I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a further brief statement about the flooded areas on the East Coast.

The latest total of deaths known to the police is 264.

The Ministry of Agriculture are pressing on energetically with the work of repairing breaches, and I am informed that nearly half of the breaches have so far been closed. Special arrangements have been made to send a team of experts, on behalf of the Ministry, to deal with the exceptionally difficult breach on the Lincolnshire coast South of Sutton-on-Sea. This team is led by Brigadier Rolfe, who designed the Mulberry Harbour. Another urgent problem is to speed up all work needed to enable people to return to their homes.

The regional offices of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government are to arrange local meetings of the authorities concerned to decide on the spot what are the best organised arrangements for clearing sand and silt from roads, paths, gardens and houses. The general idea will be that the county council or district council will deal with roads, and see that help of some kind is given to the house-holder to clear the house and garden.

Individual householders who wish to return to houses as they become free from flooding should apply to the local authority. The authority will arrange for the house to be inspected to make sure that it is safe. To help the local authority, other neighbouring authorities are being invited to lend surveyors and sanitary inspectors. The Air Ministry are lending heaters which will be placed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government at the disposal of local authorities to help householders to dry out their houses.

When I made my first statement on 3rd February the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) raised an important issue—the question whether economies made as a result of the circular sent out to local authorities by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government last June had adversely affected our sea defences in the area now flooded. My right hon. Friend and I were deeply disturbed at the suggestion that the Government's efforts to cope with the steel shortage of that time might have had any such result and we set inquiries on foot at once. I should like to tell the House the outcome of those inquiries, and I ought perhaps to begin by describing what the existing system is; for there seems to be some misunderstanding.

Broadly speaking, the defence of low-lying land against the sea is the responsibility of the river boards under the general direction of the Minister of Agriculture. These defences have grown up through many centuries: in Kent, the first of them were built by the Romans. They were primarily designed to protect agricultural land from flooding and were thus entrusted from early times to the authorities responsible for draining the fresh water into the sea and for preventing the sea from coming up the rivers and sluices or overflowing the coast line. These defences have only once been seriously breached, and that was, I think, in the 14th Century. Even in the great storm of 1703 they were not as badly damaged as they were last week.

None of this work, carried on from generation to generation by the land drainage authorities was affected by Circular 54/52 issued by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in June, 1952. This circular applied only to that work which is entrusted to maritime local authorities. Broadly speaking, this consists of coast erosion schemes. These are undertaken by maritime local authorities to prevent the steady eating away of cliffs and beaches. The purpose is to protect seaward fringes of their towns, houses, roads and such amenities as promenades. Although some of these schemes overlap or merge into the general sea defence system, for instance where a promenade in fact acts as a sea-wall to protect low-lying land, in general the local authorities are not concerned with the defences against flood from sea water.

In the circular issued in 1950 by the then Minister of Health after the Coast Protection Act of 1949 was passed, local authorities were warned that "in present circumstances only projects which are essential can be approved On the 27th June, 1952, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government issued his circular and, partly to save capital investment but chiefly to save steel, he told local authorities only to do the coast protection work of exceptional urgency. None of the schemes in hand which were slowed down by this circular dealt with any parts of the English Coast subjected to the recent flooding.

The House may be interested to know the actual loan sanctions issued in recent years for such coast protection work as is done by the local authorities: 1950, £379,324; 1951, £276,534; 1952, £529,686.

The House might like me to add a word about the river boards. The river boards responsible for sea defences were given a specially large share of the amount of capital investment made available for land drainage and similar works, and any economy that had to he exercised by way of slowing down or deferring schemes was made on the internal schemes and not on sea defence work. This work bears a very high rate of grant and there is, therefore, every inducement for the river boards to undertake it expeditiously.

I would call attention, therefore, to three important facts; first, that none of the recent sea floods were in places affected at all by the latest circular; secondly, that a circular urging economy was first sent out by the Minister of Health in 1950; thirdly, that the expenditure authorised in 1952 was nearly double that in 1951. The Government are considering the whole machinery as it exists under present legislation.

The chairman of the Women's Voluntary Services informs me that there has been a very generous response to the appeal for clothing for the victims of the flood disaster. The gifts are still pouring in and are being distributed to those who have suffered. Distribution will continue for as long as is necessary to meet the need. In view of the distress suffered by our friends in Holland, the Women's Voluntary Services believe that it would be the wish of the donors that we should share a part of these gifts of clothing with those who have suffered from the same disaster. An initial consignment of clothing is, therefore, being sent to Holland on behalf of the people of Great Britain.

Hear, hear.

I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the full and detailed account he has given us again today. May I ask him a question on the number of known deaths? He told us some days ago that it had been reported in the Press that several hundreds of people were missing and that it was thought that some of these were people who had fled from the floods and had not yet reported themselves. Of course, this still gives rise to some anxiety in the minds of people who have relatives in these areas. Can he give us any idea of the extent to which the number of people first regarded as missing has been reduced by people who have since reported themselves to the local authorities or have made their safety known in other ways, thus reducing this total which we understood at one time was fairly formidable?

With respect to the last part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement, I am quite sure that everyone in the country will welcome the fact that we recognise a comradeship with the Netherlands in this disaster. May I also say that to some extent it explains the nature of the devastation here, that when so scientific and skilled a people in this matter as the people of the Netherlands have been overwhelmed by this disaster, it is not surprising that this terrible onrush of water inflicted the damage that it did in this country where we have regarded ourselves for centuries as immune from some of the dangers that daily and nightly have confronted the Dutch people who have built defences that were thought, short of sabotage, to be completely impregnable against the onrush of the sea.

There is one other point that I should like to make. I noticed with a feeling of horror that in some areas the police had had to take special precautions to deal with looters. I am quite sure that I speak for everyone in the House when I say that we hope that public opinion—I am not now talking about the law—would regard with the utmost detestation persons who seize such an opportunity as this to filch the petty personal belongings that build up a home for the people in the type of property that has most largely suffered as a result of this disaster, and that no greater proof of bad citizenship could be established than that a person had engaged in such depredations.

I am quite sure that we all welcome the announcement this morning of the generous gift from the Dominion of Australia which, after all, in recent years has itself suffered from this kind of disaster, and we are also grateful for other sympathetic gestures from other authorities on the Continent of Europe and elsewhere.

I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) to the statement that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made on the circular that was issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

I am sure that not only I but the whole House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, and I am particularly grateful for his first question. I have not the information at the moment, and I shall immediately take steps to try to get the figures of the missing, broken down in the way that he suggests. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the whole House shares the feeling which he has expressed with regard to Holland.

As to the reports of looting, I was glad to be able to say yesterday that the opinion of the police was that conduct and morale on the whole is very high, and there have been very few such cases. The police are looking after the properties. Of course, it is their general aim and purpose to protect property, but I should like to reassure those who are not there that their homes are being looked after in their absence.

In reply to the other points that the right hon. Gentleman raised, all I can do is to repeat our gratitude for the general approach that he has made and to give my assurance that they will receive immediate consideration.

Would the Home Secretary say a word about what is being done to help those who, though they will shortly be able to return to their homes, find that they have lost all their furniture? May I also ask a question with regard to his statement about his circular and the coastal defence arrangements generally? The figures which he has given are the figures for capital expenditure by river boards and others, and not the actual figures of money spent.

Would the Home Secretary bear in mind that for some time past a number of maritime local authorities and river boards have been urging that these matters, which hitherto have been matters of local burden on the rates, should become in future either matters of national charge or should attract much greater grant from the Exchequer? Would the Home Secretary give the most sympathetic consideration to those representations in view of this disaster?

With regard to the first point made by the hon. Gentleman—the question of setting up home again when furniture has been ruined—I announced yesterday that we had got a reception centre for furniture at Royston, and I hope that we shall get a considerable voluntary supply which can be used. I shall look into the question in the light of the adequacy of that supply.

With regard to the point about expenditure, the amounts I mentioned were in respect of local authorities and were actually figures of loan sanctions. With regard to the river boards, the hon. Gentleman may remember that I did mention that the work bears a very high rate of grant, which is an inducement to do the work. I will repeat what I have already said, that we are considering the whole machinery as it exists under the present legislation. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that the position will be carefully watched.

Have the Government considered any form of compensation from public funds for those who have had their houses or farms completely destroyed or seriously damaged, where they are not covered by private insurance?

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is a longer-term matter which requires very careful working out. He was at the Treasury himself. It is being considered, but I should be very grateful if I were not pressed on that point, as it obviously requires very deep consideration.

I want to raise a point about coast protection, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred in his statement. Would he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in formulating his plans for future coast protection work, he will not give unreasonable priority to the low-lying areas of our coast to the disadvantage of those parts which are cliff-girt, where houses stand close to the edge of the cliffs: where, as in the case of my own constituency, the coast is being worn away at the rate of seven feet a year, and where the people are in much more constant danger than in the low-lying parts, which have been overwhelmed only by a totally exceptional combination of tide and gale?

In my statement I did mention that that was one of the problems, and it will be borne in mind. I do not think the House would expect me to go further at this stage than to say that any question of considering coast protection must take into account coast erosion as well as protection against floods. I cannot go further than that.

Arising out of the last question, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government as to whether it might not be a sound policy to prevent the building of houses near the edges of cliffs where coast erosion is likely to take place, or on low-lying land which is liable to flooding?

As the right hon. Gentleman can see, my right hon. Friend is by my side and I am sure that he will pay attention to that point.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the reports of casualties are somewhat inaccurate and that the manner in which they are reported might lead to undue apprehension? In my own constituency of Southend it has been reported in the Press that there were seven or eight deaths. Actually there have been none attributable to the floods. People have unfortunately died in hospitals in Southend after having been brought there from outlying districts, and they are not actually Southend victims.

I shall bear that point in mind, but I think we should be extremely charitable when dealing with the happenings in the first few days. It is so easy to make mistakes in these matters.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that in the event of an emergency the man on the spot, even if he breaks some regulation or some small law, will be supported by the Government in the action he takes?

I am not going to give an oral assurance in respect of all possible action; but I want to make it clear—because I think it is important—that when the emergency organisation went into action on Sunday the general approach was to let them act with as little red tape and need for reference as was humanly possible. I do not think I can go further than that.

I beg to move,

That this House urges the Government to introduce legislation at the earliest practicable date to give effect to the objectives of the Gowers Report.

I make no apology for raising this matter in the very difficult times in which we live. In its own sphere the matter is extremely urgent and if, as I understand, the Government have a Bill on the stocks, they should be grateful to me and to other hon. Members who may express their opinions for being able to sense the feeling of the House on these matters before they actually introduce the legislation in question.

I would remind the House that we have not had a full-dress debate on the Gowers Report. The Committee was appointed by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1948 and it reported early in 1950. Shortly afterwards I took the opportunity of raising the matter on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, but in those circum- stances it was not possible to have more than a very short discussion. Then I was fortunate in having the opportunity, at the beginning of August, to initiate a short debate on this subject on the Adjournment. It lasted for just under one hour.

On these and other occasions when other hon. Members and myself have raised this matter in the form of Questions we have had very sympathetic replies from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. No one could have been more sympathetic in this matter than Sir Stafford Cripps. He expressed his sympathy in the answers he gave the House, he saw me privately, and he asked me to see the then Solicitor-General—and nothing could have been kinder than the reception I received. The same has been true of this Government; but nothing whatever has been done, although everyone connected with the subject realises its very great urgency if we are to save what at the moment could be saved.

As the hon. Member says that nothing whatever has been done I would remind him that the previous Government did make some taxation changes affecting death duties in the Finance Bill of 1951. I know it was only partial, but it was some action.

If I recollect it rightly it was on an Amendment relating to Section 40 of the 1930 Act. I think it dealt only with works of art and not with buildings, although I may be wrong about that. Perhaps I have put it too strongly in saying that nothing was done, because the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), in a written reply to a Question, did outline a scheme; but I am afraid that to the majority of those interested—and I consulted many people on this subject—it was a scheme that did not appeal very strongly. However, I shall deal with that a little later.

Finally, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech in the debate on the Address in November last, announced that the Government had decided to proceed with legislation on this subject, time permitting. One of my objects today is to persuade the House to pass this Motion and so to press the Government to implement that promise as soon as possible in view of the urgency of the situation.

But before I go any further I should like to say a word about the terms of my Motion. It is not to be expected, with a report like the Gowers Report, containing some 21 detailed recommendations, that everybody will agree with all of them. I therefore had to draft my Motion in such a way that hon. Members of all parties could support it if they were in favour of the general objects which induced Sir Stafford Cripps to set up the Gowers Committee. I hope that no one will feel that by voting for this Motion, if a vote is necessary, they are in any way committed to each specific recommendation of the Gowers Report.

I emphasise this in particular because, since I put the Motion on the Order Paper, I have received a great deal of sympathetic consideration and advice from hon. Members of both sides of the House. It is a great personal pleasure to me that the Motion is to be seconded by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). That in itself will emphasise the purely non-party character of the Motion.

I may say that I have also discovered what I did not know before—that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) is himself an owner of an historic house. He was good enough to send me an attractive brochure which he has prepared and which enables visitors to his house to have the benefit of a short résumé of its history and its charm. I am sorry that he is not here today, but perhaps he felt that his personal interest precluded him from taking part in the debate.

There is, however, one point upon which everybody who has studied the subject can agree, and that is its extreme urgency. In that connection, I should like to quote from one or two documents by experts which will emphasise the point. In the first place, I want to quote from the latest report of the National Trust. After all, they are great experts in this matter. They put the case very strongly:

"The Council wish to emphasise more earnestly than ever before the urgency of the problem. Each year sees the decay or disappearance of more great houses. Those that remain in private ownership are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Only some action by the State—whether by relief of taxation or in some other way—can save them. It is not practicable to wait until suitable uses are devised … action is required immediately, and the most important of them should, if necessary, be maintained inexpensively by a skeleton staff. … No other course is possible if our generation is to avoid the lasting censure of posterity."

Let us next take the Report of the Georgian Society. With both these Societies hon. Members from both sides of the House are officially connected. I believe that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) is on the Council of the Georgian Society and that several hon. Members belong to and support the Society. The Society put the matter extremely well in their latest report which, with the permission of the House I will read:

"There are already too many notices in the Press of Georgian mansions which have been bought 'for demolition,' and if such notices are not more numerous it is because some owners are still holding on in the hope that help will come before it is too late. 'Hope deferred maketh the heart sick' and each month a few more are given up and sold.

Moreover, as time goes on, the actual task of preserving the houses becomes more difficult, In many cases repairs are not being carried out at all—and this leads to progressive dilapidation; in others, essential works only are executed and on an economical scale; only a minority of the houses are properly repaired and maintained. Yet all these houses represent an architectural heritage which, although it be in private hands, is none the less a national asset and should be a matter for national pride."

I should like to give a quotation from the "Manchester Guardian," which can always be relied upon to give support to good causes and which says, in a leading article this morning:

"In years to come we may regret our parsimony. Every year a dozen or a score more houses are demolished or decayed and they are a quite irreplaceable part of our national heritage."

I think it may be said, therefore, that all informed opinion realises the extreme urgency of taking action at once and of pressing upon the Government the urgency of the problem.

In addition, I have a list, as have other hon. Members, of many houses which have been demolished and, what is still more important—although it is regrettable that some have been demolished—a list of those which are in jeopardy. I want to give one or two examples. There is Coleshill, Berkshire, one of the loveliest houses of its period—mid-seventeenth century—which suffered from a fire last year, although the main structure is still standing. I understand that it is to be demolished.

It has been.

My hon. Friend informs me that it has been demolished, and that is a great pity. There is Halnaby Hall—and new names are being added every month. To bring the matter right up to date, only 10 days ago "Country Life" said this about Kings Weston, Gloucestershire, one of Vanbrugh's most lovely houses:

"The Georgian completion of Kings Weston, Gloucestershire, which Vanbrugh designed about 1710, is here identified as due to Robert Mylne, the notable Scottish architect and engineer, in 1763–72. The house is now becoming derelict."

It is an extremely sad story and I hope that I and other hon. Members will succeed in pressing upon the Government that action must be taken as quickly as possible if more of these artistic tragedies are not to take place.

I want to turn now to the Gowers Report itself and to examine the Committee's remedies for this state of affairs. Very briefly, their recommendations are two-fold. First, they recommend that a statutory body should be created called the Historic Buildings Council. It should have the duty of selecting houses and the co-ordination of all the agencies existing at the present time. There are a considerable number of agencies, starting with the Ministry of Works, and the various societies who are concerned in this work, but at the moment the action of all these bodies is not co-ordinated in any way, although no doubt they are in friendly consultation. Secondly, the Gowers Report recommends that owner-occupiers of designated houses. if they agree to show their houses to the public and to certain other stringent conditions, should be entitled to certain tax relief.

I cannot go into all the details of the work and duties which it is proposed that the Historic Buildings Council should undertake. Two points require discussion, however. First, it may be asked. why not leave all these matters to the National Trust, which has a country house scheme? It has done most excellent work, and some people may suggest that that is the answer. But many people seem to think that that will be quite a simple matter. I must point out that although the National Trust has an excellent country house scheme which now covers some 50 or 60 houses, it is not in the least suitable for the majority of the cases which we are considering.

The National Trust will not consent to taking over a house of the type about which we are speaking unless an endowment fund is provided for its maintenance, and in most of the cases we are considering that is out of the question because the owner has not the funds to maintain the house as it should be maintained. Only a minority of persons today are in a position to put up such a fund. No doubt the National Trust will continue to do good work in that as in many other fields, and I want to make it clear that if an Historic Buildings Council is established, as I hope it will be, it must maintain the closest relations with the National Trust, the Georgian Society and all the other bodies concerned with this matter.

Secondly it may be asked, why should a new Historic Buildings Council be set up when we have the Ministry of Works which already has in its care so many ancient monuments? Although I have great admiration for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, I must say frankly that I think the Ministry of Works is a body which is not at all suited to undertake this work. The work it does is admirable, as I know very well from Rievaulx Abbey in Yorkshire and other abbeys which it maintains. They are delightful and the work has been well done, but this is a totally different problem. One of the main points made by the Gowers Report is that these houses should remain, as far as possible, family residences and not be treated as ancient monuments.

Moreover, the new council suggested by the Gowers Report could co-ordinate in a way that the Office of Works cannot do and there is a great deal of co-ordination to be done. For example, only recently the Home Office communicated with the societies concerned with these houses and asked if they were taking adequate precautions to protect them against fire. That is a useful thing for the Home Office to do, but I suggest that if we have an Historic Buildings Council, responsible to the Treasury, it would not be necessary for the other Government Departments to take up points of that kind and its establishment would lead to a considerable lessening of overlapping which is taking place now. There are many other reasons why the general opinion of those interested is against the Ministry of Works and in favour of such a council.

I now turn to the more controversial part of the Gowers Report—their proposals in regard to relief from taxation. First, I shall deal with the proposal that relief from death duties should be given to a designated house and its contents and amenity land so long as it is not sold and so long as the conditions include public access, etc. I am dealing with this question first because it was one which was set by the Labour Government in 1930.

In his Budget of that year the late Philip Snowden made a considerable advance with regard to the preservation of works of art. Whereas before the 1930 Finance Act objects given to public bodies were protected, Section 40 (3) provided that such

"pictures, prints, books, manuscripts, works of art, scientific collections or other things not yielding income as on a claim being made to the Treasury … appear to them to be of national, scientific, historic or artistic interest"

shall, while enjoyed in kind, be exempt from death duties, and the value of those objects should not be taken into account for the purpose of estimating the principal value of the estate.

This was a considerable advance but, as I think almost by mischance, the term "works of art" was held not to cover houses. The present Lord Selborne, who was then sitting in this House as Lord Wolmer, moved an Amendment to the Finance Bill and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke in the short debate that followed. In effect, the Amendment sought to extend the Clause to cover houses. I tried the same thing on myself later but the late Stafford Cripps was too quick for me and pointed out that the ejusdem generis rule excluded houses from works of art and that, therefore, separate action would have to be taken.

Let us look at the anomaly created. A house, in itself a beautiful work of art, has so far been refused exemption from death duties whilst its contents which today, if they are of any artistic value, will be of far more value than the house, are protected from them. Yet the house enshrines the works of art. And on the question of values, I would point out that the value of such houses today is very small indeed. For a small villa in a pleasant part of Surrey one can get more today than for a great mansion stripped of most of its land and with only a few acres of gardens around it. Indeed, there are one or two great houses with 18, 25 or 30 bedrooms, advertised in "Country Life" at present, for sale at £7,000 or £8,000.

It is obvious that they are not intended to be lived in. They are being sold to demolition contractors mainly for the lead on the roof. All the lead made before 1800 contained a high percentage of silver and is, therefore, much more valuable than is commercial lead today. The contractor hopes to recoup himself by pulling the house down, selling the lead, the mahogany doors and the building stone or brick for what these things will fetch. It seems to be an extraordinary anomaly and deserves the reproach made about us that of all the arts architecture in this country is the Cinderella.

In response to a Question of mine as to what would be the loss of revenue from taxation if the proposals of the Gowers Report were adopted, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me what I still think was the astonishing figure of £10 million per annum. I do not know how that was worked out, although I have tried to discover. I do not know how much of that sum was attributed to loss of death duties and how much was attributed to loss of Income Tax and Surtax. I was simply told 2,000 houses and a loss of £10 million a year. It seems to me that a bright young man in the Treasury said to himself, "This is simple. Take 2,000 houses at £5,000 a year, multiply £5,000 by 2,000 and you get £10 million." But the matter should not be dealt with in that way. I admit that I speak very much in the dark, but I doubt if the loss on death duties would amount to more than £600,000 a year and I have worked it out in considerable detail. I do not think that is a very big price to pay for the preservation of 2,000 of the most beautiful houses in the world.

I come to the question of Income Tax and Surtax. The Report recommended the exemption from such Income Tax and Surtax as was reasonably necessary to maintain the house. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that he would not accept this proposal:

"which would amount to a subsidy.‖ over which Parliament would have no direct control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April. 1951; Vol. 487, c. 87.]

But, if the Historic Buildings Council were set up and was directly responsible to the Treasury, this House and the Treasury would have direct control over the expenditure of the Historic Buildings Council and over the conditions which that council imposed on the owners of any houses which might benefit by the provisions made by the Treasury under this head.

There is another grave anomaly here. If the house is managed on a commercial basis the owner gets all that I am asking for. If one manages a house on a commercial basis, shows a profit, and treats it as a commercial undertaking, one gets allowances on Income Tax and Surtax for the whole expenditure concerned. One is then judged simply on the profit one happens to make during the year. I am very glad to see that two or three of the greatest houses in this country are being run on a commercialised basis and would, therefore, not come under the provisions suggested by the Gowers Report.

The anomaly is that a house fortunate enough to be situated near an industrial district—such as Chatsworth, which is seen by millions of people coming from Sheffield and the surrounding countryside—can benefit by this protection, whilst a house which is just as important from an architectural point of view but is in a country district where there is no chance of treating it as a commercial proposition is penalised and cannot get the benefit of these proposals. That alone makes it important that we should honestly face the question of Income Tax and Surtax. It is not a question of giving a benefit to some particular person. Someone suggested to me, "If you did that, all the profiteers would rush in, buy historic houses, and get away with Income Tax and Surtax." Nothing of the kind: the regulations can be—and, of course, would be under the Treasury—drafted in so strict a way that there would be no opportunity for subterfuge of that kind.

The hon. Member says that there would be complete control by the Treasury but, according to the Gowers Report, would it not be the Historic Buildings Council—not the Treasury or the Ministry of Works—who would decide which houses should get these concessions and there would not be Treasury control?

The right hon. Member is right to the extent that the actual designation of the houses would not be under the Treasury. But, after designation, all the actual financial transactions would be strictly controlled by the Treasury. I do not think anyone would object to the Historic Buildings Council, the National Trust, or anyone else designating houses. It is a question of what one does after they have been designated. One knows that, the Treasury being what it is, it would then have strict control. The Gowers Report suggests that

"if at any time the Minister disagrees with the advice of the Council, he should be required to record his reasons in writing and lay them before Parliament."

The actual machinery is there provided so that control would be complete.

On the question of grants and loans the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, in a Written answer in April, 1951, rejected in toto the Gowers Report proposal. I think it was a great mistake, but the right hon. Member gave reasons for it and I want to quote those reasons because the point should be answered. What he proposed was that the Minister of Works should be empowered to

"…assist in the preservation of outstanding houses…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c.87.]

by a system of grants and loans. How can a loan possibly assist in the vast majority of cases? In the case of an owner who has not sufficient net income to maintain his house as he would wish, the Ministry of Works offers him a loan under the scheme we are discussing. But that puts a heavier burden on him. He then has the annual interest to pay out in addition to his already too heavy expenses and he makes the position in regard to death duties far worse for his heirs. By placing mortgages and loans on the building one makes it more difficult for the payment of death duties. A loan of sufficient size might make the property so wonderful that not only would the loan have to be repaid, but the value of the property would be increased when it was valued for death duties.

A grant would be a very difficult and elaborate operation. Each case would have to be considered on its merits and, presumably, there would have to be some sort of means test as none of us wants to hand out money unnecessarily. I think it will be seen that that scheme will not do. So far as I know it has not been supported by anyone interested in the matter, neither by the National Trust or the Georgian Society, or anyone else.

I have spoken for a long time, but I have this matter very much at heart. I want to press the Government most strongly that when they are considering the Measure which, I am told, is on the stocks, they will give fullest weight to the arugments set out in the Gowers Report and put forward by societies interested in the matter. Their opinion is very nearly unamimous. We all agree about the urgency of the matter and I feel that a Bill should be introduced and that it should be as closely in conformity with the recommendations of the Gowers Report as is possible.

Some people will say, "We are passing through very difficult times. This is not the time for legislation of this kind. The country is struggling and will have to struggle, whichever party is in power, with a mass of post-war difficulties." All that is true, but nevertheless, I urge the Government most strongly to bring in legislation at the earliest moment. That this country has great difficulties with which to contend is agreed, but that does not overwhelm us. Not only are we keeping well in the forefront in engineering and matters of invention—our aeroplanes lead the world—not only are we maintaining the best system of social services in the world, but in almost every branch of the national life we are showing a vigour which has not been damped by the misfortunes of the war and the post-war period.

I therefore say that while we press forward in the paths of progress—and we must press forward—do not let us forget our duty in this matter to the generations which will follow us. No praise of the Government would be finer in after years than if it could be said that while they resolutely faced the problems to be solved in the more material world they were not unmindful of the task of preserving this heritage of beauty for those who come after us.

I beg to second the Motion.

The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) has spoken with great eloquence and knowledge upon this important subject, a subject in which he has shown a very great interest for a long time. I am sure that the whole House is indebted to him for having taken the opportunity of choosing this subject for his Motion this Friday morning. I only regret that I have not the same detailed knowledge, but I share with him, as I am sure do my hon. Friends on this side of the House, his zest for the cause and the desire to urge upon the Government the necessity of taking some immediate action.

The problem falls into two parts. First, there is the problem of understanding the seriousness and the urgency of the matter, on which, I think, we are all agreed. The second thing is to devise the most suitable remedy. On this we have divergent views, because we do not all accept the recommendations of the Gowers Report and we not all agree upon the precise remedies that are most desirable. That is why, as the hon. Member said, the Motion has been framed, not to urge the Government to implement the actual recommendations of the Gowers Report, but to take immediate action to carry into effect the objectives with which the Gowers Report deals.

With regard to the problem itself, I was impressed a fortnight ago by an address, widely reported in the Press, given by Mr. Cecil Farthing of the National Buildings Record to the British Archaeological Association, in which he said:

"The demolition of old buildings is a normal part of the life of a nation, but the present widespread holocaust can be matched only in the sixteenth century when the dissolution of the monasteries resulted in the disappearance, ruin or conversion to other uses of an enormous number of important medieval buildings throughout the country."

That is the parallel to the problem with which we are confronted.

Few of us, I imagine, have not at some time or other seen the ruins of some famous medieval abbey or priory in different parts of the country—Fountains Abbey, or Glastonbury, or Tintern or Castle Acre, or many another—and have regretted the neglect of our forefathers in having failed to preserve those great national monuments to the artistic, cultural, social and economic life of the Middle Ages.

We are faced with a similar problem today. As the hon. Member for Burton has said, these historic houses are the treasure houses of art and architecture, the living representations of the great artistic talent of this country; and we shall be failing in our duty to posterity unless we take some steps urgently to prevent the demolition that is taking place.

The position cannot be better stated than in the opening paragraphs of the Gowers Report:

"No feature of our country contributes more to its beauty and character than the historic houses of which it has such a profusion … They constitute a national asset whose loss would be irreplaceable.' They are part of our English heritage.' It is not too much to say that these houses represent an association of beauty, of art and of nature—the achievement often of centuries of effort—which is irreplaceable, and has seldom, if ever, been equalled in the history of civilisation."

I do not think that those words are exaggerated. But, since the Gowers Report was published only three years ago, demolition has gone on apace. Even in the last three years, as the "Manchester Guardian" says in its leading article today, something between a dozen and a score of famous mansions have disappeared each year. The hon. Member for Burton has mentioned one or two of them, and it would not be difficult to add to the list.

In 1950, for example, East Cowes Castle, in the Isle of Wight, a famous mansion built by John Nash, disappeared. In 1951, the tide of destruction mounted with increasing fury. Among the houses destroyed and demolished were Blyth Hall, Nottinghamshire; Grove Hall, Nottinghamshire; Hadlow Castle, Kent; Ewhurst Manor; Butleigh Court, Somerset; Rolls Park, Essex; Marks Hall, Essex; Draycot Cerne, Wiltshire; Buckminster Park, Leicestershire; Alton Towers, and many others. Even in 1952, demolition continued.

Perhaps the greatest intentional destruction which occurred last year, as opposed to accidental destruction, with which we are not concerned, was the demolition of Halnaby Hall, in Yorkshire, remarkable for its beautiful construction and exquisite interior plaster work, and also famous in history and literature as the home of Lord Byron. And it was only last year that High Sunderland Hall, in Yorkshire, the original "Wuthering Heights," was demolished. That is the problem with which we are confronted. There is no doubt about the urgency of something being done, and being done immediately, to implement the objectives of the Gowers Report.

With regard to remedies, one appreciates that this is bound up with the question of finance. I should like to say to the Minister of Works that, important as this problem is, we have to be careful not to attempt too much. After all, historic buildings vary in the degree of their artistic and architectural importance. If we attempted to preserve them all, we should be going too far and should be sacrificing the cause we have at heart. One of the things, therefore, that should be done as rapidly as possible is to bring up to date the list of these historic buildings.

It was intended a few years ago that the whole country should be covered by an authoritative list of the buildings worthy of preservation. One of the reasons why demolition has been allowed to continue is that there is not yet throughout the whole country a complete record of what should be preserved. This, I think, is partly due to the unfortunate overlapping of administrative provisions between the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

I hope that whatever else will be contained in the legislation which, I gather, is to be announced shortly, the present administrative overlapping will be terminated. After all, all that is possible under existing legislation, either under the Ancient Monuments Acts or under the Town and Country Planning Acts is to permit of delay, in one case two months and in another case three months, before an owner can demolish; but even these provisions do not operate in every case. There are, furthermore, a number of anomalies.

I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Burton as to which is the appropriate Ministry. I prefer the suggestion that the Ministry of Works should be wholly responsible for this subject. Incidentally, I do not think it was quite true to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) had entirely ignored all the recommendations of the Gowers Report. He accepted the recommendation that the responsibilities in this matter should be transferred to the Minister of Works. I agree with my right hon. Friend and with what has been said from both Front Benches in earlier debates, that this is not a problem which we can solve by making privileged concessions on Surtax and Income Tax. Those recommendations which the Gowers Report put forward would, I think, be the wrong way to deal with the matter.

I support, as did the hon. Member for Burton, the proposal of the Gowers Report that an historic buildings council should be set up. I think that is essential. I do not think that this can be left to the National Trust. They have duties of an entirely different order which are admirably discharged. Here we want a body—and a nucleus of it exists—charged exclusively with this problem. I would hope that in so far as Ministerial responsibility is concerned, the Government Department chosen to answer in the House for the operations of the historic buildings council would be the Ministry of Works.

This is probably the place to pay a tribute to the admirable work which the Ancient Monuments Division of that Ministry has done over a number of years. I am sure all Members must have seen in one part of the county or another some of the work of the Ancient Monuments Division. I specially call to mind Pevensey, Porchester, and Richborough. I am sure we are all deeply impressed by the great skill with which these ancient monuments are preserved and cared for, and, incidentally, with the enthusiasm with which the guardians of those buildings always place themselves with such readiness at the disposal of visitors, whether from our own land or from abroad. Therefore, the Ministry of Works has a background, tradition and staff for dealing with matters of this kind.

I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that this historic buildings council will be set up, with wide powers, and I hope we shall hear that adequate finance will be made available, either from the Land Fund or some other source, both to enable buildings which have become in danger of demolition to be saved for the nation and to enable provision to be made for their maintenance.

There is one other aspect which I hope will be considered. There must be a number of cases in which local authorities, if given suitable financial encouragement, would be prepared to take over historic buildings which their owners can no longer maintain for their own residence, and use them for some purposes of local administration, whether as a residential school or homes of various kinds. I feel that many local authorities would be willing to act in that way rather than put up new and expensive buildings if they could count upon additional financial assistance both towards the cost of capital acquisition and also towards the additional maintenance which is inevitably involved in maintaining old buildings rather than new ones.

I am not speaking at greater length because a number of my hon. Friends wish to support this Motion, the aims of which, on both sides of the House, we have at heart. We wish to press the Government to introduce, without further delay, legislation to deal, in the cultural interests of the nation, with this most pressing subject.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene now and give the Government's view, and then my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can answer any further questions which hon. Gentlemen put in the course of the debate.

I must confess that if I still enjoyed the freedom of the back benches, I should have put down this Motion or one very like it, and I should have tried, though, I think, not succeeded, to move it in terms as convincing and. charming as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate). I should certainly have been fortunate if I could have found a seconder equal to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), whom I should like to thank for what he said about my Department's handling of ancient monuments.

Therefore, there really could not be any hon. Member here more disappointed than I am that I cannot announce in full detail the terms of the Historic Houses Bill which the Government now have under consideration. The House is entitled to hear the reasons for this disappointment. The first is the purely practical question of Parliamentary time. The Prime Minister, speaking in the debate on the Address last November, said that the Government intended to proceed with a Measure on this subject when time permitted. Alas, it cannot be a surprise to anyone in the House that in the near future the programme is already fully loaded, and even if we—

There are plenty of things the Government could drop.

—put the finishing touches to our Bill we could not introduce it before Easter. So we are not really losing anything in time by waiting a little longer.

The Motion asks us to bring in this legislation at the earliest practicable date. We agree, and in the interval we very much want to hear the views of the House on certain remarkably difficult points to which very little reference has been made either in this debate or outside, but which I hope to explain in a few moments. We all realise how extraordinary it must appear that further cogitation is needed on a matter on which all sides of the House are agreed. The deterioration, decay and in a growing number of cases the demolition of these masterpieces of British domestic architecture are assuming the proportions of a tragedy, and there is no one in the House, as both hon. Members have said, who is really indifferent to what is taking place.

It is, however, as well to remind ourselves that we here are responsible for this tragedy. In Budget after Budget we have voted a level of taxation on personal incomes so high that it carried with it a revolutionary change in the style of life of those who occupy or might occupy great mansions as their family homes. The House now wants to make amends for one of the evil results of a taxation policy the general merits of which I cannot discuss today.

I am glad that my hon. Friend paid a tribute to the late Sir Stafford Cripps because Sir Stafford Cripps understood what was happening. He appointed the Gowers Committee and their Report surveyed with a very sympathetic sweep the consequences of this high taxation upon the country houses of Britain, which are recognised in all countries where architecture is appreciated as a unique example of graceful living by men and women who loved, above all, to entertain their friends in beautiful surroundings.

That Report handled the problem in its full dimensions, and as one would expect from so distinguished a Committee its recommendations are on a scale required effectively to deal with the problem. But the Report did not say and could not say how much it would cost to carry out its recommendations. Here is the trouble. Here is the reason why it is so difficult to frame a Bill to the satisfaction of all those interested.

I must ask the House to allow me to speak of finance for a few minutes. During the Adjournment debate before the Summer Recess the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said this:

"… my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised that when a suitable scheme for the carrying out of the work of preservation can be embodied in appropriate legislation it will be necessary for him to give it life by a cash provision and although the sum will have to be limited, he has expressed his readiness so to to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August. 1952 Vol. 504, c. 2022.]

In these times we are fortunate that the Chancellor can provide anything for a new service, when we are all agreed on the need for cutting expenditure and getting taxation down. It does show the keen interest of my right hon. Friend in the preservation of historic houses that he is willing to provide any new money at all, but I do not think any hon. Member can expect that provision to be very large. I could not begin to frame a Bill until I knew how much money would be available. Obviously, the amount of money conditions the kind of administration we should set up and what we intend to do, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton is to be congratulated on his success in getting that assurance from the Chancellor last August.

The fact is that the cloth from which I must cut my coat is about £250,000 a year. That is not a bad start, when one considers the demands for reducing Government expenditure which come from both sides of the House, but I must say that its modesty very severely limits what can be done. I must make it quite clear that this sum means that the general proposals of the Gowers Report cannot be carried out; they must wait for more favourable times. We have, therefore, to devise, not a full scheme for the preservation of the 2,000 best houses envisaged by the Gowers Committee, but a scheme to put in hand first-aid operations very limited in extent.

I wish now to explain to the House what it is likely to cost to maintain 50 or 100 of the finest of our historic houses, and then I wish to turn to the principles on which we ought to select those houses.

Listening to the debate today, I thought it a great pity that we have not had an earlier opportunity to discuss the Gowers Report, because very much of the misapprehension about what we are trying to do derives from a lack of understanding of how expensive preservation is. My hon. Friend challenged the Treasury calculation that to carry out the recommendations of the Gowers Committee in respect of the 2,000 houses in the top category would cost the Revenue £10 million a year. In one respect I am sure that that figure is a serious underestimate.

As it stands, the £10 million is divided equally between the running expenses of maintenance—that is an average of —2,500 a year, £5 million in all—and the loss to the Revenue in the remission of Estate Duty recommended by the Gowers Committee. I admit that the loss of Estate Duty must be only a guess. The assumption is that a death occurs once every 35 years. I make no comment upon it, because it is beyond my comprehension how one calculates these things, but I assume that the Treasury are right.

I want to turn to the running expenses, because there I think there is a considerable under-estimate. We have a test in Chequers, which is not a very large property when judged by the size of 50 or 100 of the most important private houses in this country. Chequers costs, as hon. Gentlemen can see from the Votes, a great deal more than £2,500 a year to maintain. Then we have our experience with the Royal Palaces, with Apsley House, Lancaster House, Dover House, and other famous houses.

Is that simply the maintenance of the structure of the building? Obviously, there are many other expenses involved, in running Chequers, for example.

I should say that the upkeep of Chequers, including the grounds, gardens, and heating which is necessary to preserve the house from dry rot would be something in the neighbourhood of £4,000. The total expenses are £14,000, so even if it is £4,000 I think it modest.

Of course, no fees are received from Chequers for showing people over the house. That is the net cost, is it not?

That is true; there are no fees from Chequers. Where that is so, as my hon. Friend mentioned in the case of Chatsworth, there would be an appropriation in aid from the Revenue.

There is another factor in the cost which is not allowed for in the Treasury calculation, and that is arrears of repairs. Very often owners come to the Ministry of Works—such is the reputation of our architects in the Ancient Monuments section—to ask advice about the maintenance of historic buildings. Almost invariably our architects find that there is a very long list of arrears of repairs which simply must be done before the current maintenance cost can be worked out. At a very rough estimate, I should say that if a house was to cost £2,500 a year to maintain, there would be double that amount of deferred repairs to be done. I could quote cases, but I have not the permission of the owners, where, in fact, deferred repairs are very much more than double the figure of annual maintenance.

Maintenance, as the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale) mentioned a moment ago, includes not only the structure, but the heating of the house, which, in many cases, is very expensive to maintain; the taking care of the historic contents of the house—in that connection our experience of the Royal Palaces is very valuable—and gardens and the amenity land. There is one point connected with this which I should like to mention to the House. I have been authorised by the Chancellor to say that in the next Finance Bill he proposes to take provision to enable chattels to be accepted in lieu of death duty when they are connected with historic buildings, and when it seems right to the Treasury so to do. That is a move in the direction which we want.

One can now see that the sum of £250,000 a year will enable us to look after between 50 and 100 of the finest houses, but the scale is altogether different from that envisaged by the Gowers Committee.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Chancellor has also imposed upon him a limit of relief from taxation as well as a limit on actual expenditure?

Naturally he has, because it is exactly the same thing to the Budget whether the expenditure is in loss of revenue or in the form of grants. So far as I am concerned, I am bound by the £250,000 a year on either side of the account, and it is exactly that which makes it so difficult to draft a Bill.

I take it that these chattels which are to be exempted from death duty will be in a house that will not have any help at all?

They are not exempted, I must make that clear. Perhaps I should read the actual words:

"The Commissioners of Inland Revenue may accept, in satisfaction or part satisfaction of any Estate Duty or settlement Estate Duty, any objects which are or have been ordinarily kept in any building … in any case where it appears to the Treasury desirable for the objects to remain associated with the building."

They are not exempted from duty, but duty can be paid with them.

What happens to the building itself? Is there any right of public access to it?

It is intended in the Bill we are to bring in that public access shall be a condition of getting financial assistance.

I am still not clear on this point. This does not seem to be much more than Section 40 of the Finance Act of 1930, under which books, prints, pictures, manuscripts, and so on, are exempt from duty.

But at a certain time they might have to be sold. It would be of great assistance if the hon. Gentleman would care to talk to me about this afterwards.

I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman.

In the case of one or two very large collections, where the owners have recently died, this will be of great assistance. The whole nature of the operation is changed by the limit on finance. We are forced to a first-aid operation where we have to discriminate very carefully among houses which might well be considered to be of equal value.

There are two points I should like to make about the first-aid scheme. The first is that the money must not be eaten up in administration expenses. With a sum of this sort we have no scope for engaging a team of paid experts. They would soon run away with a large slice of £250,000 a year. Therefore, we must find some way in which the administration expenses can be borne by people who are devoted to the subject and who will voluntarily give time or by existing officials.

The second point is that because the money is so small we shall be under very great pressure to spread it too thinly. I went to France last year to see how they were getting on. There I saw the terrible effects of trying to spread grants too thinly. The fact is that the French grant of one milliard francs was given before the war and it has not been increased. Of course, the value of the franc has gone down very much and, for that reason, the grants are quite unequal to the task. Whatever provisions we make we ought to set our faces firmly against taking on any houses when we have not got the money to keep them up to the standard of a tradition that we desire to preserve.

I come now to the question of how we are to select the 50 or 100 houses which can be handled with this sum of money. Here we are in a great difficulty which was extremely well illustrated by the two speeches which we have heard. As both speakers told the House, fine houses are continually coming on to the market for which no tenant or purchaser can be found. When we hear of this, we make every possible effort to find someone to take on the property for a school or college or some kind of institution. It is not until we are absolutely convinced that we cannot find an institutional tenant that the demolition order goes through.

That was exactly the case with Halnaby Hall. We tried high and low to get a tenant for Halnaby Hall. When, having only power to buy objects of art, I bought a superb mantelpiece from there I was blamed for it by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Only for paying too much for it.

The hon. Gentleman may be a very close buyer of mantelpieces, but I should be surprised if he could have got this one for much less.

I heard the list which was given of houses which had disappeared over the last two or three years. I could add to that list at least a dozen others; but here is the problem. It is extremely doubtful whether more than one or two of the houses that have been demolished in the last three years would ever find their way on to a list of the 50 or 100 finest specimens of British architecture. It is quite certain that more than half of them would not, and yet when they are demolished there is, naturally, great concern.

It is true that, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said on 1st August, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to give me some money from the Land Fund with which to purchase houses, but the Land Fund moneys will not be available for upkeep. If, therefore, we buy fine but second-class houses we shall be mortgaging part of the £250,000 a year and we shall have less for houses of the highest merit. This poses a very awkward problem. I shall be very glad to hear the views of hon. Members on this difficult choice. Do they think that we should spend taxpayers' money on the best, and only on the best, or should we take a shorter view and try to save from demolition, up to the limit set by the finance that I am allowed, any house which comes within the category of the first 2,000?

It is a most difficult question to decide. I should like to give the House my personal view. Buildings express, as no other of man's creations, the spirit and history of a people. There is Versailles, the Colosseum, the Taj Màhal or the Pyramids. They are the great landmarks through the centuries of events and men who were outstanding in their countries. One forgets the name of the builders. One does not know who were the architects or the stonemasons, but the buildings live on and even increase in value to the succeeding ages.

We can take pride that in our tradition there is such a large number of buildings which were the homes of great families, families who served their country—and I do not mean served the State only: they also served their neighbours. It is these homes that are now in danger. The fact is that the spacious way of life has changed. No one can preserve all the outward manifestations when the life itself has taken on new forms.

Reference has been made to the dissolution of the monasteries. I very much doubt whether, when this country ceased to be Catholic—that is to say, when we had taken on a new religious direction—it would have been possible, in any case, to have maintained all these monasteries. That is an open question; but it is not open to us to choose to live like our grandfathers. If we bent too much of our energies in trying to do so, that would, in my view, be a mark of decline in the nation.

I therefore believe that it is our duty to look after and keep in perfect order that number and variety of houses which will hand on to posterity a fair sample of all styles and all periods, some of them big houses and some small ones, some in the countryside and some in city streets. The tradition must not die. We must see that they are representative gems of each age, as one follows the other, but, for this lovable and pious duty, it is not necessary to maintain at the expense of the taxpayer all the examples of every style and every period. There. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite.

I should be sorry to see us turning ourselves into a nation of subsidised museum keepers. We have to strike a balance between the past and the future, between the structures of bygone ages and the creations of our own generation. I myself would like very much to give our living architects the chance, which they have not got now, to design masterpieces, which a future House of Commons, maybe 200 or 300 years' hence. will vote money to preserve.

I think we should be content, for the time being, with the provision which the Chancellor has found it possible to make, and I would ask hon. Gentlemen to accept the limitation which is imposed by our financial circumstances and to help us to find the best way of laying out that sum. I hope I have made it quite clear that we are engaged in producing a Bill, which we hope will be non-contentious and passed at the earliest practical date, but we must say that the state of the national finances does not allow us to contemplate fulfilling all the recommendations of the Gowers Report. We seek to fulfil as fast as we can, within the financial limits available, the general objectives which are referred to in the Motion.

Does that include the Historic Buildings Council?

I rather inferred that, out of the £250,000 a year, it would be impossible to set up a new organisation without swallowing up a great deal of the money.

What we hope to do is to have a Historic Buildings Council of an advisory nature which will advise the Minister on which houses should qualify for financial aid. Certainly, as the present Minister, I do not wish to have the duty of choosing 50 or 100 houses out of a large number of fine houses, I think that the Gowers Report would have gone still further and suggested a staff of architects and experts, and other people to see that the money was well and truly spent, in this Historic Buildings Council. We really have not enough money to contemplate that sort of thing.

Does that mean that the responsibility for the choice will rest on the Ministry of Works, as I think we ourselves proposed, or with the outside council?

No, I really cannot be quite definite about that, but, certainly, I could not contemplate that the Ministry of Works, except in the most exceptional circumstances, should give any financial aid to a house which had not been recommended by an advisory body. I am sure that any future Minister of Works would need a body of that kind to make from time to time the artistic judgment which would be very difficult for Ministers themselves to make.

Is there to be any general rule of alleviation for the owners of these houses? Is it to be entirely at the discretion of the Minister whether any alleviation is to be allowed to an individual owner?

I cannot answer that in detail, but I am quite sure that there will be no more than £250,000 a year.

So it will mean that there will be no general rule, but only exceptional rules at the entire discretion of the Minister.

I do not know what my noble Friend means, but, obviously, the number of houses selected for aid would have to be arrived at by calculation of how far the £250,000 a year would go. Therefore, that would determine the principle on which they are selected.

I would conclude by saying that I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to explain our difficulties to the House, and to assure him that the Government agree with his argument that something should be done as soon as possible. We are trying very hard to produce a Bill in time to get it through Parliament during this Session.

I think we all sympathise to some extent with the Minister of Works on the statement which he has just made and which is probably as unsatisfactory to him as I suspect it will be felt to be to hon. Members on both sides of the House. He has shown a very real interest in this matter, and we do not doubt that interest for a moment, although it will be a great disappointment to both sides of the House that a much clearer and much more encouraging statement could not have been made.

May I first take up the question of time? It must be realised that, after all, this matter has been under consideration for a very long time. There was, quite properly and naturally, a great deal of pressure upon the late Administration for a statement of their intentions, and, after a statement was made by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was certainly hoped that a Bill would be available in the forthcoming Session.

We know that a great deal was done to prepare a Bill along the lines of the state- ment made by my right hon. Friend at that time, and one would have hoped that while the new Administration would have to look at the matter again, yet now, over a year and a half later, it should surely have been possible to have come to some conclusions, and even more so when that long consideration has produced the rather small and fearful mouse that has appeared from the Minister's statement to us this morning. Surely, if this is all that is considered possible, a statement about it could have been made almost a year ago, and legislation could have been introduced into the House. In that case, perhaps, some of these houses. or one or two of them, could possibly have been saved, or at least action could have been taken to try to save them.

The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) whose interest in this matter we all respect and who has done so much to bring it before the House, referred briefly to the case of one house —Coleshill House, in Berkshire. The hon. Member thought that the house was still standing, but, unfortunately, that is not so, and the tragedy is that here was a case of fire, but a fire which did not, in the view of the experts, wholly destroy the building. It would still have been possible to save it, if it was felt that it was one of special value in the view of the experts and could have been done without a wholly unreasonable expenditure of money. The tragedy is that this house, undoubtedly like many others, is being demolished, and that we are losing it and others without any proper and careful examination of the question whether they are properties which we should wish to preserve or not.

I can accept the view expressed both by my hon. Friend and by the Minister that we are, perhaps, in danger of not being able to save some of the most valuable houses of all by attempting to save too many. There would appear to be some logic in that argument, and I think we must be careful in our examination of those houses we wish to preserve. It is perfectly true that in our present circumstances we cannot preserve all that we would wish to preserve.

Our complaint is that so little progress has been made with the examination and selection of individual houses, with the listing and scheduling of properties which we might all agree it is desirable to retain.

During the war a very good list was got out in three categories, A, B and C, of the finest houses in the country for the purpose of protection in the case of air raids or anything of that sort. That list could, of course, be revised over and over again, but I think it would be wrong to say and for the Government to rest on the proposition that they did not yet know what were the good houses. I think we do.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to wind up the debate, will give us some more information about preservation orders. In this interim period we should at least have been able, while legislation was being prepared, to go further with regard to the preservation of houses which were likely to come under consideration for future treatment and repair so that there might not have been quite so many cases of houses that may have been included in the final list being destroyed.

I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House regard the figure allotted to the Minister as being woefully inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had to accept this figure, but I assume that he argued with the Treasury about it. It is a pity we could not have had this debate earlier so that we might have been able to add vigour to any representations he made to the Treasury, and that there is not present a representative of the Treasury which is really the nigger in the woodpile in this matter.

It may be a little unfair to attack the right hon. Gentleman for what he no doubt desires as much as we do, but I think it is obvious that painfully little can be done with a sum of this size when one considers the cost of repair work and the amount of arrears of repairs, and also the question which may well arise in some cases, that of acquisition.

When the right hon. Gentleman said that he and his right hon. Friends had hoped to find some use by local authorities or other public bodies for buildings that might otherwise be disposed of and pulled down, he seemed to forget that under the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend it might well have been possible to make small grants to local authorities or other public bodies to enable them to take over properties of this kind for very valuable public use.

We are well aware of the problem facing local authorities in matters of this kind. Some of them, in association with the National Trust, have taken over many valuable and delightful properties for educational purposes, but they are confronted all too often with the problem of both upkeep and carrying out the necessary alterations in order to make them suitable for present-day use. I am thinking, for example, of the position of quite a number of local authorities in relation to adult education colleges.

It seems to me that with a comparatively small amount of assistance from the national Exchequer it might have been possible for local authorities to accept buildings which up to now they have had to reject and that here is another example of action which the Government might well have included when considering the new powers to be given to the Ministry in any Measure that might be brought forward.

The sum of £250,000 a year is quite inadequate for the wide variety of purposes that must be considered. It would appear that the Minister has rejected, as my right hon. Friend rejected, the proposal of exemption from tax for reasons which were properly explained at the time by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was clearly understood when the proposals were made that grants, and, possibly, in a limited number of cases, loans might have been made available.

But I think we all felt at the time that where possible the most desirable way of dealing with individual cases was for the property to pass to the National Trust or some other public body and for the necessary State grant to be made to enable that to be done. I quite appreciate that the National Trust have no funds with which to acquire some of the most desirable properties they would wish to acquire because they have no assistance by way of endowment. That is where I think we could have done a great deal more to help.

I hope we shall be told whether or not the Government are proposing to give assistance in this way to the National Trust, the form of assistance they contemplate, and whether they are prepared to consider, as I think they certainly should, the inclusion, in proper cases, of the right of compulsory purchase.

I think I should say at once that the Government are not considering any form of compulsion.

I am sure we all regret to hear that, because there are many cases where compulsory purchase is necessary if the general interest is to be preserved. This would not rule out in suitable cases the possibility of grants and loans to existing owners, but we must appreciate the problem that will certainly be involved where grants and loans are made. It is quite clear that where that is done there must be some form of proper supervision of the use of that money.

Is there not a form of compulsion in that a scheduled building cannot be demolished or altered without obtaining permission?

That is, of course, the field of what we all agree to call "negative protection." While it is no doubt essential to have a preliminary stage of simply throwing some sort of cover to prevent the actual pulling down of a building, we all agree that the real problem is the positive work that has to be done. It is in connection with that positive work that we come up against the difficulty that if the State is to make grants available to existing owners and occupiers of buildings of this character then, clearly, we must ensure the proper use of that money.

That involves very real problems and difficulties. That is one of the reasons why I would feel always that it would be more desirable if the National Trust could be enabled to take over many properties which up to now they have not been able to take over because there has not been the endowment money available. This is a very good example of the valuable work which the Ministry could do if it were given the authority.

Here I might say that I am a little surprised that so little reference has been made to the work done by the National Trust. In recent times there have been attacks upon the Trust in the less responsible quarters of the Press. It should be made clear that we in this House appreciate very much the great work done by the National Trust and are anxious that they should be able to go forward and do more. That is my own view, knowing some of the many properties which the Trust have taken over and the anxiety of the Trust to obtain and their success very often in obtaining suitable use for the buildings, and in not merely continuing them as rather lifeless museums. I do not think that any of us want that. No doubt there are a limited number of properties which may be preserved as museums, but I hope that the number will be as small as possible.

We hope that these buildings may continue to be used by families and for a public purpose as well. One does not necessarily exclude the other. One of the tributes which I should like to pay to the National Trust is that they have succeeded so admirably in so many cases in doing that, and have succeeded in ensuring that property taken over should not only continue to be living tributes to the past but should also mean so much to the present population and, I hope, to the future.

I am glad to have this opportunity of speaking on this subject because, as one of the younger Members, I should like to express my own gratitude to all those responsible for enabling me and many others like me to have the benefit and to enjoy the atmosphere of these lovely houses in desirable circumstances. We want to see that work continue. We believe that the Government ought to make it possible not only for existing work to be continued but for more to be done. We believe that they should enable the National Trust to play a much fuller part than they have been able to do in the past. I believe that the Ministry of Works have done very well by the nation in that particular field, and I am not at all sure of the necessity for building up a new permanent authorising agency such as is suggested in the Gowers Report.

It is my own view, and I believe it would be the view of many of my hon. Friends, that on the whole the recommendation of the Gowers Report does not seem to simplify the administrative problem but rather to add another element to it. One can well see the necessity for an advisory body to the Ministry in any selection of cases, which must be done—for however many we may hope to save, it is not possible to save all, and there is need for skilled advice in the task of selection. I see the possibility of an advisory body being set up, but not a body with the wider powers which the Gowers Committee recommend.

I should like to ask whoever replies to this debate to make clear the views of the Government on the remission of taxation, as it is a matter to which my hon. Friends attach a great deal of importance. I feel that this is, above all, a matter which we should be able to discuss and to pass through as rapidly as possible in this House, as soon as we have the legislation, without any unnecessary party dispute. I am sure that it would ease the position of my hon. Friends if the Government spokesman indicates the views of the Government on this matter. I assume that they are much the same as those expressed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he spoke in an adjournment debate, but we would be glad to have them approved today.

We on this side of the House would do our utmost to facilitate any adequate measures which the Government might bring forward. We certainly do not believe that it is impossible to get a Bill through this Session, if the Government have any real will to do it. We regret bitterly the inadequacy of the proposal put forward today. We are all deeply concerned with the condition of these houses and we hope very much that it will not be too late for the House to influence the Minister of Works, and more particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to do something more adequate and to bring forward proposals within a short time which we could all welcome unanimously.

I am certain that the House is deeply indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) for having proposed and seconded this Motion. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works finds himself in a difficult position. We know that he is sympathetic to our cause. We know that he himself has a keen appreciation of the arts, but he finds himself in this difficulty that, first and foremost, a Bill is in preparation whose outlines he cannot divulge and, secondly, that he has been handicapped in the preparation of that Bill by the severe hand of the Treasury.

I do not intend, therefore, to nag or worry his Department with questions and to demand an answer. But I find myself critical of the proposals put forward. First and foremost, I feel that the sum of £250,000 is by no means adequate. It cannot be accepted as a final calculation. Secondly, I should like to emphasise that, if I understood it rightly, the Gowers Report found that the diversity of authorities dealing with ancient monuments was part of the causes of the trouble.

The Ministry of Works, admirable as it is, was one authority; and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, or the former Ministry of Town and Country Planning, another. The Report, therefore, advised the formation of the Historic Buildings Council. These were its propositions: first, to take over some of the duties of the Government Departments and other organisations at present concerned; secondly, to exercise general supervision over all houses of special architectural or historic interest and their contents of value. The Historic Buildings Council will now be merely advisory, but the Gowers Report laid down the principle that it should possess an executive function. It thought that only by possessing certain powers could it satisfactorily tackle the problem. We have, in fact, a problem before us which demands instant solution. I should like to emphasise once again the point made by hon. Members—that speed is essential. A priceless national heritage is at stake.

I suppose most hon. Members would agree with me that our national genius has found its three highest forms of expression in three separate spheres of the arts—in poetry, landscape painting and domestic architecture. I expect most hon. Members would agree with me that the instinct of our people throughout the centuries to create a home has left wonderful memorials in terms of timber, brick and stone. I suppose most hon. Members would also agree that we owe the survival of these beautiful houses, both great and small, to the fact that our country has not suffered invasion for close on a thousand years. We have a priceless heritage which belongs not only to one class of people but to England, and there- fore to us all. That is why I feel that we must make a special effort to try to solve this problem of our ancient houses.

Do we fully realise, when we talk to our friends from abroad, what a tremendous treasure we possess in this country? Do we realise the artistic worth inside our island shores which no other country possesses to the same degree—the monuments of every age, from the Middle Ages to Elizabeth and the 18th Century; the great castles along the coasts and on the borders of Scotland and Wales; the great Elizabethan houses whose windows replaced the thick medieval walls?

We can picture the life in the England of Elizabeth as the statesmen of those days paced up and down the great walking galleries, discussing the policy of Philip of Spain or perhaps the latest art treasures in Italy. Or again the life in the great 18th Century houses inspired by Lord Burlington, that great figure of the 18th Century, of whom Horace Walpole, not always so kind, paid his tribute. "He possessed every attribute of the artist and a genius, except envy."

Are we going to throw all these treasures away? What has occurred up to the present? It is true that the National Trust has been able, by accepting endowments from private owners, to preserve some of these buildings, but I submit that it is only the better-off estates, the wealthier owners, who have been able to endow their historic homes. It does not help the beautiful home of modest size, which is so typical of our country.

It is true, as other hon. Members have said, that certain great owners of famous houses, such as Chatsworth or Longleat, have been able to maintain them by opening them to the public, but those houses are near important industrial areas. Chatsworth is near the great industrial area of the North, and Longleat is near Bristol and the West. That will not help preserve houses of similar interest in remoter parts.

The fact is that in the past two years many great houses have fallen into decay. I will quote one or two examples sent to me by the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings: Halnaby Hall, near Darlington, a place where Byron spent his honeymoon; Howsham Hall, Yorkshire, with a Jacobean and Georgian interior, belongs to a timber merchant who has cut down many of the trees, and the house is empty and deteriorating; Rufford Abbey, Nottingham, one of the greatest houses in the Midlands, Elizabethan, bought by a demolition contractor who failed to get permission to demolish, and it has now been bought by the Nottinghamshire County Council who have no use for it. It is decaying, although it is very much restored inside. It is still one of the great houses of the Midlands; Rushbrooke Hall, Suffolk, Elizabethan and Georgian, a very fine house which belongs to Lord Rothschild, a man reputed of great wealth but unable to maintain it; Mapledurham House, Reading, a very important Elizabethan house, is empty and decayed; Gosfield Hall, Braintree, a very important house, Elizabethan, Queen Anne and Georgian periods.

Those houses are threatened with decay and therefore with complete extinction. Something must be done. These houses, I submit, have four great contributions to make to our national life. First and foremost, they are a national heritage. Secondly, a tremendous revival of interest in English history and the arts, showed by the numbers of people who flock to great houses, indicates what a great educational value they possess in our national life. Thirdly, there is the important reason that our artists and craftsmen can only maintain their standards of craftsmanship and keep their eye in by seeing works of art of the first quality.

I was horrified, when talking to some of the workmen engaged on rebuilding this House of Commons of ours to hear that many of their skilled craftsmen were very old, some over 80. Had the order been given for the rebuilding of this House 10 or 15 years from now, it would not have been possible to obtain the same standards of wood carving and stone masonry.

Lastly, there is the material point of view. We are always desperately in need of foreign exchange, of visitors from abroad. These houses of ours form one of the greatest attractions to bring tourists to this country. They are a natural asset and they must be preserved. I hope this House will express its feeling that they cannot be allowed to go on decaying, and that more must be done to preserve them.

Alas, the days have gone when, I suppose, one could come to this House with a wonderful speech, having paced up and down some great Palladian library, evolving fine phrases recalling the moods of the great orators of antiquity, or spending hours in finding the right words to fit into a mosaic of verbal perfection. This age of the juke box offers neither the time nor the space nor the silence for that. Today all of us, who treasure our national heritage, should come together and express our feeling, that though we perhaps ourselves do not attain the standards of our ancestors, we should be ashamed to leave the finger of accusation pointed against us in coming centuries, for not having done all we could to protect and preserve these architectural masterpieces of the past.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) has managed to achieve great skill in oratory even if he did not have the benefit of Palladian arcades in which to practise it.

We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) for enabling us to have this discussion which, like some other discussions on a Friday, has the great advantage of being quite outside party politics. This is a subject which we can discuss without having suddenly to look round at our neighbours and think, "Are they on our side or on the other side?", something which we can discuss as a House of Commons regardless of party.

I was very disappointed in the Minister's speech, although not as disappointed as, I think, the Minister was himself. I thought he was a very unhappy man as he spoke. I hope I am wrong, but, so far as I can gather, he told us that a small sum of money will be available and that a few houses may be preserved. He has, as it were, held a pistol at our heads. He has said, "Here is a sum of money. We can have a few houses properly preserved or a lot of houses imperfectly preserved. Take it or leave it. What do you want?" What we want is more money, an adequate sum of money to ensure that sufficient houses are preserved.

I know there is a great need of economy, but let us put the matter in its proper perspective—in the perspective of the other sums of money that we are spending. We are spending money on such varied matters as defence, health and education. I do not suggest that these sums should be reduced, but when we place them beside the amount available for this purpose, it is quite infinitesimal.

I understand from the Minister that even this small sum must wait on Parliamentary time. Heaven forbid that I should be controversial about Parliamentary time. I could mention one or two Bills which might be dropped, but I do not propose to do so today. But a Bill which is likely to command the assent of the whole House is not likely to take up a very great deal of Parliamentary time, and that is something which is strongly in favour of the introduction of such a Bill at an early date.

"The Times" has some very wise words to say on this subject. It says:

"It was possible to argue that something quite different should be done to meet the urgent need, but not that nothing should be done at all."

Although the proposals which have been mentioned by the Minister cannot be said to be nothing at all; although they are definite proposals and although he can say that they have been brought forward by this Government and not the previous Government, they are still so small that they amount to very little more than nothing. I hope that he will reconsider them and see whether, after having heard this debate and the unanimous views of hon. Members who have taken part in it, he can go fortified by them and approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor again to see whether he can get some more money.

Let us put the destruction of buildings against the destruction of certain other things which are of great value in our lives. Suppose it were suddenly announced that a number of famous British pictures—let us say, the pictures of Turner, Constable, Gainsborough and Reynolds—were to be placed on a bonfire and destroyed. Imagine the outcry there would be. There would be no difficulty in getting people to produce at once the sum of money necessary to save them. It would be said, "Here is wanton destruction of something which is of value to the nation." But because the destruction of buildings is not so easily visible, because it happens gradually year by year and is not as spectacular a destruction as a bonfire, nobody bothers about it.

I would say that it is of far greater significance to us if one of our own buildings, created by our own architects, is destroyed than if the National Gallery lose possession of a famous picture painted, perhaps, by an Italian or Dutch artist or, indeed, anyone other than a British artist. We know the outcry there would be if, for example, the National Gallery were suddenly forced to sell a large number of pictures and send them abroad; but how can that be compared with the actual physical destruction of buildings which are just as good as many pictures, which have been created by our own people, and which symbolise our way of life?

It has been said that our way of life has changed. It has been said that it was wrong for these buildings to have been put up and that they deprived a large number of people of money which they should have had to help them lead a better way of life. It may be that a great building, standing as it often does in beautiful surroundings, has sucked the life blood out of the countryside in the past and has removed money which might otherwise have helped many of the poor people living around it.

That is an argument; but there the buildings are, for better or for worse. Whether or not they should have been put there, there they are and, as we all agree, they are a priceless heritage. I hope that in days to come people will be able to visit them and will say of us that we were conscious of their beauty and conscious of what people in other ages have given us.

Perhaps I should have admitted earlier that I have a certain interest in this matter, in so far as I lived in a very beautiful house which was much too big for me to afford to maintain. Fortunately, a very wealthy buyer has been able to purchase and maintain it. Today, also, I happen to live in a smaller house which is scheduled, architecturally.

We shall be judged by future generations on what we have done. Are they going to say of us that we were conscious of all that had been given us in the past and that while developing modern archi- tecture—as I am so glad the Minister said—and seeing that modern architects had a chance of showing what they could do, we preserved these historic buildings. I hope that will be the case; but instead future generations may see vast open spaces, derelict because these buildings have been wantonly destroyed, and instead of marvelling at our appreciation they may marvel at our stupidity. We may be known as the generation that let our own countryside fall into decay—a generation which did not know what its forefathers had done for it.

I think this debate has been a very useful one, if only for the reason that it has enabled my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to give in brief outline the sort of legislation which the Government have in mind on this subject. But, like the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), I hope the House this afternoon will try to get this problem into its right perspective.

What we are discussing now is part of a much wider problem, namely, the preservation of all buildings of historic or architectural value, whether they be guildhalls, tithe barns, churches or country houses large and small. When we are talking about the English country house it is a mistake always to assume that we have in mind the great palaces which are very well known. Up and down the countryside there are large numbers of small manor houses of great architectural and, in some cases, historic value, which are equally worthy of preservation.

Each category has its own problem; but whether it be a church, a guildhall or a house, each is part of the whole problem. I was very disappointed with what my right hon. Friend said in relation to the amount of money which was likely to be available this year. It will be a bitter condemnation of our generation if it can be said that in this Year of Grace we could only afford £250,000 to help to preserve some of the most beautiful specimens of British domestic architecture.

I think my right hon. Friend was very optimistic in what he thought he could do with this sum. If I understood him correctly, he said that he thought that with the £250,000 he would be able to preserve 50 selected houses in the various categories. I do not think he can do anything of the sort. I think the most he can do with the £250,000 will be to prop up, so to speak, the tottering fabric of some of these houses for another two or three years. It is simply buying time. I hope there is still time for second and wiser thoughts to prevail and that the £250,000 will be only a beginning.

I cannot help feeling that the cheapest way of dealing with the problem, from the point of view of the Exchequer, is to do something to enable the owner himself, where possible, to continue to live in the house, because the owner and his family can give a degree of devoted attention and care to the task of looking after the contents of their own home which no Ministry of Works official or caretaker, however skilled, could possibly give. I also feel that it is worth a great effort to enable the owner to go on living in the house where possible, for the simple reason that as long as the house is a home, it is a living entity. It is not a series of impersonal spaces containing museum pieces; it is something alive. It is of great value, in my opinion, not only to the visitors who come to see these houses, but to the nation as a whole, that as many as possible should be preserved as homes.

May I say a few words about tax relief? I do not entirely agree with the arguments, although I understand them, that if we increase the tax relief to owners of houses of historic or architectural importance we are setting up a privileged category. I believe that both former Chancellors of the Exchequer and also my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury took this view. Indeed, in the last debate on the subject, which was on the Adjournment on 1st August, 1952, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said:

"But, in general, it would cut right across the accepted canons of taxation if special tax adjustments were to be made in favour of individuals by reason of the fact that they happened to be the proprietors or inhabitants of beautiful or ancient houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 2020.]

But special tax adjustments are already made in respect of anybody who happens to be able to set off against his Schedule A expenditure incurred in his maintenance claim. Is the maintenance claim to be regarded as setting up a special privileged category? As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) has said, a ridiculous anomaly exists. If the exterior of a house is damaged, the repair is a justifiable charge to maintenance. If the roof of a house by Vanbrugh falls in, the cost of replacing it is a charge on maintenance against Schedule A and is subject to tax relief over five years, but this relief does not apply to the cost of cleaning paintings by Gainsborough or other artist or to the repair of tapestry or the furniture under the roof. I regard that as a ridiculous anomaly.

In conclusion, I regret the delay which has already occurred in grappling with a problem which becomes increasingly urgent as months go by. I understand the arguments about the difficulty of finding Parliamentary time; there is something in them. But I beg my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply, to take note of this: as every month goes by the problem assumes greater magnitude. In the long run delay will involve the State in a far larger expenditure if we are to pay attention to the preservation of houses of architectural or historic value. Indeed, I believe the position to be so acute that the sooner even the £250,000 is available the better. I cannot think of any situation which more perfectly proves the wisdom of that old Victorian nursery proverb. "A stitch in time saves nine."

I should like to endorse the feeling which has been expressed from every side of the House of disappointment at the sum of money mentioned—£250,000 —for the preservation of the great houses, the small houses, the fine architectural houses of this country. I do not think we can over-emphasise that if this sum is all that is to be given for this preservation work, the problem will not be scratched. We shall make no dent at all. Indeed, one might say as an example of its paucity, that the only thing which might be preserved in a year by the Minister of Works would be 500 mantelpieces. That is all this money would cover.

We should try to persuade the Minister to increase this allocation if we wish to make any improvement in the situation or to arrest the decline which is taking place today. We have had an abandonment of the intentions of the Gowers Report; none of them can conceivably be carried out with this sum of money. We have had an expression of the opinion of the Minister of Works rather than a presentation of what can be done to carry out the recommendations of the Gowers Report.

Perhaps I may leave what the Minister has said and try to make a few suggestions as to what can best be achieved in the near future. I believe that we have in this country today the last practical chance of preserving these fine houses in their entity. Even when houses themselves remain, parks are being cut down and gardens are going to seed; and unless drastic action is taken immediately, the entity itself will disappear.

Pictures, works of art, are exempted from death duties, but the houses themselves are not, so that we have the extraordinary idea of preserving what is in the houses and yet not preserving the houses themselves. I think we should press for more tax relief—not direct aid but tax relief. It is not a question of allowing a privileged class to live in such houses. This scheme merely provides for caretakers so that the goods things in these houses are maintained and not allowed to deteriorate.

I will say nothing beyond that except to endorse the general opinion that this sum of money is by no means adequate to meet the situation. It will in no way help to arrest the decline in the condition of these houses. I can only repeat that this is the last chance we have of preserving the fine houses in this country as entities.

I find myself in agreement with almost everything which has been said in the debate and particularly with what was said by my hon. Friends the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lamb-ton). I want to make a modest plea to the Government that they should implement the recommendations of the Gowers Report, if not in toto at least in a modified form whereby they can assist owners of occupiers of historic houses or houses of great architectural beauty or even houses with recognised political or literary associations.

Implementation is long overdue. I do not see how that can be done unless we resort to some means of tax relief. Therefore, I think the problem is more simple than as it was put to us by the Minister, because I have yet to be convinced that that the Bill which he hinted at so sketchily is necessary. Many people in this country want an extension of maintenance claims and tax rebates. My noble Friend used the word "caretakers," but I would substitute "trustees" as a description of the people living in these houses.

My sympathy is for the living country house, still inhabited by the family, not for the dead or dying country house, sad as that may be. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) mentioned Rolls Park, which I pass several times a week. A sadder sight can hardly be imagined, but there is another house two miles away which is in an even worse condition, because it has fallen down. We want to stop that sort of thing from happening in future, for the living country houses of this country have long been the admiration, the envy and the study of the whole world, because the way of life which existed and still exists in them exists nowhere else. Not only that, but a whole literature has sprung up about them.

It is up to us as trustees of the nation to prevent any further decay. It is too late, as well as impossible, with this small sum, to try to save the derelict houses. We can only try to maintain the living ones. As we live in a practical age, the point may be worth making that these country houses are "dollar-earners." They must bring in larger sums of money from abroad every year than the quarter of a million pounds announced today.

During the war we lost many beautiful buildings, some due directly to bombing and some indirectly to war-time taxation and requisitioning. There is, therefore, all the more reason to preserve what we have. I am not so alarmed about the few big houses to which the Minister indirectly referred, Blenheim, Warwick, Longleat and the others, because a solution—at any rate, half a solution—has been found by opening them to the public and already they enjoy some taxation concessions.

The houses in which I am most interested are the small country houses of great beauty, the manor houses, frequently remote and inaccessible and almost always uncomfortable. The people who live in those ought to be helped. If we do not help them we are indirectly dispersing the collections inside these houses because the people who are clinging rather pathetically to their homes often denude them of their valuable possessions, selling them to America and elsewhere in order to preserve the fabric of their houses for a little longer.

One or two speakers have referred to the anomalies of taxation. Pictures, furniture and tapestries are exempt from death duties as long as they are not sold. That has been an accepted principle for a long time, but is it not absurd that the expense of cleaning pictures and repairing tapestries should not be exempt from Income Tax? It does not make sense to exempt them from death duties, but not from Income Tax when they are only being preserved for the benefit of the country. I believe that interest in this question is growing. One has only to see the thousands of people who visit those big houses which are open already. That alone shows that it has aroused the interest, I might say the conscience of the country, though the latter has been awakened to a less degree.

If we do something by way of legislation or by concessions in the form of maintenance claims, I hope that the conditions laid down will not be too rigid because, if they are, we shall only be defeating our own ends. People who visit houses, whether these are big or small, are interested in the way of life of the owner, even in his eccentricities if he has any, and the house that becomes a museum or half a museum soon loses its flavour. I could cite many examples.

In any maintenance claim or tax rebate I would include gardens of exceptional beauty or interest when attached to historic houses. The National Gardens Scheme has done magnificent work in causing many hundreds of houses to be opened which otherwise might be shut; it has raised large sums of money for charity; it has given pleasure to thousands of people who visit these gardens, indeed, it has helped everybody except the unfortunate owner, who must have the skill, patience and money to keep them up. If there is any extension of the scheme, these gardens might be considered—as is hinted at in the report.

I hope the Government will take a sympathetic line over this problem. The Opposition have already shown that they are prepared to do so. I think that some form of maintenance claim or tax rebate would be far better than a Bill, which does not meet the peculiar requirements of one of our richest heritages.

When the Prime Minister announced during the debate on the Address last November that we were likely to have a Bill to save our historic houses, not a voice was raised in protest. On the principle and desirability of that Bill there was no disagreement on either side of the House or even between individuals in the country. Therefore it was a good thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) has raised the subject today because it has given us an opportunity to put before the Government our own suggestions before the publication of the Bill in the hope that here and there they may find a point or two with which they are in sufficient sympathy to incorporate it in their own proposals.

It was with those motives and expectations that I and many of my hon. Friends entered this Chamber at 11 o'clock this morning to hear the Minister announce that a sum of £250,000 is to be devoted to carrying out the object to which the Prime Minister himself has given his blessing. It has been obvious from the speeches made this morning that there has been universal disappointment as a result of the announcement of that paltry figure, and I urge the Minister of Works and his Parliamentary Secretary to place before the Chancellor the arguments which many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have made in an attempt to get this sum increased before It is incorporated in a Statute of the Realm.

These houses are irreplaceable. They cannot be built again or imitated or replaced by others of our own generation of equal architectural merit. We have lost not only a certain taste, which produced these houses during those three miraculous centuries between the reigns of the first Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria, but we have lost also the private financial ability to put up and maintain such houses. It is quite true that our taste ran out before our money and that during the Victorian age our great grandfathers did great harm to these houses as well as putting up many monstrously ugly palaces of their own, but the best of the houses of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries remain, both great and small, and it is with those that we are concerned today.

It is not only because these houses are owned by people who no longer have the necessary financial resources that they are falling into disrepair. It is because since the Tudor age these houses were rarely built mainly for strength. They are delicate works of art, and were built for comfort, for grace and, in some cases, for display; and after the passage of several hundred years, inevitably they begin to grow weak and are in need of external assistance.

These same houses, which may be compared to living, growing beings, have passed their maturity at the very time when conditions are least favourable for their survival. They are not only weakened by the passage of years. In the war, we had examples of houses being damaged by requisition or by bomb blast. We have seen others pass, owing to the break up of family tradition, into hands which have not always cherished them with the care which they deserve and need. We have also seen, for the first time, perhaps, in their whole history, these houses subject to dry rot, subsidence and undermining. For all these reasons, coming together at this one moment, they are in need of help now more than ever they have been in the past; and if this help is not given, the opportunity to save these houses will never recur. It is for that reason that I implore my right hon. Friend the Minister to do his best to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look once more at the figure of £250,000.

Some of my hon. Friends have already mentioned the number of houses which are in danger. In their last report, the National Trust say that of the 320 houses which they, together with the Ministry of Works, listed in 1939 as being houses of prime importance, some dozen have already been destroyed and many others are in great danger. I feel that the position is, in fact, very much worse than was reported six months ago.

In a new list, I see that the number of houses totally demolished since 1945 is 25. The number of houses which are scheduled to be demolished is nine, and this includes a house like Fawley Court, Henley-on-Thames, which must be familiar to many hon. Members for its association with the Royal Regatta. With regard to houses which are listed as ruined, abandoned or in danger, the total is 61.

I shall not trouble the House with reading out a long list of names and periods, but will merely refer to some of the notes given in a tragically, pointedly, telegraphic style, which describe the present condition of these houses: "Ruinous," "Tenements; badly deteriorating," "Timber merchant in possession," "Abandoned and ruinous," "Stripped of fittings," "Abandoned," "Empty, land sold," "Now in great danger," "Practically collapsed," "Garden a caravan site," and so on, for 61 houses.

We are facing a problem which will, of course, cost many millions of pounds if we are able to put it completely straight. Our most pressing task is, surely, to set up the Historic Buildings Council, which the Gowers Committee recommended; and their first task, concurrently with the first aid which is needed to save the best of these houses, is to draw up the list, of which my hon. Friend spoke, which will call the attention of the public and of the Government to the most historic and valuable of all our houses which are in danger of destruction and in need of preservation. That list must be made.

Some people have said that the list already exists. It does exist, but in so many forms, forms which are sometimes contradictory, overlapping and scattered, that it is impossible for the public to know which of these houses falls under the protection of the State and which does not. Consequently, in many cases not enough warning has been given that they are about to be destroyed.

The Historic Buildings Council should be drawn from those who not only have the will to preserve our houses, but have the knowledge in terms of stone and timber, in terms of law and finance, and in terms of personal experience and architectural taste, to achieve those results. They should not only have regard to the great mansions of the country. They should have regard to the small town house, the small country house, the mill and the row of cottages. They should not neglect those which, perhaps, have no architectural merit; they must include houses which may be of surpassing ugliness, such as Haworth Parsonage or Shaw's Corner, but which happen to be associated with great figures of our literary or political past. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, the Historic Buildings Council should be controlled by the Ministry of Works, and through the Minister their activities and expenditure should be subject to the control of the House.

When we come to consider how we could spend even the small sum which my right hon. Friend has announced, we should have regard to two principles. First, every possible alternative to State aid must be considered before that aid is granted. An owner should consider whether it is not possible, through economies in his personal expenditure, to save the money which is necessary to maintain his own house. He should consider whether it would not be possible to do so by converting part of his house into flats, which could be let off without destroying the character of that house, or by allowing part of his garden or park to be turned into an allotment or market garden, which would result in commercial profit; and whether he could not open his house to the public, who would pay a fee. Only if all these possible solutions failed, and it could be proved that without State assistance the house and garden would deteriorate, should that assistance be given.

The second principle is that reasonable public access to the house is an essential where assistance has been given. By "reasonable" I do not mean that the owner should be put to no discomfort or inconvenience whatever. Indeed, the slight loss of privacy that he would suffer is a form of interest payment upon the loan or gift that he receives from the Government to help him to maintain his house. On the other hand, it should not be suggested that the State had become the owner of the house which had been thus assisted, nor should the public be allowed to believe that they have the right to wander where and when they will, simply because the house is scheduled for assistance. Nor should the owner himself regard such visitors as intruders, because they are there by right almost as much as he is himself.

I welcome with very great pleasure the announcement which was made in the speech of my right hon. Friend that chattels, associated pictures, furniture, and so on, should be given to the nation in lieu of Estate Duty. This will keep inside our greatest houses many objects which might otherwise be dispersed to the United States and elsewhere. All that I ask is that this provision should be extended to the parks and gardens, which are just as much a part of some of our greatest houses as the chattels and other objects which they contain.

We in this country have had three periods of iconoclasm. We had the period when our monasteries were destroyed. We had the Cromwellian period, when our castles were destroyed, and we had the Victorian age when many of our houses were ruined. Are we now entering into a fourth such phase, at a time when, paradoxically enough, our taste has revived and an awareness of the beauty of our heritage is present in everybody's mind, but when, at the same time, we are seeing day by day more of these objects of veneration and respect disappearing, never to be recovered again?

Every country in Europe has made some sort of provision except ourselves for the circumstances which we are discussing today. Even during the worst moments of the French Revolution notices were put outside the chateaux imploring their own people to protect, as they put it, "These national treasures." It is in exactly the same sense, at a time which is perhaps somewhat milder, but in circumstances just as urgent, that we make our appeal to our Government today.

Before I say anything else I should declare a personal interest in the subject and I should also like to say how much I support what has been said by the last four speakers.

The question is how to preserve those houses of historic interest which are still in existence. We have been told by a number of hon. Members that many of these houses are deteriorating and in danger. It seems to me that in facing a problem of this size it is no use having single way of dealing with it. There must be many alternatives which should be adopted to meet the needs of the various houses in their individual cases.

One of the special delights which these houses have is that all are different and represent individual examples of architecture of this country and at different periods. They have "grown up," I think it is true to say, in almost every case and practically none of them is in the condition in which the builder left it. Some have improved in the course of time; some, we think, have been damaged by later alterations, particularly those made by our Victorian ancestors. But, however we look at them, I think we have to acknowledge that so far as bricks and mortar or stone can be they are "alive" and constantly developing.

We want to see that continue, but I think there is a grave danger that if we have a council responsible for saying yes or no too rigidly to future developments we shall find them following a pattern, which is something we surely should avoid. What we want is different houses with different points of interest, representing different aspects which are especially attractive and representative of their period. That seems one of the reasons for retaining private ownership and the opportunity for the individual private owner to put his ideas into practice.

Many of these houses have already passed into other ownership. Some have gone to the National Trust. Today, we are not concerned with what happens to those. Some have passed to other purposes and are now used as institutions, or schools. In many cases that works out as a very satisfactory solution. What we are really concerned with now is preserving those houses which are still in private ownership and I want to say a word about the position of the owner. because I think little has been said of him today.

It is true that our principal object is to preserve the house itself, but the owner, often at great personal sacrifice, has maintained that house to this day. He has special ties of his own with that building. It may well have been built by one of his ancestors; successive forebears may have improved and developed it. In other times of stress, such as the Civil War, they may have managed to keep them going in exactly the same way and under similar conditions as private owners are endeavouring to maintain their houses at present.

That long history and intimate connection with the house has to be taken into account. I do not think there is one owner who is thinking of some special benefit, except that he is anxious to retain for himself and, if possible. if taxation allows it, for his successors, the affiliation of his family to his family home. It has already been suggested that that adds an interest to the house itself and I support that view; I think it does.

What the owner wants is some means by which money may be available for maintaining not only the structure but the interior decoration and perhaps, assistance to maintain the contents of that building. It has been suggested that this can be achieved by means of grants from the Ministry of Works. That is a possible system and, in some cases, it might work, but I suggest that that should not be the only way. There should be a number of alternative systems to be adopted in different cases.

There is. of course, the possibility that more houses will pass to the National Trust. We welcome the action of those owners who feel disposed to do that. There are some owners still in possession of considerable sums of capital. I wonder whether it would be possible for them to allocate in perpetuity to a house a lump sum, the income and, if necessary, part of the capital. of which could only be used for the maintenance of that house and its surrounding amenities—its garden, perhaps, and the immediate land around it. That seems a not unreasonable proposal.

It is true that the Exchequer would ultimately suffer in that they would not recoup the same sum in death duties, but. as we have heard, the Treasury are to make grants towards the maintenance of houses. Surely this is an alternative way of approaching the problem. By this means we would ensure that a sum is permanently attached to the maintenance of a particular building of historical interest. For that reason the suggestion is worth considering.

There is also the possibility, which has been mentioned, of making some further allowance out of taxable income. I know that it has been suggested that this is not a scheme by which the Treasury are affected, but surely it is possible to use the ordinary scheme by which a maintenance allowance is made against an estate for the upkeep of a house and allow an even larger sum for this purpose.

It may be that if adopted it would involve a sum exceeding the £250,000 which the Government are prepared to allocate for this purpose, but surely it is not beyond the scope of the Treasury organisation to deal with that. It seems to me that it would work very fairly and there would be no chance of owners taking an unreasonable advantage of such a system.

It has to be realised that certain owners will not wish to accept a block grant towards the maintenance of their houses if they can possibly help it. They would feel differently than they feel over assistance in taxation relief—that they are receiving charity for the maintenance of their own persons in the building—and that would react very strongly against the scheme. I do hope that before a Bill is produced consideration will be given to the question of having alternative schemes.

I should like to say a word or two about the cost of maintenance. The Minister has given some figures with reference to some of these buildings which are under the care of his own Department. We all realise that the Ministry carries out a very fine job in this respect, but I wonder whether it carries it out as economically as it is possible for a private owner to do. For instance, all the schemes have to be carefully vetted by various officials and the work is superintended by more officials than would be employed by a private individual. I think it would appear, if we took a comparison, that the maintenance costs of houses in private hands are lower than those of the Ministry.

It seems to me that there are two reasons for this. The owner is on the spot. he takes a decision and it is carried out as part of his general maintenance plans for his property; it is done at the most convenient time. usually worked in with other business. Further, he has his own pocket to consider, and we all tend to be more careful when spending our own money than when spending other people's, however honest and straight we are. For that reason cheaper results are obtained by leaving maintenance in the hands of the private owner. I believe that is probably even truer when one compares the cost to the private owner with the cost which the National Trust finds itself faced with; it has the same problem of inspectors, etc. In the case of doubt on the part of the Treasury as to whether maintenance has been properly carried out within permitted limits by the owner, it is easy to extend existing safeguards which the Treasury have to cover this point of undue expenditure.

This means that it is necessary to have not just this one Bill which, as has been suggested, covers a very small section of what is required but also a simple alteration of the appropriate Section of the Finance Act to cover the wider problem satisfactorily. I hope that a rather wider view will be taken by the Minister, when he introduces his Bill, than he has suggested is likely.

The ground has been well covered by previous speakers, and I wish to add only a few sentences. It has not been made clear by all previous speakers, and I think it should be made clear, that it is an express provision of the Gowers Report that

"if financial help is given, whether by tax relief or by grant or loan, it should normally be one of the conditions that the house is shown to the public."

I am quoting paragraph 163 of the Gowers Report. The whole population will or can get the benefit of this expenditure or tax relief. That is also the rule of the National Trust with its houses. I have thought it desirable to restate that as it may be that somebody reading this debate might not otherwise have appreciated that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) has had an unusual experience in moving this Motion. There can seldom have been occasions when there has been so general a concensus of opinion in support of a Motion as in the case of the one which has been moved today. I only regret that the Motion has been moved at a time. not through any fault of my hon. Friend, when the Government are not yet in a position to state how they will come to the help of these historic houses. There is indeed nothing I can add to the speech made by my right hon. Friend, which was, as the House is aware, a very careful and guarded statement of what the Government are hoping to do.

We shall be encouraged by the general line which has been adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite in feeling that the Bill should be an agreed measure. That will of course go some way towards overcoming the difficulty of finding Parliamentary time. The hon. Member for Newcastle - upon - Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) referred to the possibility of some contribution to local authorities to help them in adapting houses which they were able to take over. That is one of the matters which we have under consideration at the present time. I hope that this debate today will contribute to the happy result which we all hope will come about—that this Government and this Parliament will be able to preserve the masterpieces of the aristocratic age of the past for the enjoyment of the democratic generations of the present and the future.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could reply at least to the point I raised. I asked particularly whether he could say, with regard to tax remissions, which is a matter of great interest to Members in all parts of the House—very much to Members in this part of the House—if he still takes the view expressed by his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in reply to a debate on the Adjournment that the Government would not feel able to accept that part of the recommendation of the Gowers Report. That is certainly the view which we on this side of the House take.

I have noted the point of view of the hon. Gentleman, which was also the point of view of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), but every method of giving effect to these objectives is still under consideration by the Government.

May I put a further point? I asked whether it would be possible for the hon. Gentleman to give us any information as to the number of protection orders that have actually been issued, because it is not only the problem of future legislation—which we are very anxious to see—but it is also the problem of what to do in the meantime. Can we not get at least more administrative action to speed up the actual protection of houses which may at this very moment be going out of use or even being pulled down?

The hon. Member will appreciate that these preservation orders are of a purely negative kind. It is not possible to compel a private owner to spend any money. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to use those powers unless there is money made available by which necessary repairs can be carried out.

I am very surprised at the brevity of the hon. Gentleman's reply to the debate. It is not often one complains that speeches are too short in this House, but really this was hardly treating with reasonable courtesy the speakers on his own side of the House, as well as on this side, who followed the Minister. I heard two speeches which were delivered with great knowledge, and we were entitled to expect that speeches would be delivered with great knowledge on this subject, by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) and the noble Lord for Bournemouth, West (Viscount Cranborne). Not a single word was said by the hon. Gentleman in reply to the points that were put forward. I would hope that the promise made by the Minister that we should have from the Parliamentary Secretary a reply to the subsequent speeches will be honoured on this occasion.

I am quite sure that the two hon. Members on this side of the House to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred will not think that I was guilty of any discourtesy to them. I certainly did not mean any discourtesy, either to them or to the House. I have listened to every speech with the closest attention, and the points which have been made will be considered by my right hon. Friend and by the Government. We have made it plain that this matter is under the most careful and anxious consideration. Hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite know how embarrassing it is to be asked questions. especially by those best informed on the subject, at a time when the Government are not yet able to announce a decision.

May I ask one question? Am I right in thinking that, although no definite proposals have been made, a definite sum has been fixed? Or may we take it that the sum of money available may also be considered in the light of the discussions today?

My right hon. Friend announced to the House the figure which has been made available by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Minister did say that the Parliamentary Secretary would reply to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, apart from a number made by hon. Members on this side of the House, the burden of which was that the amount of money to be made available is totally inadequate. The hon. Gentleman says the matter is still under consideration. May we have an assurance that the representations made in this debate about the total inadequacy of this figure of £250,000 will also be considered by the Government before the proposed Bill is introduced?

Just to give the hon. Member time to think about that, may I, with the leave of the House, put this point? Surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying now that he cannot make at least the same statement which his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made in the Adjournment debate; or is he, as it were, withdrawing even from the relatively small point put before the House at that time? Surely he is able to say something about that?

I have said that the Government are very glad there has been this debate and these expressions of opinion, and that the whole matter will be considered. There is no doubt that my right hon. Friend would be glad if a larger sum had been made available. The attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be drawn to the views which have been expressed. But beyond that it is impossible for me to go. It is not customary that on a Friday afternoon there should be two speeches from the Government Front Bench.

I beg to move,

That this House notes the work already done by the National Parks Commission, urges that more active steps should be taken to implement the National Parks Act and regrets that lack of staff and finance is impeding the efforts of Park Boards and Committees to protect their areas and to ensure their fullest educational and recreational use.

I am fortunate to be raising a subject which is related in some degree to the one we have been discussing previously. I hope we shall be able to obtain an encouraging report from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government about the work going on. Some of my hon. Friends and I feel that we should have an opportunity of asking for further information, and of discussing the information we have already received from the National Parks Commission. The Commission has now been set up for some little time, and we have received from them three annual reports.

I do not wish to use this opportunity to revive old arguments, but to put forward some practical and positive proposals. I was fortunate during this last summer to be able to spend some time seeing quite a bit of the work of the National Parks administration in America. While I would be the first to admit that the whole background in America is widely different from that in this country, I feel that their great experience in this field has a certain bearing on our own problems—indeed rather more than initially I should have expected. I hope the House will not complain if I raise some of the points which were put to me, and which I gained from my experience in America, and which could well be applied in some degree in this country.

Our great problem here is to ensure that there is a reasonable understanding of what the National Parks Act was designed to secure, and it falls very much upon the National Parks Commission to do its utmost to secure the greatest publicity possible, not only for what is being accomplished but for general future objectives. Many of us have been disappointed that up till now there has been so little publicity initiated by the Commission. We have had three of the annual reports which the Commission is required to make to the Minister and to the House. We have had the publication of the "Country Code," which I am glad to note from the last annual report has had a wide circulation and has been used in schools. I also understand that one film strip is either in preparation or has already been prepared, but that is about all.

The Parliamentary Secretary will realise that if we are to encourage public interest in the work of the National Parks Commission we need a great deal more publicity than that. It does not require to be very expensive. What is needed is material which may be used by the host of voluntary bodies which exist in the country. We need more than one film strip, and also a great deal of literature to illustrate and explain the problems arising in National Park areas, or areas likely to be designated as such. Information could also be given to the general public about the way they may be encouraged to make better use of these outstanding areas.

No doubt the National Parks Commission have done their best. I know of the very real limitations, but to my mind they have been far too self-effacing. That may sound rather a strange attack to make on such a body but I wish they would recognise that unless they can undertake more educational work of this sort they will encourage those organisations—of which there are some in the country—who, because of misunderstanding, may resent or oppose some of the proposals of the Commission. A lot of opposition to the Commissoon arises from lack of understanding rather than from objection to the main proposals themselves. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether there is any prospect of the Commission doing more in preparing material for general distribution to schools and voluntary organisations of all kinds.

Another matter where the Commission could concern itself with a little more active work is that of sign-posting. One of the problems with National Parks is to create some sense of their entity. These areas have been used in one form or another for centuries. They are not like the American national parks where the areas are relative wilderness and where the routes into them are limited. The attraction of these areas in this country is partly caused by the contrast between man's work and natural beauty. It is difficult for people to appreciate when they are actually in a National Park and when they are not.

If, as I think we ought, we are to expect better conduct from the general public in these areas then there must be some way of informing them when they are in them. I suggest that, in addition to the most attractive signs which have been designed for the Pennine Way, the Commission should tackle the problem of securing some national form of sign which could be used to a limited extent—we do not want to see a whole rash of signs all over the countryside—to advise people that they are entering into National Park areas.

I should suggest that we should have signs similar to those used by the Forestry Commission. They use attractive simple signs, as do the National Trust. We need something easily recognisable as designating a National Park area. It might well be possible to use a common form of signpost of this sort in replacement for many of the rather ugly sign boards of one kind or another which exist today in some of these areas. I do not advocate an increase in the number of signs so much as a replacement of some of the existing signs.

I should also like to know what further work is being done with regard to designation of National Park areas. The Commission gave a lot of information in their last annual report about the areas which have already been designated or are about to be designated. I should like to know what are the prospects of carrying on with the proposal for the designation of the Yorkshire Dales as a National Park; what are the prospects in connection with the Brecon Beacons, another most important area, and the area of the Norfolk Broads which is a different type of area from the rest but in connection with which there are urgent reasons for action to he taken quickly.

It is most important that the silting up which is going on in the Broads, and which is destroying some of the beauty and value of the area, should be dealt with. It would seem desirable that that should come within the responsibility of the Commission or a special board for that area.

I hope that there is no feeling in the Ministry or the Commission that, because of the work already done, matters can now be left to rest. I hope that it will be accepted that there is great anxiety that they should carry on and complete the further stages of designation and then tackle some of the other important problems. We know the difficulties which the Commission has had to face. We know some of the objections which have been raised. As I have criticised the Ministry and the Minister often enough, I should like to pay the tribute to him that I am glad to see that he has approved and authorised the designation of the North York Moors as a National Park. There had been some fears that that might not happen, and I am glad that they have not proved correct.

I hope that we may have some assurance about the Yorkshire Dales which must be one of the most lovely areas of the country. There is a great deal which could be done there within the administration of the Commission to ensure fuller use and accommodation. These are problems which can best be tackled once the administration is set up.

A further point in relation to the Commission is that we have not heard much yet about the question of access areas within the parks. I appreciate that it is felt that this may not be necessary in the Lake District, for example. I understand that the board there have already said that they do not believe that this procedure is necessary as access is so widespread already. The problem does not arise there, but there are areas, of which I imagine that the Peak District is one, where a definition of access areas would be of real importance. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something about that when he replies.

I should like to turn to the problem of the park boards and committees which have already been set up. I said that I did not want to go back over the old ground but I should like to repeat that I and my hon. Friends stand very much on the same ground as the Commission with regard to the form of local administration of these parks. We agree wholeheartedly with the comment of the Commission when it says:

"We ourselves hold most strongly the view —which has been held by all others before us who have studied this problem—that, short of an organisation such as was contemplated by the Hobhouse Committee, the Joint Planning Board, with its own whole-time planning staff, is the most appropriate and serviceable administrative instrument. As, with the designation of Parks, we have come nearer and nearer to the practical problems of administration, we have only been confirmed in this view."

It is regrettable that that view has not been wholeheartedly supported by the Minister. No doubt there will be occasion later to discuss that feature again. I hope that the Minister will bear the point in mind.

There is no doubt that the area in which most preparatory work has been done is that of the Peak District. Undoubtedly there is there a most efficient and hardworking board which has got down to many of the problems which would appear to be the most urgent for consideration. Their early proposals are included in the Third Report of the National Parks Commission. They are most interesting. Indeed, it seems to me that their line of attack upon the problem of the future development of the area is one which could well be adopted in other areas where National Parks have been set up.

First of all, there is the question of surveying existing accommodation, and of what additional accommodation may be required. Here. I am most anxious that it should be possible either for the local boards, the National Parks Commission or the Ministry, to assist these various voluntary organisations which are only too eager to go ahead and provide additional simple accommodation. There is, however, the very great problem of the initial capital expenditure, but I hope that this problem will be looked at sympathetically and some assistance given. Certainly, it should be left to the organisations themselves to look after the running expenses, and they should keep the administration in their own hands, although I feel that there is a very strong case indeed for some assistance being given on the capital side. I hope that all these voluntary organisations, like the Youth Hostels Association, the Holiday Fellowship and the many others concerned in this field, will be encouraged to put forward their proposals in these areas.

Then, there is the question of the need to set aside certain prepared camping sites, and this is an arguable point, on which I have had some fresh ideas since seeing the use made of national parks in America. I am not myself particularly interested in camping with large masses of other people, and I have a great deal of sympathy indeed with those who prefer to camp on their own in fairly isolated places, and I think that nothing should be done to prevent them. Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear that there are many people who do prefer prepared sites, and who would welcome some simple provision.

In America, they have had a very wide experience and have done a great deal in providing water attachments and preparing sites which would not damage the natural beauty, along with simple conveniences of one kind and another. They have been able to attract and encourage the use of these areas by very large numbers of people.

One thing that struck me in America was that there seemed to be such general agreement throughout the whole population on the value and use of national parks as a conception of importance, largely because of provisions of this kind to enable people to see something of them and enjoy them, whereas, in this country, it is not much of an exaggeration to say that hardly anybody knows what a National Park is. I think, therefore, that one of the urgent problems is that of making some simple provision for camping.

I should also like to make the point that I understand that the former Director of the National Parks Administration in America, who retired a few months ago, is coming to this country on holiday in a few months' time, and I hope that the opportunity of his visit will be taken in order to have consultations and discussions with him on some of the matters for which he has been responsible, I think so successfully, in America.

Another problem will be that of cleaning up some of the ugliness which has been left behind in the National Park areas, and, here again, I would congratulate whoever is responsible in the Ministry for confirming the recommendations of the High Peak Board about certain areas of defilement that might have occurred, which defilement I am glad to see the Minister has succeeded in prohibiting. Next, there is the question of an educational campaign. The Americans have done a great deal in this field in every one of their national parks, and they have quite an elaborate educational establishment of naturalists and others. These people do a great deal of work during the summer time and at popular holiday seasons of the year in taking small guided parties round certain areas and giving lectures to help everyone to know something about their natural features.

I know perfectly well that we cannot attempt anything on such a scale in this country; indeed, it would not be required. We have already in this country all the voluntary organisations we need, and I am sure they would be delighted to combine and help in any educational drive of this kind. I hope the National Parks Commission will stimulate local committees and boards to take advantage of all the existing wealth of knowledge, and perhaps give some financial help where it is needed for small expenses. if that could be done, to enable more and more people to visit some of these quite wonderful areas of our country and know something about their natural and geological features, as well as the natural life of the area. I hope that can be done.

It seems to me that the danger we are in is that the value of the whole concept of National Parks may be lost because of a lack of sufficiently vigorous prodding, either by the Minister himself or by the National Parks Commission, and by insufficient attempts to get across to the country, by means of all the different forms of publicity, the sort of conception which we have of these areas and the use that can be made of them. I am very glad to see that, in many areas like the Lake District and the Snowdonia area, for example, many of the voluntary organisations are setting up training centres for mountain craft and hill walking

It is of the greatest importance that, as more and more people use these areas —and we hope there will be a steadily increasing number—they should understand what they can and cannot do. They should do their best to avoid leaving so many of the rescue parties with the unfortunate job of trying to pull people off odd bits of crags in one part of the country and another. It all sounds very romantic and exciting, but, unfortunately for those involved in the rescue party work, it is not the glamour that strikes them so clearly as the enormous amount of hard work involved and the difficult conditions which they have to face.

I do not want to meet this problem by telling people that they cannot go into the hills; that is the last thing we want to do. We should encourage more people to understand and value the mountains and hills in the wilder parts of our country. What we want, and I am glad to see that it is being done to a limited extent, is a greater development of this form of training. I congratulate the many voluntary organisations which have done so already, but I want to see an extension of this provision, and this is one direction in which the High Peak Board, the Lake District Board and the National Parks Commission ought to be able to help. It should be possible for them to offer some financial encouragement to enable this kind of work to be developed, not merely in connection with land areas but also in regard to the coast.

It should apply to some of the areas that are now being designated, including some of the lovely approaches from the coast, and I am thinking particularly of the lovely coastline of Pembrokeshire and other coastal areas. I hope it will be possible for more and more people to use not only the land but also the sea. I hope, therefore, that in every possible way the Ministry on their part will give encouragement to the National Parks Commission in this way.

I hope it will also be possible for them to do more in relation to the very difficult problem of finance and staff. We cannot achieve very much entirely on the cheap. The amount of money involved is small, in any case, but we cannot avoid altogether some questions of expenditure. I hope that, by encouraging more and more people to feel that this is something for everybody, and not perhaps for the small minority who like to go up into the hills or on the moors, it will be generally realised that this is a project that is of value to almost everyone in the country.

There is a great deal to be said for simply standing and staring from time to time, and I hope that a lot of our people will be encouraged to go into these new parks if only to stand and stare. In our present society it is very urgently necessary that we should encourage that. But the necessary publicity cannot be carried out nor the simple provisions I have suggested provided unless some actual help is available, and unless there are some small staffs available in each park to enable it to be done.

It is in that spirit that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to indicate what has already been attempted. I also hope that he is in sympathy and agreement with the proposals I have put to him, and that he will be able to assure us that the full backing of his Ministry and of the National Parks Commission will be given to a more vigorous prosecution of the objects contained in the National Parks Act.

I beg to second the Motion.

In moving the Motion, My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tune, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) Spoke elequently and in a well-informed manner from the background of his knowledge of and interest in the National Parks movement. I am only sorry that there are not more Members present this afternoon, but probably the other 600-odd Members are somewhere in the National Parks of the country enjoying the beauties about which my hon. When we have been cooped up here for a week we can all derive a tremendous benefit from being windswept on the hills and moors of this country and by having some of the political cobwebs blown away.

My hon. Friend was temperate in his treatment of the Snowdonia question, and I do not propose to raise it in any controversial manner, although I think we are entitled to know the present position there. We all think it would have been better, from both our point of view and that of the National Parks Commission, bad there been one authority for this area or at least a joint planning board. But as that proposal was rejected and a joint advisory committee established, we have to be all the more careful and anxious to see that that committee does its job.

There has been very little activity in this matter, and nothing, in fact, has actually taken place. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us the present position with regard to the administration of the Snowdonia National Park and whether any active preparations are being made to implement the provisions of the Act. The Act has been in operation for over three years, and there are already six National Parks designated. But we all know that designation is just a name; it does not mean very much, or that the purpose of the Act has come to fruition. Many of us who had high hopes of the Act when it was put into operation have been perturbed during the past year and a half at the slow progress made.

Though there are obvious reasons for that slow progress, such as the national emergency, and so on, nevertheless, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was in control of the Ministry we felt we had a powerful friend at court, and I think the same applies to the present Parliamentary Secretary. It is important that we should act as the watchdogs in the Ministry and this House of the administration of the National Parks Act.

I was interested to learn of some of the things that the Peak Board have been doing because that Board is setting an example for the rest of the National Parks administration where such a Board is necessary. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister the actual proposals submitted by the Board for carrying out the main purposes of the Act. These are twofold: first, to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the park, and. secondly, to promote its enjoyment by the different users and to increase its use by the people.

I am more concerned about the second part than the first because in some instances the first part could be carried out under the Town and Country Planning Acts. Under the National Parks Act special consideration has to be given to development, but I am more concerned to see that the public use the park in the proper way. The past three years have seen very little increase in the use of the park by the public. Indeed, my hon. Friend almost went as far as to say that the general public are unaware of the existence of the National Parks.

It would seem, therefore, that we must take more energetic action to see that the ordinary person who wants a holiday not quite so formal as the seaside holiday or who, perhaps, cannot go abroad can get the full enjoyment and refreshment he desires in the beautiful scenery of his own land. The latest development of designating the North York Moors National Park is a very good step indeed. and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman's Department on going ahead in that direction and on cutting off only 70 square miles which make very little difference to the natural beauty of the park.

Some of us were a little afraid that the opposition from the farming and other interests would severely curtail the North Yorkshire Moors Park. I am delighted that the project has gone ahead in this way and I hope to see it being fully used in the months that lie ahead. It seems to me that the park can be a model for the rest of the country. It has cliffs, moorland, scenery and all the rest that go to make that part of the world a great attraction to visitors, but in my view there is a lack of adequate accommodation within the park.

When people go for a holiday in a National Park they do not want to be dodging in and out of the park to get their overnight accommodation. Adequate holiday accommodation inside the North Yorkshire Moors Park is needed so that people do not have to go to Whitby, Scarborough, York or wherever they have to go to find accommodation. It would be much better if there were ample hostel accommodation in the park itself, and I hope that one of the first preoccupations of the committee which is to be set up will be the securing of such accommodation for the expected increase of visitors to that park.

I now wish to deal in a little detail with the question of the long-distance routes which is one of the supreme concerns of the National Park Commission. First, I want to deal with the Pennine Way. What is the present position with regard to the official opening of the Pennine Way? It has had a long history, and on 6th July, 1951, the then Minister approved the proposals. My right hon. Friend at that time expressed the hope that the local authorities concerned would take action by 1st April, 1952. to secure the creation of the necessary rights of way to conclude the route. I understand that at that time some 70 miles of new rights of way were needed to complete the 250 mile walk along the backbone of England.

That was Easter, 1952. I know that there have been delays and that there had to be an inquiry over the southern end of the route, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that he hopes that this route will be in operation, on both high and low levels, by Easter of this year. That would be a good time for it to come into operation, because at Easter many people long to go out into the countryside, to the hills and the moors to enjoy the rebirth of spring. I hope that we shall have satisfactory information about that long-distance route.

I regret very much, and indeed the Commission regretted in their report, that for economic reasons mainly it was not possible to go ahead with the Thames-side river walk. We hope that it will not be kept permanently in cold storage and that it will be put into operation as soon as possible. The third long-distance walk is the Cornwall North Coast Path, of 135 miles, from Morwenstow in the north to Mousehole, round the corner of Land's End in the south. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us if that is now nearing completion.

A good many problems concerned with National Parks have to be met and solved. A real problem is how to ensure that we have the right kind of people on local park boards. I hope that we shall see more and more of the enthusiastic kind of member appointed to these boards, a member whose concern will not be so much with saving the county rates but with promoting the purposes of this Act. I understand that something like a ¼d. rate would enable the whole projects contemplated on the North Yorkshire moors to be put under way. That is not too much to ask for something which can be of immense benefit not only to the residents in the area but to those who live in the crowded industrial areas on the fringe.

We need to promote National Park consciousness among the people of this country. This movement is a great and exciting experiment which should appeal to most people. It does not mean that people have to be mountaineers or rugged types to enjoy these amenities. It does not mean that hordes of "townees" will rush across agricultural land leaving gates open and setting fire to the crops. It means that the opportunity will be given to people to seek out-of-doors enjoyment and to gain immense benefit from the lovelier parts of our country. I hope that this very discreet silence about the work of the Commission will come to an end. I hope that all kinds of voluntary organisations will be seized with the desire to spread the gospel of the National Parks Commission.

We know that the opponents of National Parks have had more weight given to their views in the Press than have the exponents. Agricultural interests who have opposed the extension of National Parks have always had a big say at public inquiries. I am glad to say that their views have not prevailed, because their objections arise in the main through ignorance or misunderstanding. The National Parks Commission have gone out of their way to try to get rid of some of these major misunderstandings. There certainly has been very great exaggeration of the damage that can be done to agricultural interests by the designation of national parks.

The "Country Code" is doing a good job of education in that respect, but there is much more that can he done. We must have more publicity from the National Parks Commission themselves and more co-operation with the railways, both in the matter of cheaper fares for walkers and people using the parks and in advertising.

And camping coaches.

That is an excellent suggestion which is being developed. Advertising ought to be done in the places where the people who use the parks live. Large-scale maps of the park areas should be displayed, showing access and routes. That should be taken up by the Commission with the railways.

Is it not a fact that British Railways, so sorely in need of passenger revenue at this time, are losing countless opportunities by failure to develop the camping coach system, which is so greatly appreciated by industrial workers?

That may be so, but I am more concerned at the moment with organising excursion trips to these areas and publicising these trips in the places where the people who would travel on them live.

It would also help in forming National Park consciousness if signs were displayed indicating at the appropriate spot that visitors were about to enter a National Park. It need not be an eyesore. It could be an artistic sign telling people that they were now entering such-and-such National Park. There could also be a reminder when people were leaving the park that they should leave it in as good a condition as they found it and leave no litter. If such signs were placed on the main access roads to National Parks I am sure they would have a tremendous benefit, and I hope that this suggestion will be pursued.

Our main purpose will be served if we can impress upon the public that the National Parks exist for the benefit and the well-being of the public, and that at the same time we intend to bear in mind the wishes and desires of the inhabitants of the parks themselves, that we are not a horde of vandals seeking to destroy their kind of life, but that we are anxious to study their way of life and to share it with them, at least for a short time.

When we consider that some four-fifths of our population lead the bulk of their lives in crowded urban industrial areas with all the smoke and grime and rush and bustle that that involves, we should evoke a very big response to that kind of appeal. I am. therefore, very pleased to second the Motion.

In supporting this Motion I wish to begin by saying that last year I had the pleasure of serving on a committee dealing with the North Wales Hydro-Electric Power Bill, and we were favoured with the observations of the Royal Commission which were exceedingly helpful regarding amenities and steps which should be taken to ensure that the extension of that hydro-electric scheme did not disturb the natural beauties of the district in which this work was going on. A number of suggestions put forward by the Commission were accepted by the promoters, and as a result we had a much better Bill.

I wish to raise a question which affects my own Parliamentary division. In my constituency of Newark there is the great Sherwood Forest which for ages has been a pleasure ground and a beauty spot in our countryside. During the last year or two we have been troubled with difficulties arising out of the change-over to peace-time from war-time when that beautiful spot was used as a store house for munitions. The predecessor of the present Minister made personal visits to Sherwood Forest in order to hasten the removal of a good deal of this war material. Considerable progress was made, when, suddenly, something else loomed up.

I should like to get the support of the Parliamentary Secretary and of the National Parks Commission; I want them to consider this matter and to do what they can to assist. The beautiful Sherwood Forest is now threatened with a tank training ground which will have the effect of cutting off a great part of the area, putting it solely to military uses and thus preventing the public from enjoying the recreational and other advantages they have in respect of that forest.

The suggestion which has been put before the planning committees and is now being discussed at varying levels has already compelled the Chamber of Commerce and Trade in Mansfield, and many working-class organisations such as trade councils, to make their protest that, having received a promise that this beautiful spot would be freed from the sort of thing that happened in the last war—when it was used as a dump for munitions—it is now proposed that there should be a tank training ground adjacent to the Major Oak, Little John's Larder and the rest of the beauty spots to which countless people in the Midlands make their pilgrimages every year.

If it is possible I am most anxious that either the National Parks Commission, in the exercise of their duties—because some part of this forest is privately owned—or the Parliamentary Secretary, through his Ministry, should look at this question rather carefully to see if this great beauty spot of Sherwood Forest cannot be maintained for the recreational advantages of the surrounding population. There are great industrial areas all around this particular beauty spot and it would be lamentable if it suddenly became a tank training ground, with the beautiful trees and foliage torn up, and used purely from the material point of view of it being cheaper because it was adjacent to a camp which was already in existence.

It would be far better if the tank training ground could be located elsewhere. We appreciate the needs of such training grounds, but it is the interest of the Commission and the Minister to see that local people are supported when they ask that this matter should be given further consideration and that Sherwood Forest should be preserved for its recreational facilities.

I do not intend to follow the ground which has been so adequately covered by my hon. Friends. There are two points which I want to emphasise to the Parliamentary Secretary who, I am sure, is not unsympathetic. He is a bicyclist and in that capacity, at any rate, he goes a long way towards understanding the wishes and desires of the people who want to enjoy our countryside. The two points, which have already been referred to, concern vandalism and the need for more publicity to inculcate a greater national consciousness of this great countryside of ours.

I have always been struck by the exaggeration of the amount of vandalism. Long before the National Parks were thought of I was a very frequent visitor to the Lake District, and I was always struck by the absence of vandalism there. I think it was due largely to the excellent work of the National Trust. If anyone thinks of the visits he has paid to the Lake District I am sure that he will come to the same conclusion. It is remarkable how responsibly the vast majority of people there behave.

It is also very largely due to the fact that everyone is conscious of the great natural beauty of the Lake District and the enjoyment which they can get from visiting it, and this point, therefore, goes together with that concerning publicity. I do not suggest that we should not repeatedly call attention to the stupid and unreasonable acts of a very small minority. At the same time, we should recognise that most people do respect the beauty of the countryside and consciously endeavour to avoid spoiling it.

Of all parts of the country, I think this is most evident in the Lake District, which is remarkably unspoiled. It is very rare that one comes across these acts of wanton carelessness. That, I think, is largely due to the fact that, for a considerable time, bodies like the National Trust have been calling attention to the invaluable heritage which we have in the Lake District. The Minister faces this problem in other spheres as well. Most of the troubles arise because people do not appreciate the damage they are doing. We get it, for instance, on housing estates. I think that we must be patient and must persevere, and I would prefer us to take a more constructive approach and not to keep harping on vandalism.

Turning to the question of the publicity which we give to the National Parks, I emphatically agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). Whenever I go into other countries I am always struck by the fact that there is a far greater national consciousness and pride in National Parks than there is in this country. Usually, as my hon. Friend says, attention is called to the fact that you are entering a National Park. I do not know whether attention is called to the fact that you are leaving it, but I can certainly remember a number of occasions on which my attention has been drawn to the fact that I was entering a park.

That is a good thing. People should realise that these parks are things which we enjoy as a nation. I agree that this publicity should be done not only by the parks authority itself but by other authorities. British Railways are perhaps open to criticism in that they do not make more of the National Parks. If they did, it would help to create a national consciousness—and if we create a national consciousness we shall also create a far greater regard for these areas.

Those two points are very important and we can attend to them without any great expense. It demands co-operation from all sorts of people, not excluding those who have a commercial interest in promoting the publicity for the National Parks. If we attend to those points, then, over the years, we shall not only achieve a greater measure of enjoyment for the people as a whole but a greater respect for the heritage which we should enjoy.

I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we are grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) for having raised this important and interesting subject this afternoon. I, personally, am grateful to him for two additional reasons. First. he made a most reasonable and constructive contribution in opening the debate. which, I think, set the tone from the beginning; and, secondly, he was kind enough to give me advance and comprehensive notice of the points which he wished to raise. I will therefore do my best to give him adequate answers. If my voice cannot be heard clearly, I must apologise for a rather bad cold.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people should know the objective of a National Park. I use the National Parks a great deal, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) said; in the past I have used them in rock climbing and walking, although they require time and youth, both of which are denied to me at present, so that in future I must take to cycling. But two things have worried me a great deal about the National Parks. The first is the amount of misconception in the minds of people using them and in the minds of farmers in the district.

The National Parks Commission draw attention to this in paragraph 44, on page 11, of their excellent Third Report:

"The most common misunderstanding is that designation gives visitors an unrestricted right of access. We would emphasise again, therefore, that inclusion of land in a National Park effects no change whatsoever in the ownership of such land and does not confer any public right of access whatsoever."

The resistance of farmers and other people to National Parks is based largely on that misconception and I hope this debate will clear up that point. In the report it comes under the heading of "Continued Misconceptions."

The second point which worries me is that the average person who walks in a National Park thinks he can go anywhere he likes because it is a National Park. The provisions of the Act in the Sections applying to open country, after defining it, say that the provisions apply to all country throughout England and Wales irrespective of whether it lies in the National Park or not. That is an important point. Agricultural land other than rough grazing land is specifically excluded from the access provisions of the Act.

The Commission have directed their publicity, so far, to the two points I have mentioned. They want to improve the standards of behaviour in the countryside, as do all hon. Members, and at the same time they have to convince farmers, land owners and country folk generally that the designation of an area does not carry with it an unrestricted right of access with all the consequences which they fear would follow in its trail.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the "Country Code." It has been reprinted three times, 43,000 copies have been issued and the sale continues. Additional opportunities for publicity have been taken. Display sets, carrying the message of the "Country Code" have been exhibited at 2,700 sites in factories, shops, youth clubs and libraries all over the country, and sets have been sent to voluntary organisations for display at conferences and exhibitions. I went to Longshaw Lodge to address the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and a number of enthusiastic members of that excellent body insisted on my buying several copies for myself, which I did. Wall sheets, poster cards and the film strip to which the hon. Gentleman referred, carrying the same sort of message, are being produced for wide display this year. The Commission are co-operating with schools, the educational departments of the Armed Forces, youth and open air organisations, and with educational groups of all kinds, as well as with the Press and B.B.C., in trying to put across the message of the "Country Code."

Here I want to support the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East. I too, in a personal capacity as well as a junior Member of the Government. would like to see more publicity. I saw a deputation from all the amenity interests—I hope that term will not be thought offensive this time as it was last time because I am one of the "amenity fans" as I call them. I suggested that we should try to get a television half hour, perhaps starting off with something topical about Everest, the Alps, our own National Parks and footpaths.

I wrote a personal letter to the television authorities and I am hoping that, with the lubrication of a reasonable lunch next week, we might be able to arrange for some such programme. I mention that merely to show the hon. Gentleman that the spirit is willing if perhaps the flesh is a little weak and inefficient. We believe that publicity is a great thing, particularly for the National Parks, and I hope that the amenity and voluntary interests will do as much as they can to clear up the misconception which exists, because the greatest barrier to progress in our National Parks is misconception. Unless we take public opinion with us, we cannot make the progress for which we hope.

Could the Minister say whether he will keep in mind the point of publishing additional material to the "Country Code," which might be used by voluntary bodies, about the general features of our National Parks and what we are trying to achieve through them? Might it be possible to provide extra film material and also suitable illustrated material which lecturers could use in schools and out of schools?

What I will do is to write a personal letter to the Commission drawing their attention to that point. The Commission, of course, are to publicise certain specific items such as the Pennine Way; they will be publishing special maps which in themselves will add to the publicity. But it will not, of course, touch the general point which the hon. Member has in mind.

The second point raised by the hon. Member was the question of signposts. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) supported him in saying that in the United States of America there are rather agreeable and attractively designed signposts at park entrances. I agree. In the Rockies and at Jasper, in the Canadian National Parks, as well as in the United States, the signposts are more attractive. The problem there, however, is different. In America there are only few access roads to very large parks, whereas in this country we have many access roads to a small area.

In the Lake District for example, which I know extremely well—I support the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in saying that in the Lake District vandalism is at its lowest and the standard of behaviour is the highest—I should be doubtful about where to put the signs. Should they be on the main roads, on all the small roads that come in from the west coast around Wast Water, or in the north? If this idea were to be carried out, there would be very many signposts. What I will do is to ask the National Parks Commission to consider the suggestion.

Personally, I should be against the idea. I do not think it is necessary when there are so many access roads to such a small area. That is my view on the spur of the moment, but I will consider the weighty arguments which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East put forward before reaching a considered conclusion. It is, however, a matter for the National Parks Commission and not for the Government, but if the Commission carry out the suggestion I hope they will make absolutely certain beyond peradventure that the signposts are reasonable, attractive and inconspicuous, and not like some of the hideous advertisements which have disfigured our roads for so many years.

The next point was that of designation. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said that six National Parks had been designated since the Commission came into being. These cover an area of 3,500 square miles, which is about two-thirds of the total area which the Hobhouse Committee recommended for designation. In four of these parks, separate park planning boards or committees have been set up and have been functioning for up to 16 months.

The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees asked a specific question about the North Yorkshire Moors Park. A committee is likely to be appointed within the next month or so. I agree that it is an attractive, rather inaccessible area, with inadequate accommodation, and I hope that if he goes there the hon. Member will some day undertake the task of climbing the three peaks—Ingleborough, Pen-y-Ghent and Whernside—and compares his time with the time I took to do it. It is an excellent, beautiful area, and action will be taken within a few months.

The arrangements and administration of Snowdonia National Park, about which I was also asked, have now been agreed and the necessary committees will be set up with the minimum of delay. The agreements which have been reached have taken a long time.

With regard to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, I should say that the advisory committee is for an experimental period. It will be open to the Commission—in fact, it is their duty—to expose any defects in the committee's performance, if defects it has; but it will be for the three counties to demonstrate that the Commission's misgivings have been ill-founded. To use an old and hackneyed saying, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Is it still for three years?

Yes, three years. I came across an excellent quotation:

"For forms of Government let fools contest, What e'er is best administered is best."

We ought to give them a trial during the three years and if they prove their efficiency we shall all be happy, but, if not, the National Parks Commission will expose their weaknesses.

The next point the hon. Member raised was that of access to areas. The Lake District Board and the three Snowdonia county councils have informed the Commission that they are satisfied that there is already adequate access to open country in these parks and that no action is necessary. The Commission have endorsed that view and the authorities have given public notice as required by the Act. In the other parks the question of what action is needed has not yet been decided and the authorities have been given extra time. In the meantime, park planning authorities are able to make agreements or orders if required and The Peak Park Board, where the problem is most significant, have already indicated that they have two areas under consideration.

The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is very important to try to speed up the work, which is taking a long time. I hope that he will encourage the Peak Park Board to press on with the matter as quickly as possible.

The hon. Member may rest assured that they will receive that encouragement, but on the Peak Park Board the members are so enthusiastic that I am not sure if they will need such encouragement because they carry out their work with wholeheartedness and interest.

The next point raised by the hon. Member was that of hostels. In regard to hostel accommodation the park authorities will be glad to hear the views of any voluntary organisations who have special experience in this field. We have to be careful about these hostels. Although we want to encourage them it would be quite easy to have hostels or accommodation which was not in keeping with the character or background of a particular park. One thing which we must not have in the National Parks is buildings, temporary or permanent, "plonked down" in the middle of a beautiful area where those buildings bear no relation to the background. The whole thing must be a composition.

I agree again that in America and Canada they have done extremely well in this respect, but they have a great advantage because they have a large background and in their building they are able to use the natural woods in the Rockies or on the West Coast of America. I have been to most of those National Parks and found that in building they use the wood which is to be found on the spot. That, naturally, makes for harmonious composition. When the American expert, to whom the hon. Member referred, comes over here members of the Commission will be delighted to see him and if I may I should like to impose myself on that party, if they will invite me to lunch. Perhaps we can take a tour of our parks and get his views about them.

On the question of the removal of disfigurements, The Peak Board have already made an order, under Section 26 of the Act of 1947, and my right hon. Friend has confirmed that Order. There is no doubt a case for taking urgent action to remove or mitigate notorious eyesores and where the trouble can be dealt with without too much expense. Otherwise, it is obviously sensible to make a survey and draw up a list of priorities taking into account the degree of cost of mitigating or removing such eyesores. This seems to be the line which the park authorities are taking. In the Pembrokeshire Coast Park ex-temporary defence work sites are among the most notorious disfigurements. We have to do what we can to remove them and the park authorities are drawing up a list of priorities, which, I think, is a wise course to take.

The next question was that of centres for training in mountain craft. I should like to endorse everything the hon. Member has said on this matter and about being called out at night to rescue foolish people lost on the mountains when badly equipped, either mentally or physically. There is nothing more annoying than to find that the supposed lost person has been in bed all night, after a hot drink, while people have been on the moors searching for him. That has often happened to me. I endorse what the hon. Member said about the training school at Eskdale. When I was young, I had to learn the best way, like my hon. Friend, on the rocks, but we learned the hard way, which I think is satisfactory to those who survive and not so satisfactory to those who fall by the wayside. The Ministry and the National Parks Commission will always give their backing to suitable institutions of that sort to extend mountain craft.

The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked about the Pennine Way, which has been a thorny problem for some time. The proposals were drawn up by the National Parks Commission and approved by my right hon. Friend's predecessor but the work of carrying them out falls to the local councils along the route, which as the hon. Member said, is 250 miles long. About 180 miles of path already existed. Twenty-two different local authorities have been asked to secure the creation of new rights of way which were needed and to complete the path in their areas. This is being done under the special powers of the National Parks Act—new powers which local authorities had not used before, and it has proved to be quite a long job. The local authorities have tried to get agreement with the landowners instead of making public path orders, and these negotiations tend to be slow, which is quite usual in land transactions.

There have been many minor difficulties to sort out to meet the interests of agriculture, water undertakings and other land uses. It is not only local authorities and landowners who are concerned; water undertakings have been concerned. Wherever minor variations of the route have been suggested the National Parks Commission has been consulted, meetings have often been held on the spot and solutions have been found which have pleased all parties. Negotiations have been going forward in all the districts affected. Seven of the councils have now completed the work—with a total of 18 miles of new path between them; the others are still at it, but the difficulties are gradually being overcome, and it is hoped that the remaining authorities will soon have their parts ready.

It is not possible to say how long it will take. One cannot estimate accurately. Earlier estimates of all parties were too optimistic in this respect, but the important thing is that the whole route has been accepted. Parties have already walked the whole route. I have done most of it, and though, in places, I suppose that, technically, I was trespassing nobody raised any serious objection. In fact, the Pennine Way is now in existence, not legally, meticulously and precisely, but it has been accepted in spirit by everyone concerned.

The highway authorities are getting on with the work of maintenance and providing signposts. I am a little nervous about signposts myself, but I am told that a special sign has been designed which was recommended by the National Parks Commission, and the highway authorities are in close consultation with the Ministry and the Parks Commission about the siting of the signs. The aim is to have signposts where they are really needed, but I think we ought to avoid mollycoddling walkers on the high level routes: it would destroy their value if walkers found the path too easy for them. On the open moorland, cairns are being made with stone which is on the ground, in preference to using signposts, these being spaced inconspicuously at intervals. It would be a mistake to wreck places like Kinder Scout or Bleak-low or any part of the Pennine way. We shall try to erect signposts designed in accordance with the district.

The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) raised the question of Sherwood Forest. I was sympathetic with his point of view, which he put forward reasonably and cogently. The real difficulty is that Sherwood Forest is not a National Park, and it is very difficult for me, on behalf of the Government to give any answer to him. A great deal depends on the magnitude of the task, but the Government will not be unsympathetic to any representations which the hon. Member may make about the preservation of natural amenities in that area.

The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees raised a point about the Cornish coastal path and asked what was the position. It was approved in April, 1952. It is 135 miles long and 45 miles of new right of way are to be created. The local authorities have the matter in hand. So far as is known no new rights of way have yet been created. The local authorities are administering entirely new provisions, and I hope the hon. Gentlemen will bear with them in their difficult task.

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred to the National Trust and the good work they have done. I entirely associate myself with the sentiments he expressed. The way in which local bodies have worked in the past to preserve the countryside has been astonishing and, on the whole, not unsuccessful. My right hon. Friend is indeed grateful to them. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, in his reasonable and able speech, said he did not want publicity to be held up for lack of vigorous prodding. I think that so long as he is a Member of this House, there will be efficient and successful prodding, as there was this afternoon.

I do not think there is a great deal between us. It is really a question of timing. The hon. Gentleman wishes to do things reasonably quickly and we, and the National Parks Commission, also. think they ought to go a little more slowly. Anything which is beautiful, a work of art or the. furnishing of a house. or the countryside, evolves and grows over a period of years. It is exactly the same with the National Parks. I would refer to a quotation from the Dower Report, which says:

"In general, it will be best to err on the side of caution, especially in the early years when the authorities' personnel are learning their job by doing it, and when there is so much still to be done in satisfying indubitably sound and urgent requirements. A desirable facility rejected by over-caution can always be supplied later; a mis-development rashly approved may often be irremediable"

In other words, we must make haste slowly and not harm the feelings of people who might be set against the conception of national planning.

I know that the Chairman of the National Parks Commission is always accessible to any hon. Member who has a suggestion to make. He has worked extremely hard. I would take this opportunity of thanking the members of the National Parks Commission for the work they have done. It is not always easy to serve on these voluntary bodies. There is no payment. a lot of time is required and one receives a great deal of criticism which, though not in this case. is sometimes ill-informed.

I would also pay tribute to Sir Ifan Ab Owen Edwards, who served for three years. He was one of the original members of the Commission, but has felt compelled to resign owing to pressure of other work. I would welcome some new members: Mr. Wolfenden, Vice-Chancellor of Reading University, and Mr. Yapp, lecturer in Zoology at Birmingham University. Eleven meetings of the full Commission have been held in the past year, and 53 meetings of committees studying specific subjects. Visits to various parts of the country, covering a total period of 150 days, were shared by 11 members. That is not a bad record for a voluntary body.

I wish to thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East for raising this matter, but I hope he will not press his Motion to a Division in view of the information which I have given.

In view of the information given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. for allowing me to intervene for a few moments to make an announcement of considerable interest and importance.

The Government have decided as an immediate short-term measure to pay a lodging allowance to householders who are affording shelter to victims of the flood. The allowances will be paid for any shelter given since the floods began. The full details will be announced as soon as possible. In view of the great importance of getting the machinery in motion rapidly, I feel sure that Members would not feel aggrieved if we settle and announce the details before Parliament meets next week. We shall, of course, use the Press and the radio to get the scheme into operation.

Perhaps I might add one point on which Members would like to be reassured. This payment will be made without any form of test of means being applied.

I am sure that the House generally will welcome in principle the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Having generally welcomed this statement, and appreciating that details will be published, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say through what channels the payments will be made? Can he say whether it will be done through the local authorities or the Assistance Boards, and to what authority application should be made?

If I might, I would rather leave until later the details of how it is to be done. What I wanted was to ensure that the House would not feel that we had been discourteous if we got this scheme out tonight or tomorrow, because I know the great importance of getting it out in the first week, if we possibly can, so that householders know what to do. Also, it will help us to clear the rest centres and perhaps keep people from going back from lodgings into the rest centres. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me. We are still working out the final details. I hope to be able to announce them either tonight or tomorrow morning.

May I say how delighted I am with this announcement? It seems so much better than any indiscriminate requisitioning of empty houses which have no facilities to enable people to live in any kind of comfort. I hope that my right hon. Friend will arrange extensive publicity. This announcement is too late for the evening papers throughout the country. I understand that the B.B.C. is to be used, and I hope that the announcement will be repeated tomorrow, because people do not listen in to every news broadcast. It is vitally important that this announcement should have the most extensive publicity not only tonight but tomorrow.

Would not the Minister agree that it is much better that people should have houses to live in, even if it means requisitioning them, than that they should he lodged with other people?

When I was notified a week ago that I had had the good fortune to win the ballot for the Adjournment on Friday, 6th February, it was my intention to talk about the rationing of sugar and sweets and the prospects for securing the de-rationing of both within a matter of the next few months. I am delighted to say that a small part of the contentious matter that I should have been discussing during this debate has now been rendered unnecessary by the timely announcement of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food on Wednesday last.

For the first time in 12 years the children and men and women with a sweet tooth are able to buy unlimited quantities of sweets in the shops—except perhaps for the short space of time in 1949 when the fiasco took place with a premature de-rationing scheme. Not the least important of the consequences which flow from last Wednesday's announcement is the fact, as I am reliably informed, that 500 civil servants and temporary officials will be considered unnecessary. They can, I hope, be put into productive employment.

I have always been the fiercest opponent of bureaucratic Bumbledom in all its forms, and it seemed to me a tragedy that this country should have spent many years since the end of the war with countless thousands of people all over the place engaged in snipping little pieces of paper out of ration books.

The larger issue which is thus now left to me this afternoon—the question of sugar rationing—is, of course, infinitely more important to men and women all over the country. It is fair to say that it is the greatest grievance that the housewife has today, and her biggest single difficulty in good housekeeping. I have no connection whatever of a personal character with sugar refining, sugar production either in the Empire or the Colonies, or with sugar beet production in the United Kingdom, and my purpose in making this speech this evening is solely to make a plea on behalf of millions of women in this country who are gravely embarrassed by the continuing shortage of domestic sugar.

I said that this was a contentious matter. It is contentious from a curious point of view—in the statistics that have been given in this House from official sources, as compared with statistics given elsewhere, and notably by the great sugar importers in this country, the refiners and others interested in the industry. I hope I may be forgiven if I spend a good deal of time referring to those figures. In the first instance, perhaps I may say that I, in common with many other hon. Members who represent fruit-growing areas in Britain, have another or complementary reason for being so concerned about sugar.

In the last few years, it is sad to relate that a large part of the soft fruit crop has been wholly wasted. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir R. De la Bére) is prevented by his duties as Lord Mayor of London from being here to support me. He sits for the Southern part of the county, and I represent in large measure the Western part, and these two areas constitute one of the largest fruit growing areas in the United Kingdom. A large percentage of soft fruit has been completely wasted, and that is, in measure, due to the shortage of sugar for bottling and for making jam, and to other difficulties of the housewife which have forced her to buy proprietary brands of preserves and of cakes. She cannot make good cakes at home on the scale to which she has been accustomed, and of course baking is so much more difficult.

It is fair to say that those famous cookery books which we all knew so well as children—and it is a long time ago—Mrs. Beeton's Cookery Book and Boulestin's Cookery Book, have gone into the waste paper basket, due to the shortage of sugar, and very largely due to the fact that many housewives cannot cook decently at home today because of this state of affairs.

Let me now turn to the world economics of sugar and to the figures that are concerned with this argument. There can be no doubt that there is currently a substantial world surplus of sugar. There is no quarrel on that account. Cuba, to take one example, has cut down her acreage of cane sugar because she cannot find a market for it. which is due, of course, in part, to currency difficulties. It is equally true that Britain is the only country in the Commonwealth, and the only country in the world, outside the Iron Curtain countries, which is rationed for sugar.

To de-ration sugar in this country, according to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who replied to me on this matter on 20th January, is said to require 750,000 tons of extra sugar imports in the first year of de-rationing, and, thereafter, 500,000 tons of sugar a year. I do not think that those figures, when I have finished my speech, will bear closer examination, because I think they have been exaggerated. I think they are too high, and I hope to demonstrate that the amount of additional imports would be substantially less. There is no quarrel that the tonnage of sugar required to de-ration in the United Kingdom is 2½ million tons per annum from all sources. That is the figure which has been quoted by the Government on occasions, and has also been confirmed by the sugar refining and distributing interests in this country. Under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, with the terms of which we are all familiar, the United Kingdom has guaranteed to buy the whole exportable quantities of Commonwealth sugar available, up to a maximum which will be reached in 1956–57 of 2,375,000 tons per annum. The expectation from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in 1953 is 1,800,000 tons. That is the figure we shall anticipate importing into the United Kingdom from the Commonwealth Sugar Pool.

To that 1,800,000 tons must be added our home or indigenous beet production of sugar which is 1953 is anticipated to be 625,000 tons. Therefore, the Commonwealth sources of sugar, added to the beet production of 625,000 tons, give a total of 2,425,000 tons. In addition to that, we have a reasonable expectation of 200,000 tons of sugar from Eastern European sources, from Poland and adjoining countries, from whom we have drawn considerable quantities of sugar in recent years.

That makes a total of 2,625,000 tons against an anticipated unrationed requirement in the United Kingdom of 2,500,000 tons. Therefore, theoretically, there is a surplus of 125,000 tons of sugar. But we have commitments from the Commonwealth sugar pool. Canada is buying 425,000 tons of sugar from that pool. We in the United Kingdom are exporting 680,000 tons of sugar to Commonwealth countries.

The two considerations, the 425,000 tons of sugar that Canada is buying from the Commonwealth Pool and the 680,000 tons of sugar that we are exporting from this country, both tend to complicate a statistical consideration of our sugar economy. I am going to endeavour to quote a sugar balance sheet which perhaps is a slight over-simplication. I ask the OFFICIAL REPORT to do me the kindness of reproducing it in the REPORT as a balance sheet. The debit side of the balance sheet is as follows:

I turn now to the statement that is so often made in this House and elsewhere that we cannot de-ration sugar unless we spend a lot of extra dollars. This is quite a controversial matter. The Government say that we must have extra dollars, but the people who ought to know more than anybody else in the wide world, the refiners, say otherwise. Lord Lyle of Westbourne said on 13th November last in an article in the "Financial Times "that no extra dollars would be required to de-ration sugar, and he advanced a number of arguments as to why he took that view.

I would not seek to adjudicate in this matter, but it is a question that urgently requires clarification. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will seek to clarify it when he replies to this debate. Here is a difficulty which arises in this argument. I said that Canada buys 425,000 tons of sugar from the Commonwealth Pool and pays in dollars, and with the dollars we buy an equivalent quantity of sugar from Cuba, Puerto Rico and San Domingo. It is not strictly true therefore, to say that we can dispense with that dollar transaction, for if Canada went elsewhere than to the Empire Pool-and I do not want her to do so-to buy her 425,000 tons of sugar, we should not earn the dollars that we employ to buy the Cuban and other dollar sugar. There is also the long-term difficulty that there will not be any shortage of sugar in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or elsewhere in three or four years time when the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement comes to full fruition and provides 2,375,000 tons per annum.

It would be not only a great trading mistake generally but also a great mistake from the point of view of Empire security and internal Commonwealth trade to drive the Canadians from the Empire pool into buying their sugar elsewhere. I believe that it is quite right and proper that this sugar should continue to flow to Canada and that we, as a temporary expedient, should use the dollars to replace that sugar from the West Indian dollar sources. But it is equally true to say—and I hope that the Financial Secretary will heed these words particularly carefully—that it was Britain that provided the extra capital to promote the increase in production of cane sugar in the Empire countries. It has been Britain that has provided the capital since the end of the war—for what purpose? It was not for the purpose of selling to the dollar areas to earn hard currency. The purpose of it was to increase the flow of sugar into the United Kingdom to enable us to get rid of sugar rationing.

If we continue with the trends of the last few years, there will develop a situation in which, as more and more sugar is produced in the sterling area it is used provide more and more dollars by selling it to the hard currency areas, and the British housewife will face sugar rationing for the remainder of her life. That capital investment in the Colonies under the Empire Sugar Agreement was primarily to de-ration sugar here. Also our guaranteed purchases from the Empire Sugar Pool are generally at higher than world prices.

Let me return to statistics for a moment or two. It is very instructive to survey the consumption of sugar in the United Kingdom today compared with pre-war years, and in several of the Commonwealth countries. Of the exporting countries in the Commonwealth, Australia, including Fiji Islands, consumed in 1938 354,000 tons of sugar; in 1953 they will consume 512,000 tons. Australia has increased her consumption by 44 per cent. Africa—that is the exporting Commonwealth countries in Africa, including Mauritius—consumed 272,000 tons in 1938, and in 1953 will consume 615,000 tons, an increase of 123 per cent. The British West Indies consumed in 1938 53,000 tons, and in 1953 will consume 128,000 tons, an increase of 137 per cent.

Of the importing countries in the Commonwealth, the Far Eastern group consumed 317,000 tons in 1938, and in 1953 will consume 455,000 tons, an increase of 43 per cent. The Middle East group of Commonwealth countries consumed 33,000 tons in 1938, and in 1953 will consume 42,000 tons, an increase of 27 per cent. The Africa group of Commonwealth countries who still import sugar consumed 84,000 tons in 1938, and in 1953 will consume 230,000 tons, an increase of 175 per cent. All those areas show very large increases in consumption.

What about Britain? In 1938 the consumption was 2,400,000 tons, and in 1953 it will be 2,145,000 tons, a decline of 11 per cent., whereas other parts of the Commonwealth show a very large increase in sugar consumption. It is not very fair to the British housewife or to the 50 million people who live in these islands. Perhaps what is even more inequitable is that sugar should be singled out for a unique position in our economy. Every Colony and Dominion at present is responsible for finding its own supplies, from its own dollar resources or otherwise, for commodities and foodstuffs other than sugar. Sugar is allocated for sterling and has been singled out for this special treatment with the result that the United Kingdom finds itself in such a singularly unfavourable position.

I want to say one or two words about sugar-tobacco switches and sugar-grain switches. On 20th January I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a number of questions about possibilities for substituting dollar purchases of sugar for dollar purchases of tobacco. It is a possibility. I shall return to that point in a moment. The argument against it from the Chancellor's point of view is that he reckons he would lose £300 million of revenue if such a switch were carried through. But there is a much more powerful argument in connection with wheat. If we bought 500,000 tons of extra sugar from dollar sources we would have to sacrifice 600,000 tons of wheat from the same sources.

The values of those two commodities in those quantities are approximately equal, at 45 million dollars calculated at to-day's prices. Why should not that be possible? There has been a shocking waste of bread in this country in the last few years, due in part to the rationing of feedingstuffs and the feeding of bread to pigs. I hope that with the free market in feedingstuffs that will diminish but there is still a shocking wastage of bread to be seen outside every restaurant and in dustbins all over the country, much of which is costing us dollars in the form of imported grain.

I will sum up all these matters by a simple proposition. I think I am right in saying that something in the order of 28¼–30 million dollars—something in the order of £10–£12 million—of extra sugar imports is required before we can de-ration sugar. How are we to save that amount of currency in other directions.

The first saving I should very much like to see is in the expenditure of dollars on American films. They cost £6 million this year. I hope the Chancellor will heed these references because on the 20th January of this year he said:

"… the whole question is also always under review.""—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January,1953; Vol. 510, c. 6.]

That was in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), whom I am glad to see here supporting me this afternoon. We should cut out part of these film imports.

Cut out all the film imports.

It would not be possible to cut out all film imports because of the reciprocal arrangements which make it possible for British films to earn foreign currency. The second proposal which I think is fairly capable of achievement at an early date is to switch a minimum of £3 million or £4 million of dollar expenditure on tobacco to non-dollar sources where, in many areas, there are surpluses.

The third proposal is most certainly to cut grain imports from dollar areas by a few million pounds £3 million or £4 million per annum"—I think that amount could easily be saved and offset by less wastage of bread. These recourses should enable us to find enough dollars to de-ration sugar in the course of the next six or eight months. No one can deny that for social reasons, diatetic reasons, financial reasons and economic reasons there are the most powerful arguments for de-rationing sugar.

I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been able to take a note of the mass of figures I have mentioned this afternoon. This is perhaps a controversial subject, but although the Treasury may not agree with all that I have said, they will certainly agree with quite a lot of it. Within our food economy, in prevailing circumstances. it is of over-riding importance that we follow the de-rationing of sweets by throwing overboard the rationing of sugar at the earliest possible moment.

I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for affording me a few minutes to make one or two comments. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has really said, "Let us have the de-rationing of sugar even if we have to spend dollars to do it." But he will attain his objective without the spending of dollars. He is very pleased about the de-rationing of sweets and confectionery; but that has only become possible because less and less is being consumed owing to the high prices, and in due course it will be found that the sweet manufacturers will not require so much sugar and there will therefore be more sugar available for the home market and the Government will be able to say, "We shall de-ration sugar."

I am sure the Financial Secretary would be the first to admit that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement of December, 1951, is a very important agreement and one which will assure us of our sugar supplies for a long time to come. I think he would readily recognise that a great bulk of the work in connection with that agreement was done by his precedessor in office; but we join together in having achieved a most successful agreement.

I want to know whether it is the Government's intention to continue that agreement. Under it, we are to get from the West Indies very substantial supplies for eight years. commencing in 1953. We shall take 640,000 tons of sugar at a guaranteed price and then up to 900,000 tons. We shall purchase the difference between the 640.000 tons and the 900.000 tons at world prices, plus a preference. We ought to give all the support we can to the West Indies and we ought not to interfere with an agreement already made.

What I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is whether we shall continue bulk buying. May I take it that there is no intention on the part of the Government to give this buying back to the private trade? He ought to be in a position to give us that assurance if we are to be assured of this regular supply of sugar from the Commonwealth countries.

The hon. Member for Kidderminster said that 2,500,000 tons of sugar would be required for our normal supplies if we abolished rationing. I think it is a little more than that. About 50,000 tons more than that are required. Perhaps the Financial Secretary can tell us what amount is in the country for issue under de-rationing and whether that full amount of 2,550,000 tons a year would be made available. That would be useful to know. If it is not available, perhaps he could give some idea of the amount involved.

A good deal more could be said on the subject, but I do not want to take up the time of the Financial Secretary. As I have said, I am grateful to him for affording me this opportunity.

Mr. Pitt once convulsed this House by beginning a speech with the words, "Sugar, Mr. Speaker," and that is an illustration of the fact that this topic has been discussed once or twice before in the long history of the House. I must say that, as I listened to the robust and I might almost say rumbustious eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), the whole thing had a somewhat agreeable eighteenth century ring about it.

Let me say at once, however, that my hon. Friend is wrong when he says that this is in any true sense of the term a contentious matter. The Government fully sympathise with my hon. Friend's general purpose. We, at any rate, have no affection for rationing for rationing's sake, as, indeed, we have made abundantly clear in recent months not merely by words but by deeds.

In this context I think that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food is entitled to reassure my hon. Friend about his attitude and that of the Government on the general question from the fact that tea, sweets and gammon have been de-rationed. I hope, therefore, that the House will be prepared to proceed on the basis that there is no desire on the part of the Government to retain rationing except where it is necessary to secure a proper and fair distribution of commodities which are—I will not use the Ministry of Food's jargon, "in short supply," for I prefer the word "scarce."

The more freedom of choice we give to the consumer and, equally, the more administrative savings which we can make through the dismantling of controls which have outlived their necessity, obviously the more pleased we shall be. Equally, however, we are bound to maintain, and fully intend to maintain, rationing of these commodities until the supplies are adequate.

We come, therefore, to what is, in a phrase which I think hon. Members will associate with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the crunch of this matter—whether or not, at this moment, supplies exist and can be obtained to raise the quantities available to the amount required to make de-rationing possible. I do not think there is very much dispute about the figure required to attain that desirable end. As the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) pointed out, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster under-stated it by a matter of 50,000 tons, but I do not think any of us would be concerned to argue very much about it; it is a figure of that order.

Before I proceed further into the discussion perhaps I may seek to answer two points which the right hon. Member for Rochester interposed. In the first place, there is, naturally, no intention of violating the West Indian agreement. As to his other point, he knows the answer normally given from this Box on the subject of levels of specific stocks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster himself put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor a question which accepted the fact that to reach the right level to permit of de-rationing an increase in the first year of 750,000 tons would be required and subsequently 500,000 tons a year. Those figures take into account, quite properly. the fact that when a commodity becomes de-controlled we have to build up further stocks since the demand has necessarily become uncertain and there is a certain wisdom in making larger provision in the first year. I gather that there is no difference between my hon. Friend and myself that to reach that position some increase in purchases of sugar would be necessary.

In the ingenious figures in what, with considerable appropriateness, my hon. Friend described as an over-simplified balance sheet, he did not dispute that some such increase was required, though he took the view that by various manipulations the amount at issue could be a little smaller than has been suggested. I shall study those figures with great interest, an interest somewhat accentuated by my speculation as to whether the OFFICIAL REPORT Will be able to appear in the novel form suggested by my hon. Friend.

The Editor assures me that he will publish them in that form for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman.

I am sure they will not be for my benefit in any narrow or restrictive sense. I am sure my hon. Friend should express his gratitude for the versatility of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and if he thinks this balance sheet conveys anything, he will no doubt think it is for the benefit of all who read it. I am no monopolist. So far as the oversimplification, which my hon. Friend admitted, is concerned may I first make it clear that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, with the contemplated figure of £2,345,000 tons in some years time, was calculated on the basis not only of the substantial Canadian share but also on the passing on of some, though admittedly much smaller shares, to certain parts of the sterling Commonwealth. Therefore. it was not quite right for my hon. Friend, in the course of his ingenious calculations, to proceed on the basis that the whole amount of the sugar in the agreement is necessarily available for people in this country.

Nothing is more invidious than comparisons between what is available to people who are fellow subjects of the Crown in different parts of the Commonwealth. But when my hon. Friend put such weight on the proposition that only in this country is sugar rationed whereas in other countries benefitting from the general sugar arrangements for the sterling area it is unrationed, I must point out that, taking 1951—the latest figure available—whereas consumption in this country under rationing was at the rate of 89½ lb. a head per year, in Southern Rhodesia, one of the countries concerned with sugar originating under the Agreement, it was as low as 29½ lb. a head.

Therefore, to use his own phrase, it is again an over-simplification to say that one person is rationed and the other is not, and that it therefore shows a tremendous prejudice in favour of the one as against the other. I do not want to go further into those comparisons.

Population figures are important.

No; population figures have nothing to do with it, because it is consumption lb. per head. It is consumption in lb. per head, and it would be precisely the same calculation if it were for one man or 10 million. I do not want to go into further comparisons which are, in some degree at any rate, invidious among our own fellow subjects under the Crown.

My hon. Friend's practical proposals for meeting the gap merit one or two comments in the very short time that is left to me. He made the comment that a certain amount could be obtained from Eastern Europe—that is perfectly true—mainly, I understand, from Poland and Czechoslovakia. One of the complications is that that sugar would be refined, manufactured sugar and therefore inevitably more expensive than the raw sugar which we draw from the West Indies.

It would involve, therefore, to our balance of payments the additional burden of the cost of refining the sugar as compared with sugar from the other sources, and as such would add seriously to the burden on our foreign exchange. I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that although, like him, I attach great importance to dollar expenditure, foreign exchange expenditure is at least a matter which it is important to take into account; and the fact that the sugar can be obtained from non-dollar sources does not as it were constitute it a bonus.

I think that my hon. Friend was becoming a little more realistic when he suggested that the matter should be dealt with by a sacrifice of other imports. He mentioned, first, tobacco. The suggestion that he put to my right hon. Friend in a Question on 20th January would have involved in substance a halving of our dollar tobacco imports. The House will acquit me of any partiality, because I am a non-smoker, but there is no doubt whatever that such a reduction of tobacco consumption would cause, to put it no higher, a great deal of resentment and discomfort. It was certainly our experience during the war that a real heavy reduction in tobacco of that sort is apt to have a bad effect on morale, and also on production owing to the time wasted in queues at tobacconists.

There is, equally, the revenue aspect of the matter. My hon. Friend's proposal, as he was told by my right hon. Friend, would have involved revenue of about £300 million a year. I should be out of order if I indulged in conjectures as to the directions in which it would be necessary to turn to reimburse the Exchequer for a loss of that sort.

My hon. Friend then suggested a reduction in grain imports, but he made no suggestion about how the consequential reductions, which would, no doubt, be necessitated by such a reduction in grain consumption, should be effected. I should not be prepared necessarily to contradict my hon. Friend very far when he says that bread is wasted. But, on the other hand, if he desires to secure a reduction in bread consumption, it is for him to suggest in what way the reduction should be secured.

The final and fundamental error of my hon. Friend is that he sought to deal with sugar in isolation. He said, in terms, that it was wrong to earn dollars as a result of the investment in the Commonwealth sugar scheme. That is a wholly unrealistic attitude. It is essential to look at our economy and the pattern of our imports as a whole, and to decide as reasonably and fairly as may be in what directions expenditure can be arranged and permitted. But to seek to isolate one commodity—admittedly, a most agreeable one—and to say that it must be treated as sacrosanct, is quite a mistake.

Indeed, my hon. Friend went further and suggested that other commodities were bought by other members of the sterling area from their own dollar resources and that this distinguished them from sugar. In fact, as the House is aware, the dollar calls for the whole of the sterling area involve liabilities on the sterling area dollar pool. Therefore, the distinction that my hon. Friend sought to draw was a wholly unrealistic one.

But I assure my hon. Friend that it is our intention, with this commodity as with all others, to press forward as vigorously as we can. We do not like the necessity to ration which arises from the difficulty either of obtaining or of purchasing supplies. We are at least as anxious as my hon. Friend to bring that to an end, and we shall certainly work in that direction.