I have to acquaint the House that the House has this day attended His Majesty in the House of Peers, and His Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament, of which I have, for greater accuracy, obtained a copy, which is as follows:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:

I have summoned you to meet at this time in order that you may give further consideration to the Bill to amend the Parliament Act, 1911, on which there was disagreement between the two Houses last Session.

It is not proposed to bring any other business before you in the present Session.

I pray that the blessing of the Almighty may rest upon your counsels.

I beg to move; That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows: Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. On many occasions I have listened with interest to those who have had the honour of moving the Motion for the Address to his Most Gracious Majesty. I admired their self-possession and their flow of oratory. I am no orator, but I desire to put before the House what I want to say in plain matter-of-fact language, and I hope the House will bear with me in the ordeal.

First of all, I consider it an honour to the constituency that I have been privileged to represent since 1935. The Sedgefield Division is a large county constituency with numerous villages and varied industries, including agriculture, mining, shipbuilding and the great I.C.I. works at Billingham, and now, many light industries. When I first toured the constituency in 1935 it was heartbreaking to see once prosperous villages lying derelict, the young people away in search of work and the old folk left to eke out a meagre existence on public assistance. When the war came the youths rushed to the colours. They did not wait to be conscripted. Those left behind who had not had a job for upwards of ten years found work in essential industries, including the great munition factories at Aycliffe, now to become an industrial town under a town and country planning scheme.

Since the war, what a change has come over the district, no longer a distressed area! Factories have sprung up employing thousands, especially women, who in pre-war days had to leave home for domestic service in big towns and cities. Agriculture has entered on a new lease of life. Hitherto Britain had been viewed as a purely manufacturing country, but two wars brought home the folly of relying so much on countries overseas for our food supplies. Britain has an excellent food market within a short distance of most farms. We produce good livestock and grow vegetables and fruits of the best kind. The bounties of Nature should be utilised for the good of humanity. With guaranteed prices and assured markets, the farming community in my constituency has confidence in the future, and this they assured me when I toured the agricultural villages during the Recess.

It is now universally acknowledged that coal is the life-blood of industry, but it required a war for the miner to come into his own. Too long the miner risked his life for a sweated wage. The miners in my constituency are giving of their best in increased production, and absenteeism is infinitesimal. In the past the extraction of oil and by-products has been neglected. I had an opportunity of visiting the greatest research station in the world and was shown what could be produced from coal—salts, dyes, soaps, perfumes, plastics—and one scientist showed us a beautiful pair of opera glasses made entirely from coal—

Mr. McKie (Galloway) rose —

Order.

This side of the coal industry will, I hope, be utilised to the full. In one of his greatest speeches delivered during the war, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) paid a well deserved tribute to the workers which I think is worth quoting. Here is what he said: The spontaneous, sustained goodwill of the labouring masses of the country is the sole foundation upon which we can escape from our present difficulties. This is a truth worth remembering. What was true during the war is equally true today in the present economic situation. Tees-side is now a flourishing hive of industry. The great I.C.I. works, with extensions, will employ thousands. The Haverton Hill shipyard has orders on hand to keep the yard busy for the next three years.

Right hon. and hon. Members may know the interest which I have taken in shop life reform, and I want to crave the indulgence of the House for a moment to mention this subject briefly. The question of shops legislation has been very fruitful of commissions of inquiry—no fewer than seven—and the evidence has been overwhelming of the injurious effect of long hours, especially upon women and children. The two wars brought about many changes and not the least was the change in the shopping habits of the public. Traders rightly viewed late closing as a wicked waste of fuel and light, and the same applies today. The Report of the Gower Committee, like the curate's egg, is good and bad in parts. The findings of the Committee on certain aspects are good, but on early closing they are against the views of traders and shop workers alike. Here is an occupation, which is purely domestic, where shorter hours are possible without inconvenience to the shop-ping public. There is no foreign competition and no international complications. Prior to the war 47 and 48 hours operated in quite a number of foreign countries, and, therefore, why should Britain lag behind? I am sure that the whole House sympathises with the Home Secretary in his multifarious duties. He certainly had a very harassing time during the last Session. I hope that the coming Sessions will he easier for him and that time will be found to deal with the Gower Report.

The only Measure proposed in the Gracious Speech is the very moderate Bill to limit the power of veto of the Lords to one year instead of two. The issue before the House was well discussed in November and December of last year. Vetoes, as we have seen in foreign affairs, are a source of irritation and, what is worse, a handicap to progressive ideas. In the Debate on 10th November last I ventured to say that the 1911 Act was a bitter disappointment to those who saw no need for a hereditary Chamber, and that a non-elected Chamber should not have power to reject Measures passed by an elected House of Commons. The demonstrations of that period certainly showed clearly what public opinion thought. The Bill, however, does not propose to alter the composition of the second Chamber, although it is true that many great statesmen of all parties in the past denounced the hereditary Chamber.

In my lifetime I have seen many changes, some considered to be of a constitutional character, changes which in other countries might have led to a revolution. Happily our people are not of mercurial temperament, and British politicians are proverbially inclined to compromises without resorting to the outrageous conduct so frequent in some other Parliaments. I cannot see why there should be any bitter recriminations in debating such a moderate Measure, and therefore I hope that sweet reason will prevail. I know that many hon. Members on this side would have preferred the Government to go further, but one step is enough for the time being. Much will depend on how the Bill fares in the other House. In all these matters the will of the people must prevail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am glad that that remark meets with universal approval—and therefore it is essential that this Bill should become law in order to ensure that Parliament in the future will be able to carry out the programmes placed before the people without the danger of interference from a non-elected second Chamber.

In conclusion, in the words of Abraham Lincoln: With malice towards none, with charity towards all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we have in hand.

2.59 p.m.

I beg to second the Motion which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie).

My hon. Friend has spent many years in this House; I came here comparatively recently, and I crave that sympathy and good will which, in my time here, I have always known the House to extend to every Member faithfully endeavouring to carry out the task assigned to him. In being called upon to discharge this high duty, I deeply appreciate the honour conferred, through me, on my constituency, the ancient borough of Cambridge, a town eminently deserving of honour. Many a person on hearing the word "Cambridge" thinks first, perhaps, of what is normally the leading craft in a gay procession along the Thames once a year, or else of railway posters with pictures of King's College Chapel; but Cambridge is not only the setting of the best university in the world. The ancient borough has a life and a history of its own, extending far back into the Middle Ages and continuing very vigorously into the present.

Inevitably, the history of Cambridge has been closely linked with that of the university, and there have been times when the borough has resented being assigned the rôle of handmaiden to the university. There is a long history of the clash, Town versus Gown. Those days, fortunately, have long since passed, and a most cordial relationship subsists. At the moment, for example, the town's first citizen is one of the University Members on the borough council. Both university and town recognise how much each depends on the other, and neither tries to dominate. I am very proud that I myself am a son of the town, and received my education first in Cambridge schools and then at a Cambridge college. Like many another, I have a footing in both camps, so to speak, and rejoice that there is no conflict of loyalties.

I have said that the town, as distinct from the university, has a life of its own, but it has not had its unique heritage marred or over-shadowed by such excessive industrialisation as has led its counterpart at Oxford to be described as the Latin Quarter of Cowley. How vigorous the town's life is can be instanced by its war record. While in the university, at the Cavendish Laboratory, research into the secrets of atomic energy was going on, in the industries of the town there was research into radar, and the production of radar, and radio equipment, and of precision instruments of all kinds on a very large scale, as well as numerous other contributions to the war effort.

Cambridge gave freely of its sons during the war. They served in every branch of the Services, but perhaps the town's saddest yet proudest memory is of its soldiers in the Cambridgeshire Regiment. It was their fate to be engulfed in the fall of Singapore. They endured long years of captivity and suffering but their spirit was never broken, and it was a proud day for Cambridge when it conferred its freedom on the regiment and on the gallant band who survived to come home.

Fortunate in escaping much physical damage from bombing, Cambridge was able to offer refuge to evacuees of all kind, from London children to the London School of Economics. Into the colleges, almost empty of students, came training wings of the R.A.F. and, not least in numbers, Government departments, for Cambridge became a regional centre of Government. It became a centre of another kind too, the leave centre of the Eighth United States Army Air Force. The flat lands surrounding Cambridge were, and are, studded with airfields, and into Cambridge when off duty came the airmen of the R.A.F. and of our Allies. After the war was over, the borough was happy to confer its freedom on the Eighth United States Army Air Force, thus, as their own Commanding-General put it, giving formal recognition to what was already an accomplished fact, because they had taken it long before.

Cambridge truly played its part in the war. There is one fact which I might mention and which is not widely known. It is that it was in a building in Cambridge that a large part of the planning for D-day was carried out by high officers of the combined planning staffs. In recent weeks we have seen some of our American friends about again. Cambridge has been glad to renew war-time friendships, but when it thinks of that plot of land on Madingley Hill overlooking the town, dedicated so recently as the burial ground of thousands of American Servicemen, it prays that the present storm-clouds will pass and that the world will return to ways of sanity.

The fact that Cambridge has its roots very deeply in the past can be exemplified by reference to the history of its representation in this House. There is a list of the Burgesses in Parliament, as we are called, dating back without a break to 1295, in the reign of Edward I. The methods of selecting Members were, of course, very different in those days from what they are today. The gradual changes which have been made through the centuries well illustrate the progress of our people step by step on the path towards a fuller democracy. It has been a gradual process, varying in pace from time to time, a process which is not even yet completed. The Measure described in the Gracious Speech can be regarded as one more step along that path.

In 1295, Cambridge elected its first Members, John de Cambridge and Benedict Godsone, by a very limited method of indirect election which continued up to the 17th century. In its most complicated form the Mayor and Commonalty each nominated one man. These two nominated eight burgesses, who in turn, nominated the two Members for the borough. Our procedures generally seem very different today, but some of them which might seem recent in origin have their parallels a long way back in history. We consider, for example, the extra expenditure involved in our having to live in London as a modern problem, but in 1426, when John Bush and Stephen Barbour attended the Parliament which sat at Leicester for 71 days, they received between them £7 2s. from the borough treasurer—not, by the way, from the National Exchequer—for their expenses, at the rate of 12d. per day. In 1424, when Parliament sat at Westminster, Henry Topcliffe and Richard Andrewe had received 2s. a day. Free travel for Members between London and their constituencies is nothing new either, because in 1585 the borough treasurer paid one of the Members, Roger Slegge, gentleman, the sum of 15s. 4d. for horse-hire.

From nomination by a handful of prominent citizens the method of choosing a Member has gradually changed to one of election by the free vote of all adult citizens, both male and female, irrespective of wealth or status, and the electors of Cambridge are now some 56.000 as against the handful of the 13th century onwards. Many of these extensions of the franchise are very recent indeed, and the major ones date back no further than the 19th century. It was only 20 years ago that women were put on the same basis as men, and only in the last Session of this present Parliament that all representation in this House was made roughly equal and on the same territorial basis.

Progress has been made a step at a time, and one such step is the Measure mentioned in the Gracious Speech. We have now adopted the practice of five year Parliaments and, within the limits of such a period, the Government of the day has to go to the country to seek a renewal of its Mandate. With that five year period normally divided into five Sessions, a government should be able to expect the first four to be available for legislation, and the fifth for consolidation and tidying up. All peace-time governments with majorities, since the 1911 Parliament Act was passed until now, have been able to plan the distribution of their programme of legislation over their whole period of office, because the effective majority in another place has always, until now, been of the same political complexion as the effective majority here.

As I see it, a Labour Government have the same right to a useful and effective fourth Session as a Conservative Government, and no outside body should have the right of veto in favour of one side. That, as I see it, is the purpose of and justification for the Measure mentioned in the Gracious Speech. The problem which confronts the Government is not in essence a new one. Lord Rosebery, in a letter to Queen Victoria in 1894, wrote: When the Conservative Party is in power there is no House of Lords, it takes whatever the Conservative Government brings it from the House of Commons without question or dispute; but the moment a Liberal Government is formed, this harmless body assumes an active life, and its activity is entirely exercised in opposition to the Government. This Government have not been anything like as harshly critical of the other place as was Lord Rosebery. This Government have acknowledged, and do acknowledge, that in this Parliament the other place has done good work as a revising Chamber, but to acknowledge that, is a far different thing from acknowledging any right of the Opposition in another place to decide what Measures the Government of the day, with their majority in this House, shall or shall not pass into law. As to which House is more closely in touch with the will of the people, I cannot see how a House which is not responsible to the electorate, and never has to face the electorate, can claim to be better acquainted with the people than the people's chosen representatives who are responsible to them and in regular and close contact with them.

These last few remarks of mine, I appreciate, might in some quarters be considered as controversial, though to me I confess they seem statements of simple fact, but as it is not for me at this stage, and discharging this duty, to venture too far into matters of controversy, I will say this; it is just about 300 years since we had a revolution in this country, a revolution in which a man who, twice in that period, sat for the borough of Cambridge played a leading part. He was Oliver Cromwell. Since that time, revolutions have taken place at some time or other, sometimes very frequently, in most countries of the world but we have remained free from them. We have had, of course, acute political disagreements and struggles, but the democratic tradition we have slowly but surely built up ensures that once a political decision is taken, it is recognised by both sides and stands unless and until amended or superseded by a later decision arrived at by the democratic method.

I can perhaps emphasise this aspect of our political life best by reminding the House of the story of the reactions of a Greek in Athens in 1945 when the result of the General Election here was passed on to him by a British officer. The comment of the Greek was, "I suppose Churchill has taken to the hills?" Well, just as the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) did not take to the hills, so we all know quite well that as and when this new Parliament Bill becomes law and takes effect, none of their Lordships will be seen scrambling up the slopes of the Pennines except perhaps for exercise. For a time rumblings and murmurings may be heard from the direction of the Carlton Club, but this Measure, once it is on the Statute Book, will, I believe, be accepted as an inevitable, logical, sensible and necessary step on the path which we, in our British way of life, have so successfully been travelling towards a fuller and more real democracy.

3.6 p.m.

It is the usual routine that the Member speaking from these Benches should congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Address. I should like at this time to differ a little from precedent because, at the same time as I offer the two hon. Members my congratulations, I should like also to offer them my sympathies.

I have now listened to some 50 speeches by Movers and Seconders. I may say that of this number, 49 have performed their task with varying excellence—modesty prevents me from saying 50—but all of those other 50 had something to discuss. In fact, the almost constant practice for the Speech from the Throne to have something in it, was, I believe, the reason why you, Mr. Speaker, and your predecessors, first adopted a practice which you have followed today as a matter of routine but certainly not as a matter of necessity, that is, of obtaining a copy. The two hon. Members certainly laboured under a grave disadvantage. With the amount of straw that has been given to them, one could not have expected even the Secretary of State for War to drop bricks.

Indeed, when, through the usual courtesy of His Majesty's Government, I was provided last night with a copy of the Speech, I wondered how hon. Members would be able to undertake what in the past had been the general practice, which was that two of them should meet together and divide between them the substance of the Speech. I could see, of course, that whoever, either by the possession of seniority in this House or of a double-headed coin, had the first choice, would be able to take paragraph 1. He would have the plum or, perhaps, gastronomically speaking, he would have at least the red herring. But what would be left for the seconder? Only this sentence: It is not proposed to bring any other business before you in the present Session. Not much of a peg, that. Not a great deal of facing the future about that sentence.

I must congratulate most sincerely the two hon. Members on the ingenuity with which they have filled this gap. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie), an old and respected Member and a friend for many years of many of us in this House, had his recipe. His was a mixture. The first ingredient was the speech which in the past few weeks he has been delivering in his constituency, and which, after this brief interruption, he will be able to continue to deliver. The next was a glowing, though perhaps belated, tribute to the enterprise, skill and success of private enterprise in his area. The third was a description, and indeed a support, of no doubt a useful piece of legislation, but one which does not happen to be included in the programme before us today.

Fourthly, in a spirit clearly perfunctory, he made a brief reference to the Bill to amend the Parliament Act. I was struck by one of his phrases. He referred to the demonstrations of 1911 which so clearly showed what public opinion was then. He did not say much about the demonstrations of 1948. I expected to hear an account of torchlight processions thronging those villages he described so graphically, burning effigies of the Peers in their robes and lauding to the skies the great reformers of the Government—but there was no mention at all of that. He did, however, perform a difficult task with his innate courtesy and tact and all of us, I am sure, would like to congratulate him upon it.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds), who seconded the Motion in an able and witty speech, adopted a different technique. He devoted a large part of his speech to his own constituency. I am not sure I quite agree with one thing he said; I think it should correctly read that when somebody hears of Cambridge he first thinks of Oxford. The hon. Member went on from that to a well-deserved eulogy of the ancient city which he now represents. He told me certainly a great deal about its history about which I was ignorant. I must say that I think that of all the gallant actions Cambridge has performed in the course of her long history, I give the palm to her courage during the war in receiving the refugees from the London School of Economics. Surely no other city can have voluntarily assumed the burden of looking after so many children needing care and attention.

After he had come to the end of the bit which he obviously felt, he, too, referred perfunctorily to the sole subject matter of the Gracious Speech. It is only fair to say that while discussing the history of Cambridge he had never quoted an authority more recent than 1426, but when he came to the Parliament Act, he advanced as far as 1894. I do not think the simile he chose—the revolution 300 years ago—was, from his point of view, a particularly happy one. I would remind him that whereas his predecessor in the representation of Cambridge in 1648 imposed upon the people of this country a revolution by force, a few years later that revolution was in its turn reversed by an outbreak of popular opinion.

It is, I believe, the usual custom that on the first day the speaker from the Government Benches should be the Prime Minister. It is, I am sure, to the general regret of all sides of the House that he is not able today to perform that customary function. I am sure I am voicing all sections of opinion when we give him our hope for his speedy recovery. I do not think there is anyone with any imagination but must feel at all times a sense of sympathy for the Prime Minister of this country, and especially the Prime Minister at a time of crisis such as this. It does not need a great deal of imagination to realise the constant pressure of work and the even more constant harassing of the anxieties, constitutute burdens which must be almost intolerable for a man even at the height of his physical powers and which for one who is ill must be beyond bearing. We, therefore, do most earnestly hope that he will soon be restored to health and, certainly on behalf of all who sit behind me, I can assure the Prime Minister, through the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, that none of us on our side really appreciates him as a Prime Minister until we begin to read the selections for those who may possibly succeed him.

I understand that the Prime Minister's place today is to be taken by the Lord President of the Council. I am glad to say—at least I hope I am right in assuming—that we need have no anxiety about his health. Certainly those pictures which have been widely distributed through the popular Press—pictures which give to us every opportunity for the most specific examination of his physical condition—would lead one to suppose that he is in rude health. I only trust that those pictures do not mean that the right hon. Gentleman has been put into the position occupied 100 years ago by one of the predecessors of my right hon. Friend, and that they do not mean that one of his more ambitious colleagues has caught him bathing and stolen his clothes.

The Lord President of the Council will, I am sure, attack the task which lies before him with even more than his customary vigour. Of course, he will not have an entirely easy rôle, because, short as is the memory of the right hon. Gentleman, he cannot yet quite have forgotten the Debate in which he took part a year ago. He will remember how strongly he argued then about the proposal brought forward by my right hon. Friend that the House, when it adjourned in August, should come back at the early date of 16th September—two days later than this year. That was a proposal which the right hon. Gentleman resisted most strongly. Indeed, if he will not regard it as impertinence on my part, I would say that oratorically it was almost the right hon. Gentleman's finest hour. Never have I seen the heads of his colleagues on the Front Bench nod more frequently and less drowsily. Never have I heard the cheers of the P.P.S.s coincide more consistently with the right end of the right sentence, and I am sure that all the Back Benchers who listened to him went away with a feeling that here, both in manner and in matter, was a true prophet of Socialism.

What cogent arguments he advanced against the House being called back at such an early date! He said, first, that if they were brought back as early as 16th September the Government would be ragged—as if that depended upon the accident of the calendar. He said, secondly, that our constituents would be deprived of leadership in the paths of light and learning; and thirdly, that if Members were summoned back they would have to interrupt their reading, which was so necessary to improve their minds. There were indeed mountainous difficulties; I realised, after listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that it would take a man of great courage to meet them.

Well, this year, the Government have taken their courage in both hands. They have met those difficulties, and those mountains turn out, after all, to be molehills. There is the Government facing us in all its raggedness, not looking very different from what it would on 16th October or 16th November, or indeed on the 16th of any month up to the Spring of 1950. There are all our constituents left to this Stygian darkness but still, apparently almost unknowingly, carrying on their normal life. Members on all sides of the House have had to drop their books—Blue Books have been thrown away, White Papers discarded, Edgar Wallaces have been earmarked. All of us have had to do this year what last year we were told it was quite impossible for us to face. It does just show that however difficult a situation is, when a compelling necessity forces action the difficulties very often turn out to be less formidable than they first appeared.

Of course, I must in fairness admit at once that there is a great difference between the situation last year and the situation this year. Last year, after all, all that we were frightened of, all that we were seeking to safeguard ourselves against, was an economic crisis, a crisis which I think everybody in the House, except perhaps some Members of the Front Bench opposite, knew was bound to break on the country before we reassembled in the ordinary way, a crisis which we knew would have to be met by new and severe burdens, burdens which, I am afraid not in the proper democratic spirit, we thought should be imposed by Debate in this House and not by decree from Downing Street.

Of course, this year, I agree, things are different. We are concerned now not with dollars but with votes. What we have now to decide is not something connected as it was last year with national survival but merely with the success of a party manoeuvre; and so this year, with so much more at stake than they had last year, the Government have faced the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman could not face last year, and he finds—I am sure he will find—that they really had no existence except in his imagination. It is clear from the Gracious Speech that the intention of the Government is that this House should now meet for the discussion of one thing only, the thing which to them appears to be, in the world in which we live, the most important task upon which Parliament can concentrate. There may be, of course, and I am sure that even the Government would admit that there are, minor difficulties in the world around us—the situation in Berlin, in India, in Palestine, in Malaya. All these may give cause for anxiety to some nervous people. At home the failure to close our dollar gap, the continued and continuing dependence on external aid, may again create anxiety in certain breasts. But we are not to waste our time, say the Government, in discussing matters such as that; let us stick to this one all-important question.

We shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss this one all-important topic of the House of Lords reform next week when the Measure is before us. Today, I will only say that neither the Mover nor the Seconder of the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech has found, nor, I am sure, will the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to speak, have found, anything in the conduct of another place during the last three years which justifies the Measure which the Government are now introducing. On the contrary, numerous Members on the Front Bench opposite have reason to be grateful to the other place, for they have found there an opportunity of introducing literally hundreds of Amendments which hasty drafting by overworked draftsmen, hasty digestion by overworked Ministers and hasty legislation by an overworked Parliament had left in Bills when they left this Chamber.

There has been only one clash with another place on a matter of great importance. That was connected with the episode last Summer, when the Home Secretary for a short time abdicated his responsibilities but not his office to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). The Home Secretary certainly has every reason to be grateful to another place who in the long run were able to secure him what he wanted but what he was not able to accomplish by himself. Of course, we know quite well that the Measure we shall have to discuss next week has nothing whatever to do with anything that another place has done in the past. On this occasion, and on this occasion alone, the Government are displaying foresight; they are actually looking ahead to something that may happen in the future. In a Session not yet opened, a Bill not yet introduced may secure a passage through this House in a form not yet known, and when it leaves this House may, in another place, be subjected to a treatment not yet decided. That is the important, the pressing, necessity which has this year compelled the recalling of Parliament, whereas the dollar crisis of last year, and the cuts that had to be imposed as a result of it, were not supposed to be sufficiently important to necessitate our return.

I must admit that the Government have respectable precedents for the course upon which they have decided in relation to another place. I admit that no experienced, no well trained, no really successful burglar would ever think of waiting until after the watchdog had barked. What he would do would be to go down the day before and lay down the poisoned meat. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing today—taking, not for the first time, a lesson from the criminal classes. It is to carry that process through that this House has been recalled.

We on this side shall oppose the passage of this Measure; but we are glad to think that we shall have other opportunities beyond that. One may bring a horse to water, but one cannot always stop him drinking when one wants to. The right hon. Gentleman has recalled the House in order to pass this pettifogging Measure, but the House, once recalled, has the opportunity, which no doubt it will take, of discussing matters which it thinks important, even though to the Government they appear to be negligible. We shall therefore use all the Parliamentary opportunities which this recall of Parliament, this new Session, has given to discuss matters of vital importance, and in doing so to demonstrate to the country the tragic frivolity of a Government which, in the midst of all the gathering dangers at home and abroad, is intent only on solemnly playing out to the end this petty party pantomime.

3.32 p.m.

May I first, on behalf of His Majesty's Government and my hon. Friends, express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) for the kindly and sympathetic references which he made to the Prime Minister. I will certainly convey to the Prime Minister what he has said, and I know that my right hon. Friend will be appreciative of the sympathetic references which were made by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Opposition. I am sure, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and indeed every hon. Member, would wish to be associated with that expression of sympathy and good wishes. The Prime Minister has asked me to express to the House his deep regret that, on medical advice, he thinks he ought not to attend here at the moment. The House will be glad to know that he is making good progress, and we hope to have him among us in Parliament at no distant date. But I am sure he will appreciate the message that has been given and the kindly atmosphere of the House towards himself. Certainly, I should have been very glad if he had been here today to discharge the function which, as a consequence of his absence, has fallen to me.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Address. I join with him at any rate in the more friendly part of his congratulations to them on the speeches they made. I also had made a note to say a word of sympathy to them on the sparseness of the document with which they were dealing. It was very difficult for my hon. Friends to make a speech of substance out of the actual text of the Gracious Speech, which is necessarily limited in the number of its words and lines. They have indeed had an exceptionally difficult task in moving the Address, and I think the House would wish to say to both of them that, in the circumstances of the case and on the merits of their speeches, they have done exceedingly well; and we would all congratulate them both on the excellent speeches they delivered. They covered the subject of the Gracious Speech and they made other appropriate references as well, with what I thought great capacity and great ability.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) gave us a most interesting account of the varied Durham con- stituency which he represents. We were all interested to know that things are better in his constituency—distinctly better—than they were in the years between the wars. He will be happy to know that that is by no means exceptional. That is the case with the constituencies of most hon. Members, including the constituencies of hon. Members opposite, because we have sought to do good for their constituencies as well as our own—[An HON. MEMBER: "On borrowed money."]—and we were glad to hear the encouraging report that my hon. Friend gave.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds), as an educationalist himself by profession, and as representing that borough, naturally had words to say about the university. We were glad to hear about it. Of course, my hon. Friend cannot yet claim to be the actual Parliamentary representative of the University of Cambridge, but he can take comfort in this, that in all probability in the next Parliament he will be the representative of the university as well as of the borough round about it; and we were charged by his historical references. Therefore, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side, and I hope of the House as a whole, I express our congratulations to my hon. Friends for the admirable speeches they have made.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol also deserves his measure of praise and congratulation, because I think we would all agree, irrespective of party, that he delivered a most witty and enjoyable speech. After all, one great test of the wittiness and, on the whole, of the good temper of a speech is whether the principal victim at whom it was directed, himself enjoyed it. Well, so far as direct criticism went, he criticised me more than anybody else, and I thoroughly enjoyed his speech, including the critical references to myself. Therefore, he can take it that his speech was successful. We enjoyed its wit, we enjoyed its brightness and we shall hope to read it and have further chuckles, and feel some pleasure and some relief that humour can still, now and again, emerge from the Tory breast.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the main purpose—so far as legislation is concerned, the only purpose—of the sum- moning of this present Session of Parliament, namely, the further consideration, on the second occasion, of the Parliament Bill. This is not altogether the moment for dealing fully and completely with the provisions of this Bill. The Second Reading will be moved next week and that will be a more appropriate occasion. It is, however, appropriate that I should deal with the procedure, especially of the present short Session; at the same time I should also be sorry to lose the opportunity of engaging in a little further education of the Conservative Party as to the main reasons for this Bill, which are not even yet understood by the right hon. Gentleman who has spoken from the Front Bench opposite this afternoon.

There seems to be a persistent idea in his mind and in the minds of his friends that the only purpose of bringing in this Bill is to ensure the passage of a certain legislative possibility which has not yet seen the light of day—one Parliamentary Bill. I can assure the House that that really is moonshine; there is no truth in that at all. This Bill was brought in for sound constitutional reasons which I shall shortly indicate, not for the first time I am afraid; it was not brought in for the purpose of safeguarding any particular legislative measure. But even if this had been the purpose, it would not necessarily have been an illegitimate thing to do.

There were wider reasons, good sound constitutional reasons, why this Bill should be brought in. In our judgment the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, are no longer adequate to modern conditions. It may well have been thought in 1911 that they were adequate to the circumstances then existing, as indeed was argued at the time, and was argued in the last Session of Parliament by the Leader of the Opposition—and, by the way, we all deplore the absence of the Leader of the Opposition and hope he is having as good a time in the South of France as I had—

He is back in England.

I am glad to hear that. If that be so, I am sure he will attend the House quite soon, because I have a recollection of one Thursday afternoon when the right hon. Gentleman personally threatened me with a lot of trouble and most vigorous opposition when this short Session came about. We shall look forward with confidence to seeing him; but if not, his mantle will have to fall on others in that respect.

The Leader of the Opposition said, in the course of discussions last Session, as indeed on the occasion of the passing of the Parliament Act, 1911, that the philosophy behind the Parliament Act, 1911, was that a Government came in fresh from its electoral triumph—substantial as ours was, or narrow as some other majorities have been, or non-existent as some others have been—and when the Parliament assembled, it devoted possibly three Sessions to carrying through the Measures upon which the party had fought and won the Election, especially the controversial Measures. It then assumed there was no more controversial work to be done, so that Parliament could go jog-trotting along in an easy, steady style without concerning itself with further controversial work. If, however, further controversial Measures were brought forward in the last two Sessions, then the party in power would have the privilege of fighting the subsequent election on the issues on which they fought the previous Election, the results of which they had been prevented by the intervention of their Lordships' House from carrying through.

That was a possible doctrine in 1911, when Parliamentary legislation was leisurely, very slow, and when Parliament was not speedy and efficient in responding to the essential needs of the masses of the people of the country. As a philosophy it might be convenient and acceptable to a Conservative Party which did not want to pass a great deal of legislation. I am not saying whether they were right or wrong in adopting that view, but obviously it was convenient for them to say that they could not pass any more legislation because there was no time. I am not sure that there were not elements in other parties, too, which engaged in somewhat similar practices. That might or might not have been right for the conditions of 1911, but it is an impossible philosophy for the conduct of Parliament in the year 1948, or in the years 1945–48.

We fought the last Election on a comprehensive, social, economic and political programme. It was embodied in "Let us Face the Future." Indeed, a good many people said at the time, "You will never get that through in the lifetime of a single Parliament." I, who happened to be editor-in-chief, so to speak, of that document, was not sure myself that we could get it through in the lifetime of a single Parliament. But we tried conscientiously to make a programme which would about fit the possibilities of a full Parliament with a majority.

What is perfectly clear is that in the case of the measures indicated in "Let us Face the Future" which we believed—and we promulgated them from that point of view—were the measures calculated to further the well-being of our people and the public interest, it would be utterly unreasonable to expect that programme could be carried through in three Sessions, let alone two. It could not have been done. As it is, we have been accused, I think wrongly, of having passed legislation with too great a speed. I think there has been great exaggeration about that, although it is a point to watch. But we could not have done it in three years, much less in two years, which is all we should have had if we were to assume that the Parliament might not have lasted the full time.

The fact is that under modern economic and industrial conditions, with all the complex problems facing our country and the world at present, it is absurd to think that one can plan, or ought to plan, the work of a Parliament, on the basis that after two or three Sessions the work in its large essentials is finished. That is wrong. That is a conception of the House of Commons which this Government and the Labour Party are not willing to accept. Therefore, we took reasonable, moderate, modest, statesmanlike, precautionary measures and introduced the Parliament Bill of last Session in order to ensure that the subsequent Sessions of this Parliament should not be invalidated by the actions of another place.

Since then there has been an inter-party conference to which perhaps some further reference will be made next week. During the whole of those discussions, as I think the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) will agree, there was never a cross word, although it is true that the conference broke down. We owed that to the restraint of everyone participating and the admirable chairmanship of the Prime Minister. But we failed, and, for myself and for the Government, I am sorry we failed, because it is better to settle these constitutional arguments and disputations by agreement, if that is possible, and we all tried to do so.

The essential point on which that conference broke down was the issue of powers. What was that issue? The effect of the Parliament Bill with its period of delay from Second Reading of one year instead of two years and the two Sessions instead of three is to jeopardise the fifth and final Session of a Parliament. We did that with our eyes open. Some of my hon. Friends were not too happy about that, but we did it because we believed that a Second Chamber must have reasonable elbow room in which to discharge its tasks of revision, and that there must be reasonable time for all the exchanges to take place up and down the corridors on disputed legislation, and for the public to express its views about these things. We have thus jeopardised the fifth Session.

But what is it that their Lordships of the Conservative Party have been seeking to do? There was no hedging about it. What they were seeking to do was to jeopardise the fourth Session of Parliament, and that, too, upon the basis that their Lordships' House had a function to discharge, or a prerogative to exercise; namely, to decide when the axe should begin to fall, when the brake should be imposed upon the House of Commons, when legislation should be held up in order that the electorate, in due course, should express their views about it, or in order that that legislation should not proceed at all. Their Lordships, or the Conservative majority in their Lordships' House, claim to be able and peculiarly qualified to judge, to represent and to be the guardians of the public opinion of the masses of our people and to discharge that function.

I have myself made complimentary references to the House of Lords, believing it to be right to do so; and, if I go on believing it, I will pay such tributes again. But I do say that, of all the institutions which could be put forward as being peculiarly fitted to judge the popular will or the general public opinion, as between this House and another place, I should have thought that it was preposterous to advance the superior claims of another place. After all, it is an hereditary Chamber, though there have been many able people added by the creation of fresh Peers. But it is no part of their duties or functions to think that they have such peculiar insight into and knowledge of public opinion as to entitle them to decide when to put the brakes on this popularly elected House.

What kind of House could have a greater interest in keeping its eye on public opinion than the popularly elected House of Commons? It may well be that the House of Commons in the past has not always seen the red light, that it made mistakes and ran itself up against public opinion to such an extent that at the next Parliamentary Election it sacrificed the majority which the governing party held. Everybody is capable of error, and all of us make mistakes. Certainly, some have made mistakes, but we are doing our best not to do so. I say that this popularly elected House, with its representative Members who meet their constituents and have correspondence with them, whose business it is, as potential candidates at the next Election, to keep their ears and eyes open as to the movement of public opinion—if it is a choice between this House and another place as to which is the better fitted to be the judge of public opinion, then that choice cannot possibly be for another place.

That was the real issue at the inter-party conference; and it really meant that, if we were to accept the Conservative demand, this House would run the risk of becoming impotent for a number of Sessions. But the accusation is really worse than that. It is said that the Labour Government are seeking to take the country on the way towards single-Chamber government. We are not. This Bill does not lead to single-Chamber government, but I say that the conduct of the Conservative majority in another place over a number of years, when the Conservative Party had a majority in this House, gave us single-Chamber government. But that is not an argument that can be urged against us. I am sorry, and the Government are sorry, that the conference broke down.

It would have been a good thing if we could have agreed, but the Conservative Party took the view—it is not fair to put it wholly on the Conservative Party in the House of Lords, because the Conservative Party in this House was represented—that there was an issue of substance in it—and I quite agree there was. Unhappily, the conference came to an end.

It is said, "Why not let this business wait until there is a clash?" That really would not do. It is far better not to get into the heat of an actual clash, but to anticipate possibilities and deal with the matter in a calm atmosphere before there is a clash; and, indeed, this Bill has been dealt with in a calm atmosphere throughout. It was asserted by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the country was most indignant and very cross that we had introduced this Bill. There are no signs of that indignation. I believe there is a general acquiescence in the country in the provisions of this Bill. Even if I am wrong about that, there is no excitement about it, and, as the Debate on it in this House proceeded, it was difficult to work up any excitement about the Bill itself.

The other argument is that we should not have called this short Session but should have let the Bill progress in the next normal Session and take its chance in the final year, which would have been a more normal course. If we had done that, we should have had the possibility of a "neck-and-neck" situation, if their Lordships were disposed to reject, or fatally to impair, any Measure which we had put up to them. [ Interruption. ] Yes, certainly, any Measure. I think that would have been unseemly, and that it is far better to deal with the matter as we have done. Moreover, by the procedure which we have adopted, we have avoided anything really objectionable from the point of view of retrospective legislation. Of course, we hope that there will be no difficulties with their Lordships on the rest of the legislative programme, but we thought it wise to take precautionary steps. The dilemma of the Opposition, it seems to me, is this. If this is a Bill of fundamental constitutional importance, the short Session is justified. If, in their view, it is not, and if, in the words of the right hon. Member for West Bristol, it is a pettifogging Measure, I do not think they have any need to get excited.

It is quite wrong to say, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that Parliament has been called together on the basis that nothing will be discussed other than the Parliament Bill. It is true that that is the only Measure which we propose to bring before the House in this short Session. But the Opposition knew, before the House adjourned, that we were willing to consider arrangements as to what other subjects might be debated. Indeed, it is clear that, in the Debate on the Address, it is perfectly competent for the House to discuss all other matters. It will be perfectly competent for the House—and the Government will make no difficulty about it—to discuss essential and urgent matters of public importance at this time.

The next argument by the Opposition was that there ought to be some more legislation, dealing perhaps with economic matters; for example, authorising further controls, although I do not think we need them; or further socialisation. I do not think it is likely that the Opposition would wish us to bring forward further legislation of that kind, though I have no doubt it will be discussed before the House disperses. So will the economic situation. Therefore, with great respect there is no great point in that argument—or, rather, in the assertion—that we have called the House together to discuss and deal with nothing but the Parliament Bill.

I ought to give an indication to the House on Business, and the way in which we propose to handle it. As the House is aware, we meet especially to deal with the Parliament Bill, and the Government hope that the necessary Business can be completed, with co-operation through the usual channels, by Friday, 24th September, when the Adjournment will be proposed until Monday, 25th October. It is proposed that the Debate on the Address should occupy the remainder of this week and be brought to a conclusion this Friday. The subjects for debate, whether by Amendment or otherwise, will, of course, be a matter of arrangement, under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and an announcement will be made in the usual way.

At the beginning of Business tomorrow, we shah/ propose a Motion to take the whole time of the House for Government Business during the short Session. As the Supply for the year has been granted and we have no Estimates or taxation proposals to bring forward, we also propose to ask the House to agree not to set up the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means.

The Parliament Bill will be presented in the near future and put down for consideration during the early part of next week. We shall bring before the House a Motion for formalising the Committee stage of the Parliament Bill. This follows the precedent of the Government of Ireland Bill, the Welsh Church Bill and the Temperance (Scotland) Bill in 1913 and 1914. The Bill must, if it is to enjoy any protection from the Act of 1911, go forward to the Lords in the same form as that in which it was passed last Session.

Did the right hon. Gentleman say when he was going to propose that Motion?

I am proposing tomorrow to take the time of the House.

To formalise the Committee stage?

That will not be taken tomorrow; that will be next week. I was in the process of saying that there is no point in giving an opportunity to amend the Bill because the amendment of the Bill would automatically exclude it from the protection of the Parliament Act, 1911. There may also be opportunities for Debates next week, depending on the time required to pass the Parliament Bill through its different stages, and we are considering, through the usual channels, what arrangements can be made. My object in this connection was only to give the House—I hope, for the convenience of hon. Members—a general indication of the course of our proceedings.

Sir, there has been a request in various parts of the House for some interim statement to be made on defence preparations. It may be, if it is desired—I gather it may be—that we can arrange next week for time to be devoted to a Debate on the defence situation, and, if that is desired, we shall be happy to make arrangements through the usual channels. Moreover, the Foreign Secretary will be reviewing the international situation at any rate next week, but the House will have appreciated from the public Press that there is tension in many parts of the world, and that, despite all the efforts being made to reach a solution of the many problems which have arisen as a consequence of the late war, the position gives cause for anxiety. It is in these circumstances that the Prime Minister asks me, on his behalf, to make this statement to the House with regard to defence.

Since the middle of 1945, we have been operating a planned and orderly demobilisation of our war-time Forces. This was, as the House will recall, strongly demanded on all sides of the House, and was dictated by our obligations to those who were serving in the Forces and by our own economic situation. But it was clear that this plan involved certain risks. In any process of demobilisation after a great war there is bound to be a certain lack of balance owing to the rapid outflow of skilled personnel and the slow build-up of trained cadres to take their place. In the circumstances then existing the Government felt justified in accepting those risks.

Unhappily—and I wish to stress that word "unhappily" as the way in which, I am sure, we would all wish to express ourselves—the state of the world makes some change of plan inevitable, and, in the present circumstances, His Majesty's Government have no choice but to take certain precautionary measures. They have therefore decided that all National Service men due for release in the next few months who have not left their units for release by today, must be retained for a period of three months beyond the date on which, according to existing arrangements, they would have been released. There is no other method by which the Armed Forces could meet the commitments they now have; in this way alone can the loss of trained men be halted. Releases in Class B and on compassionate grounds will not be affected. The position will be kept under constant review in the light of the current international situation.

As a result of this action, the strength of the Forces at the end of this year will be about 80,000 greater than it would have been had the planned programme continued, the increase being in trained personnel who, in present circumstances, are the real need. The Government very much regret having to take this step which involves a revision of the release arrangements set out in the White Paper on Call Up to the Forces in 1947 and 1948 (Cmd. 6831 of May, 1946). It was made plain in the White Paper that unforeseen circumstances might lead to a revision of the estimates on which the arrangements were based with a consequent variation in the arrangements themselves.

The retention of National Service men with the Colours is not the only measure we are taking to strengthen our Defence Forces. The House is aware of the general plan on which we have been working. The first need is to stimulate the recruitment of our Regular Forces which are essential for carrying out immediate duties and for providing the training cadre for the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces, and for the National Service intake. Every effort will be made to accelerate the rate of recruitment.

It is also essential that the Auxiliary Forces, which are vital to our defences, should be brought up to strength as soon as possible. In the case of the Army, the need is to have in existence cadres of trained men ready to receive the men called up under the 1947 National Service Act, now consolidated, I think, in the Act of 1948, after they have completed their full-time service. The key position which the Air Defence units and fighter. squadrons hold in the defence of the country, and the importance of being able to defend our sea communications, make it no less important that we should bring the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve up to strength. A special recruiting campaign for the Auxiliary Forces of all three Services is on the point of being started to enable these necessary reinforcements of our defences to be achieved. The Government count on the firm support of all who have standing and influence—not least from hon. Members of this House—to secure the success of this recruiting campaign, and the Government would ask especially for a generous response from all who are in a position to give their services, and for the fullest co-operation from employers.

The strengthening of the Armed Forces must have repercussions in the field of supply. Up to now the Forces have been relying for their current needs largely on war-time stocks. These stocks are becoming depleted, and some items are already obsolete. We must, therefore, accelerate the improvement of the equipment position, especially in the fields of air defence, armour and infantry weapons. The overhaul of stocks of wartime equipment has also been speeded up, and the Service and Supply Departments are increasing their manpower for this purpose. In regard to aircraft, we have to meet not only our own production needs but also those of other countries, including the members of Western Union, who are using British types. Extra work is required in some factories, and we are adopting measures that will nearly double the present rate of output of certain fighters. At the same time older types of fighters in store will be reconditioned.

The House will expect me to say a word on Civil Defence. In these days preparations in this field must be an integral part of our general defence arrangements. Considerable progress has already been made with plans for assisting the population, for the reorganisation of the Civil Defence services and for the preparation of any legislation that may be necessary. The House, I am sure, realises that defence policy must depend on world conditions. It must, therefore, be subject to review from time to time in the light of changing circumstances. The measures which I have announced are rendered necessary by the immediate demands on the resources of the Armed Forces. The Government will, of course, continue with their review of long-term defence policy. Whilst the measures we are taking will have some effect upon our economy, they will, we hope, not be such as to jeopardise in any way our recovery. Throughout this matter our task—and it is not always an easy task; it is inevitably a difficult one—has been to maintain a fair balance between our needs in the defence field, on the one hand, and of the broad national economy, on the other.

It was thought by the Government that that statement should be made, and, as I have said, if the House should wish facilities for discussion next week we shall be happy to co-operate to that end. That brings me to the conclusion of my speech. I am afraid that in the begin- ning we were in the controversial field. but at the end I think we were in a field in which all of us feel a natural regret about these world conditions and sorrow that such a statement should have to be made. It should not be received, of course, in any panicky spirit; still, we regret that even such a statement should have to be made.

I conclude by congratulating once more the Mover and Seconder of the Address, repeating my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol and thanking him again for the kindly references he made to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Debate adjourned.—[ Mr. Whiteley. ]

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow

I desire to draw attention this afternoon to the delay, which is causing some anxiety, at least amongst the organised workers of the country, in introducing development councils as provided for under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act passed by this House over 12 months ago. I need hardly remind my hon. Friends of the circumstances which led to the consideration of this Measure, but perhaps it will not be out of Order if I make reference to one or two points to refresh their memory. During the war the manufacturers of consumer goods had many of their industries concentrated so that the energies of the nation could be concentrated upon winning the war. When peace returned, the Government thought the time apposite to take a review of the conditions of the consumer goods' industries to see what could be done to help in setting them on their feet once again.

It will be remembered that, despite the opposition and suspicion from some of the leaders in industry, a number of working parties were set up to consider the problems of the industries and of the country in its economic struggle which lay ahead. From these deliberations the House and the country received very valuable reports which led the Govern- ment eventually to bring forward the Measure known as the Industrial Organisation and Development Act. That Act is an enabling Act, which permits the setting up of development councils where such bodies are considered likely to do a good job of work in increasing and improving the efficiency of our industries in this country. We on these Benches were very glad that the Government had the foresight to take time by the forelock. I think Members in all parts of the House, whilst some of them may have been suspicious of the working parties, feel that they did a good job of work and that the information which has been available to us should be the prelude to some better organisation in the less successful industries. In respect of furniture, pottery, mining, china clay, hosiery and cotton we were given an indication that the Government took the view that there might be set up with some useful results, development councils which would have some limited statutory power, and we had hoped that by this time greater progress could have been reported on what had been done in industry along those lines. The position today is that unfortunately, apart from the cotton industry, little seems to have been achieved. In fact, we have had great and responsible organisations like the T.U.C. criticising the Government for the delay in implementing the Act and bringing in development councils.

I think in this connection it is useful to remind ourselves of what the then President of the Board of Trade, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said. He said that in considering development councils it was much better to have the good will and the co-operation of all sections rather than to have any kind of compulsion, and rather than to have these new bodies imposed upon industry. The Government said that this was not a first step in the process of nationalising the industries which were then under consideration. I do not think that that point of view was altogether accepted by some of the leaders of industry. As their conduct has since shown they have fought shy of the proposal which was put forward by this Government in a sincere desire not to be a sort of "nosy-parker" in their affairs, not to set up a bureaucracy, but to help the less successful industries and less successful units in industries to have the advantage of the experience of the better organised and more efficient units. It was not a prelude to any process of taking industries over in a nationalised form.

Up to the present we have failed to get the co-operation for which the Government hoped. On 19th July I read an article by the industrial correspondent of "The Times," directing attention to the slight progress which had been made in the setting up of the development councils. That was followed by a letter written by Sir Frederick Bain, who I think occupies a distinguished position as President of the Federation of British Industries, asking that in this matter of setting up development councils there should be a great measure of flexibility, and pointing out some of the difficulties which presented themselves to the minds of industrialists. We know that under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act it is proposed to have representation—I think majority representation—from the employers and the employees in the industry, with a certain amount of representation from so-called independent people outside the industry who can be considered useful because they [have special knowledge, to cooperate With the men whose business it is to run the industry.

The proposals in the letter of Sir Frederick Bain to which I have referred, seemed to show that some industrialists would prefer to retain advisory bodies without independent representation. I hope it will be understood that the Government would not accept that proposal if it meant that there was no statutory backing. The Government, surely, take the view that apart from the interests of the employers and the employees in industry, there is an overriding social interest in this matter, and that the standing and the efficiency of industry is a matter of vital concern to the great mass of the people apart from those immediately concerned in the industry.

I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whom we are very glad to see here this afternoon, what progress has been made in the setting up of the development councils in respect, for example, of the pottery industry. An approach has been made to both sides of the industry to consider the setting up of a development council, but, despite repeated promises that we should hear something of a definite nature, up to the moment we are without information. The workers at least are getting anxious and a little impatient at the delay. I dare say when the President comes to reply he will tell us that he has been seeking the good will of the employers in this matter, and that they have put before the employees and possibly before the Government alternative proposals, such as those referred to by Sir Frederick Bain, for the setting up of some sort of advisory body. I think that the pottery employers fear this thing which they describe as bureaucracy.

In North Staffordshire we have an industry, the pottery industry, which is highly localised. About three-quarters of the producing units of pottery, china and earthenware in this country before the war were localised in North Staffordshire. It is an industry where there is a great deal of family tradition. It is an industry which has grown up from small beginnings, an industry in which there was and still is a high degree of craftsmanship. It is somewhat isolated from other parts of the country. For these reasons I should say that it lends itself especially to the setting up of a development council, because in the 300 factories or so there is great variety in the standard of production and in the methods which are employed. Some of the modern factories have a great deal of experience to give to the less efficient units in the industry. I know very well that in common with many industries providing consumer goods today, there is a good market for our products; there is no difficulty in selling our fine wares, and we have made a real contribution in our export sales.

I think that the President of the Board of Trade will acknowledge the great contribution which has been made by the pottery industry in the present difficult economic position in which the country finds itself, but it does not need much gift of prophecy to say that this condition may not continue indefinitely and that we should do everything possible now to put our house in order against the time when competition will be found increasingly keen, and when, as before the war, there will be many other people besides the fine British potters to provide for the business of the world.

I want us to use the opportunity within the limited resources at our disposal for investment and for the provision of new capital equipment, and to have this new body, a development council, which will provide a channel through which the workers in the industry will be able richly to contribute out of their experience to joint consultation on problems which confront the industry. I know that in the pottery industry what is called a popular canvas took place some time ago whether it wanted an industrial council, and we are told that overwhelmingly the idea was rejected. I do not think it is any unfair criticism of my friends in Staffordshire to say that we are fond of running our own show and we do not like other people "nosy-parkering" and coming in trying to tell us our business.

I feel that there has been built up in the past amongst the best firms an invaluable experience and I am sure the workers themselves, who are demanding, through their organised trade unions, the setting up of development councils and who are somewhat impatient at the delay in setting up the councils, will not be satisfied with an advisory council, because they have had some experience of this kind of organism in times gone by. It has meant that when they discussed matters with the employers, in the absence of statutory backing those meetings became sometimes a complete waste of time. Resolutions were passed in a pious kind of way and very little has resulted. The workers had expected from a Labour Government—and they did a great deal in my area to put it into power—that a firm line should be taken on this matter. While we recognise the value of getting the good will of all who usually take part in the industry, we feel that any attitude of laissez faire or any attitude of allowing people to go along in the old fashioned way and cashing in while the going is good while refusing to accept modern ideas in respect of accountancy, salesmanship, statistics and the organisation laid down in the Schedule of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, will not do.

I hope, after these few halting words, we may hear something definite on this subject this afternoon, not because I, as an individual, am most anxious about it, but because, when the country is faced with great economic problems, as it is today, when we have this job of bridging the gap and when we hear exhortations to the workers to work harder, it is most important that there should be no weakening upon this matter. I know some of my hon. Friends would say that it is a very weak-kneed arrangement to set up development councils. Why not nationalise the industry out and out? If the industrialists are not so enlightened as to recognise in this friendly Government that there is some help forthcoming to aid them in getting upon their feet why not take the proper sort of action and deal with these industries in a more radical fashion? There are many of my colleagues who take that point of view.

I must say that I am surprised that many people whom I regard as enlightened people in the pottery industry regard some parts of the perfectly innocuous Measure to which I have referred as something of which to be frightened. The workers, as I have said, want to hear something definite and I hope this afternoon that we shall not continue to preach to them to work harder when, after all, we can produce more and better by setting our industrial houses in order. Our workers are doing a grand job of work whether miners, pottery workers, textile workers or whoever they are, and they are getting fed up with this instruction to work harder when there are so many obvious things that can be done within the industry itself to give us better results. This is a line which the Government can pursue with advantage.

I hope some of my hon. Friends from other parts of the country who have more intimate knowledge of the woolen, textile, and furniture industries will give us the benefit of their valuable experience, and help me in persuading the Government to give us some news of when they expect to be in a position to tell us that they propose to introduce these development councils into this well-known industry.

4.37 p.m.

May I venture, in the limited time at my disposal—

There is no limit on the time at our disposal.

I understood that we were limited to half an hour's Debate on the matter under review.

No.

I did not propose making a lengthy speech, but now that we are free—

I hope the hon. Gentleman and others will not consider themselves too free.

You know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I do not require your admonition on that particular point because all I propose to do is to submit some corroborative evidence in the form of a series of observations in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies), and I propose to limit myself to two or three minutes in putting them forward.

I want to refer to the wool textile industry, an industry which at its maximum represents something like 250,000 workpeople of diverse occupations, qualities and abilities. The industry has great aggregations of capital. There are also a large number of independent firms. During the 1914–18 war, circumstances warranted the formation of a wool control in this country to carry through the aims and objects which the then Government had in view, and we had particular forms of consultation between the various organisations and interests. That form of wool control in 1914–18 gave us a cumulative type of experience, and it was the foundation of the form of wool control which was organised during the recent world war.

Following the 1914–18 war we were confronted by a series of reactions. Investigation committees were set up, in which some of us participated, when the industry reverted to private enterprise, private profit, private gain and private incentives. During the last war we had the form of control which I am sure to some extent eliminated these disabilities, and demonstrated that we had the full co-operation of all elements in the industry, that is to say, the employers, the employees and the Government, each of whom represented their varied interests. My hon. Friend raised the question of the forms of organisation which we should seek, and stressed the setting up of further development councils. Following the 1914–18 war, we did have joint industrial councils for consultative purposes, but those of us who were on them were not involved in administration, rehabilitation or the application of technical improvements. In these circumstances, following the second world war, we have a firm foundation for development councils, and all these development councils should represent four-party interests—the employers, the employees, the Government for the consumers, and education and technical research interests. I hope naturally that the high technological developments in which we all share in various parts of the country and which have been inaugurated by the Government will also be considered.

Briefly, the point I want to make is a matter of practical application. We have to reorganise our industrial resources to the maximum amount of their capacity to achieve those things for which the Government stand and to rehabilitate the country at its former level of civilisation and achievement. We cannot do that without the maximum co-operation of, all the parties concerned, and we have got to realise now that, while in the first world war, there was a prevailing amount of individual employment, individual enterprise and individual capital, individualism today under modern capitalism has so developed that the industry is largely concentrated and a large number of small firms are now concerned in the aggregations of capital. We have taken out of the wool textile industry that purely personal proprietorship and interference with industry. Now we have representative boards, organisations and firms which represent a phase of collectivism, which means that the industry is run in the interests of all. In other words, the boards, managements, directors, technicians, and employees are servants of the industry and the industry itself is the servant of the State and the community.

For these cogent reasons and because of my practical experience in the textile industry. I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the observations of my hon. Friend in the hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to assure us today that development councils will be instituted at a not-too-far-distant date.

4.42 p.m.

It speaks well for the admirable restraint of hon. Members this afternoon that the spacious time at their disposal has not been fully availed of. As a consequence of that I feel we should bear in mind many of the arguments which all of us would like to bring to bear on this subject, and I have no doubt that the young, virile, agile President of the Board of Trade, who has the advantage of youth and imagination, will respond with alacrity to the suggestions that have come from these benches. I am particularly interested in the subject though I have not as great a personal interest as my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies), but I represent a contiguous industrial constituency which is gravely concerned in the welfare of the Potteries and the immediate district, because from Newcastle-under-Lyme are drawn in fair measure some of the workers for the industries in those areas.

I claim no particular technical knowledge but it can truthfully be said that the pottery industry has rendered yeoman service to this country and has worked under the most terrible conditions and often in evil surroundings. The town of Stoke-upon-Trent houses over a quarter of a million people—and they are very wonderful people—and like much of North Staffordshire it is covered by a perpetual pall of black smoke. It was built many years ago under a capitalist system, which, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate, was a type of system against which we on these benches fought. Like hundreds of other similar areas it sprang up willy-nilly with separate, badly organised pottery organisations. There are extremes. On the one hand, there is the magnificent works of Wedgewood, at Barlaston, which is an example of our industrial efficiency, and on the other, by contrast, some of the most miserable and abject works. I do not know what actual term to apply to them but I might call them pot banks which are a disgrace to any industrial country.

In the industry for the most part there has been industrial peace. That is because the workers are particularly proud of their craft in the potteries and because female labour has been exploited. Today the workers are responding magnificently to the call made to export as much as possible and their achievement has been an outstanding one. They still harbour a certain amount of resentment that they are not being treated adequately and properly, and the result is that they are having to work under conditions which are often more suitable for moles than human beings. There are, of course, different types of employers varying from "not so good" to "better" employers, and because of these factors there is a certain amount of depression amongst the workers. They look to the Government, and in particular to a Labour Government, to do all they can. Many promises have been made by the Labour Government—[ Interruption. ] Yes, and fulfilled in great part, much to their credit—and the workers look to the Government to modernise this industry and to make it adequate technically and generally efficient.

I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a figure of £1,620,000 as being the limit of our capital expenditure for last year, and that we are to look to something like £2,000 million on capital expenditure this year. The President of the Board of Trade must be in consultation from time to time with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask for more money for capital development, particularly insofar as it affects export, so there is a good opportunity for building up an efficient and modern pottery industry. Unfortunately, we should have to tear down the greater part of the present ramshackle industrial potworks in order to make the industry really efficient, though I am sure that British pottery will bear comparison with pottery in any other part of the world.

At the present time there is a danger of a contracting market. I agree that we must not be misled by the situation today that we can export pottery to any part of the world, but the fact remains that the market is contracting. The Japanese are now able to produce, as they did before the war, pottery of good quality and at much cheaper rates than we can. What encouragement have our people, unless we can give them a real live thrust, coming from the President of the Board of Trade? I know that my right hon. Friend has been to Stoke-upon-Trent some months ago and has seen the situation for himself. He will understand, I am sure, that the injunctions we are trying to give him are in order to achieve something that he wants to see accomplished. In regard to the goods which are available in the shops, may I point out that if we go to Grimsby we do not see very much fish and if we do see fish we have to pay a lot for it. In the same way, if we go to Stoke-upon-Trent or other places in North Staffordshire we do not get more pottery than in other parts of the country. Nevertheless, people want these things in greater degree, partly to give them incentive to work harder and to brighten their lives.

We have heard that there is a certain amount of resentment amongst the organised workers. Bless my soul, I have in mind an industrialist in my own constituency. He always seems to have a complant against the alleged inefficiency and the inadequacy of the Government. Anyone with a captious mind, and a certain type of political outlook, could find fault with the Government, who have been a little remiss in certain respects. The overall picture however shows that the Government are very much concerned to stimulate industries in all parts of the country. The result has been to create in the minds of the workers a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the Government. I know that Governments are there to be got at and Ministers have to be shot at. We must therefore exercise forbearance, but the Labour Government has a special interest to improve the working conditions of every industry as quickly as possible and to make those industries as efficient as possible.

I do not regard the setting up of a development council as Government interference. If my right hon. Friend has an equal number of employers and employees, and his own direct representatives on the development council as well as a certain number of independent people, that will be an important step. I view with a great degree of suspicion the somewhat cryptic word "independent." I do not recognise literally that term. There are very few people without some degree of bias. Therefore, the people who are appointed as "independents" ought to be considered very carefully. The object of a development council is to develop and not to retard. The sooner the Government give a clear clarion call to our industry to show the workers that they are watching everything and are doing all that is possible, having regard to their commitments, the sooner will the workers realise that the Labour Government are very serious about the promises they have made to improve conditions in the industry.

I, therefore, appeal to my right hon. Friend to look more closely into the matter and, as soon as possible—if he cannot do so this afternoon—to give us at the first available opportunity information what his Department is doing so that we may know that they are facing the problem fairly and squarely. We hope that they are determined to improve the life and working conditions of the working class people of this country, than whom there is no finer body of people in the world.

4.50 p.m.

Back Benchers are in the unusual and luxurious position of having unlimited time at their disposal. It is very fortunate that my hon. Friend selected this subject for this Adjournment Debate and I desire to speak on it for two or three minutes because I should be failing in my duty if I did not do so. I reinforce everything that has been said on this subject, which I regard as of vital importance to the community at the present time.

Unlike previous speakers, who represent constituencies in which there is a predominant industry, I represent a London suburb, a dormitory constituency whose workers go to a multitude of places, some inside the constituency and others elsewhere in London. I am continually being impressed with the very deep concern felt on this subject by everyone, regardless of the industry affected. The home truth is now sinking into our people that our survival as an independent economic nation is at stake. The messages which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is repeatedly addressing to the nation are sinking home. Exhortations are not enough. The people realise that there is an obligation to increase production, and I believe they are desirous of responding wholeheartedly to those exhortations.

Nevertheless, I find that there is a sense of frustration at our failure to provide in some parts of the country the mechanism which enables the workers to make their most useful contribution to the technical efficiency of their factory and industry. Because of that sense of frustration I regard it as of vital importance that the President of the Board of Trade should tell us not only why he thinks that his existing statutory powers are adequate, but also what precise steps ought to be taken in our industries and factories where there is a manifest desire to organise a development council on the part of the workers but a failure of the part of the managements to co-operate.

As a result of three years of Labour Government the workers are, I believe, emerging from the impression that their chief objective is to maintain an outlook of militancy against employers and managements. They are now concerned to co-operate with employers and managements, given the appropriate organisation and machinery for securing technical improvement in their factories and industries. Without that organisation we cannot, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and His Majesty's Government are repeatedly reminding us, increase the production of this country or escape from the bondage of financial dependence upon a foreign Power.

It is because the application of that principle is not clear and because people do not understand what ought to be done to enable them to respond to the appeals from the Government, that this Adjournment Debate will serve a most useful and valuable purpose at this critical stage. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will say something which will go out to the people in the factories and industries and which will show them how they should deal with this acute problem.

4.56 p.m.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to a matter of some urgency. I am sorry that I have not been able to give proper notice to the Secretary of State for War, but I hope that what I shall say in this Debate will be conveyed to him through the OFFICIAL REPORT, and that it will lead to some change in the policy of the War Office towards soldiers with very long terms of service, and who have been evicted from the barracks at Ayr and their property thrown out upon the street

I wish to point out that at a time when the Leader of the House has appealed to Members of the House to join in a recruiting campaign for His Majesty's Forces it is a very bad example indeed for the War Office to be evicting from the barracks at Ayr four people who have given the greater part of their lives to their King and country and who have been thrown upon the street as a result of the policy of the War Office towards people living in married quarters in barracks. I have already drawn the attention of the Secretary of State for War—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but it might be for the convenience of the House if he would defer discussion of the fresh matters to which he has referred until at any rate the end of the subject which we have been discussing.

Certainly, Sir.

4.59 p.m.

I shall not detain the House very long. As previous speakers have said, we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies) for raising the issue of pottery development councils. When one looks at the magnificent efforts of North Staffordshire in the production of pottery between the end of the war and now, one can be very proud of the men and manufacturers, and of the experts in all branches of the industry, including the sanitary and tile side of it, because of their achievements.

I have been looking at the Trade and Navigation Accounts for July while my hon Friend the Member for Burslem was speaking. In 1938 the average monthly export of pottery products was somewhere in the neighbourhood of £336.4 thousands. In 1947, as a result of co-operation in the industry and understanding between the union and the management, that figure had jumped up to £1.4 million. In 1948 it had reached £1.89 million, and now at the end of the first seven months of 1948 we see that this little island of industry in North Staffordshire has exported some £11,523,828 worth of products all over the world to help Britain to get her bread and butter.

I contend that an industry exporting that amount is of paramount importance to the economic welfare of Britain. If I am right in my contention, I believe that it is an industry which deserves attention from the Ministry. I know that it has had co-operation from the Board of Trade. All of us who are Members of Parliament for North Staffordshire have on different occasions been to the President of the Board of Trade and received the co-operation of the Minister and his civil servants in helping to develop the industry in this district, but so far as development councils are concerned, we want now to know exactly where the Ministry stands.

I am informed—I stand to be corrected—that the Pottery Workers Union stand foursquare behind this idea of a development council for the industry, and in doing so they demand that some of the producers of these artistic products should have some say in the control of the production. I should not be exaggerating if I said that one of the best advertisements of the technical and artistic skill of Britain is her pottery. Only this morning I landed in this country after a trip in France—not for a holiday but to try to fathom the political situation. Since I have been living in North Staffordshire it has been my custom, whether I have been in the Far East or in my mother country, Wales, to turn over my cup and saucer and see where they were produced. Even in the South of France the names of famous North Staffordshire look turn up on British pottery. I look at the pottery and feel proud of the craftsmanship put into that clay which represents the spirit of this little island of industry which we call the Potteries. I therefore hope that the maximum facilities will be given to the experts in this industry to give advice to the Minister and his servants so that the industry will be able to exceed its already excellent figures for export.

I have not the time to develop it, but while we are talking of the pottery industry I would also like the Minister to emphasise his attitude, if it is at all possible this afternoon, towards the tile industry and the relationship of that industry to the present building programme. Only about five weeks ago a friend of mine in the tile industry wrote to me about the difficulties he now had in finding markets for some of his tiles even in our own country.

This is just an aside. I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next comes to North Stafford- shire to remember not only this great pottery industry, but also that not very far away in my own constituency, which covers pottery and textiles, we have the silk and rayon industries which have problems very similar to those which are now cropping up in the pottery industry in North Staffordshire.

I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) pay a tribute to the North Staffordshire people. As an individual who is interested in art and who has very modestly helped at different times to teach people something about art, I would like to say that I have never found anywhere in the British Isles a higher standard of artistic talent than there is among the children of North Staffordshire. By way of technical schools and various methods of linking up the industry to the educational system, that artistic talent comes out in our pottery and tile exports and our designs, and every Britisher wherever he may be in the world can always be proud of the North Staffordshire pottery industry, whatever firm may put its stamp on that piece of ware. Therefore, I beg the Minister to give us some concrete idea about the position as it is today and let us know how soon he hopes to get some galvanic action so far as this development council for North Staffordshire is concerned.

5.7 p.m.

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies) for having raised this question this evening. I am delighted that the time available has made it possible for so many of my hon. Friends to join in the Debate and to support the remarks he made, with which I am in very full agreement. I know he will understand when I say how much I regret that I am not in a position to give any very clear answer to the questions he has put about a development council in relation to the pottery industry, but I would like to say a word or two about the discussions which have been held with a view to the establishment of a development council in that industry.

Before I do that, I would like to join him and also my hon. Friends the Mem- ber for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) and the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) in what they have said in paying tribute to the great effort made by the pottery industry in its production and export efforts, particularly during the past few months. In March, when I visited Stoke I set a target for the industry, and in launching the production drive, I pressed both sides for a very big immediate increase in production. The industry has made tremendous efforts and has secured very satisfactory export results. We know that in many markets it is no fault of the industry that it is not selling more than it actually is; it is, in fact, due to some of the difficulties about import restrictions and currency restrictions abroad. I would also like to say how much I welcome the steps which the industry is now taking to modernise and re-equip itself, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, is one of the most urgent and important things facing the industry at the present time. I can tell him that I have written to the pottery industry only in the last few days saying that the Government entirely endorse the industry's re-equipment and modernisation programme and will give every assistance in carrying through that programme.

Turning to the development council, as my hon. Friends know discussions with both sides for the establishment of a development council were proceeding in a very constructive and amicable way last autumn. The Board of Trade had prepared draft heads of an order which both sides were studying. Then suddenly two or three days before I had to go to Russia for the trade discussions I heard that the employers' federation were calling on their members to pass a formal resolution rejecting the whole of the draft order. I immediately asked the president of the federation to come up and discuss the matter before the federation had this resolution before them. Following those discussions, we revised the draft order in certain particulars on lines which I hoped might make it more acceptable to the manufacturers, and following that, as I have already told my hon. Friend in answer to a Question which he put down some little time ago, there was some considerable delay owing to the illness of the president of the federation and my desire not to proceed in this matter without the fullest consultation with the president and his colleagues.

Then when further discussions were resumed in the spring, as my hon. Friend knows only too well, the union informed me that in spite of having previously taken a very strong line on this matter—standing, as my hon. Friend said, foursquare behind the idea of a development council—they were at this time in negotiation with the employers on the basis of a non-statutory advisory council. Shortly after I had invited the two sides to see if they could reach agreement on a suitable body which I would then have to examine, I gather that a full meeting of the executive of the union decided to instruct the secretary to withdraw his letter stating that they were in favour of an advisory council and again to press for a full development council.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the new attitude of the union was not due to the delay in setting up the development council? Had they not all this time become a little sceptical of ever having a development council and were thus prepared to listen for the time being to the other proposal?

I have no idea what motives led them to cool off from their original desire for a development council; I can only record the facts as they were presented to me. I am quite sure that the union would have endorsed the line I took, that I did not want to force the pace in this matter in the absence of the chief officer of the federation with whom it was essential to negotiate. Since that time, as my hon. Friend has said, the union have stood foursquare for a development council. Further discussions have taken place. The pottery employers have prepared an alternative scheme and, in all fairness, it was right that the union should be asked to consider that alternative scheme before I was able to go further with my own discussions.

The result of that stage of the negotiations is still that the pottery employers declare themselves as irrevocably opposed either to the establishment of a council under the Act or to any executive functions being given to any non- statutory body which might be established. Equally, on the other side, the union are implacably opposed to the establishment of any body which is not scheduled in the Act and which does not possess the functions set out in the draft order submitted to both sides of the industry earlier this year. That is the position at the moment, and in view of that position and the fact that discussions are still proceeding, I do not feel that it would be very helpful at this stage to say anything definite about what I expect to happen in the course of the next few weeks, but I promise my hon. Friend that I will keep him and the House very fully informed of the progress of the negotiations and will do all I can from now on to speed up some settlement of this long overdue and extremely urgent matter.

Since my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have referred to the question of development councils in other industries, I think it is right that I should spend a few moments reviewing the working of the Act and the progress we have made in other industries. As the House well knows, in the cotton industry the Cotton Board has now been set up as a development council under the 1947 Act. It is working extremely successfully and I commend to those in other industries who have any doubts about the value of development councils the record of the Cotton Board in the past few months and hope that they will study the work of that Board a little more carefully before they come with some of the fantastic remarks which they present to me from time to time about how they think a development council would operate in their own industry.

As to the furniture industry—one of my hon. Friends referred to this—our proposals for a development council order for this industry were published as a White Paper in the middle of August. They had been accepted in principle already by both sides of the industry. We have asked now for detailed comments on the draft order by the end of this month, and I hope to be able to lay the final order before this House for approval at the beginning of next Session. I see no reason at all why this order should not come into effect, and the council be functioning, by the end of this year.

The position is somewhat similar in jewellery, where our proposals for a development council order were published as a White Paper at the same time. Here again they have been accepted in principle by the main trade associations and the union, but have not been accepted in principle by the Sheffield organisations, chiefly because of the feeling which regrettably exists between the Yorkshire side of the industry and the rest of the country. Here again, however, we have asked for comments on the draft order by the end of this month.

In china clay I met both sides of the industry a fortnight ago and put to them our ideas of how a development council, as opposed to the advisory council for which the employers pressed, might work in this industry. We hope to have further discussions with them in the near future. In the case of the jute industry also, we have drawn the attention of the two sides of the industry to the recommendations of the working party report, and we shall be having further discussions with them also in the near future.

I must admit that I would like to have seen this matter proceed more quickly. I would like to have seen development councils established in a number of other industries, but I have made it my rule over the past year, wherever possible, to try to proceed by agreement with both sides of each industry. I have not been desirous of forcing the pace, or at least, so far, of using the powers conferred on me under the Act for proceeding where there is no agreement, unless I really feel there is no hope of getting a council established by agreement with both sides. However, I must now frankly inform the House that there are still a number of industries, like pottery, where the two sides are sharply divided on this question. In addition to pottery, there is hosiery, wool, clothing and cutlery, and in each of these the trade union side has declared itself wholeheartedly in favour of a development council. The employers have declared themselves equally strongly against a development council.

In the case of wool, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Titterington) referred, like him I am anxious to see a development council established. Discussions are still proceeding between the two sides on the details of some appropriate body for the industry under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Hopkins, who was the chairman of the wool working party and who completely won the confidence of both sides in his handling of the problems which were before that working party. I hope to have his report in a week or two, but until I have it, naturally there is nothing I can say to the House.

In the case of the other industries, I am quite sure the House will agree that we cannot delay some settlement of this problem for very much longer. The intention of the House in passing the Industrial Organisation and Development Act a little over a year ago was quite clear. I think the House, which passed this Act without a Division, felt that there were many important common services which could be provided by a development council; that councils could function in a large number of industries in order to increase the general efficiency of the industry, and, in particular, to bring up the level of efficiency of the least efficient firms to something nearer the efficiency of those at present running more satisfactorily. I am sure equally that it was the wish of hon. Members in all parts of the House that, having got this Act, the Government should try to proceed by agreement wherever possible, but the House gave me powers under Section 1 (4) of the Act to establish a council even where there was a division of opinion within the industry, provided I was satisfied that the establishment of a development council for the industry was desired by a substantial number of persons engaged in the industry. In appropriate cases where I am satisfied that a development council is needed in the industry, and that a substantial number of those engaged in it desire to see one established, I should certainly have no hesitation in bringing the necessary order before the House, even though I failed to get the agreement of all concerned in the industry.

I still hope it will be possible to reach agreement in all outstanding cases, but I ought to make it clear to the House that I am not prepared to carry this desire of mine to proceed by agreement to the point where any sudden outburst of opposition by a group—even a majority group on the employers' side—leads to pressure for a non-statutory rather than a statutory body. In more than one industry employers who were at one stage in favour of a development council, and who were co-operating in working out the details of one, have suddenly become strongly opposed to it and have not, in every case, been able to advance good reasons for their change of attitude.

It has been my view that their opposition in certain cases has proceeded from a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Act or of the way in which development councils would operate. In some cases there has undoubtedly been a political flavour about the opposition. Individual employers, or the trade association concerned, have formed the view that when the House passed this Act and blessed this idea of development councils, it was with the idea of creating half-way houses towards nationalisation. I am sure, as my hon. Friend said in his opening speech this evening, and as hon. Members on the other side of the House who voted for this Measure will agree, there was never any intention in any part of the House in passing this Act to create halfway houses towards nationalisation. However, if I were to give way now to political or doctrinaire opposition of this kind, I am quite sure that I would be regarded by the House as failing to carry out the intentions of the House as set out in the Act.

I think there are one or two industries where the opposition to development councils has come from the trade associations concerned, or from the paid officers of those associations, because of the mistaken view that the establishment of a development council would remove the need for a trade association, and would make the trade association secretariat redundant. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. I should certainly wish to make use of any development council that was established for the purpose of obtaining advice on the problems of the industry, as I do almost every week in the case of the Cotton Board, but experience of that Board has shown that the establishment of a development council in that industry in no way weakens the position of the trade association on either side of the industry and it certainly does not in any way affect the right of those trade associations on both sides of the industry to make their representations direct to the Government. In fact, I am seeing a number of trade associations from the cotton industry tomorrow, and the establishment of a development council there has in no way affected the degree of contact and consultation which we have with the trade associations.

Then, again, I think in certain cases there is a fear that the establishment of a development council would involve intervention on the part of the Government—which is a fantastic notion in this connection—or on the part of the development council or its secretariat in the running or management of individual firms. Again, this is a completely wrong-headed notion, derived either from a misreading of the Act or, more likely, from the fact that the Act has not been read at all. The Industrial Organisation and Development Act was an enabling Measure. It does not involve the establishment of a development council in every industry. It allows freedom in industries to reach agreement on appropriate bodies of an alternative character to a statutory development council, but there are very many industries in this country where I am convinced that a body on the lines of a development council, set up under the Act, would be highly appropriate and highly beneficial to the industry concerned—to those who work in it, to those who live by it, and to those who consume its products.

I believe that there are a number of industries which could agree tomorrow on the constitution of an appropriate body, and could agree on the functions of a suitable council, but who have some kind of inhibition about its being scheduled under the Act. Even though they might have no disagreement on the form of the council, its method of operations or its functions, they have some difficulty, which frankly I cannot understand, about the very fact of the council being established under the terms of an Act of Parliament. It is in the hope of getting over these difficulties and inhibitions, as well as of continuing our discussions on points of constitution and on the functions of these bodies, that negotiations are continuing with the industries concerned. I hope they will lead to a mutually advantageous and statesmanlike settlement of the problems still outstanding by those concerned on both sides of industry.

However, I am sure the House will agree with me that we have now practically reached the point where decisions will have to be taken and, in default of agreement between the two sides of industry, those decisions fall, under the Act, to be decided by the Government. As long as there is still hope that the two sides in these industries may agree on something acceptable to the Government and to the House, it would be wrong for me today to prejudice the position in any of those industries by saying anything more, but I can at least tell my hon. Friend and all concerned in these industries that if in the last resort the decision has to be taken by the Government, then that decision will be taken industry by industry, in the light of the conditions and needs of each industry, and with full regard to the needs of our national economic situation and of the need for maximum efficiency in productive industry. However, it will similarly be taken with full regard to all the considerations which this House had in mind when the Industrial Organisation and Development Act was passed a little over a year ago.

I want to take advantage of this Debate as the only suitable opportunity of raising a question which is urgent and important. I regret that it is not possible for a Minister to be present, although I have been in touch with the Foreign Office and understand the reasons why it is not possible. I refer to the situation which has arisen in connection with the United Nations appeal for children, a matter on which the feelings of the people of this country and of hon. Members of this House were made very clear only a few months ago, when a considerable amount of pressure was put on the Government successfully in order that they should make a substantial grant towards a very important and magnificent work that is being done under the xgis of the United Nations. I am quite sure that the public in this country, and hon. Members of the House who supported that pressure for the Government grant, will be shocked to learn, if they do not know already—and I am afraid publicity has not been widespread—that it has now been decided to terminate this magnificent work at the end of the present year.

The United Nations appeal for children was created only as recently as 1947 by resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations in December, 1946, and the Economic and Social Council in March, 1947. Co-operating in the appeal are not only some 50 or 52 nations associated with the United Nations, but hundreds if not thousands of nongovernmental organisations, including labour organisations, women's organisations, church, farmers' and peasants' organisations, and organisation of all kinds. In fact, we have here for the first time in world history an instance of international co-operation on the popular level as distinct from the normal procedure of international activities at the purely diplomatic level. It is the only instance of a United Nations activity in which it is possible for the ordinary people of all countries, irrespective of race, colour, creed, politics or anything else, to appreciate that they personally, by their own individual efforts and group efforts, can participate in the great work of international co-operation and the building of world peace.

In the termination of the appeal, this is now all threatened, if not with destruction, at least with the greatest possible discouragement. It is particularly untimely that this proposal for the termination should have been made at the present time, because, in fact, although there are 52 countries co-operating together, with 30 dependent territories, many of the national and local campaigns are only now getting under way. It is obviously out of the question to suggest that a tremendous work of this kind, covering millions of the world's children, expectant mothers and others, could be organised and completed and the work finally disposed of in the space of 12 to 18 months or even two years.

In the course of recent months, since the appeal was launched, some tremendous results have been achieved amongst those 52 countries and 30 dependent territories. Apart from the fact that some 16 million dollars have already been collected in hard cash—and most of these funds are funds which have been collected for the purpose of despatching abroad assistance for distressed children overseas—the proceeds of the most important drives are not included in the figures given, because those drives are still going on. The contribution of the United States of America is not included in that figure and there are, in fact, some 26 campaigns still going on, while another 18 have still to be commenced.

I will give examples of what I mean. One small country, Iceland, has collected no less than the equivalent of £1 per head of her total population. Everything in that collection is going to children abroad. New Zealand has collected about 3s. 6d. per head of her total population and Norway about 3s. per head of her total population. Such remote countries as the Phillipines are contributing to this great appeal sugar and vitamin products; Ecuador is contributing banana flour, Cuba is giving sugar, and so on.

Nothing of this kind has been known in the history of the world before and the significant feature of it is that, whilst in other directions United Nations activities, regretfully, are meeting with tremendous diplomatic and political difficulties, in this particular case there are no diplomatic difficulties, no political divisions, no divisions of any kind. The people themselves are participating in the actual humanitarian work associated with the name of the United Nations and that, in itself, is probably more important than the actual physical results of the appeal.

It would be extremely regrettable, in my view, if the work were stopped now. It is doubly regrettable to me that the vote of our Government should have been passed in favour of the termination of the appeal at the end of this year, because what it means is that not only are we to terminate the appeal at a particular date—an early date—but that these 26 campaigns not yet under way and the other campaigns which are only beginning will be discouraged. The millions of ordinary people who are taking part will be discouraged by the fact that this appeal is something which is now dying; there is nothing vivid, nothing vital about it any longer, but it is something which is coming to an end.

It is important to know that so far as public opinion throughout the world has been able to express itself, that public opinion is entirely in favour of the continuation of the appeal. One hundred non-governmental organisations, representing some 300 million members, meeting at Geneva on 17th May this year, expressed strong support for the continuation of the appeal. The International Labour Organisation, representing as it does Governments, employers and workers, at its conference in San Francisco unanimously passed a resolution on 30th June, 1948, recommending the continuation of the fund. Again, the First World Health Assembly unanimously passed a resolution in July, 1948, urging the continuation of the appeal.

Now it has been decided, in view of all this, that the appeal should be terminated. As I understand the position, it was at the seventh session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, at its recent meeting in Geneva, that a resolution was moved by the Australian representative that the fund should be continued and a further appeal launched in 1949. An amendment was put forward, an amendment which was, so far as I can gather, not very clear in its terms, and this amendment was carried by eight votes to seven, the eight votes including that of our own Government. There were three abstentions. It was, therefore, carried by a single vote with three abstentions.

I understand that the chairman was asked subsequently to interpret the position and he interpreted it as meaning that there would be no renewal of the appeal in 1949. I understand that a number of those who abstained and some who voted for the proposal then expressed surprise, saying that they had not interpreted the proposal as meaning the termination of the appeal at the end of this year. Nevertheless, that proposition now stands.

I hope the question is to be raised at the current meeting of the United Nations Assembly in Paris, when our Government will be expected to give its final decision, and I hope that between now and the time when the question is raised at the Assembly, there will be a sufficient expression of the opinion of the people of this country through the Press, in the House of Commons and elsewhere to convince the Government that the people of this country, along with the hundred non- governmental organisations, with the International Labour Organisation, with the World Health Assembly and with all those organisations and Governments which are urging continuation of this unique and magnificent work which is being done for international peace on a popular level, desire it to continue. I hope our Government will be given to understand very clearly that their vote at the Assembly should be cast and their voices should be added very strongly in favour of the continuation of this appeal and of the launching of a further appeal in 1949. In spite of the unavoidable absence of the Minister, I am glad to have had this opportunity to raise this subject this afternoon.

5.38 p.m.

I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) has raised this subject this afternoon and has called attention to the decision to terminate the United Nations appeal for children, a decision which I feel sure must have staggered the consciences of enlightened world opinion. As my hon. Friend has rightly said, this appeal was an activity of the United Nations which was not only producing practical results, was not only making a humanitarian appeal which gave no room for political difference, but it was one which brought the United Nations Organisation right down to the grass roots of individual humanity.

There has been no other activity which has so opened the possibilities for every man, woman and child throughout the world to co-operate together in a single act expressing what one might call the spontaneous good will of the world community. There has been a chance through this activity for ordinary individual human beings to feel that they were really part of a world community. I know that it was this conception of the United Nations appeal for children which specially inspired one who might be described, legitimately, I think, as the originator and creator of this great idea, namely, that great Norwegian Aake Ording. It was Aake Ording who, as worthy successor to Fridtjof Nansen, first put forward the idea at the time of the winding up of U.N.R.R.A. His idea was taken up enthusiastically and he was appointed as the first director of the appeal. It was the one thing which was saved from the wreck of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, the one opportunity to carry on a work in which everyone could take part without those differences which threaten to rend the world again at the present time.

If this appeal were allowed to be continued, there is not the least doubt that its activities and influence would spread much wider than they have done up to now. As my hon. Friend said, there are many countires which have only just started their campaigns. There are other countries, like our own perhaps, where the appeal has not yet got right down into the roots of the people and where the sense of individual participation has not had full time to express itself. I most sincerely hope that the response of public opinion in this country to the news of the decision of the Economic and Social Council and to the attitude taken by His Majesty's Government on that occasion will be such as to make the Government realise that they have made a profound mistake.

I must say I really do not understand how the representatives of a Labour Government could have decided to vote in the way they did on that occasion. Here is a matter which involves no political pressure. It involves no additional burden on the British national Exchequer. It provides simply an opportunity for the British people and the peoples of the world to carry on a great act of co-operative humanity. How we can possibly take the attitude that such an activity should be discontinued baffles me. I hope that on serious consideration the Government will change their mind on this matter and will support at the General Assembly the continuation of the appeal.

I wish to draw the attention of the House, and indirectly of the Secretary of State for War, to the question of eviction from Army barracks. We have heard a good deal in Scotland about eviction from other property, but it is an entirely new development to have families evicted from barracks—families of men who have given a quarter of a century of service to their King and country—and it is an almost incredible story which I have to unfold this afternoon. I do so because it is a matter of urgency. On the last occasion I visited the barracks at Ayr relatives of these ex-soldiers were still outside the barracks, from which they had been evicted by order of the War Office. Apparently the order of the day for these ex-soldiers was; "Your King and country no longer need you, clear out." It is rather an ironic attitude for the War Office to take up at a time when the Leader of the House asks us to go on the recruiting platform to ask for recruits. There will be repercussions all over the country if incidents such as those outside the Churchill Barracks at Ayr are to be repeated in other county towns.

These people received notice from the War Office that their married quarters were required for other personnel. Everyone who knows the housing position in the West of Scotland knows that it is an absolute impossibility at present to secure housing accommodation for all kinds of people. These people were evicted at a time when the normal housing difficulties were accentuated by reason of the fact that the town of Ayr was crowded with visitors and no rooms could be obtained. There is the case of ex-Sergeant Cockley, of the Royal Scots Fusiliers, who has given 26 years' service to his country. He is still in the employ of the War Office, engaged in secretarial work organising the activities of the Territorial Army and is also a serving Territorial. This man's belongings and his wife and children were evicted from the barracks and left in the street in the pouring rain at the time of the worst storm in that part of the country for many years.

The furniture belonging to these people was under a tarpaulin, not provided by a considerate War Office, or by the Army authorities, but by a travelling showman. If it were necessary for the War Office to evict these people, they could have provided a tent, or a piece of tarpaulin, to cover their furniture, which had been thrown out of the barracks. I interviewed these people and was told by the wife of an ex-Service man, sitting on a sofa under a tarpaulin barely protected from the rain, that in the last war she lost her only son, who had been honoured by receiving the Military Medal. Cannot we appreciate that there is bitterness when members of a family have served in that way and they are evicted and there is no housing accommodation available in the town?

There was another case of an ex-soldier who had been in the Army for a long time and was a non-commissioned officer. He was evicted and obtained a job in a neighbouring coal mine. He spent a long time searching for accommodation for his wife and family. Accordingly he missed a few days work in the coal mine, and, as a result, when his goods and chattels were outside the barracks, he received a summons from the National Coal Board threatening to prosecute him because he had been an absentee from the pit. For weeks during the holiday season these people were in camp outside the barracks, but I know of two families who are still there, and this scandal will be perpetuated unless we can bring pressure on the War Office to change their callous attitude towards these people.

The Secretary of State for War says that the premises are wanted for other people: and that soldiers who wish to go into the barracks to train Territorials are also men with families and are also undergoing hardship. I can understand that, but for 26 days after this ex-sergeant had been evicted, there was no one in those rooms and he had to go to his clerical work in the barracks knowing that the house was empty and his furniture was in the street. The War Office takes the attitude that it is the business of a local authority to provide houses for people unable to secure housing accommodation. Theoretically that may be correct, but it must be remembered that local authorities, especially in the West of Scotland, have already innumerable difficulties and this matter is accentuating the problem. We claim that it is not exactly the duty of the local authorities to take on these additional burdens imposed as a result of the conduct of the War Office.

We know the War Office has certain responsibilities, but I was careful to ask the people if there was any accommodation inside the barracks, ever. a few square yards, until the emergency situation created by the holiday season was over. I received the reply from men who know the barracks very well that there was room in the barracks at the time for a whole regiment of soldiers. Can we wonder that there is comment about this? Soldiers coming home on leave see this temporary encampment outside the barracks and ask themselves, "Is that what is going to happen to us when our term expires?"

I ask the War Office to go into the question again and modify their attitude so that some temporary solution can be offered to these people. I make a special appeal for men serving overseas whose wives and children are in the barracks and who are now threatened with eviction. It is true that they have been offered some kind of temporary accommodation, but that means splitting families. I suggest that with all the powers the War Office has, it is possible to solve this problem and end this scandal of men who have spent so long in the Army being put on the street and of the anxiety of those awaiting eviction notices unless the War Office is prepared to change its attitude. This is not a party issue; I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), who has taken an active interest in this matter, would corroborate every word I have said. I hope that the case that I have put forward will get to the War Office so that the Secretary of State can go very carefully into the position to see if the harm done by these evictions can be undone and some greater security offered to men who have served in the Forces for so long.

5.54 p.m.

I wish to raise the question of the shortage of sugar in this country. I have already heard complaints that people are stopping picking blackberries because there is not sufficient sugar with which to make jam. It is a pity if good wholesome fruit is wasted as a result.

This question also affects the mineral water manufacturers. I am a fortunate person in that I prefer a glass of ginger ale to a glass of whisky if the choice is offered to me. The most important aspect is that of the export market for mineral waters. In Northern Ireland there are several firms which before the war did a large export business in mineral water manufacture all over the world. That market is contracting and I believe one of the reasons is the lack of sugar. I do not believe that the mineral water sold generally in this country today is of as high quality as it was in 1936, 1937 and 1938. Naturally, all our exports depend on quality. We must expect people abroad to drink American drinks such as Coca Cola in preference to ginger ale if the quality of our products goes down, and due to the minute issue of sugar the manufacturers must reduce either quantity or quality.

I have taken the earliest opportunity of raising this matter on which I received a letter this morning from a constituent in the mineral water business. I wish to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister of Food and the President of the Board of Trade. If sufficient sugar were released to improve mineral water manufactured in this country, that would add to our export market, and provide more welcome dollars for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

5.56 p.m.

I do not rise for the purpose of following what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) has said on a matter of very great constituency and personal interest to him, but he must not think that I am not interested in what he has said. I wish to say a word or two in support of what was said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), which is an unusual thing for me. We are all indebted to the hon. Member, particularly those who represent Scottish constituencies, for having taken advantage of the valuable time at our disposal to bring this very important matter before the House. What the hon. Member has said must surely impress the Under-Secretary of State for War with the fact that if something is not done to arrest the alarming conditions the hon. Member so vividly outlined, there may be a very serious state of affairs. I congratulate the hon. Member on having persuaded the Under-Secretary to come to hear this matter raised. Earlier we had a former Minister of the Crown raising an important matter, but there was not a Member on the Front Bench to reply. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has been more successful and I hope that the presence of the Under-Secretary on the Front Bench shows that he is not merely there to listen but will have something concrete to say by way of explanation and something concrete by which our reasonable doubts can be cleared away.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire and I do not share the same views very often on matters relating to the defence services of this country. He believes in a Utopia where neither army, navy nor air force—and on one occasion I think I heard him say even police—would be necessary. I completely dissociate myself from his point of view in that regard. I do not like the word, but can think of no better, when I say that the hon. Member has shown true humanitarianism in advancing the claims of these people. He, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) and I believe they have been very hardly treated by the War Office. Whenever the hon. Member for South Ayrshire thinks of something to raise on the Adjournment he is always peculiarly and particularly happy in raising something which will embarrass the Government he was elected to support. This afternoon his choice of subject has proved no exception to the general rule. The three cases he has cited must have harrowed the feelings of all of us who have listened to him. I should think that it would be very difficult for the Under-Secretary to provide any valid excuse for the treatment that has been meted out with regard to the Churchill Barracks at Ayr in general and in the three cases in particular which the hon. Member has cited.

The hon. Member at once came to the point when he said that if this kind of thing were to go on, if no proper assistance were forthcoming to the local authorities in regard to making increased provision for the housing of the people of Scotland, there would be a serious state of affairs. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not, with his usual candour, prosecute that point to its logical conclusion and say that the Government have failed miserably, particularly in Scotland to make proper housing provision. Now we are having these almost wholesale—that is not too extravagant phrase to use—evictions from the Churchill Barracks at Ayr in particular, and the local authorities are completely unable, owing to the lack of assistance from the central authorities, to make proper housing provision for these people who have given gallant service to their country. I am glad that the hon. Member underlined that. Although I know that he does not approve of that kind of service to the country he certainly sympathises with these men in their plight, and that is something.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will give an adequate reply. His Government do not know where they are on this all-important question of housing in general and the housing of evicted ex-Service men in particular. I hope he will show that he has been seized of the importance of what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has said here—a Member who was elected to support in this House the Government of which the Under-Secretary is a Member. I hope that the Under-Secretary will get up and give the House the benefit of his views on this particular matter.

6.3 p.m.

I greatly regret that I was not in the House at the time when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) rose to speak on this matter. He had been kind enough to apprise me by note that he would do so. The note was written in something of a hurry as it did not indicate from which hon. Member it came. It is true that the choice was limited but knowing as I do how all Scottish Members pursue nearly all questions relating to all parts of Scotland, there were several possibilities. My hon. Friend also said that he would raise this question on the Adjournment as soon as possible. I must confess that I did not realise when I received it half an hour or so ago how soon that would be.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the matter, as it provides an opportunity for me to state what is the War Office's position on this undoubtedly difficult question. What is at issue are Army married quarters, buildings constructed for the purpose of providing homes for serving soldiers and their families. The House will be aware that there is a shortage of these married quarters, which is a serious problem as it affects Army recruiting. If that argument does not particularly appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire there are many Members to whom it will appeal. I will put it in a form which will appeal to my hon. Friend. Surely his hostility to the idea of military service in general does not extend to malice towards particular men who happen to be in the Armed Forces at this moment? They are as fully entitled to have somewhere for themselves and their families to live as any other section of the community.

Serving soldiers often find it difficult to find accommodation in any other way than by Army married quarters. The conditions of their life often make it difficult for them to get on the lists of housing authorities. This is a matter of first importance from the point of view of Army recruiting, the general efficiency of the Army and the welfare of the troops. To give ordinary justice to soldiers as compared with other sections of the community, Army married quarters should be used as far as humanly possible entirely for the purpose for which they were constructed, to give homes to serving soldiers and their families.

It is necessary to give something of this general background in order to depict in its proper perspective the particular case in which the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) betrayed so much interest. Unfortunately not all Army married quarters are at present used for their proper purpose, some of them are accommodating the families of soldiers who are serving overseas, some of them are still in need of repairs, and some of them are occupied by persons who are known to us in our official language as irregular occupants. During last Session I was asked what was an irregular occupant. On the spur of the moment I replied that it was someone who was occupying quarters who ought not to be so doing. Here we have the precise example of an irregular occupant. It is true that in most of the cases, it may be in all the cases, the men and women on whose behalf my hon. Friend has raised this question, are ex-soldiers and their families, but those ex-soldiers are now civilians and I think it will be agreed that their housing is not one of the responsibilities of the War Department.

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend and also for the fact that in the circumstances he has to make a difficult reply, but I pointed out that one of these ex-sergeants is actually still in the employ of the War Office and is still a Territorial clerical worker.

If he were what is known as a key civilian doing a particular kind of work that would give him an entitlement to married quarters, but from what has happened I think that the man concerned does not fall into that category—he is not one of those for whose housing the War Department can be regarded as responsible.

When we get irregular occupants of that kind in Army married quarters, what is the choice with which we are faced? On the one hand, it is very hard to turn anyone out of any accommodation at the present time. If we merely sought to avoid such attacks as have been made upon us this evening, we could take the easy way and leave it at that. But what would be the result? Serving soldiers who have in many cases been separated from their families for a long time would have to go on waiting. It would mean that the families for whom these quarters are constructed would be denied accommodation and that persons for whom we had not a responsibility would continue to occupy those quarters.

I should not wish it to be thought that we took a narrow and Departmental view on this matter. Our first responsibility is to the serving soldier and his family, but if the House will bear with me while I state how we have dealt with these particular cases I feel sure that it will be agreed that we have not taken a narrow or Departmental view. We gave long warning to the families concerned. One family was first warned of the situation in June, 1947. A six months extension of the period for which they might stay was later granted. Finally, my right hon. Friend gave his authority for this eviction in July this year, rather more than 12 months after the situation was first put to those concerned.

That gives the family an opportunity to make it clear to the local authority, who have the immediate responsibility for housing them, what the position is. We sometimes feel that they are in a stronger position to represent their case to the local authority if we make it clear that after a certain time we must evict. It was right to give these warnings and the date at which we proceeded in the case I have quoted shows that we did not proceed with any inhuman haste in this matter. The same is true of another family. The first warning was given in June, 1947, and authority for eviction was granted in July of this year. In another case the warning was given more recently, in December, 1947, but even in that case eight months elapsed before final authority was given for the eviction. There was no unreasonable haste about this matter.

Nor do we confine ourselves to what might be regarded from the narrow point of view as our responsibility because Scottish Command are still doing all in their power to assist these families to obtain accommodation. They have got in touch with the Town Clerk of Ayr, the Department of Health for Scotland and the British Legion, and have represented the position that our Department is not responsible for housing these families but that we are anxious to give any help we can, consistent with the discharge of our responsibilities.

The House may feel that even so, eviction in any circumstances is harsh, and the House may feel reluctant to give its approval to such an action. I have no doubt my hon. Friend depicted the position of these particular families in the most striking and eloquent language. May I, though no doubt with less eloquence, draw the attention of the House to the position of some of the serving soldiers and their families who are to go into these quarters? I will not mention names as they might not wish their affairs to be brought so precisely before the public eye. One case is that of a man and wife who were married in 1938 and who now have two children. For six years the family have been separated and they are to go into these quarters from which we have been obliged to evict these irregular occupants. Another case is that of a man and wife who were married six years ago and who up to this time have not had a united home. They also have two children. Another man and wife married in 1943, who have two children, have been separated for two and a half years. In a fourth case the man and wife were married shortly before the war and again there is a family of two children. The family has been separated for five and a half years.

The hon. Member for Galloway asked if I would be able to provide any valid excuse for what we have done. These four cases which I have mentioned are the valid excuses for what we have done. I ask the House to believe that the War Department are properly discharging their responsibilities in these matters, and that they have indeed gone beyond what was a narrow interpretation of their responsibilities. The general policy which we are pursuing about married quarters in the Army—that they should be devoted to their proper use—is in the long run in the interests of a proper solution of the housing problem of this country.

I understand my hon. Friend's difficulties quite clearly. I know the background, I know the cases he has quoted, but I understand that there are four women whose husbands are overseas who are still threatened with eviction. All I asked him was whether he would give a little further consideration and thought before putting their goods and chattels out on the street?

I think my hon. Friend is now referring to families of serving soldiers who are now overseas. They are in a somewhat different category from people who have already left the Army. We do not turn out the family of a serving soldier, even if the soldier is overseas, from married quarters until we have seen that alternative accommodation is provided. My hon. Friend may be quite sure of that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter past Six o'Clock.