HC Deb 24 February 1937 vol 320 cc2143-52

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain services arising out of the War."

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain Services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund and other Services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Services under the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, the Coastguard, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen, and Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions."

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants in aid in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and grants, grants in aid, and expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing, fishery development; and sundry other services."

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for a Grant to the Cattle Fund."

7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Expenses of the Survey of Great Britain and of minor Services connected therewith."

First and Second Resolutions agreed to. Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Alexander

It was on this Vote that we had a difference of opinion with the Parliamentary Secretary on the Committee stage. We asked for a good deal of information. On page 11 there is an item for £6,200 for staff of the Food (Defence Plans) Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) raised a large number of important questions as to the expenditure which is covered by this Vote, how far the plans for this essential department of food have been made, and how far they are effective. What we felt at the close of the Debate in Committee was that we had been given singularly little information. Considering the important strategical considerations which arise out of the Vote, we got no information as to what was being done.

How vastly important it is when one contrasts the situation to-day with the position from 1914 to 1918. At that time we were able to draw a large proportion of our food supplies from places as far distant as Australia, New Zealand and the Far East. At that time we had an alliance with Japan, under which it was possible, after the first few months of war and we had rounded up the "Emden" and other raiders, to concentrate our cruisers to the number of 118 mostly in European or Western waters. We were able to arrange that because the Japanese Government convoyed out food ships from Australia and New Zealand a large proportion of the way on the homeward journey. Apparently that is not going to happen in the war to which, unfortunately, many seem to think we are hurrying at the moment. We have had no real information as to the steps the Government propose to take in regard to the storage of food and the supplies of food in order to make good the position which has been created. That is an important issue, and one upon which we should not be fobbed off by the kind of general statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary on 22nd February.

While, of course, I recognise that there are certain features of the operations of this and allied departments in regard to plans for Defence which ought not to be revealed—I should be the last to say that we ought to have information given in public which would be of advantage to the enemy, whoever he might be—yet we also have to consider what is the measure of confidence you can bring to the public mind in regard to the provisions made by this Department when you are asking the taxpayer to provide £1,500,000,000 for expenditure on arma- ments in five years. We had on 22nd February very little information as to how far safety is going to be brought to our food supplies in war time. I must point out again that, obviously, we are now almost the most vulnerable country in Europe to air attack, and certainly in regard to the storage of essentials for the maintenance of the life of the population one-half at least of the country must be regarded as a dangerous area. We ought to be told how far this Department is able to secure alternative methods of storage in areas where there will be reasonable safety and in respect of which we may take it that supplies will be maintained. I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to reveal secrets which may he of advantage to an enemy, but I think we should have some information on the matter.

11.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin)

I hope the House will not think that there is any reluctance whatever to give information with regard to this Department. The Supplementary Estimate which is before hon. Members is one to provide for the expenses of the staff. This new Department of the Board of Trade was set up in November, 1936, in pursuance of the Government's announcement that the whole of these questions relating to food should be concentrated under he particular Department under my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Obviously, for the moment, the Department must be working out plans. Many of the questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman referred to the solutions which the Department may eventually adopt. I am not yet in a position to say that. The Department is to prepare plans concerning all important food commodities, and it has the advantage of having the whole of the records of the Ministry of Food during the War years, when food control was actually in operation. Of course, conditions have very materially changed since then, but those records form a most valuable starting-off point for the formulation of plans for the future.

The Department was created only at the end of last year, and has had only three months' existence. It has recruited its staff, secured premises, taken over these records and is hard at work; but it is not possible for me to tell hon. Mem- bers whether storage is to take place in connection with any particular commodity, and if so, where that storage is most effectively to be carried out, and what are the detailed arrangements to prevent that storage being vulnerable or otherwise to air attack. I do not at all subscribe to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we are particularly vulnerable, or that one-half of the country is vulnerable in a particular way. I think that is all very much exaggerated; but whatever may be the truth, the Department is expressly to consider problems of that kind and its staff, recruited from the ranks of the Civil Service and presided over by a very distinguished civil servant, is ready to deal with these matters. Apart from plans for providing for food commodities, the Department has been entrusted with preparing the organisation, national and local, which it would be necessary to put into operation should the occasion arise. The Supplementary Estimate is roughly for three months' salaries for the 66 persons, whose qualifications were dealt with fully in the Committee stage. The points raised by the right hon. Gentleman concern the Committee of Imperial Defence, and are not matters connected with this Department, although the Department will work in close connection with the Committee of Imperial Defence, as I indicated on a previous occasion.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

I would not have contravened your suggestion that we should not further interrogate the Minister after he has spoken had the hon. Gentleman not repeated several statements which he made in the Committee stage and which did not find acceptance on this side of the House. They find no more acceptance now, and I think it only right that we should repeat our point of view concerning this matter. The hon. Gentleman endeavoured, in the Committee stage, to discourage discussion of the larger aspects of food organisation on the grounds that we were merely setting up a body to deal with the problem, and I think he appealed to the Chair more than once—at any rate by appealing looks—to rule out of order discussion on the organisation of food defence on the grounds that the body was being set up merely to consider such matters. Surely it is amazing that, at this hour of the day, we should be told that the Food Defence Plans Committee is only beginning to investigate problems of the food supply of the nation in time of war. Has not that been done by the Committee of Imperial Defence for the last ten years? If not, what has the Committee of Imperial Defence been doing with regard to the organisation of food supplies in time of war? This was one of the most vital questions with which the Committee of Imperial Defence had to deal, and it seems to me that it would be entirely wrong to say—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member would certainly be out of order if he discussed the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Mr. Garro Jones

With very great respect to you, Sir, I was discussing the fact that the Minister's defence of the Vote is that the Committee is not able to do anything but investigate problems of the defence of food supplies. My contention was that that should already have been investigated, and that this Committee can do no other than apply the principles which ought to have been given it by the Cabinet. Therefore, it must be the task of the committee to work out the plans and not merely conduct an investigation. If it is to do that, it must have had some terms of reference given to it by the Cabinet, or are we only now to begin to inquire what powers are to be given in order to organise food supplies in time of war? It will take the Committee 12 months to work that out. It must surely be engaged at this moment in putting plans into effect for the organisation of food supplies. Our position is that before this staff can do its work it must have had terms of reference given to it by the Cabinet. What are to be its powers? What is to be the scope and size of its organisation? I want to utter one warning, which I hope the Minister will take to heart and pass on to the Committee. Unless the Committee is given general and universal powers to control the whole of the food supplies of the nation, we shall find ourselves in the same difficulties as were experienced in the last War, when we found some people making enormous profits, and other people hard put to it to earn a living, although they were engaged with the food supplies of the nation. There will be great difficulties again if there is not a general conscription of the food and the food-producing power of the nation in the next war.

I hope than any organisation which may be set up, even if it is in an embryo stage, will get in its terms of reference a full assurance that it shall get whatever powers are necessary. But I wish to conclude my remarks on this particular matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Let me assure hon. Members who make those vulgar noises that we are carrying out our duties on these Estimates. They have been drilled by their Whips into thinking that every opposition is fractious. I can assure the House that it would be a bad day if these Estimates were allowed to go through without comment. Bon. Members will have to get used to our examination of the Estimates, or they will find that we shall be even more punctilious in carrying out our duties than we have been. When we raise points we expect to have an answer. I raised at least four points on the Committee stage, but, Mr. Speaker, I will not raise them again in deference to your suggestion.

Fourth and Fifth Resolutions agreed to. Sixth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Paling

I want to ask a question with regard to the compensation for injury in the form of ex gratia payments amounting to £300. A question was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) in Committee, but we got no answer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now say why these payments are being made, and whether the Department is under any legal obligation to these people.

11.56 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham)

I am sorry I did not on the Committee stage reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). When he raised his query I took it as an interesting suggestion, and I was not alive to the fact that he wanted a reply there and then. The Cattle Committee are advised that they are not legally liable for accidents to graders on the ground that there is probably no contract of service, because they are not paid by the Committee, but receive their fees for their services from the persons who present cattle for certification. At the same time, accidents do occur in the execution of their duty, and for that reason ex gratia payments have been authorised by the Treasury in suitable cases. The expenditure is in respect of six cases, and amounts to £250. The figure of £300 has been inserted in order to provide for expenditure that might arise in the remaining portion of the financial year. The interesting suggestion of the right hon. Member for Hillsborough in regard to insurance against these cases is answered by the fact that it is the general principle of the Government not to insure against various risks. We naturally take what steps we can to avoid these accidents, but cows will be cows.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Kelly

May I ask whether the Ordnance work is to be speeded up. I realise that the Vote states that it is for the War Office in connection with the Defence programme, but this survey is also required for those who are engaged on town planning and work of a kindred character. I would ask that this work should be speeded up, because it is very much needed in town planning.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Benson

I should like to raise a point which was mentioned in Committee by the Leader of the Opposition. I raise it now because the answer that was given by the Minister of Agriculture did not make sense. The Leader of the Opposition raised the point that there was a saving in the salaries and allowances to civil employes, whereas there was an increase to warrant officers. The reply was that in both cases this was due to the fact that the Department had not been at full strength in respect of civil employes and military employes. That answer explains the decrease in civil cases, but it makes nonsense with regard to the increase of military employés. The first question is: Why did we get that extraordinary answer from the Minister? The second question is: What is the real explanation of the increase in one case and the decrease in another? Is there any policy of replacing civil by military employés. If not, why should there be a saving in the case of the civil employés, made up for, apparently, by an increase in the number of military employés.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

I observe that there is an appropriation-in-aid of £5,200 in respect of money saved on air photographs. I think it regrettable that at this stage in air development, with all the necessity that there is for an efficient survey, both for defence and town-planning purposes, the Government should neglect to make use of this new method. One of the finest air survey organisations in the world was established in this country, but it received little or no encouragement from the Government, and was allowed to fall into decline. I am not sure whether it any longer exists. Repeated suggestions were made to the Government that they should utilise this organisation, in order to secure improved mapping and bring the survey of Great Britain up to date. Every one, I believe, who understands this question maintains that air survey is incomparably the best method of mapping a territory. How then does it come about that £5,200 has been saved out of the meagre provision made for this service in the year? I hope that the Minister will make some representations on this point in the proper quarter.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham

I think if the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) examines my right hon. Friend's reply more carefully he will see that it makes, very good sense, for this reason—that the Leader of the Opposition asked him to make a statement with regard to savings, and he dealt with the savings which are indicated in this Vote. If the hon. Member looks at the White Paper he will see that the anticipated savings include: A. Pay and Allowances to Staff £580; C. Pay, etc., of Civil Assistants, etc. £7,400. Both these items come into the same category. The saving of £580 is in consequence of the establishment of officers in connection with Ordnance Survey having been incomplete during the greater portion of the year. The second item in respect of civil assistants arises mainly from the fact that recruitment of the additional staff required for the larger programme of work, has, for various reasons, been slower than was anticipated. Both these items, as I say, are in precisely the same category and I think that what the hon. Member has in mind may be Item B— Pay and Allowances to Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Sappers.

Mr. Benson

I raised that point immediately the reply was given to the Leader of the Opposition, and the Minister repeated his explanation that items A and B were due to the same cause, namely, the fact that they had not had a complete staff.

Mr. Ramsbotham

I am bound to say that I do not get that impression from the OFFICIAL REPORT, and the fact is that the two items I have mentioned are in the same category, while Item B for £3,400 is in a different category. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), the trouble has been the absence of weather suitable for taking air photographs. The contractors for the supply of the photographs found unsuitable weather conditions and bad visibility. I agree with the hon. Member as to the importance of using the air survey method, but I understand that actually there were only 20 days in the period covered by the Estimate which could be pronounced thoroughly satisfactory for this purpose. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), the anticipated savings on the Vote are, as I have said, due mainly to the fact that the recruitment of the additional staff required for the larger programme was slower than anticipated, and I hope that this year we shall get the additional staff and the larger programme.