary connection between the two, and to suggest that there is misses the whole problem with which this special bonus issue is seeking to deal.
The bonus issue, as I understand it, is a merely temporary and emergency measure, intended to remove a glut on the market at the present time. I welcome it because, indeed, any relief of that kind to the hard-pressed consumer is welcome, but I hope it will not be misinterpreted in the country and I hope there will be an adequate report in the newspapers of our discussion today so that the real significance of it is not lost. I hope that the assumption which lies behind the policy announced today proves correct. That assumption is that we shall find that the bonus issue, in effect, has the result of removing the glut on the market in those particular commodities which in recent months have proved unsaleable. I hope we shall not find that the bonus issue is diverted to other commodities, leaving the glut still existing in a few months' time. I also hope that the trade will not draw any unjustified conclusion from the announcement which the Minister has made. I think it may well be said that the trade is partly to blame for having produced during the last year a number of goods of various kinds which have proved unsaleable and are in excess of the available coupons. I hope that the trade will not interpret the announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade of the bonus issue of coupons as any encouragement in the future to produce beyond what are the known or reasonably estimated limits of the coupon expenditure of the public.
The other point on the clothing situation which I wish to make is this. I am very glad that the President of the Board of Trade has announced the appointment of an advisory committee to advise him on clothes rationing generally, and I am very glad that that committee will consist of consumers and housewives as well as members of the trade. It is desirable that in the future there should be a greater element of flexibility in the administration of the clothes rationing than there has been in the past. If I may take the analogy of the Ministry of Food, we are familiar with the method whereby various articles of food are up-pointed or down-pointed month by month. I think it would be going too far to suggest that there should be anything like a monthly revision of the coupon value of textiles, but it is desirable that the subject should be kept under more constant review than it has been in the past, and that it should be more flexible than hitherto.
Now I come to the question of newsprint. I attach great importance to this, and I endorse the arguments that have been advanced in all quarters of the Committee urging the Government to take very seriously the undoubted and widespread public concern which exists on this subject. It is a very easy jibe to say of the newspapers that they have a vested interest in newsprint. I have no interest of any kind in newsprint, except as a reader. It is an equally easy jibe for the Opposition to say that the Government are afraid of criticism. I do not believe for a moment that is the motive behind for what I regard as the regrettable luke-warmness on the part of the Government to secure an adequate supply of newsprint. I doubt whether Ministers, who have access to information of all kinds from a large variety of sources, are really the best persons to judge how dependent ordinary members of the public are on what they read in the Press. Nor do I think Ministers are really afraid of criticism in the Press. My belief is that this Government have such a fine record that the more that is reported in the Press, and the more fully the facts are disclosed, the greater will it redound to the credit and advantage of the Government. The Government need not be afraid of criticism, but only of half-baked, ill-informed criticism.
I attach great importance to abundant opportunities for a well-informed public opinion. The hon. Member for Denbigh said, as has been said elsewhere, that this country is worse off today with regard to the size of its newspapers than a great many continental countries. I do not think that is the case. I think that what is true is that the proportionate size of our newspapers today as compared with prewar standards is lower than the proportionate size of newspapers in continental countries compared with before the war. My experience—and I have travelled a certain amount recently on the Continent of Europe—is that our newspapers are today still larger in size than those in most continental countries, France, for example, or Germany or Italy,
I want to give one example of what happens to a country that suffers from even a greater shortage of newsprint than we do in this country. I refer to France, where the average daily newspaper consists of less space than the four or six pages with which we are familiar in this country. Everyone will agree that the events in Czechoslovakia in February this year produced a profound impression on all members of the community. Those events opened the eyes of people in this country to the international situation in a way in which their eyes had not been opened before. I was in France at the time of the Czechoslovak coup, and to my amazement with one exception, there was hardly any reference at all to the Czechoslovak coup in any French newspaper — still less any comment on its significance. I got my news from the "Continental Daily Mail" and from the English newspapers on sale in Paris. I was astounded to find that those dramatic events occurring in Prague in February this year were totally unreported, totally ignored, in practically the whole of the French Press. That, I think, was due largely, if not entirely, to lack of space. In France there is an absolute dearth of information about international affairs. What is the result? The result is that in that country there is a public opinion totally uninformed of matters in other countries. Fortunately, we in this country have not sunk to that depth of ignorance yet; and I hope we never shall.
However, I was not very reassured by what the President of the Board of Trade said today about newsprint, and I hope that when he winds up the Debate he will be able to give us a categorical assurance to the effect that in no circumstances will he permit the supply of newsprint to fall below the quantity that is required to enable us, at any rate, to maintain the existing size of newspapers in this country, and to enable us to see that adequate stocks are built up to protect us against any emergency. In this connection, let me refer to one matter of detail that troubles me. When this subject of newsprint shortage was discussed in the House recently on an Adjournment Debate, the Government spokesman said:
7.57 p.m.
The Committee will have a surfeit of Fletcher in a very short while, one following upon another. The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) will excuse me if I do not follow him very far in the matter of textiles; but I shall come to newsprint a little later on. The President made one or two very remarkable statements—I thought, some of them inadvertently—in the very clear expose he gave us of the textile situation. He said that the present situation was a "deterioration." Surely, from the point of view of those hungry for clothing in this country, it is exactly the opposite: it has been proved we are about to get a little more.
He also, rather ungenerously, washed his hands of the troubles and difficulties of the distributive trade. At the same time as he repudiated any responsibility, he used the expression, "The Government have full responsibility for all stages in the textile industry." And that is true; and I do not think he should be allowed to escape from that responsibility. The cure and remedy suggested by someone else on the other side of the Committee for the troubles and difficulties of the distributive trade was an increase in the number of bankruptcies. That may be effective and drastic. Indeed, it may well come about under the present regime, especially if they force on the cotton industry a great deal of cotton that the industry does not want that was badly bought at non-competitive prices. From what I am told of the quality of cotton shipped from America and the buying of Egyptian cotton, there is no doubt that the textile industry, and the distributive trade in particular, is being very severely handicapped.
On the textile side I should like to devote myself very much to the question which arises concerning the great surplus now troubling the Government. I should like to agree with the hon. Member for East Islington that this has to be connected very closely indeed with the export drive. Nobody warned us more solemnly and more frequently then that the sellers' market in the world is coming to an end than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade on whom his mantle has fallen. I happen to be an exporter of textiles all over the world, and I can confirm that the increased patchiness of that sellers' market is making itself manifest everywhere. In the Far East—in Malaya, for instance—the question of shirtings is very difficult. It is very difficult to sell British shirtings there in spite of the very good demand because of the difficulty of getting dates for definite deliveries, whereas from elsewhere they can make a definite date of delivery and offer better than competitive prices.
This will have its reaction here and stocks will suddenly become surplus in this country. Then I presume we shall have the Board of Trade saying how bad and wicked it is of the distributing trade and the manufacturing trade to have misjudged their market, and we shall be told that we ought to take a loss on this as in the old days. It is, of course, unfair to make a comparison with the old days when we could export to any part of the world freely, and to compare those conditions with conditions under the present regime is utterly wrong. There were no currency and other restrictions then.
In Lancashire, we want to see increasing output and increasingly higher targets, but we have to realise that other countries are doing the same and that this will have a considerable effect; and there will constantly be incidents when what looked like an easy line to dispose of will become surplus almost overnight. A scheme has to be devised so that the home markets can be easily and flexibly put in a position to absorb those goods if they become difficult to sell. There is nothing worse in industry or trade than to have dead stock. I hope that the cult and worship of austerity in the mind of the former President of the Board of Trade will not kill the more kindly mentality of the present incumbent.
During his speech, I asked him questions about the "A," "B" and "C" categories for export. The two main categories are to the hard and semi-hard currency countries. It is obvious that if the exporter who has in hand a good order for the "B" category, which is the one he wishes to sell, is to get his full ration to fulfil his order under category "B," he has to take on and put into stock a good deal of category "A" or "C." The manufacturer does not force him to, but it is almost a custom of the trade. A good real of the surplus that exists arises because the system between the "A," "B" and "C" categories is not sufficiently flexible. We must have a composite scheme in which the whole market can assist the export market by taking occasional surpluses, and must reciprocate by giving up goods occasionally.
The President of the Board of Trade announced today the setting up of a new Advisory Board. I heard that announcement with mixed feelings. Anyone who has studied the enormous volume, in great detail, produced by the cotton working party would, I think, say that practically every phase of the industry had already been inspected and reported upon. There is very little left out of that document for any new body set up by the President to go into. He has said that he is going to choose particularly people who are not emotional. But he himself has spoken with a spate of synthetic emotion about the curtainless windows of the people—a heart-throb from Thames-side for export to the North. I do not think that the plea for something unemotional would be very effective. I am not the enemy of emotion: no one likes a good cry better than I do.
I do not want to criticise the hon. Gentleman's remarks about emotion; but would he make clear what is this body that I am supposed to have announced dealing with the cotton industry? The only reference I made in that connection was to an Advisory Committee of the clothing trade to advise on the working of the rationing scheme.
I am sorry that I used the wrong word I press upon him to overhaul, with the help of this new advisory body, and with a Sunday afternoon's reading of the beautiful volume produced by the working party, his export scheme, and to do so rapidly and also to alter his mind on the rigidity of the classes between the currencies. It is obviously desirable to export to the hard currency countries, but if we can get from the soft currency countries what we want in return for what they want, there is no need to think rigidly in doctrinaire terms of currency.
I do not think this is the moment to abandon the rationing scheme altogether, although I think that we are in a period when we are approaching that, but in the difficult interregnum we must try to keep the export drive going against the way in which the stream is now beginning to run. Throughout the world—and I saw this in my trip to America which finished a few days ago—the selling pressure of other countries, often by industries created by us, is enormous. Japan has just done an enormous deal in her textiles in the Netherlands East Indies, with the result that those who hold goods in Malaya now find themselves with goods which are less likely to be sold.
That impact is now going to find its way back to Lancashire, because goods that would go to Malaya to be sold and distributed to Java and Sumatra will not now go there. That will create pressure against export. That is also happening in Italy and Switzerland and is made worse by the international use of the currency black market in the disposal of goods from the sterling area. The net result, from the point of view of the textile trade and home absorption of textiles, will undoubtedly be very heavy surpluses of goods difficult to deal with. I am certain that the President of the Board of Trade has it in mind to watch these matters carefully. When setting up this advisory body, let him be certain that it has the fullest representation of those who know the export side, and that their arguments are given full weight. The drive to increased textiles is being carried on in Lancashire the whole way through the industry by all concerned on no party lines. The two Ministers in charge of this Debate know this, having been "drummers" for the Government all over the world.
The thing which is holding the people back more than anything else is the doubt in their minds as to the future of the Lancashire textile industry in the face of the inevitable competition from countries without such a high standard of living—by India, Japan and others. The inevitable result of this long-term view in the minds of those who are deciding their children's futures must have some sort of effect. Anything which anybody in Parliament can do to allay that fear must be done. We shall depend on quality more and more. On that question of quality, the raw material which is provided for the spinning end of the industry must affect the whole process right down to the finished article. Quality is dependent on the spinner getting exactly what is wanted and not an approximation forced upon us by the Government or the Cotton Commission. You cannot make quality goods with second-rate raw material.
I now pass on to the question of newsprint. Everybody who has spoken has had much the same theme, but few have had the courage to come right out against what the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have put before us fairly and squarely: that is, the dollar question. It is no use arguing as to what is desirable. One hon. Member has gone closely into the question of the local newspaper. Everybody tries to pull to his side the newsprint that comes in, but that is not the problem. The problem is how to get more of it and I think there is only one way in which we can do so.
As usual, that way lies in the hands of the U.S.A. The United States still import newsprint themselves, because their papers are run in such a way and such a magnitude as in no other part of the world. The "New York Times" Sunday edition weighs 11 lbs. If one is sleeping on a Sunday morning and this journal is deposited on one's chest, it will almost cause asphyxiation. It has goodness knows how many sections. I think 44 pages is the average size of the daily "New York Times." Nearly half of it is advertisements, including miraculous and impossibly beautiful females, about seven feet high, wearing various supports and leaving very little to the imagination.
On the other side of the page there is the equally handsome young man, clothed in the very latest garments—a few of them, I am glad to say, made from goods from this country. That is part of the American way of life and it will be difficult to get America to abandon it as far as newspapers are concerned. There is not the slightest hope of our being able for a long time to get more newsprint by other means. The cry is put forward in vain unless we face the problem that without the aid of the United States, we get no increased newsprint
The mainspring behind Aid to Europe is undoubtedly a very stout heart and an imaginative attempt on the part of the United States to fight Communism and its encroachment in Europe. Any country which has advanced in political maturity to the extent that America has, to be able to think in terms of her frontiers being on the Elbe instead of on her own seaports, deserves our thanks. Anyone who remembers what happened after the last war must realise that America has made an admirable effort, and it should not be too difficult to persuade her that one of the finest and most effective moves against Communism she could make would be a voluntary cession to us and to the rest of Europe of a certain amount of newsprint.
I would like to use the House of Commons as a platform from which to send out a plea, which I hope will be backed from all sides, for America voluntarily to give up a portion of the newsprint which she is getting from Canada, for use not only in this country—for if we are asking for an unselfish action, we in our turn must not be selfish—but for use in Europe also. I really believe that that is the only hope, and it is a slender one. I sincerely hope that it will not be taken as being in any way a party suggestion. The hon. Member for East Islington thinks that there might be the result of a trumpeting forth of the great deeds of himself and his colleagues. That is quite a useful function for a paper, but the reaction might be altogether different from what he thinks.
The important question is whether we shall be able to persuade America, possibly outside the European Recovery Programme, to make to us and to Europe a special grant in the form, not of dollars, but of newsprint. It may seem a fantastic ideal, something beyond the realms of reason; but the American people have emotions which are easily stirred. They have great imaginations and are capable of the greatest and most generous impulses of any people in the world. If there was a concerted cry from Parliament and the people in this country; if there were a realisation of the total inadequacy for such an important job, which faces our papers and the papers of Europe, there is a faint and slender hope that we might get an allocation of this sort. It is well worth trying, and I hope that the Government Front Bench will not take the easy path of ridiculing my suggestion, of turning it down as being impracticable. Sometimes something which has the appearance of a folly of grandeur almost comes off—100 to I horses have won the Derby. Possibly this plea, if it goes forward with great backing and unanimity from this country and from Parliament, may produce what everybody agrees is a vital necessity to fight Communism and to raise the morale, the tone and the whole standard of Europe in the eyes of the rest of the world
8.17 p.m.
I propose to confine my remarks almost entirely to the statement made this afternoon by the President of the Board of Trade. Like so many others in the Committee, I welcomed his statement regarding newsprint. We had been threatened with a cut and were told by a great many newspapers that this was deliberate policy on the part of the Government to try to prevent criticism. How foolish were those writers. They might have known that if the Government decreased newsprint, it would give to newspaper owners and journalists the opportunity to obliterate all news, particularly favourable news to this country, and to say that they were compelled to do so by lack of space, No Government would be so foolish. We all welcome the free expression of opinion. The way to combat criticism is to get more newsprint and more newspapers.
I welcome particularly the President's concessions to the housewives. I would like to let the Committee into a little secret about what will happen here tomorrow. As I was boarding the aeroplane at Renfrew this morning on my way to London, I saw Press photographers and a large number of women at the airport. I wondered why they were being photographed, because they were about my own age, long past the glamour stage. Probably at one time they had been glamour girls, but, alas, time marches on. It could not be for that reason that they were being photographed, nor merely because they were going to London, because I and many others go to and from London twice a week, and do not think anything of doing so. Then I noticed a Member from the other party with the ladies. Large petitions were being handed over. I afterwards learned that it was the Housewives' League. That petition will be presented tomorrow at half-past two. It will ask for something that the President has more than granted before it has been asked. They are going to ask—it has just dawned on them, although Labour women's sections asked for it months ago—[AN HON. MEMBER: "And did not get it."]—for 10 coupons. They are going to ask for that tomorrow.
The President of the Board of Trade has more than fulfilled that request. He has not only given the housewives 12 coupons, but he has given the whole household 12 coupons each, far more than ever we expected. I heard an hon. Member say that she was disappointed that the housewife's o coupons had not been granted, and there was a murmur of approval from the benches opposite. There always is when someone on this side says the correct thing, "correct" being the operative word. I guessed from that murmur of approval that there was great sympathy with the housewife.
Every husband who murmured approval that his wife had not got o coupons can go home tonight and tell her that she has 12 coupons, and he can lay his 12 on her lap, as a genuine demonstration by himself and all the other members of the household. In my own household we are seven. I reckon that I am going to have 84 coupons. I would not stoop to worrying the Minister for any more. If I could not manage the menfolk in my own house I should have no hope of managing the President of the Board of Trade. Every woman will take it now that she will have at least 24 coupons. If she is diplomatic, and if she has been a good producer in the past, it will be up to her to get 12 coupons to her credit for everyone she has produced. I believe that the Minister has been masterly in his dealing with this situation.
There remains a doubt among us all now whether it is lack of coupons or lack of money which has been re- sponsible for the trouble. The Minister has thrown the ball into the ring. Events will tell us whether the trouble has been due to coupons, or money, or both. To begin with, a good time will be had by all at the coming half-rate coupon sales. That will indicate something in down-pointing and in coupon-free goods. I heard an hon. Member opposite talk about the black market. Any Member who knows of a tailor where he can get a suit coupon free ought to report it. If he does not report it, he should be ashamed of his action and should not boast about it in the House of Commons.
There is rather an injustice to men in the fact that the three and a quarter yards of cloth needed for a man's suit are still to extract from that man's coupon book 26 coupons. I repeat what I have said before, that that is positively unfair. I hope no hon. Member will think I am genuinely concerned about menfolk getting suits. I am concerned about getting spare coupons back from my own menfolk. Therefore, I want the 26 coupons to be reduced.
In connection with the black market, I would ask whether there is not a legitimate black market. Let me read an advertisement from a big firm who are advertising in the "Glasgow Herald." It is:
About household curtains I am still very dissatisfied, unless the Minister can assure us that there is going to be more of the utility cloth. I do not think housewives will object very much to two-thirds of a coupon per yard. The average pair of curtains measures six yards, which would mean four coupons. She ought to be able to get the curtains at a reasonable price. The price is usually about 3os. a yard. for six yards, the price would be £9 for a decent pair of curtains. That is certainly not Socialism. It is "unto him that hath shall be given." Only he or she who hath shall be given a pair of curtains. It does not matter whether the curtains are coupon-free or not, if the price is to be 30s. or 35s. per yard.
We are in the position now of testing whether prices will come down. The extra bonus is an admirable thing, and on behalf of the housewives I thank the President of the Board of Trade for it. I hope that he will repeat it often. It will enable us to test the market and to see whether lack of coupons, or profiteering and high prices, is keeping the goods upon shelves in the warehouses in such abundance.
8.30 p.m.
If I may without boring the Committee, I should like to pursue the somewhat threadbare subject of clothing and clothing coupons mentioned in speeches, many of them very admirable, which have gone before. I am very diffident in entering into this subject because I am not a business man and have no large experience of the trade, but I spent a large part of the Recess in prosecuting inquiries as diligently as I could into the clothing trade in Belfast. Hon. Members will agree that Belfast is a town which contains a wide experience and knowledge of the clothing and textile trade. The first thing that struck me as an outsider going to these wholesale houses was that in every case the stocks had been steadily mounting since the end of last year. I was shown trend graphs and other things from which it is perfectly clear—indeed there will not be any doubt at all—that stocks with the wholesalers are steadily mounting.
indicated assent.
I am glad to see that the President of the Board of Trade nods his head in agreement. There was one rather significant figure given me by one of the best known wholesale houses in Belfast. They told me that in their fashion department their stock in money value in April was seven and a half times the amount of their stock in April, 1947, and three times their stock, in money value, in April, 1938. The result of that—this is an important point which has not yet been made—is that the trade feel that their financial resources in carrying this large stock will be strained to the uttermost.
I was sorry to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Southern Derby (Mr. Champion) because I found these people thoroughly honest, respectable people, anxious only to make a livelihood within the law and quite uninterested in any political aspect of the clothing situation. I saw no signs of any sinister, selfish disregard of other interests. They said, and it seemed to me very understandable, that whereas before the war in order to do a turnover of £400,000, a working capital of about £150,00 was needed, of which stocks required to be about £100,000, now, owing to the increase in values—it is no fault of theirs because they have had no control over it—in order to do a similar turnover, double the amount of working capital is required. It is straining their resources to the uttermost to carry these very large stocks.
One is glad to hear that greater quantities are being produced, but what they are worrying about is whether those stocks will be unduly large. Like everything in that line, fashions are fickle. Stocks become obsolete quickly, and they are anxious that that stock shall not be left on their hands. The financial stability of the trade depends on that. If later on in the year the President of the Board of Trade were to find that certain stock earmarked for export was not going well and if it were to be diverted into the home market to join the stock there already, the stock the manufacturers now have would become unsaleable and they would be left with it, and a great many of the businesses might fail.
They also say—this is a point worth noting—that some of the less reputable houses—in all industries and trades there are people not as reputable as others—there is a danger that they will part with these inflated stocks without coupons, so letting the stocks find their way on the black market. They say this could be remedied by a substantial—all the emphasis was put on the word "substantial"—increase in coupons to each person. I asked specifically about the down-pointing of coupons. They said that would cause administrative difficulties. They also said that one of the unfairnesses about that is that a person might quite fortuitously—because, like myself, his suit was getting rather threadbare a month or two ago—have had to buy a new suit whereas another person is rather more fortunate because his suit has lasted. Take those two people at the moment when the coupons are down-pointed. Through no fault of his own, A has no coupons. It is not much use to him that coupons which he has not got are being down-pointed. B's coupons are down-pointed. That system does not work equitably between people. The manufacturers made a very strong case for a substantial increase in the coupons allotted, an increase a good deal more substantial than that announced by the President of the Board of Trade.
The manufacturers said that practically every form of goods which they sold was in large supply. They agreed that men's shirts, men's worsted suits, ladies' hosiery and bathing suits and things of that nature were scarce, but said that in general, taking it over the whole range of the clothing trade, everything was quite abundant. Surely the real justification of a clothes rationing scheme is to ensure fair shares for everyone irrespective of their purchasing power. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) taking the view that another purpose of the clothes ration was to bolster up or bulwark the export trade. I am quite certain the rationing scheme was never intended for that. It would be wrong to make that use of it. Its only proper use is to ensure fair shares for each person. If there is an abundance, surely the necessity disappears. It can be retained in respect of those commodities. which are short, but surely not in regard to the range of articles which are in abundant supply.
Another matter which is worth mentioning is the differentiation between utility and non-utility goods in the clothing trade. Many hon. Members have referred to that in regard to the furniture trade. I was given what I thought was a rather remarkable example. Apparently quite a number of utility articles are exactly the same weave and type of cloth as the non-utility. I was given the example of glass-cloths. The utility cotton glass-cloths are precisely the same quality as the non-utility, yet one retails at 2s. and the other at 4s. That difference should be abolished. They should all be brought down to the same level. There can be no reason for that difference. In the case of linen glass-cloths, the utility—again the same quality as the non-utility—retails at 3s. 2½d. and the non-utility at 6s. 7d. That is because of the Purchase Tax on them. Surely that is a very strong case for reviewing the whole difference between the utility and non-utility cloths.
I have given these examples to show what the wholesale trade feels about the matter. I am certain that the proposals are put forward by them in all honesty and with the desire to help every one in the community and, not unnaturally, because it is no crime so far, to help themselves and to try to rid themselves of this fear of financial disaster that hangs over any firm carrying a quantity of stock which is too high. They will be very dissatisfied with the amount of coupons which the President of the Board of Trade has announced because they hoped for a bolder policy. If a larger amount had been allowed to each individual person, I am certain that not only would it have given satisfaction to the community but that the President would have had no cause to regret his generosity.
8.40 p.m.
This Debate has ranged over a wide field. It has covered many subjects, all of them interesting, most of them important, and some of them of extreme urgency. I want, if I may, to say a word about the distribution of industry. This is an important branch of the activities of the Board of Trade today, and it is a subject in which those of us who represent constituencies in Development Areas are keenly interested. However, the location and distribution of industry is not a matter that concerns the Development Areas alone. It is a matter of vital importance to the whole country. The proper location and distribution of industry is an integral feature of any kind of planned economy, and it is an indispensable condition for a policy of full employment.
As a result of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, the Government today have considerable powers over the location of industry, and these powers are, in the main, exercised through the Board of Trade. The Treasury comes into it, too, but we have been assured on more than one occasion that financial considerations will not bed allowed to stand in the way of the Development Areas receiving the full benefits of the provisions of that Act. This Act was passed to prevent a recurrence of the ghastly tragedy of the inter-war period in these areas. It was passed three years ago, and the time seems now to be opportune to review what has been done under the Act and to assess the achievements and shortcomings of the Board of Trade in their administration of the Act.
The Act itself brought new hopes to millions of people in the Development Areas. Perhaps we pitched our hopes too high; and probably we did not give sufficient consideration to the magnitude of the task of building a balanced economy and a new industrial structure in those areas. Even in normal times this would have been an exceedingly difficult task, but the last three years have not been normal; and the job has had to be done in the transition period from war to peace and against the background of a severe economic crisis.
In spite of all these difficulties, a great deal has been done. There are solid and substantial achievements to record. The Act has given new life, new hopes and new prospects to the old depressed areas of Britain. It has brought in new industries which were never known there before. It has transformed areas which had been dead and derelict into thriving hives of industry. Light industries have been brought in, especially to South Wales, to give facilities for employment to girls, women and disabled people. Therefore, I want to congratulate the Board of Trade on their achievements, because they have solid and substantial achievements to their credit, but I want to say that there is no room for complacency. There is a serious unemployment problem in every one of these development areas especially in South Wales, where we have five and a half per cent. of the insured population unemployed, a record of which we are not proud.
Here I want to make a few criticisms. My first complaint is about the slow rate of factory construction in the Development Areas. I know of many factories which were started two years ago and are not completed yet. The difficulty has been shortage of raw materials, bricks, cement, timber and, above all, steel. Steel has been, and still is, the worst bottleneck. We have been assured on more than one occasion that in the allocation of steel the Development Areas receive a practical priority. I do not know exactly what that means, but in any case we are far from satisfied and we are still concerned about the slow rate of factory construction. This problem is commented upon in the second report of the Select Committee on Estimates of 7th May, 1947, where the Committee recommended:
My second criticism is of the type of industry which has been established and is being established in the Development Areas, and I speak now with particular reference to South Wales. A great variety of industry has been established there, but it is not the type best suited to the needs of the area. In South Wales, in particular, we have a large number of industries which produce cheap, flimsy trinkets and gadgets, and a number of industries producing luxury and semi-luxury articles. In a period of economic austerity these industries cannot possibly survive; and they will be the first to be closed down with any vigorous application of a national policy of first things first. Indeed, we are already feeling the effects of this policy in South Wales and, as a result, we are experiencing a considerable increase in unemployment.
What the Development Areas really need is a number of industries complementary and ancillary to their basic industries. In South Wales our basic industry is coal, and our primary need is for an industry which will be supplementary to the coal industry which is the foundation of our economy. We have in South Wales now several industries producing cheap electrical gadgets, but we have no industry producing essential electrical equipment for the collieries.
Here may I make a suggestion? At Llangyfelach, which is just outside Swansea, there is an ideal site for the location of a plant to produce mining machinery and mining equipment. This site was cleared at Government expense. It was meant to be the venue of the tinplate cold reduction plant for West Wales. This plant was later transferred to Trostre in Llanelly. I do not want to reopen that controversy. The site is now vacant. It is situated on the fringe of the West Wales coalfield and, if this coalfield is to survive, it has to be intensively and extensively mechanised. I suggest that a plant be set up in Llangyfelach to produce the machinery and equipment that these collieries need instead, of importing it from the Midlands and the North of England. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will give serious consideration to that suggestion.
I wish to make a special plea for attention for the Development Areas. For 25 years they have been starved of industry and capital. For generations a ruthless private enterprise has sucked out the wealth of those areas and then abandoned them. In the past the people of those areas have made notable contributions to British prosperity. They can do so again, if they are given the opportunity. All they ask now is that they be given that opportunity, so that they can play their full part in the tremendous task which faces us all of reconstructing and rebuilding British economy.
8.51 p.m.
I am very pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. D. J. Williams) in his plea for more consideration of the problems of the Development Areas. He has spoken for his own part of South Wales, and I wish to speak of the North-East coast, which is probably making more progress now than South Wales and, with the exception of the Cumberland Development Area, may be the most favoured Development Area.
In the Development Areas today we have the sole remaining source of unused labour, which is badly wanting to be used and which, unless used fairly quickly, may degenerate into the kind of frustration there was in those areas in the period before the war. It is socially desirable that we get this mass of unemployed people back into productive industry as soon as possible and banish the fear of want and poverty from their minds. I wish to pay tribute to one of my colleagues in the Northern area, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), for the very great work he did as President of the Board of Trade and as Chancellor of the Exchequer in finding money for projects in the Development Areas. We owe him a great deal, and I am sure his interest in those areas is as great as ever.
The object of the Distribution of Industry Act was to introduce light and diversified industries to those areas to prevent the people there from being solely dependent on one basic industry which, when slump came, would be the first to suffer leaving large-scale unemployment and degradation. The main task has been to provide factory buildings and to induce industrialists to come into those areas, which, in the past, have been looked upon as undesirable. There have been instances of industrialists refusing to go to the North-East coast because the managing director's wife did not think those areas had the right kind of cultural activity and because they looked upon them as backward areas. We have had three years' experience of the working of the Act and it has proved that once firms go to those areas the workmen are second to none in their ability. They are capable of adapting themselves to all kinds of new processes and techniques. There has been considerable achievement and success in the Development Areas. The influence of this great Act is making itself felt more and more as factory building gathers impetus as the months go by.
The main job has been to build factories. There have been many frustrations; lack of raw materials, steel and bricks, shortage of labour, shortage of bricklayers. There have been organisational difficulties and it has sometimes taken 18 months or two years to complete a factory. That has meant a good deal of heartburning among the people who wanted to settle down in the Development Areas. The result has been that some have given up all idea of going there. But, when all these objections are put on one side, and also the positive policy of the Government to restrict further building at present by its policy on capital expenditure, there has been a tremendous achievement in those areas.
In 1947, which is the year mainly under consideration, there has been a 32 per cent. decrease in unemployment among the men in the development areas. There has been a similar decline of one-third in unemployment among the women in those areas. In the North-east, where in 1935 there were roughly 153,000 people out of work who wanted to work and for whom no work was found, and where in 1938 at the height of the rearmament boom there were 100,000 people out of work, in 1946, mainly due to the effects of this Act, there were 50,000. For the past year the figure has been held steady at something like 30,000 people unemployed, the bulk of whom are men who were only capable of light employment and who need special kinds of sheltered industries to employ them, or special light employment.
One of the major achievements of this Government in their pursuit of the policy of full employment has been to try to carry out their pledge to abolish the old distressed areas and to build up useful areas of production, where people can live a normal natural life without having to worry about leaving that area and their home environment to seek employment elsewhere. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Neath said, we must not be complacent about what has been done. So far we have really made only a slight inroad into the hard core of the problem because it is significant that over 5o per cent. of the men in the country who have been unemployed for six months or more are in the Development Areas, as are three-quarters of the women who have been unemployed for six months or more. That is the hard core which the Board of Trade have to try to get into productive employment as soon as possible.
To turn to the actual building of factories in the North-East, at the end of February 370 factories had been approved; 183 were under construction and the good number of 104 had actually been completed. In spite of all the delays, that is a considerable achievement. But 69 factories, that is, roughly 20 per cent. of all that it was designed we should have, have been deferred owing to the Government's plans to cut capital expenditure. I desire to put forward the point of view that the time has come for the Government to reconsider these capital expenditure cuts. The situation now is that all the factories under construction are rapidly approaching completion, and unless more factories are planned in the near future we shall find that building operatives will be out of work in those areas and we shall not have absorbed all the surplus labour there.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not seriously consider at this stage allowing more steel to be used for the construction of factories in the Development Areas. I can assure him that it is a policy which will pay rich dividends in exports and also in production for the home market. I would like also to suggest that we must proceed as quickly as possible to complete all those factories which are now under construction. Many of them have been on the way for 18 months to two years. The tenants are becoming a little tired of the delays, and with proper organisation I see no reason why most of those factories should not be completed and in production by the Autumn of this year.
We must also speed up the provision of the services of gas, electricity, adequate water supplies and adequate transport facilities in those areas, because unless we do that we shall be frustrating efficient production in those factories. One point of local importance which I wish to raise concerns the provision of cement. I know that that is the concern of the Ministry of Works, but the effect which the present position is having on the development factories in the North-East is serious. Services such as drainage and sewerage have been held up through inadequate supplies of cement. The building of factories is being held up because we have not an adequate amount of cement. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consult with the Ministry of Works and to get proper co-ordination—
I am afraid that item is not covered by any of the Votes under discussion tonight.
I am sorry, Major Milner, but I think I have made my point and I hope it will be taken note of in the proper quarter. There is great hope in the Development Areas that they have a bright future in store for them owing to what has been done in the past three years, but it does mean that there is something of a time lag before we get that, and it will take all the determination of the people concerned with these developments to see that the major use is made of the opportunities that exist in this intervening period. A great contribution has been made to bringing about full employment in these areas, but still greater efforts are needed if we are to ensure full employment and prosperity there.
9.1 p.m.
At the beginning of this Debate we had an extremely interesting speech by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), followed by the President of the Board of Trade. The President undoubtedly made a speech which throughout commanded the attention of the Committee, and which shows that he, with his advisers, had put an enormous amount of energy and work into the subject we are discussing. He left me with the impression of an earnest man standing on a stage with about i5 to 20 plates in the air all going round and wondering whether one was going to hit him on the head. Recently he has been hit on the head by one plate. The clothing situation suddenly became acute. He has that one now a little bit in the air but another one is getting dangerously near him, and that is furniture.
It is hardly remarkable that the President should be in that position if one considers the number of jobs which he is trying to do. It is really a condemnation of the whole system which the Government are trying to follow of planning things excessively in detail from the centre that all these things should be the responsibility of the Board of Trade. I think it is relevant to this Debate if I quote briefly from an admirable handbook which describes from the staff side of the Civil Service, the National Whitley Council, what are the functions of the Board of Trade: At the moment the President is dealing with these subjects:
Whereas in 1939 the staff at the Board of Trade was 4,248, today, or in 1947, it was 14,566. What is more I think that figure of 4,248 probably includes—though I could not check this—those people who before the war were doing Ministry of Transport work in the Board of Trade and have been transferred to the Ministry of Transport, so that the difference is even greater. The point I am getting at is a clear one. I think that this growth of work in itself is presenting an acute problem of internal administration and liaison inside his own Department. Certainly, with a staff of that size which, from the very nature of the President's work, is linked up with a number of other Departments, it is small wonder that recently many responsible people who know their subject have been wondering gravely whether this type of over-swollen ministerial staff can possibly lead to anything but chaos.
I would suggest that the general run of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade and of a substantial number of speeches by hon. Members, not only on this side of the Committee but on the opposite side, shows the impossibility of detailed central planning on the scale which is being tried in this country. Before leaving the right hon. Gentleman's speech, there are one or two points which I wish to take up. He made one remark which confirms exactly what I am trying to say. If I heard him correctly, he said—and this is an ambitious statement—that he was trying to bring supply and demand into line. That in peacetime, when the objective of the whole system is to meet the infinite variety of human needs, is literally what this Government think they are doing. The Government believe they can do it not by general overall decisions which give a general guidance and leave the system to work itself out to produce the right answer, but by getting down to detail. I long to know when the President decided to take ties off coupons. Did he do that in his bath, or when? He must have given a good deal of thought to it himself. I understand that he did, but I cannot understand how he can possibly give time to the enormous range of subjects with which he has to deal.
What has emerged in this Debate on the subject of clothes rationing? Undoubtedly the concessions or the alterations which have been made will be welcomed by a great many people. We are delighted to hear that there is to be an advisory committee on this subject. It is interesting to note that the President, with his staff of 14,000, arrived at precisely the same figure for additional coupons as that arrived at by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) working by the light of pure reason and without 14,000 people to help him. I do not know who deserves the tribute. What worries me is that when I heard that my hon. Friend's conclusions were confirmed by the President of the Board of Trade I began to wonder whether my hon. Friend was wrong. There was a good deal of evidence mentioned by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston to show that the figure might need to be nearer 15 or 20 if we are to clear this surplus. However, we must not object too much to something which is substantial and which will be a great help. The important question is whether this will be sufficient to meet the purpose.
That leads me to my main point. I would like to get clear in my mind if possible—which I doubt—what is the exact purpose of the alterations announced today. Has the right hon. Gentleman made these alterations to enable the needs of the people to be met or has he made them to clear surpluses, to clear that hump of which he spoke? Is the hump made up of things which were produced for the home market and which have not been taken up either through shortage of coupons or because of excessive prices, or is that hump made up of frustrated exports? We have not yet heard about frustrated exports. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will speak about that topic later.
It is difficult to know just what is his objective at the moment. If it is not frustrated exports, what exactly is the proportion between home goods and frustrated exports which are now on the shelves? One is bound to ask if his motive is to avoid unemployment. Obviously, I think the answer must be a combination of the whole lot. That is an example of the difficulty of the problem which the right hon. Gentleman has set himself in this detailed planning. Then one asks the question whether what he has done will achieve the results. There is a certain element of doubt about what he is trying to achieve. Obviously, the answer is bound up with coupon values, but also it must be concerned with prices. That is evident because the right hon. Gentleman is making price adjustments and insisting on bargain sales, with goods sold at half coupon rate at half price.
Then, the element of Purchase Tax comes in. How does that link up? I find it fascinating to try to think out how the whole thing is tackled. When the President is worrying about this problem and thinking of coupon values, is he scratching his head and wondering if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to play tricks with the Purchase Tax? Or is it a co-ordinated policy in which they are working together completely? If that is so, I want to refer to a remark made by the President when he said that he is not prepared to substitute rationing by price for rationing by coupons, and I want to suggest that, in point of fact, he is doing that now in co-operation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that is quite a fair point to put to the President, who showed great indignation and made it sound monstrous that prices should determine what is bought and sold. Surely, that is what is happening, and he does it either separately on his own or together with the Chancellor. With all these things to puzzle him—whether it is price or Purchase Tax, or frustrated exports, which are going to prevent him achieving his objective—no man on this earth can possibly know whether he is right or wrong. It can only be left to chance, or to experiment rather than chance, and the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), in saying that Socialist planning should rather be called "succumbing to events," was pretty obviously near the mark.
These difficulties are bound to arise if in time of peace, as distinct from war, a Government attempts to plan production and consumption when it should be working with the deliberate intention of freeing as fast as possible our economy generally and towards freeing different articles, as well as clothing and furniture, as quickly as possible from rationing. I have been delighted throughout this Debate to find how many allies gathered round, especially from hon. Members opposite, who are at last realising that this business of planning is not only leading to concealed unemployment and other forms of things going wrong, but is failing to allow the country to increase production, as we have to do if we have to survive.
I would add that, while it might seem churlish to object to what the Department is doing and what the President has done today, as we shall do by the action we are going to take this evening, subject to what the President says in his final speech, the main reason in my mind why we register this protest against the conduct of the Board of Trade is that there is not sufficient evidence available that the Board of Trade is proceeding to work in the realisation that the only hope of solving our problems is to make the system more and more flexible as time goes on, and that to free as many commodities as possible from control as soon as possible is their major objective.
From what has come out of the Debate so far, one doubts whether the President really knows what his objective is. Is it merely a question of clearing surpluses, meeting needs or directing labour? The President rose with considerable irritation and indignation when it was suggested early on in the Debate that he might be planning for unemployment. I would not put it that way myself, but we have reason to believe that a good deal of this work is done to plan the redirection of labour. Will the President deny that, as he denied the earlier suggestion? If not, there is another tangle in the scheme of things which makes it impossible to know whether he can achieve his objective or not. I hope he will answer this question with the same precision as he answered the other questions about unemployment. Is part of the coupon control, Purchase Tax control and all the other controls definitely aimed at the redirection of labour from certain trades into others? The country ought to know, because it would be a very great fraud on the nation if people did not realise that Socialist planned economy aims at moving labour by a form of unemployment created by deliberate panning.
All these thoughts arise directly from the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade on clothes rationing and the alterations he has made. If confirmation were needed of what I have been saying, it arises out of what has been said on furniture in two very interesting speeches from the Government side, one of which I heard in full; unfortunately I was out of the Chamber when the other was made. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), out of his great experience and knowledge of the furniture trade, made precisely the case that I have been trying to elaborate. His words were blunt. He urged the President of the Board of Trade to have courage, to loosen the whole system and to try to get furniture flowing throughout the country. Perhaps his most important point was when he mentioned the disastrous effect that this type of control is now having on the existence of craftsmen in this country. That is really a serious problem. It could be dealt with by consummate skill; the President could do it if he gave his time to it, but I do not think it is possible under the type of planned economy in which we are working at the moment. Craftsmen will disappear from this country because they cannot survive under that type of planned economy. I hope the President will pay the greatest attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wycombe.
I understand that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) spoke on similar lines, and with great clarity he dealt with concealed unemployment in the furniture trade which I understand he put at the very high figure of one-third of effective manpower. Clearly both these points bear tremendously on the main argument which I have been making. I urge the President of the Board of Trade, if he can do it, to get away from his colleagues and his party, and let us know that he is going to work steadily and consistently to clear all these matters for which he is responsible from this rigid type of control. He should aim at the maximum freeing of the economy instead of trying to make arbitrary plans based on information which must be inadequate if he is to try to meet the infinite variety of human needs.
I would like to turn now to the question of distribution of industry. During the first three-quarters of the Debate very little was said about it, but latterly there were two interesting speeches, and earlier one by the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton). I would like to follow up those speeches in some detail because I hope the President will give us a certain amount of information about this subject. I would like to refer to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot who said that hon. Members opposite should remember that the Distribution of Industry Act was prepared by the Coalition Government and was put through in its final form by the Caretaker Government. It is not a product of the Labour Party. One does not want to over-emphasise these things but there has been a great tendency by the party opposite to claim credit for a lot of things for which they were not responsible.
When that Measure was introduced it was a simple Bill which was welcomed in all parts of the House. Its purpose was to try to encourage diversification of industry in areas which had become over-concentrated on heavy industries and which were liable to considerable unemployment particularly in the changeover period from war production to peace production. I have always believed that its title was over ambitious. It is called the Distribution of Industries Bill; in point of fact, it is more properly either a "Development Areas" Bill or, to put it more crudely, an old "distressed areas" Bill. The Distribution of Industry Act is really a most misleading title, because its whole operation has been concentrated almost exclusively on the problem of the development areas, to the exclusion of the whole of the rest of the country.
I would like to ask one or two specific questions, because we have never really had any statement in this House since the Act was passed as to what has been done under it. The specific answers I would like to have if possible are as follows. The first Section of the Act gives power to provide premises: what has been done in that connection since the Act came into operation? I hope there are figures available of the number of actual premises that have been provided by the Board of Trade under the Act. Next, there is the question of loans to trading or industrial estate companies, and there is also the question of annual grants and loans to individual undertakings to help them keep going.
These are three points about which I have given advance warning to the President of the Board of Trade, and I will not elaborate them because I think he knows that I intended to ask for figures of what has been done under the Act. Much more important—and I rather doubt whether we shall get this information—is, in how many cases have applications to the Board of Trade to build new factories in areas outside the Development Areas been refused? Two of the earlier speakers spoke very eloquently about the blessing which this Act has been to the Development Areas. One hon. Member spoke about the sorrows of certain towns in this country which suffered heavily in the war but which do not get the kind of assistance which the Development Areas get.
I would like to stress what is happening all over the country, with particular reference to Scotland, where the areas outside the Development Areas are really having an extremely difficult time. Clearly, at the end of the war there was a unique opportunity—one which occurs, perhaps, only once in a century—of effecting a comprehensive redistribution of population and industry in this country. New industries were bound to be needed and there were bound to be extensions of factories. There was an assured market for a considerable number of years and people would be prepared to move to any place where they could get labour and buildings.
I personally think it is the greatest tragedy that there had to be so much concentration on the Development Areas and that similar powers were not used to work industry into the smaller country towns all over England, Wales and Scotland, and also to deal with the problem of the highlands in Scotland. Some extension of this Act must be considered. I have been expecting it to appear ever since the Government came into power, because I think I am right in saying that for years the Labour Party have talked a lot about trying to get a better life for the workers and getting them away from the more concentrated areas of population. I could not agree more. It would have been the best thing for this country, particularly if light industries which can function equally well in smaller towns, could have been moved away from the great centres of population and established in the existing small country towns. It was not even necessary to worry about new towns. Large numbers of small towns in England, Wales and Scotland are capable of steady expansion, produce excellent craftsmen, and can provide a life for the worker and for everybody concerned with industry infinitely better than anything they can get in the great towns.
In particular, people would have gone to these towns because in a great many cases they are growing rather tired of the great cities. There was one inducement which could have been used to achieve redistribution of population and industry, practically without tears, and that was the inducement of houses. If this Act had been cast wider and used outside the development areas, we could have had houses built, the workers moving towards these houses, factories built, and workers and management only too glad to move away from the over concentrated areas.
The reason I am asking whether the President of the Board of Trade can give some idea as to how many applications to build outside the Development Areas have been refused by his Department, is because the original Act which we are discussing—the Distribution of Industry Act—was, in point of fact, all right in this respect, because it gave only positive powers of inducement. There were no powers to prevent building elsewhere. There was a Clause proposed during the Committee stage of that Bill which would have given the President of the Board of Trade powers to declare certain areas unsuitable for further development. It was dropped because of the outcry from all sides. Now, however, the President has powers far greater than those that Clause would have given him. He has all the powers of refusal of sponsorship, which means that there is not the slightest hope of a building licence of any kind for anybody who fails to get Board of Trade sponsorship. The suggestion I am making, and to which I hope we shall be able to have an answer which is satisfactory—though I do not believe, judging from experience, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us one— is that there has been such a concentration on development areas that the rest of the country is suffering, and that we may be getting a complete distortion of what might have been and could be a natural tendency away from the big towns.
If that is so, then it is another example of how trying to plan from the centre, with only partial information of what is the best thing to do for a nation, means running a great danger of producing further distortion of what has to be rectified. It is another of those plates the President is trying to keep in the air above his head; and it may come down and hit him. Industries should be spread all over the country for strategic reasons, for health reasons, and for every possible sound reason. As it is, populations are quite possibly again being concentrated in areas already over-populated.
I promised to allow time for the President to make his speech, and so I shall conclude with but one more remark. Today's Debate has covered extremely important subjects, but we have still to hear the President speak of furniture and of the distribution of industry. I hope that the speeches in the Debate may have given him some encouragement to move in the right direction, but I am afraid that the history of his party is such that we view with considerable concern what his Department has done in these matters in recent years, and we do not believe that he will move anything like rapidly enough towards freeing our economy and getting a proper, natural answer to all these problems. Unless he can in the next half hour remove our doubts I am afraid we must take the opportunity to move a reduction in the Vote.
9.28 p.m.
I apologise to the Committee for inflicting myself on it a second time today, but I am sure hon. Members will appreciate the validity of the reason. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has recently lost his teeth, and is in no position to address the Committee until they have been replaced. Therefore, it is necessary for me to speak a second time.
I should like to repair omissions in my previous statement by beginning with the subject of furniture. As the Committee knows, since the utility furniture scheme began it has been necessary, up to now, to restrict supplies to the so-called priority classes, that is, persons who are newly married or who are about to be married, or persons whose homes were destroyed by enemy action; and so far there has not been enough utility furniture to permit supplies freely to everyone. If we had attempted to make supplies available to everyone, those whose need was the greatest and who had the right to expect the Government to take steps to see that their need was met, would have been swamped out, perhaps, by those with somewhat less urgent needs. During the war, and more particularly since the war, for furniture as for clothing, there has been a demand greater than there was prewar, while supplies have been less than they were prewar.
On the demand side there are accumulated war-time demands, especially of those who were married during the war, or who have been married since, and of those who have been bombed out; and we now have also, as in the similar case of clothing, the demands of a large number of people who before the war could not make their demands effective because of lack of money. On the supply side there have been restrictions. At the beginning of the scheme most of the furniture manufacturers, including all the bigger ones, were engaged on war work. Since the end of the war there has been a world shortage of hardwood. Even as the world hardwood supply position has improved, our dollar difficulties have made it necessary to cut down on purchases of hardwood from the United States and from Canada, two of our most important sources of supply. What is true of hardwood is equally true of veneer and plywood, supplies of which also have been affected by dollar difficulties.
Would the right hon. Gentleman say what effort has been made to mobilise the enormous amount of hardwood in Uganda and in other parts of Africa?
I was coming to that. Everything possible has been done to mobilise supplies of hardwood from non-dollar areas. Let me start with home production. I do not think any of us want to see home production of either hard or softwood go on at too great a rate for too long. Our woods are grossly over-cut already. As far as hardwood is concerned we have maintained production, even during the last year, at almost the wartime rate for hardwood. We have developed non-dollar area supplies in Eastern Europe and particularly in the sterling area to the maximum possible extent.
The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) has just referred to British overseas territories. The prewar imports from the Gold Coast were only 413,000 cubic feet; last year they were 3,240,000 cubic feet. For Nigeria the figure before the war was 1,129,000 cubic feet; last year it was nearly 3 million cubic feet. Kenya and Tanganyika were making virtually no contribution in hardwood supplies before the war; they are now making a small but growing contribution. Now that I have given these figures I think the hon. Member for Bury will agree that valuable steps have been taken. By these measures, but mainly because of heavy dollar expenditure in 1947, the stocks of hardwood, which a year ago were down to just over 11½ million cubic feet, were brought up to nearly 27 million cubic feet by the end of March of this year. The stock position, therefore, is very much better than a year ago.
The right hon. Gentleman is making assertions that his Department is encouraging the importation of hardwood from Colonial areas. Is he aware that the price which his Department offers is approximately £10 per ton for mahogany, whereas the world market price is about £17 to £20 per ton? Is that encouragement?
I can judge only by results. I am talking about the activities of timber control. If the hon. Gentleman likes to attack our purchase on the grounds that we do not pay high enough prices I am always prepared to answer him. We are getting far more hardwood from the Colonial areas than ever before.
Half of what we could.
If we are not getting more than half of what we could get, I would like to know what we got before the war.
From dollar areas.
We have always been anxious to develop the Colonial territories and I thought the Party opposite were keen on that policy, even when timber was available in dollar areas. The stocks to which I have referred, representing dollar stocks, obviously cannot be dissipated in completely freeing supplies for current production. At the worst stage of the hardwood shortage, supplies of hardwood to the furniture industry, to the end of 1947, were only half the rate obtaining in the middle of 1946, but increased supplies have been made available in the first two quarters of this year.
I would like to pay tribute to the furniture industry in having worked absolute wonders in keeping up production, even when supplies were cut. For our part, we have tried to see that the supply of units in the hands of the public was closely related to the volume of furniture being made, so that there should be no undue delay in delivery to the buyer. Throughout 1947 and in the early part of this year we have had to maintain the system of deferred units—that is, those qualifying for a ration receive only part of it in immediately valid units, and had to wait until a later date for the rest of the ration to be validated. The situation has certainly developed rapidly this year, as we are now coming much nearer to the end of our first job, which was to meet the needs of the priority classes. We have been keeping the situation under very close review. The improvement in the supply situation during the past three months has confounded even the trade. I will not accept for one moment, either in furniture or in clothing, that the trade can always see the position perfectly clearly and that the Government never can. That was certainly not true of clothing and it is certainly not true of furniture. The furniture industry only a short time ago were arguing that the quantity of furniture it could make in the first few months of 1948 was—and I quote— three weeks ago I announced that the system of deferred units would be dropped and that all units issued were to be immediately valid. I made a further small valuable extension in the supply by allowing some bedroom furniture as well as childrens' furniture to be included, thus adding to the unit purchasing power in the hands of the public. A very large number of people who do not at present qualify for an issue of units for rationed furniture are also in very great need. The public in general for many years have not had an opportunity of buying new wooden furniture. As soon as it can be done without imperilling the needs of those who are setting up home for the first time, or making provision for growing families, classes who have the first call upon our resources, a proportion of the output of new furniture will be made available to the general public. The balance between supply and demand is being very closely watched at the moment, so that we can take the new step as early as possible.
I hope this will be done in a very short time. I do not propose to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) suggested, extend the list of priority classes. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) who said that to do so would only create further anomalies. I feel that it is right to throw the supply of new utility furniture open to the whole of the general public. There are many people with great needs, apart from people in the priority classes. As soon as I am satisfied that I can take this step without letting the priority classes down I shall certainly do it. How soon this will be it is impossible to say until we have seen the effect of the step taken three weeks ago. I am confident that it will be in the very near future.
With the steps already taken, and with the pledge which I gave three weeks ago and am repeating now, that supplies will be made available generally in the near future, there is no reason whatsoever for distributors to hold back their orders from manufacturers. The public need for furniture is still great. Controls are going to be relaxed on furniture purchasing, so that at every point demand will be up to the level of available supply. There is no reason at all why the furniture industry should not go along at full production within the limits of the raw materials available today.
What period will be taken to study the results of previous concessions before the right hon. Gentleman takes further steps?
The very shortest possible period necessary. I hope it will be in the very near future, but I would not like to tie myself down to an exact date.
Numbers of hon. Members have raised the question of craftsmanship. That is not a party issue. Every party in this Committee wants to see British craftsmanship given every chance to flourish, whether we have utility furniture or not. We are doing a considerable amount at the present time, details of which I hope shortly to be able to give to the House, not only for the encouragement of craftsmen of all kinds, especially rural craftsmen, but also for linking the development of that craftsmanship with the export trade. If we can set up suitable arrangements for disposing of those goods, there is an extremely brisk and active demand for the products of British craftsmanship in countries overseas, particularly North America.
I would now like to come to the subject of the distribution of industry, which is one with which I did not deal this afternoon. I am not going to go into the long argument as to who was or was not responsible for the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. If we are going to pay credit to anyone, it should be paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who fought the cause of the Development Areas long before the war when my hon. Friends were going through the country trying to stir up the public conscience about the crimes being committed in those old prewar Distressed Areas. If anyone has to be given credit for that Act in the time of the Coalition Government, it is my right hon. Friend.
As the Committee know, I am required under that Act, before three years are up from the date of the passing of the Act, to review the whole operation of the Act and consider whether any area should be added to or removed from the First Schedule of the Act, that is whether any new areas should be scheduled as Development Areas or existing areas taken off the list. I shall be laying before the House in the next two or three weeks a White Paper giving the results of that review and an account of our experience in operating the Act over the past three years. It would obviously be inappropriate to anticipate that review in this Debate. I will, however, attempt to make a very brief answer to one or two questions which have been put.
Would that review, therefore, be confined to the work done in the Development Areas?
Obviously it cannot be so confined. It will be a full review of the whole of our operations under the Act. Since it is to make recommendations on particular areas which are not at present Development Areas, obviously we have to consider the whole field of all possible areas. If I could briefly attempt to answer the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), I will promise to give him much fuller information either in the White Paper or on another occasion He asked for some figures. The total expenditure under the heading "provision of premises" up to 30th April amounted to £15,870,000 and "loans to estate companies" £4,145,000. He also asked the total value of the loans made by the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee. He will recognise that that is a Treasury Committee which does not fall within my Vote, but I can tell him that I am informed by the Treasury that the total value of loans approved up to date total about £880,000. I am sorry that I cannot give the information about the number of applications to build new factories outside the development areas which have been refused because no central record is kept. In many cases industries were thinking of building perhaps in the Greater London area and did not go on with it because they had not received encouragement. I do not think it would be correct to describe it as an actual refusal. In many cases I agree with what the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said, that industrialists have of their own free will co-operated. In some cases, with only the smallest degree of encouragement, they have co-operated, altered their plans and built in one of the Development Areas or one of the other unemployment areas which may not have been scheduled in the Act.
When the full statement comes, will figures be given not only in money values but in the actual number of units involved?
I am not sure we can do that, but we will if we can. Although I have said that a fuller review will be available to the House in two or three weeks, I would like to give one or two facts and figures about the progress achieved in providing employment in the Development Areas. I will begin by stating what was the problem, the size of the job which had to be done, the number of people for whom employment had to be found. The problem in social, human terms was only too well known in this House. It was stated here repeatedly before the war. The size of the problem can be shown by the numbers unemployed in the Development Areas in 1938 where there were 450,000 unemployed as late as 1938. All that had been done in the ten years before that had failed to solve the problem, and there were still 450,000 unemployed. There are now 219,000 more employed than before the war, or there were last July. In part this is a reflection of full employment in the country as a whole, but in part it is due to employment in the Government wartime factories to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, now turned over to civilian production, and also Government factories which have been built at Government expense
Could we have more up-to-date figures than those of last July?
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a Question down, I will see what I can do, but I can only say now that since last July the employment position has improved further in the development areas and he will find the figures even higher. Some 61,000 are now employed in surplus Government munition factories, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and of the new Government building programme enough factories have been built to provide additional employment for 26,000 people. When the present Government took office we calculated that to solve the hard core problem in the Development Areas we had to build enough additional new factories to provide employment for 220,000 workers, and the main weight of factory building since 1945, as the hon. Gentleman said, has been in the Development Areas. Those areas, accounting for only about one-seventh of the total working population of the country, are receiving in terms of building costs more than one half of the total new factory construction.
The hon. Gentleman said that this over-concentration, as he regards it, on the Development Areas demonstrates the dangers of centralised planning. If he will contrast the present position with pre-war he will see some of the virtues of centralised planning in the figures I am now giving. Taking five years before the war in these same areas, when unemployment never fell below 450,000, he will find that the total number of new factories built in those areas in those five years was actually fewer than the number of factories closed down in those areas—
No Marshall Aid then.
—and if he will go, as I am sure he has done, to Cumberland now, he will find more than twice as many people employed as before the war; if he will go to Tyneside, under conditions approaching full employment, if he will go to Teesside, if he will go to South Wales, where all the problems are not yet solved, if he will go to West Lancashire, if he will go to many of these areas, he will se a complete transformation in the industrial scene, a transformation due to the advantages of centralised planning.
Could I, then, urge the President of the Board of Trade to take a day off and go up to the Highlands of Scotland and see what is not happening there?
The areas which suffered most over this problem have to come first. I am sorry to bore the Committee with figures, but they really ought to be given to show the progress of the factory building programme. The total programme covered 1,212 factories, new factories or extensions, designed to provide employment for 223,000 people in the Development Areas. Of those 368 factories and extensions costing £13,600,000 have been completed, and although many of them are not yet up to full employment, they are employing already 26,000 workers. A further 565, costing £53 million, are in course of construction, and they will provide employment for a further 158,000 workers. A further 49 are approved for starting and these factories, completed, in course of construction and about to start, will between them account for 187,000 of the original programmes. The cuts in the capital investment programme about which some of my hon. Friends have made inquiries therefore represent a reduction of 16 per cent. or rather a postponement of 16 per cent. on the original programme, and that is spread fairly evenly between the various Development Areas.
I am not going to pretend that the problem of the Development Areas is vet solved. In some parts of the country, in South Wales and Merseyside, which is not technically a Development Area, there is still an unemployment figure which is far too high for anyone to feel happy about, but the total figure in the Development Areas at present—and here I give the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) up-to-date figures—in March, 1948, was 105,000 representing 4.2 per cent. of the insured population and less than 20 per cent. of the numbers unemployed before the war. Factories now under construction will provide employment for the whole of this figure. There is much more I would like to add about the position outside the Development Areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Division for Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) put a question and I may be able to give more information about that when I present the White Paper to the House in two or three weeks.
Turning to the clothing position, the right hon. Member for Aldershot found some difficulty in reconciling one or two of my statements. He found it difficult to reconcile my announcement today of a bonus issue to clear this hump of stocks with a statement I made about a possible shortage in September and the months beyond September. There is really no inconsistency. We have to clear this hump of stocks at present. It has arisen from a successful increase in production before the diversion of exports in order to maintain a continuing incentive in production on the home market, but as the diversion to export takes effect there is the danger that we shall have considerably less clothing supplies available; but that is no reason for insisting on stocks remaining in the warehouses at present, and this bonus issue is designed to clear the shelves in warehouses and shops and to replenish the housewives' linen cupboards. I was asked to explain whether this was temporary or permanent. The bonus issue is of course temporary, valid until 30th September, but the downpointings and derationing which I announced are meant to be permanent, or at least to last as long as we can foresee. I was asked about the removals of controls in this field. If the Committee looks at the controls which have been moved or relaxed in the last few weeks, they will see a record of considerable easement. We have taken off the export licensing of wool and clothes other than utilities and taken steps to see that wool destined for export does not get on to the black market.
In regard to footwear we are abolishing the system of allocating to footwear manufacturers on the basis of their previous consumption as from the first quarter of 1948. We have abolished the price control on cotton in the woven export scheme and there will be other easement of controls in the course of the next few weeks.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question about boots which have been in warehouses for a long time, say in Manchester? If released to the home market will the same coupon rate be accepted?
I think I dealt with that this afternoon, but if the hon. and gallant Member is talking of frustrated exports to which the hon. and gallant Member for Bury (Mr. Walter Fletcher) and others referred, we cannot plan on the basis that anyone who cannot sell abroad can divert to the home market. Even so, as I readily admit, import restrictions abroad are causing very great difficulties for exporters. I do recognise that there are a number of cases where, after every effort has been made to sell the goods abroad, they have not been sold, and, therefore, with the co-operation of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, I am setting up a small advisory committee of that association to assess individual claims so that, in individual cases, exports that cannot be sold abroad after every effort has been made to sell them, can be put on the home market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge (Mrs. Mann)—and I should like to thank her for what she said—referred to the curtains question, and to the fact that those people with the most money can buy curtains coupon-free. I would remind her that I have this afternoon removed this anomaly by putting a very large proportion of utility curtain material free of coupons, so that it is no longer true that only those who can pay the higher prices can get curtains. The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) referred to the financial problems of the trade. We are very much alive to them, but we should not deceive ourselves into believing that the distributive trades are starving at this time. We have only to look at the dividends of some of the larger companies, and to look at the figures of bankruptcies. I think the figures of bankruptcies are down throughout every section of retail trade except pawnbrokers, who are the only people who are worse off now than before the war.
Finally, the hon. Members for West Harrow (Mr. Bower) came clearly out—and I admire his boldness—for the abolition of clothes rationing. He gave me some very interesting generalities about the black market, but he refused to give me his source of information, which I could only regret. The hon. Member also said that it is no good my setting up an advisory committee because I do not take advice. The difficulty about that is not only that the advice of the trade varies as between one section and another, but that it varies from one week to another. It is useful to have advice, but one should not depend On it too much. The hon. Member concluded by saying that he would rather see people queueing up to buy goods in the shops than queueing up for the dole at the employment exchanges. I do not think that statement requires any comment from, me.
We have had, in this country in the past, warehouses and shops crammed with goods and factories closing down, but that is not going to happen now. We have had our shops filled with goods —clothing, food and everything else—to such an extent that they were in danger of overflowing into the street and tripping up the hunger marchers as they went past. That is not going to happen again—
Motion made and Question put, "That item Class VI, Vote I, Board of Trade, be reduced by £5."—[ Mr. Malay. ]
The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 231.
Division No. 154. AYES 9.58 p.m. Agnew, Cmdr. P. G Hollis, M. C. Odey, G. W. Astor, Hon. M. Howard, Hon. A. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H Baldwin, A. E. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Orr-Ewing, I. L. Beechman, N. A. Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J Peto, Brig. C. H. M Bennett, Sir P. Hurd, A. Pitman, I. J. Birch, Nigel Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C) Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Bossom, A. C Jeffreys, General Sir G. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswetry) Bowen, R Jennings, R. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Bower, N. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury) Braithwaite, LL-Comdr. J. G Kendall, W. D Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Kerr, Sir J. Graham Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall) Bullock, Capt. M. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) Byers, Frank Lambert, Hon. G. Ropner, Col. L. Carson, E. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Scott, Lord W. Challen, C. Langford-Holt, J. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Clarke, Col, R. S. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H Studholme, H. G. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Lipson, D. L. Sutcliffe, H. Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Lucas, Major Sir J. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) Crowder, Capt. John E McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. Cuthbert, W. N. Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Touche, G. C. Digby, S. W. McFarlane, C. S. Vane, W. M. F. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Wadsworth, G. Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) MoKie, J. H. (Galloway) Wakefield, Sir W. W Duthie, W. S. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Ward, Hon. G. R. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster) Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.) Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L MacLeod, J White, Sir D. (Fareham) Fletcher, W. (Bury) Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) White, J. B. (Canterbury) Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Williams, C. (Torquay) Fox, Sir G. Manningham-Buller, R. E Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) Gage, C. Marsden, Capt. A. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Glyn, Sir R. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) York, C. Granville, E. (Eye) Medlicott, Brigadier F. Harden, J. R. E. Mellor, Sir J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Morris-Jones, Sir H. Mr. Butcher and Harvey, Air-Cmdre A. V. Nield, B. (Chester) Mr. Niall Macpherson. Hogg, Hon. Q. Noble, Comdr A. H. P.
NOES. Adams, Richard (Balham) Burden, T. W Gibbins, J. Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Burke, W. A. Gilzean, A. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Carmichael, James Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Champion, A. J. Goodrich, H. E. Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Chetwynd, G. R Gordon-Walker, P. C. Alpass, J. H. Cocks, F. S. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Attewell, H. C. Collindridge, F. Grenfell, D. R. Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Collins, V. J. Grey, C F. Awbery, S. S. Cook, T. F. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Ayrton Gould, Mrs B. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G Griffiths, Rt. (Hon. J. (Llanelly) Bacon, Miss A Corlett, Dr. J. Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Baird, J. Cove, W. G. Guest, Dr. L. Haden Balfour, A. Grossman, R. H. S. Gunter, R. J. Barton, C Daggar, G. Guy, W. H. Battley, J. R. Daines, P. Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.) Davies, Edward (Burslem) Hale, Leslie Bechervaise, A. E. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J Davies, R. J (Westhoughton) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Berry, H. Deer, G. Hardy, E. A. Beswick, F. Dodds, N. N. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Bing, G. H. C. Driberg, T. E. N. Haworth, J. Binns, J. Dugdate, J. (W. Bromwich) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford) Blackburn, A. R Dumpleton, C. W. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Blenkinsop, A. Dye, S. Herbison, Miss M. Blyton, W. R. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Hewitson, Capt. M Boardman, H. Edelman, M. Hobson, C. R. Bottomley, A. G. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Holman, P. Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton) Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) Hoy, J. Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Hubbard, T. Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Evans, John (Ogmore) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Bramall, E. A. Fairhurst, F. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Brook, D. (Halifax) Farthing, W. J. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Fernyhough, E. Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.) Brown, George (Belper) Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Hynd., J. B. (Attercliffe) Brown, T. J. (Ince) Forman, J. C. Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N Jeger, G. (Winchester) Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Jenkins, R. H. Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Steele, T. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Sylvester, G. O. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Pargiter, G. A Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Keenan, W. Parker, J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpoth) Kenyon, C. Parkin, B, T. Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet) King, E. M. Paton, Mrs. F (Rushclilfe) Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E Paton, J. (Norwich) Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Lee, F. (Hulme) Pearson, A. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Leonard, W. Peart, T. F. Thomas, John R. (Dover) Lindgren, G. S Perrins, W. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Logan, D. G. Piratin, P. Thurtle, Ernest Longden, F. Porter, E. (Warrington) Tolley, L Lyne, A. W. Porter, G. (Leeds) Turner-Samuels, M McAdam, W Proctor, W. T. Ungoed-Thomas, L McGhee, H. G. Pryde, D. J. Viant, S P McGovern, J. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Walkden, E Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Randall, H. E. Walker, G. H. McKinley, A. S Ranger, J. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow. E. McLeavy, F. Rees-Williams, D. R. Warbey, W. N. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Reeves, J. Watkins, T. E. Mann, Mrs. J. Reid, T. (Swindon) Watson, W. M. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Rhodes, H. Weitzman, D. Marquand, H. A. Richards, R. Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Mellish, R. J. Ridealgh, Mrs. M. West, D. G. Messer, F. Robens, A. Westwood, Rt. Hon. J. Middleton, Mrs. L. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Wheatley, Rt. Un. J. (Edinburgh, E.) Mitchison, G. R. Royle, C. White, H. (Derbyshire, N..E.) Monslow, W. Sargood, R Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Moody, A. S. Scollan, T. Wigg, George Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Scott-Elliot, W. Wilkins, W. A. Moyle, A. Segal, Dr. S. Williams, D. J. (Neath) Murray, J. D Sharp, Granville Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Nally, W. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Williams, R. W. (Wigan) Neal, H. (Claycross) Shurmer, P. Willis, E. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wilson, Rt Hon. J. H Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Simmons, C. J. Woodburn, A. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Skinnard, F. W. Yates, V. F. Noel-Buxton, Lady Soskice, Sir Frank O'Brien, T. Sparks, J. A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Orbach, M. Stamford, W. Mr. George Wallace and Mr. Popplewell.
Original Question again proposed.
It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.
Petroleum Offices, Yorkshire
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [ Mr. Collindridge. ]
10.10 p.m.
The matter which I desire to bring before the House arises out of a Question put to the Minister of Fuel and Power as long ago as 22nd January. The delay of four months has been due to the fact that I have only just succeeded in drawing a lucky number in the highly respectable and decorous lottery which takes place daily in the office of Mr. Speaker's Secretary. I desire in particular to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary the situation in the East Riding where, as he is well aware, all matters regarding petrol allocation have to be referred to the city of Leeds, a considerable distance away. Let me be frank with hon. Members and say that this difficulty is not peculiar to petrol. Other controls are also administered from Leeds, but this particular Department is causing the greatest irritation at the present time.
I want to make it quite clear at the outset that I am making no attack whatever on the hon. Gentleman's staff at the Leeds Petroleum Office; quite the contrary. They have my sympathy. I understand that in the earlier part of this year they were endeavouring to deal with 2,000 letters every day. They are hopelessly overworked and there is therefore congestion in the administration. We in the East Riding feel that replies to applications are largely dealt with by rule of thumb, and that many of the most urgent and deserving cases only get real consideration when the local Member of Parliament intervenes. I will give only one example of what I mean. A crippled lady in a village in the Holderness Division, responding to the Government's appeal for women to return to industry, obtained employment in the City of Hull only a few miles distant, and to get to her job daily she used an auto-cycle, which as the hon. Gentleman is aware, uses a mere thimbleful of petrol. It took six weeks after the basic petrol ration was stopped, six weeks of irritation firstly on her part, secondly on mine, to get that trivial matter adjusted, thereby gravely handicapping everything which we in this country have in mind in the way of increased effort.
We feel that our complaint lies under two main headings; first, the inordinate delay in dealing with correspondence in Leeds; and secondly, the lack of geographical knowledge on the part of the hon. Gentleman's staff at Leeds of the rather peculiar circumstances which obtain in the East Riding. Let me take first the question of bus routes. So many applications are turned down on the ground that public transport passes through the village. That is a most literal and accurate description of what in fact takes place because buses are fully loaded on arrival from some town further up the road, and pass rapidly through, non-stop, leaving would-be passengers waiting at the post office or wherever the stopping place is. One gentleman in my constituency had his application turned down on those grounds. One bus per day serves his village. In another case in which there was one bus per week, on Friday at II o'clock an application was turned down on the ground that the applicant lived on a route served by public transport. That is due to mere lack of knowledge of local conditions and to no other reason.
I will outline two or three cases which have come to my knowledge. I could give many, but the time available on the Adjournment Motion does not permit of my doing so. The Eagle Star Insurance Company, which does important work, endeavoured to obtain an allocation for one of its cars which was the only one available for the use of two of its officials. One of these officials was mainly engaged on engineering inspection at R.A.F. aerodromes and used "E" coupons. His work, therefore, was of national importance. The other was a life insurance official, so that his work was important from the savings angle, which is proved by the fact that the Government desire to effect savings by means of life policies as a result of which tax concessions are allowed, as the Minister is aware. The official tried to get this matter put right by interviewing the petroleum authorities to explain the position. When he got there, after waiting some hours in the queue, he was told that the matter could not be discussed unless he had been granted an official appointment. Incidentally, this journey cost the company 21s. 5d. in travelling expenses, not to mention the waste of the official's time. Then the company asked if the petroleum officer would give it a date and an appointment when its official could have an interview. A week later the petroleum officer replied. His reply was received by post after one o'clock on the day on which the interview was to be granted, stating that the petroleum officer in Leeds would be delighted to see the company's official on that day, which was a physical impossibility except by aeroplane, which the company was unable to arrange.
The present position is this. The Eagle Star has no petrol, and engineering inspections are piling up. The writer of the letter says:
I come to what I believe to be the cure, or at least the alleviation of this problem, which is decentralisation. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there should be a regional petroleum officer for the East Riding as a unit. He should be accommodated either in the City of Hull or in the market town of Beverley which happens to be the capital of my own constituency, the centre of the agricultural area. I believe this still to be necessary, despite the introduction of the meagre standard ration announced the other day. The Parliamentary Secretary will, of course, realise that in making that suggestion I have presented him with something of a debating point. He may reply, "You are asking for more officials in this case which you are putting forward." My reply to that is two-fold. First, if we are to live under bureaucratic control, let us have an efficient bureaucracy, or as efficient a bureaucracy as we can get. Secondly, I suggest that, in fact, there will be no such increase in officials, because there will be no increase in the volume of work. A run-down at Leeds would result in a reduction of staff, and that staff would be diminished by the number required to man and staff the office in the East Riding.
I plead with the hon. Gentleman to remember that Yorkshire has broad acres. It is the largest county in the country, and has its own peculiar problems. I suggest to him in all seriousness that the Riding should be the administrative unit in Yorkshire rather than the County, which is so over-loaded. This is not a party question. Everyone to whom I have spoken in the Holderness Division, and not only in that Division but throughout the East Riding—and the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey), who is present, will not, I think, quarrel with me on what I am going to say—is generally agreed that this office should be established in the Riding; we are large enough in our population, in our problems, and in the number of applications with which the petroleum organisation would have to deal for this decentralisation to take place. It will avert much frustration and much delay if we can have an officer in Hull or Beverley with the necessary knowledge of the problems, conditions, and above all the geography of the East Riding. I, therefore, ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give active and favourable consideration to the point of view which I have had the honour to express.
10.23 p.m.
I agree with a good deal of the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite) in his advocacy of a petroleum office at Hull, but the time is limited and I must confine my remarks to some of his other comments. He said that the greatest irritation was caused through the office at Leeds. The majority of applications in the East Riding, of course, are from the City of Hull, and while I do not wish to dispute his arguments about the villages and the peculiarities of his own constituency, of which he has knowledge, and to which the Parliamentary Secretary will reply, I must say quite frankly to him that, speaking on behalf of Hull, there is no such general complaint.
That situation is not a result of the Hull Members of Parliament investigating cases, because in my constituency, of some 40,000, the number of complaints I have had in connection with the petroleum office in Leeds can be numbered on one hand. Any which I have had to take up appear to have been dealt with quite quickly without my bringing any special pressure to bear. As the only Member present from the four Hull constituencies, I feel it is right that I should give that side of the picture, as against the picture presented by the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness, whose constituency in no way compares in population or in demand for petrol with the constituencies of Hull.
rose
I am not attempting to deny the points the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised with regard to his own constituency and there is, therefore, no need for him to intervene.
Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would permit me. I represent 84,000 electors, of whom 33,000 are resident in the City of Hull.
Hull has a population of 300,000, so I claim to be speaking for a considerably larger number of people affected than does the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness. As regards the other cases the hon. and gallant Member mentioned, similar cases have been dealt with quite satisfactorily. While at one time, because of the alteration in the regulation, there was a certain amount of delay, it is only fair to the officers to say that the cases were dealt with at a reasonable speed; and, so far as I am aware, with a speed equal to that in any region in the country.
Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why it is that residents in Hull seem to be treated better, for instance, than residents in Sheffield, who have to wait weeks before having replies?
The hon. Member may have an opportunity to raise that point later. I am speaking about Hull, which is the subject of the Debate tonight, and of the East Riding.
It is about Leeds.
The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness raised the question of the East Riding. Leeds comes into the matter only incidentally, because that is where the office is. However, I do not wish to waste any more of the time of the Parliamentary Secretary, whom the House wants to reply. I simply want to protest against the allegations made against the Leeds office and the officers there, and to say that so far as Hull is concerned, it has not suffered to the extent suggested.
10.27 p.m.
I shall speak for only two minutes, because I know the Parliamentary Secretary wants to reply. I want strongly to protest, on behalf of the City of Sheffield, about the administration of the petrol issues, and against the great delays that take place. People have to make train journeys for interviews, and spend their personal money in going for the interviews. It is high time that the City of Sheffield had a representative of the Ministry of Fuel and Power in its midst. That is the first thing I want to say.
The second thing is this. Will the Minister consider giving greater powers to the petroleum officers? I know of the case of a girl working on a farm who gets a few hours off on Saturdays. She applied for a small amount of petrol. I was told, when taking up the case, that the petroleum office had not power to deal with that type of case. The girl has to take three bus rides and a train journey, and by the time she gets home it is time for her to start back again to the farm where she works. I think that type of case, in which there is great hardship, should be one in which an officer can make an allowance of a small amount of petrol. It would enable the girl to have an hour or two at home, instead of practically no time at all, after working very hard for a whole month. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to see that the officers have power to deal with that sort of case.
10.29 p.m.
I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings). I must insist that the Parliamentary Secretary should, in replying to the Debate, consider the question of Sheffield. I have here a letter of 22nd April in which a man applied for petrol three weeks before it was needed, and was told that he had Dot, applied in time. Have petroleum officers the right to say, "Regret request received too late"? Clearly, the office is overworked. The work must be decentralised if the Ministry is to be efficient.
10.30 p.m.
From the way in which the hon. Member for Ecciesall (Mr. P. Roberts) was waxing eloquent about decentralisation, I thought for a moment he was on his favourite topic of the National Coal Board. I am very interested to hear all these parochial minded Members of Parliament, who come down to the House wanting offices in Sheffield and in Hull besides the office which exists already in Leeds. I could at once make the obvious point that the provision of those offices would require more staff. As for the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) that we are living under a bureaucracy, and if we are to have a bureaucracy, we ought to have an efficient bureaucracy, I do not admit that we have a bureaucracy at all. What we have is a highly efficient Civil Service; a highly efficient Leeds petroleum office, a very efficient staff and a first-class petroleum officer.
We are not complaining about the officers.
My hon. Friends to whom I have spoken tonight—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Corlett), and others—tell me that all the cases they have taken up with the Leeds office have been treated with the utmost courtesy and the utmost efficiency, and that difficult cases have been dealt with with great sympathy and understanding. If the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness had taken an opportunity of contacting the regional petroleum officer, I am sure that a great many of his difficulties would have disappeared. We did offer to ask hon. Members many months ago—and we realised that these difficult cases want some individual attention—whether they would like the opportunity of advantaging themselves of going direct to regional petroleum offices.
I cannot stand four hours in a queue.
You have not to stand four hours in a queue. None of my hon. Friends have to stand four hours in a queue. It really is nonsense to talk about Members standing four hours in a queue. If they consult regional offices direct their cases would get very careful attention. I resent very much indeed the idea that our Regional Petroleum Officer in Leeds, or anywhere else, is only concerned with cases raised by hon. Members. It certainly would be my desire that the staff generally would treat all cases on their merits. I am bound to admit that as soon as the basic ration was taken off there was a very large inroad into the time and work of the regional offices. It is perfectly true that they got overwhelmed with cases and they had to work very hard. I pay special tribute to all the staffs of the regional offices for the work they have put in, in order that hon. Members and members of the public should have their cases adequately dealt with in a short time. Since then things have got evened out in the Leeds office. For example, I asked for some information this evening which shows that there were 5,255 new applications in April. All these new applications have taken about two days to clear.
I have a letter here about an application which was put in and where there was delay of about three weeks.
A most impatient Member —never lets me finish what I have to say. I will agree that there is the odd case where something arises—perhaps an administrative difficulty arises and where there is delay which must be accounted for. Cases like that are raised and are dealt with as speedily as possible. But by and large 5,255 new applications in a month are cleared within two days. In addition to that, in the Leeds office in April they have their normal group application—the six-month group application. They dealt with 25,283, and the average time taken to deal with them is four to five days. Of these cases only 7,023 appealed and their appeals are being dealt with roughly in five days; and they get additional purposes claims in that month, numbering 2,50o, and they clear them within five days. It could be said that the general run of cases is dealt with in from two to five days, which is not unreasonable. I agree that there will be the odd cases—a proportion where something arises—where an application is not complete, or not full enough, or not enough information or proper papers are not forwarded, or the file is not complete —things of that character, when there is likely to be some delay. But they are very small indeed in proportion to the number of cases going through.
I have nothing but the highest regard for the Petroleum Officer at Leeds. I have written him some dozen letters and I have always had courteous replies. It is the administration of the office—it is not him personally. I could deal with all these 5,000 cases in five days if I refused 75 per cent. of them.
It is no use the hon. Member paying a high tribute to the Regional Petroleum Officer and then saying that his administration is grossly inefficient. That is, in effect, what he is saying. The Regional Petroleum Officer at Leeds is one of our most efficient officers, and there is good evidence from hon. Members that this is a true statment of the case. Let us look at the case put forward. The suggestion is that there should be de-centralisation for this particular region. If we carry that to its logical conclusion we shall have to have decentralisation throughout the country.
indicated dissent.
It is no use for the hon. and gallant Member to shake his head. He cannot expect Yorkshire to be given special treatment which is not accorded to many regions which are far larger. He has the impression that it is the largest region; it is not.
The largest county.
It may be the largest county, but it is not the largest region, not by a long way. The hon. and gallant Member must consider an area like the North-western Region, which includes Manchester, Liverpool, Preston and other large towns in the north-west. Obviously, the logical corollary of what the hon. and gallant Member says is to have a vast number of offices up and down the country, and that could not be done without a large increase in the number of officials. You cannot take a regional office, divide it into two, and say that one half of the staff can do the work that is left. In the first place, it would not divide into two.
For example, the hon. and gallant Member referred to a special office for the East Riding. In the West Riding, the estimated population is about 3,250,000. In the East Riding, the population is about 430,000. So there is a big disparity in population. In Hull and Beverley, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman specially referred, there are 17,000 cars and motor-cycles registered. The Leeds office deals with 120,000. If you had a second office it would only be taking 17,000 out of 120,000 cases. It would not be an equal division into two parts. Each would need administrative staff, and it would obviously lead to increases in staff throughout the county. If it would make for greater efficiency to do this, I would not oppose it, but I deny that it would. Decentralisation does not always make for greater efficiency. It can make for great congestion in the administrative machine. We must have the regions so sized and the staff in a region so placed that they can deal with all the cases they have.
No hon. Member has made out any case tonight that there is anything unreasonable in the way the Leeds office is dealing with its cases. I agree that one can get odd complaints. After this Adjournment Debate tonight my postbag will be full of postcards and letters, some of them anonymous, and others not, some will be abusive, and all drawing attention to alleged delays. When I investigate these complaints, however, I shall doubtless find that three-quarters of any delays there may have been were due to the fact that the applicants themselves had not completed the forms correctly, or to some similar cause. If people making applications carry out the directions on the forms properly, send their log book and that kind of thing, and give all the necessary information to the Regional Petroleum Officer, his staff is so trained, and his own administration is so efficient that little can go wrong. It is no use for the hon. and gallant Member to keep on groaning to himself in derision of our Regional Petroleum Officer in Leeds. He is a first class, efficient administrator—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.