§ 11. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, 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 expenditure not provided for in the Army (Royal Ordnance Factories) Estimate for the year.
§ 6.39 p.m.
§ Mr. Lees-SmithI beg to move, to leave out "168,900," and to insert "168,800."
I move the reduction of the Vote in order to call attention to a question which I find has, in fact, already been discussed very fully on the same Vote in connection with the Navy Estimates, where apparently the same difficulties and proposals are presenting themselves. I listened to the discussion on the Navy Estimates, and I found that there also there is a shortage of officers. Hon. Members are proposing that it should be met by promotion from the lower deck. The shortage of officers in the Army is far greater than the shortage of officers in the Navy. I see from the Paper explaining this Vote that it amounts now to 98o officers, which, I should think, is 10 times as much as the shortage in the Navy. During the discussion of the Navy Estimates, I was interested to notice that the Army was almost referred to as the model for democratic promotion, but lest hon. Members should be misled, I must point out that, if you take the average of the last five years, the promotions in the Army have been about 25 a year. I am afraid that my colleagues in discussing the Navy Estimates were misled by that figure, because it does not represent genuine promotion from the ranks. It 2340 consists to an indefinite but very large extent of those who are promoted by a kind of back-door which the public schools have provided for themselves largely for boys who are unable to pass even the ordinary Army examination. Therefore the number of real promotions from the ranks in the Army is far smaller than the 25 which I have estimated.
This system seems to be the least defensible as a consequence of some figures which the Secretary of State for War gave during his Estimates speech. He told us that among the non-commissioned officers in the Army 18,000 higher certificates had been obtained and 1,100 special certificates. The House will recognise that these higher certificates are obtained by men who, in addition to this intellectual qualification have great military qualifications. The higher certificates are mostly held by sergeants, and, in fact, you cannot rise higher than a sergeant unless you have the higher certificate. The standard of education represented by these higher certificates which they hold is not to be despised. I have talked about these higher certificates with Army officers and have looked at the examination papers, and have even attended the classes that are held in teaching for the examination, and I agree that the higher certificate which a sergeant takes is about equivalent to the matriculation standard. That is a higher standard than is required for an officer from a public school. Officers from public schools are admitted to examination if they have passed the schools certificate, which is a lower standard than matriculation. Moreover, by the system of nomination by the Army Council, boys can become officers without even passing the school certificate. They can become officers by nomination if they come from the small charmed circle of the public schools.
So at present we have the anomalous position that men who have passed an examination of the matriculation standard, who have obviously considerable military qualities, because they have risen to the rank of sergeant. are not considered suitable to be officers, whereas boys who cannot pass the schools' certificate and who would not be accepted for anything but the lowest positions in a commercial firm can at 18 go in and become officers in a couple of years. The argument for it is the most complete relic of snobbery that is left, and every Service Member 2341 in the House knows it. It is the belief that the officer ought to be a gentleman and that the soldier likes to be led by a gentleman. That is the prevailing opinion of the officers' mess, but I do not find it among ex-service men. Particularly I do not find it among the noncommissioned officers of the ex-service men. This conception was understandable some years ago when an officer lived largely on his own means and when by entering the Army he was conferring a kind of favour upon the nation by doing unpaid work, but nowadays the officer has struck. He has payment on which he can live. We have now got to a position in which half of the officers are living on their pay. There was a discussion the other day as to whether they were paid enough. I think they are if you are going to have boys of no higher mental qualification than at present. At 33 a man who has not been able to pass the school certificates is earning £500 or £600 a year, with all the amenities and pleasures of Army life, which are very great. If you are going to have these demands for higher pay, you must extend the scope so that you draw on a wider field.
There is another feature of the situation which has quite altered the whole basis from which any such position can be defended. That is the mechanisation of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman has the credit of having carried through in the last year by far the greatest scheme of mechanisation since the close of the War, but it is clear that, if you are going to have this material development, it must be accompanied by a parallel mental development of those who have to control it. This was the subject of two articles by the military correspondent of the "Times" on Friday and Saturday. I sometimes wonder what is the exact degree of popularity in the War Office of the military correspondent of the "Times." He is certainly a very refreshing person to the rest of us. He has spoken on this subject in the plainest terms. He has pointed out that you have no right to ask the public to spend these tens of millions on this extraordinary development of mechanical equipment unless you have the scientific brains that can control it. He has suggested very delicately that the officers in the Army at present drawn from the narrow circle of public schoolboys suffer from in- 2342 adequate mental adjustment. I asked the right hon. Gentleman last year whether he would institute an inquiry into this subject, and last week he told me that there was an inquiry being conducted. I should like him to tell us more in detail what is the nature of the inquiry. If there is to be a real inquiry by a committee, it should be conducted largely by civilian minds and not simply by service advisories.
This caste system has such a complete hold upon the minds of officers that it is impossible for them to conceive that it could be undermined from the base. I notice that there are a number of Service Members in the House who make the most radical proposals, but I have never heard one of them deal with this subject. Their caste prejudice is so great that their radicalism cannot face it, and any mention of the subject only comes from these benches. I want civilian minds because I think they will look at this subject from a rather broad angle. After all, we are a democracy. A democracy like ours is efficient in peace and, I believe, most formidable in war, provided you make use of it by obtaining for the most responsible positions the ablest minds and the strongest characters in the country from the whole range of democracy itself. I see pictures in the papers of hundreds of thousands of men belonging to the Robot nations which are now sprawling over Europe. If I were a citizen of one of those countries; that would terrify me about the future of my country. One thing I learn when I go to a museum is that the species that have disappeared are those which had enormous bodies and pin-point brains. The ordinary Army mess in this country is trying to confine its officers to practically a pin-point of the population. Obviously it cannot survive. It is the most backward feature left anywhere in our public life. It is obvious now that there is no justification for it. The officers' mess realise that they are living on public funds on a standard on which they entirely maintain themselves, and they must subject themselves to the same pressure of competition from able men outside the little circle that other occupations are being compelled to do.
§ 6.58 p.m.
§ Mr. Anstruther-GrayI will resist the temptation to take up the right hon. 2343 Gentleman's challenge on the question of caste among officers because I am perhaps too obviously a protagonist of one section, but my views on the Army have always been that the British Army to-day is quite good enough in quality and that what we have to concentrate upon is getting a sufficient quantity in the way of recruits. I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he can give a reply to a specific point put to him on the question of the extension of the King's Roll system, so as to include ex-service men as well as disabled men. Could not the percentage to be employed by firms before they can qualify for the King's Roll be increased, and could not Government contracts be limited in some degree to firms upon the King's Roll?
§ 6.59 p.m.
§ Sir Walter SmilesI was struck by the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I have a great deal of sympathy with him. The last War was won by the civilian soldier. Although the regular soldier trained us and set us an example, when it came to the final show down, the War was won by the nation and by the civilian soldier. Will the right hon. Gentleman get a better Army if he throws open more promotion to the men in the ranks than if he stands to the rigid class system that exists at present? The right hon. Gentleman had a gallant career in the Army and he must have seen for himself the men who rose from the ranks and the things they did, men who, if there had not been a war, would not have had the opportunity to show their mettle. In peace time one thinks about the Army, and the Navy, as professions in which one gets promotion by getting older. But when a war comes it is a very different thing, and it is then that merit counts. In peace time no man in the ranks has anything like the same opportunity that he has in war. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has in the ranks of his Line Regiments now men who, if they were given a chance in war, might rise to the highest positions.
Three weeks ago a friend of mine said to me that he was going to see his son, who was in the Army. He had got so tired of working in a bank in the city that he left and enlisted. He had a public school education. When I asked my friend, "Has he any chance of getting any promotion from the ranks?" he 2344 said, "No, he is too old, but he likes the Army life and work, and would sooner do that than anything else." It was what his father said to me that inspired some questions I put in the House about the amount of money deducted from a soldier's pay for cleaning apparatus, etc., and I would thank the right hon. Gentleman for the advances he has made in this direction. It will be appreciated by men of all ranks. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also think what some of the civilians did who joined in the War. We would like to feel that there were more prospects for young fellows who feel that their careers are in the Army, and that the road was open to them for promotion.
§ 7.4 13.m.
§ Mr. SandersI would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) on the admirable first portion of his speech. My right hon. Friend who dealt with the sources of supply of officers will feel encouraged that at last, from the other side, we have received from an hon. Member whose ancestor defended so well the principle of self-help, support for which we have been longing for a considerable time. The necessity of widening the source of supply of officers becomes more urgent every day. No one of my age will deny that in the romantic days of warfare which have now disappeared, it was considered that almost the only things required of an officer were a good appearance and bravery, and that his men could rely on his being able to lead them. But it is evidence in these days, when more and more brains are required, that that qualification of the officer must be extended.
My memory reawakened this afternoon when I heard the First Lord of the Admiralty recall some of his experiences on the Higher Education Committee of the London County Council, on which I was a colleague with him, and I recalled with a shock that when we were organising the first of the London County Council's secondary schools our education adviser told us that it would be advisable at a certain stage in the arrangements to have a parallel form, because at that stage education began to be a little difficult, and boys that were more or less backward would have to be detained in this parallel class. He added as an aside, that in most schools this parallel class was known as 2345 the Army class, which indicated what I have just said, that brains in those days were not considered to be a vital necessity for officers.
I realised, too, during the War, the need for drawing our officers from a wider source when I was serving the Government in Russia. I have an interesting recollection of meeting there the American representative of a great firm that supplied the Russian Army with mechanical trench diggers. He had been sent over because the Russian Army officials had informed the firm that the trench diggers would not work. He went to the front, took off his coat, went under the tractor and turned a screw, and the tractor worked admirably. To his astonishment the Russian engineer officers thought that he had degraded himself as a gentleman engineer by getting on the ground and showing that he understood the make-up of the machines. I do not suggest that would have happened in our Engineer Corps, but it indicates what the Army mind was in Russia, and shows that it was even then of the same type as ours was, perhaps, 50 or 60 years ago. A high military authority with great records is not the type of man that should be entrusted with decisions regarding improvements or changes in the Army. I suppose our second greatest general, and one of our greatest administrators, was the Duke of Wellington, but it is on record that he opposed the introduction of any change in the arms used by the British soldier on the ground that the arms used at Waterloo were good enough for all time.
I hope the Secretary of State will take advice from people who have not been brought up entirely in military circles or service in considering this problem of widening the field from which our officers are drawn. Many reasons that will be difficult to overcome were given why recruiting is backward. There is one to which I would like to call attention, and which, I think, it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman, with the aid of his colleagues, to remove. It is embodied in a question put by an hon. Member opposite on 22nd February:
To ask the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that many ex-service men of the Great War are said to be becoming prematurely aged or incapacitated as a result of the general after-effects of their war service and should receive pension for their condition; and whether he will make a statement upon the attitude of his Department to 2346 such cases and the possibility of pensions being granted to them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1937; col. 1619, Vol. 320.]Members on this side receive requests and complaints from large numbers of men among their constituents concerning the after-effects of their War service for which they get no assistance from the Ministry of Pensions, and others from men receiving small pensions who suddenly break down, according to their doctors, because of the after-results of War service and whose cases cannot be reopened. I had one theother day of a man who passed A1, a highly respectable artisan, with two sons who are keeping the home going for him, who did good service and was invalided out of the Army, given 8s. a week pension, went to work, developed acute heart trouble, and now his doctor will not allow him to do a hand's turn towards earning his living. He said to me, "What can I say to my sons when they want to join the Territorials or the Regular Army if this is the treatment meted out to me after I have served my country?" If the Secretary of State will multiply these little centres of discontent by thousands he will understand why there is a difficulty in getting men to join the Army. There are hundreds of cases, and whether the men are justified or not in believing that their premature break down is due to what they went through during the War, there is a sense of injustice which rankles, and these men sometimes have a very open way of expressing their sense of injustice. I suggest that the Secretary of State should try to influence his colleagues, especially the Minister of Pensions, to see whether something cannot be done to remove this sense of acute grievance.
§ 7.16 p.m.
§ The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper)The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Sanders) is well aware that I have no control over the Minister of Pensions, but he was speaking from the point of view of the effect these cases have on recruiting. He will be interested to learn that I had this question brought to my notice earlier in the year and communicated with the Minister of Pensions, who was good enough to send me a long reply in which he dealt with all the hard cases which had been brought to his notice within the period of one year. I suggested that it might be possible, as these pensioners were gradually passing away, 2347 that these hard cases might be treated more generously, and I was deeply impressed, and I am sure the hon. Member would have been, to find how few there were of these cases and how when they were brought up in the House of Commons and investigated, many of them were proved not to be hard cases, but cases which had been generously treated. While I am in agreement with the hon. Member that one hard case does an enormous amount of harm and creates a feeling of discouragement, yet I can assure him that I have looked carefully into this matter and I was relieved, indeed almost surprised, at the satisfactory reply and the strength of the case which the Minister of Pensions was able to put up.
Let me deal shortly with the suggestion for a new use of the King's Roll. The King's Roll was a separate step taken after the War to promote the interests of disabled soldiers. That category is gradually disappearing. We have gone carefully into the matter as to whether it would be wise to adopt the suggestion Made by the hon. Member. On the whole we are inclined to the view that it would be a mistake at present to change the nature of the King's Roll, and that it might be confusing to institute a new King's Roll before the purpose and utility of the present Roll has expired. I am quite willing to consider any further representations on the subject, my mind is still Open, but, on the whole, there are other and more useful steps which can be taken to encourage recruitment for the Army.
The main subject of the Debate has been similar to that on the Senior Service. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate resented the suggestion that the Army was a more democratic service than the Navy. That is an old argument which I have heard hotly disputed from both sides, but, at any rate, we have one or two generals who have risen from the ranks and at least one Field-Marshal, and I do not think the Navy can produce a record to beat that. On general grounds I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman that more should be done, and I hope more will be done to encourage an increase in the recruitment of officers from the ranks. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was fair when he suggested that all that was required to enter the military colleges was a school certificate Whereas those who take commis- 2348 sions are required to pass the higher education examination which is equivalent to matriculation. All school candidates who pass into the military colleges are obliged to pass the Army entrance examination satisfactorily and boys from public schools either have to hold the school certificate, the equivalent of that required from the Army candidate, or be recommended specially, in a few cases, before they can sit for the examination. All cadets have to qualify in the passing out examination before they are commissioned.
At the same time it is equally misleading to judge a man's intelligence by the examinations he passes when he is 17 or 18 years of age and the examinations he can pass when he is 23 or 24. Many a boy who may fail to pass the school certificate examination at 18 may be perfectly able to pass matriculation three or four years later. These examinations are no sure test of a man's ability, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may be aware that one of the distinguished generals in the Great War, Sir Henry Wilson, failed three times to pass into the Military College at Sandhurst and got in through the Militia. Criticisms have been passed on Sir Henry Wilson, but no one ever thought that he was lacking in mental equipment or judgment, as the military correspondent of the "Times" has very well pointed out. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the War Office will pay great attention to everything which falls from the pen of this distinguished writer. I have read the two articles; I have read the volumes which have recently appeared under his name in which these two articles are included.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider that it was of little use putting any recommendation forward or setting up any committee which consisted solely of Army officers. I beg him to disabuse his mind of this prejudice. He says that they are also prejudiced; it is the old retort of a tu quoque. I dare say there is great prejudice in the minds of civilians as to the narrowness of outlook of the military mind. I have no doubt that those who may have seen very little military service, and possibly have only come into contact with non-commissioned officers of no great distinction or future, who will not rise higher in the Service, may imagine that they are fair specimens 2349 of the very fine intelligence shown by those who are responsible for the control and the training of the Army. I am quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were to pay a visit to the Staff College and discuss these and other matters with men who are really rising to the top of the Army, who have already reached high positions, he would take an entirely different view with regard to their prejudices or narrowness of mind. They are just as fit as any body of men who can be selected in any of the professions. All professions have their limitations, even politicians are sometimes criticised, and these officers who have had experience of the Army, are quite competent to sit on any matter which concerns the future and welfare of the Army. This committee has definitely been set up. It is a military committee, and its terms of reference are:
to investigate the shortage of candidates who present themselves for commission; to consider the conditions under which such candidates may be obtained, and to make recommendations.I have spoken to the members of the committee and have impressed on them the importance that is attached to a considerable increase in the number of people who shall be available for commission in future from the ranks. I hope the committee will produce a useful and fertile report, and that within a year's time the right hon. Gentleman and I will both be satisfied.
§ Mr. Lees-SmithWill their report be made available to the public?
§ Mr. CooperI think we had better see the report first.
§ 7.27 p.m.
§ Mr. EdeThe Secretary of State has given us some ground for satisfaction by the closing sentences of his speech. It is a good thing to know that this matter is to be investigated by a committee, but I would suggest that the committee should not be entirely confined to officers and that it might be as well to widen its outlook by including one or two people who are not at present officers in the Army. I would not go as far as my right hon. Friend and say that it should be an entirely non-army committee.
§ Mr. Lees-SmithI did not suggest that.
§ Mr. EdeFor instance, the committee which was set up by the Minister of 2350 Transport to inquire into the distribution of electricity was Sir John Snell, the most distinguished electrical engineer in the country, and Sir Henry McGowan, a distinguished man in commerce, who has risen from the ranks and who is now disguised under some other name which I cannot recall at the moment. I believe he now has a seat in another place. There was added an accountant of great distinction, so that all types of mind were represented on a very technical problem I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who listened to the discussion on the Navy was impressed with what the First Lord said about the advantage of getting into touch with local education authorities. There are a great number of youths of 16, 17 and 18 in secondary schools, who have to consider the life they will take up. I cannot recall in the many discussions I have had with the parents of such boys that it was ever suggested that one of the armed forces of the Crown would present an appropriate future career. Many of them go into banks, and I have no doubt that in a few years they feel that they would prefer something a little more active. If they could be attracted at this stage into the Army it would be a good thing indeed for the Army. Millions of pounds are spent every year in educating these youths, and I think it is desirable that, if they are appropriate material for absorption into the commissioned ranks of the Service, every facility should be afforded them and there should be an effort to establish a liaison, as was suggested by the First Lord of the Admiralty, between the schools and the Service.
There is one thing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) said with regard to the Navy which, I gather, does not exist at the moment in the Army. The hon. and gallant. Member suggested that the question of expense was a deterrent to youths in the Navy or contemplating going into the Navy thinking that a commission was possible, and I gathered that the officer's wife and the bluejacket's wife were so far apart that one really could not expect a bluejacket to take his wife into the company of the other. We all know that the colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady are sisters under their skin, and apparently it has been recognised for a long time that the particular difficulty which troubles the hon. 2351 and gallant Gentleman does not exist in the Army. I believe that if the recruitment of officers from all classes of the community were made easier, the right hon. Gentleman would to a very large extent solve the problem of recruiting for the ranks. It must be realised—and I speak as the representative of a great industrial constituency—that there is a strong feeling among certain sections of the industrial community that the Army would be used in the event of an industrial dispute on behalf of one side to the dispute, and that it is officered by people whose sympathies would be entirely with one side in any such dispute. If the basis of recruitment for the officer class were widened, that idea would be very largely removed from the minds of the industrial population. As long as it is believed, rightly or wrongly, that the officers are drawn from one particular class, the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if that prejudice exists in those parts of the country from which he must hope to get a substantial number of recruits if ever the ranks of the Army are to be filled.
I am very glad that the committee is to be set up, but even at this stage I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot put on the committee somebody associated with the universities and somebody who has practical knowledge of the problem of the senior boys in the secondary schools with a view to finding out whether some assistance could not be obtained in throwing open that very wide field of recruitment for the Service. After all, the number of boys who go into the secondary schools is very large indeed. I will give a personal illustration which will show the House the extent to which the number has increased during the lifetime of those of us here. I sat for the county junior scholarship of an elementary school in Surrey in 1895, and there were 64 candidates for 32 places. This year, in the same county, there were 5,000 candidates for 750 places. There are over 20 times as many boys going into the secondary schools from the elementary schools as there were 40 years ago, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that such a wide field of recruitment for the officers of the Army ought not to be ignored and that he ought to attempt to establish with the authorities of the schools the kind of sympathetic approach which the First Lord of the Ad- 2352 miralty indicated he wished to have when he was dealing with his Service earlier this afternoon.
§ 7.34 p.m.
§ Mr. Lees-SmithI listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that he is setting up a committee, but I gathered that it is to be entirely confined to serving officers.
§ Mr. CooperAnd civil servants.
§ Mr. Lees-SmithThe terms of reference of the committee show that it is one of a very wide character, and will deal not only with the topic of promotion from the ranks, but such topics as whether a large and predominant section of officers will be obtained from the universities or by special entry at the age of 16 or so from the secondary schools as distinct from the public schools. I doubt whether a committee consisting simply of officers and civil servants will have the wide experience necessary to deal with these general avenues, and I should have thought that the Committee might very well have been reinforced by somebody from the universities who is competent in this work and by the headmaster of a big secondary school who knows the type of boys now going to the secondary schools as distinct from the public schools and who would, I think, make very valuable suggestions for a great new source of recruitment for the class which the right hon. Gentleman is considering.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter from the point of view of making this Committee effective. Moreover, it would be very satisfactory if the report which the Committee would produce could be accepted as that of a body which had considered the matter from a sufficient breadth of view. A body consisting mainly of officers, with one or two civil servants thrown in, would still be considered by some as justifying the view I have expressed—a view which the right hon. Gentleman called prejudiced—that the existing system is so powerful in their minds that they cannot bring a really open mind to the possibility of fundamentally changing it. I think that is a point of view which it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should take into account if he wishes the report to be accepted as a settlement of the problem for some years to come.
§ Mr. CooperThe hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give a decision now, but I am prepared to consider the extension of the committee.
§ Question put, "That '168,900' stand part of the Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 97.
2355| Division No. 116.] | AYES. | [7.38 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Gridley, Sir A. B. | Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) | Petherick, M. |
| Albery, Sir Irving | Grimston, R. V. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. |
| Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. |
| Anstruther-Gray, W, J. | Gunston, Capt. D. W. | Radford, E. A. |
| Apsley, Lord | Guy, J. C. M. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Hamilton, Sir G, C. | Rankin, Sir R. |
| Assheton, R. | Harbord, A. | Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) | Rayner, Major R. H. |
| Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) | Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) | Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Balfour, G. (Hampstead) | Holmes, J. S. | Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) |
| Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) | Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Bernays, R. H. | Home, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S. | Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) |
| Blair, Sir R. | Horsbrugh, Florenoe | |
| Blaker, Sir R. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) | Rowlands, G. |
| Blindell, Sir J. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) |
| Boulton, W. W. | Hunter, T. | Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) |
| Bower, Comdr. R. T. | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. | Salmon, Sir I. |
| Brisuce, Capt. R. G. | Jones, L. (Swansea W.) | Salt, E. W. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) | Keeling, E. H. | Samuel, M. R. A. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) | Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) | Scott, Lord William |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) | Seely, Sir H. M. |
| Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) | Kimball, L. | Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) |
| Bull, B. B. | Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. | Simmonds, O. E. |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) | Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.) | Somerset, T. |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Leckie, J. A. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) | Leech, Dr. d. W. | Spears, Brigadier-General E. L. |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Lees-Jones, J. | Spens, W. P. |
| Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. | Lewis, O. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd) |
| Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S, G'gs) | Lindsay, K. M. | Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. | MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F. |
| Crooke, J. S. | MacDonald, Sir Murdooh (Inverness) | Tasker, Sir R. I. |
| Crossley, A. C. | MeEwen, Capt. J. H. F. | Tate, Mavis C. |
| Crowder, J. F. E. | McKie, J. H. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Cruddas, Col. B. | Maclay, Hon. J. P. | Thomson, Sir J. D. W. |
| Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) | Marmingham-Buller, Sir M. | Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. |
| Dawson, Sir P. | Margeseon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. | Turton, R. H. |
| Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. | Wakefield, W. W. |
| Conner, P. W. | Mellor, Sir d. S. P. (Tamworth) | Walker-Smith, Sir J. |
| Dugdale, Major T. L. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Eastwood, J. F. | Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.) | Warrender, Sir V. |
| Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) | Waterhouse, Captain C. |
| Elliston, Capt. G. S. | Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. | Wedderburn, H. d. S. |
| Emery, J. F. | Munro, P. | Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. |
| Emmott, C. E. G. C. | Nail, Sir J. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Neven-Spenee, Major B. H. H. | Withers, Sir d. d. |
| Erskine-Hill, A. G. | O'Connor, Sir Terence J. | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Everard, W. L. | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Wragg, H. |
| Ganzoni, Sir J. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A. | Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C. |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Orr-Ewing, I. L. | Young, A. S. L. (Partick) |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) | Owen, Major G. | |
| Gluokstein, L. H. | Palmer, G. E. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Granville, E. L. | Peat, C. U. | Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin and |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Penny, Sir G. | Mr. Cross. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Brooke, W. | Dalton, H. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) | Brown, C. (Mansfield) | Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) |
| Adamson, W. M. | Cassells, T. | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Charleton, H. C. | Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) |
| Ammon, C. G. | Chater, D. | Ede, J. C. |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. | Cluse, W. S. | Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) |
| Barnes, A. J. | Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. | Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. |
| Barr, J. | Cocks, F. S. | Gallacher, W. |
| Bellenger, F. J. | Cove, W. G. | Garro Jones, G. M. |
| Benson, G. | Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Bevan, A. | Daggar, G. | Groves, T. E. |
| Hall, G. H. (Anerdare) | Marshall, F. | Simpson, F. B. |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapal) | Maxton, J. | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Hardie, G. D. | Messer, F. | Smith, Rt. Han. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) |
| Hayday, A. | Milner, Major J. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Montague, F. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Henderson, T. (Tradeaton) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Stephen, C. |
| Hollins, A. | Noel-Baker, P. J. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Hopkin, D. | Oliver, G. H. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| John, W. | Paling, W. | Thorne, W. |
| Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Parker, J. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Parkinson, J. A. | Viant, S. P. |
| Kelly, W. T. | Ptthiok-Lawrence, F. W. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Lawson, J. J. | Potts, J. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Leach, W. | Price, M. P. | Watson, W. McL. |
| Lee, F. | Pritt, D. N. | Westwood, J. |
| Leslie, J. R. | Ridley, G. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Lunn, W. | Riley, B. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Macdonald, G. (Inoe) | Ritson, J. | Wilson, C, H. (Attereliffe) |
| McGhee, H. G. | Rowson, G. | Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) |
| McGovarn, J. | Sanders, W. S. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| MacLaron, A. | Sexton, T. M. | |
| Maclean, N. | Shinwell, E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers. |
Ninth Resolution read a Second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ 7.48 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel ClarkeAs a serving Territorial officer I rise with some diffidence to take part in this Debate. But I am also a member of two Territorial Force Associations, and in that capacity I should like respectfully to record the deep appreciation with which I read the Estimates and the even greater appreciation with which I heard the Secretary of State enlarge on them on Monday afternoon. The work of the Territorial Force Associations during the last few years has not been very happy work. We have had to refuse grants to objects which we knew were worthy. We have had to check initiative, to curtail training, and to reduce the wages of clerks and storemen throughout the Territorial Army. It has been even worse for the units themselves, because their training and recruiting have been very seriously curtailed. Therefore, we particularly welcome the entire restoration of the 5 per cent. cut which had to be made in the economy years. It was also very good news that the training grant is to be increased. By a rather curious anomaly last year, although in many ways the Territorial Army was better off, our training grant was really reduced, because it remained stationary while pay and allowances were increased, with the result that there was less to spend on actual training.
2356 I was also very glad to hear that there will be practically a fourfold increase in the amount available for what we call "lands, ranges and buildings." I cannot emphasise too much the importance to the Territorial unit of its drill hall. Many of the existing drill halls are very old, built by public subscription in many cases in Victorian days for the old Volunteers, and it is very hard on them to compete in providing entertainment and facilities for recreation, gymnastics and that sort of thing with the facilities which the great towns offer for young men. The concessions to which I have referred were described in detail by the Secretary of State, and I hope it is not too much to anticipate that there may be even more of them than were specifically mentioned. I hope, however, that we shall not be accused of being greedy. I can assure the House that we are not greedy, but we really are hungry. We are hungry with the hunger of a very healthy organisation, which has been through a lot of lean years. In the case of one association whose headquarters are at Brighton, they may be suffering from the same sort of hunger that we heard about in the Navy on Tuesday, when they have to have four meals a day because of the sea air. Most certainly we are hungry, and what has been given to us has made us wish for more.
I suggest very humbly that the following things would be of great additional assistance to us. First, an immediate instalment of equipment. I know that we shall get it, in due course, but even if we could have it lent to us at first it would be a great help. If war broke out we could return it to the Regular Army. At the beginning of the War in 1914 we had to give up our rifles and a good many of 2357 our horses; but we got them back later. We had Japanese rifles instead. We gave them up cheerfully because we knew they were wanted, and we would do the same thing again. Some instalment of this kind would be a definite encouragement.
The infantry battalions are to have trench mortars in the not far off future. They were told they would be able to borrow some this summer, but I understand that that promise has had to be withdrawn; I do hope that it may be possible to reconsider this. With regard to "travelling-to-drill" allowances, we are, in spite of the last addition of I per cent., still receiving 1½ per cent. less than we used to receive for officers' out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, officers can claim to-day for distances under six miles. That in a large and scattered county means that training has to be curtailed. It does not matter so much in a big town where the drill halls are close together, but in a rural area where the officers have to cover considerable distances in going to the drills of their scattered detachments it is a different matter, and we require more than is needed in some of the towns.
The provision of physical training kit, something quite simple, rubber-soled shoes for one thing, would also be of assistance. Men who do physical training before breakfast and have to carry on through the day with the same clothes suffer a good deal of inconvenience. I understand, too, that some units are still without Army type respirators for training purposes. I should also like to call attention, with considerable diffidence, to a question in regard to anti-aircraft units. We know how essential it is that these units should be developed and brought up to strength as Soon as possible. On any agenda of a Territorial Force Association a great part of the time is taken up with discussing the needs of these units. But we know too that in a family if one child has to be favoured, although it may be necessary to favour it in the interests of that family, it sometimes does make things a little difficult. There is not any deep feeling about this matter, but I think that it would be quite easy to do something which would put what feeling does exist right, because it does exist to a certain extent.
The Territorial Army has been of some assistance to the Regular Army in the 2358 last year in the matter of recruiting. I believe that about one in nine of the Regular recruits came from the Territorial Army. I wish we had been able to provide more. I do not think there is anything more characteristic of the Territorial Army than its devotion to its elder brother, the Regular Army, and its wish to help it. I listened to the Debate on Tuesday with regard to Regular Army recruiting and I felt that possibly one of the things that makes recruiting difficult is the fact that what one might call the outward glory of the Regular Army seems to have gone. Possibly that outward glory went with the loss of full dress. I remember as a boy the old ceremonial parade on the King's birthday and the pictures in the illustrated papers at Christmas of our Generals and, best of all, my own tin soldiers. They were all in full-dress uniforms, and I do feel that now all that has gone something that was attractive to young men has been lost. I hope that I am not too optimistic when I say that I have a sneaking hope that the blue uniform this year may in another year give place once again to the old full dress.
§ 7.56 p.m.
§ Mr. EmmottI rise for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he would kindly give the House some elucidation of matters connected with the accommodation of that part of the Territorial Force which is concerned with antiaircraft defence. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken mentioned the general question but did not treat in any detail the particular matter which I wish to examine. One word about numbers. I observe in to-day's "Times" an interesting report on the figures of recruiting for the Territorial Force for February, and I was very pleased to note that they showed considerable improvement upon those that had gone before. For my particular purpose I was even more glad to notice that the largest increase which took place in February in recruiting for the Territorial Force was in the first and second anti-aircraft divisions. Still, the figures remain at a level which must negative complacency. The House may be interested if I give a few figures of the present strength of these divisions. The peace establishment of the first antiaircraft division is just over 21,000 and 2359 its present strength is 8,294: a percentage of 39.5. The establishment of the second anti-aircraft division, formed only recently, is 19,860. Its strength is 7,580, or expressed in percentage 38.2. In considering the percentage the House should not of course forget the increase in the establishment involved in the conversion of these divisions to the work of antiaircraft defence.
But, however the House regards these figures, it will agree that both men and guns are useless without accommodation for the men themselves. It was actually stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in his interesting and lucid speech two days ago, that recruiting had had to be closed down in more than one instance simply because there was no place for the men when they joined. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the extreme importance of accommodation for these anti-aircraft divisions. It is, of course, as the Memorandum points out, no easy matter to find sites for the 35 new headquarters and drill halls required in London and its outskirts. I should like to ask him, whether the statement on page 9 of the Memorandum refers only to the second anti-aircraft division, which is concerned with the defence of the Midlands and the North of England? If so, the House will notice that it is only hoped that accommodation for that division will be made for about half of the units in 1937, and for the whole only by the Summer of 1938. The Summer of 1938 is rather a long way off.
I should also like to ask what progress has been and is being made in the provision of accommodation for the 35 headquarters in London and its outskirts. How many sites have been bought; and in how many instances has building already begun, where building is necessary? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the date at which he anticipates that this accommodation for the first anti-aircraft division charged with the defence of London will be available?
§ 8.6 p.m.
§ Sir Joseph NallI would like to call attention to the great variety of practice in the provision of civilian clerks at headquarters in the Territorial Army. An orderly room clerk is an essential man in the organisation of battalion and brigade 2360 headquarters in these days, but this is not universally admitted by Territorial Associations throughout the country. One hears complaints. It is a point which makes a vast difference in the administration of a unit. I suggest that there should be a general rule in the case of headquarters of normal size, whether in the Infantry or the Artillery, that the pay of an orderly room clerk should be provided for. There are cases scattered up and down the country of air defence units being organised, whether new units or units converted from existing establishments, without proper inquiry as to whether the location of the headquarters and other circumstances are suitable from the point of view of recruiting. Battalions of infantry are being turned into antiaircraft gun detachments, Royal Engineers and so on. Then it is found that the headquarters are not satisfactory, and that it would have been better to have started organising the units de novo. Regarding the transfer of officers, the War Office ought to take a more sympathetic and generous attitude towards the necessity which officers are under of making changes in uniform. This may not be a serious matter for an officer who has been serving in a gunnery brigade and is now turning over to antiaircraft, but for an officer in the infantry suddenly to turn over to the Royal Artillery or Royal Engineers and convert his uniform means expense. The scale of reimbursement is extraordinarily niggardly and has disgusted some of the officers almost to the point of driving them out. I submit that it is only reasonable that these officers should have some assistance in changing over. There has been some delay in appointing adjutants. Adjutants ought to be appointed for these converted units before the change-over takes place. Regarding warrant officers and enrolment staff, these ought to be selected on merit and posted quickly to the units. On the question of the difficulty of finding accommodation, one can appreciate that it is going to take time to make substantial additions, and, if it is found that a year or so must elapse before places are ready for headquarters, the question of allocation of units ought to be considered. If units are still without headquarters and equipment, the best course is to admit the mistake and convert some other unit or, as I would prefer it, create a new unit 2361 de novo. It would be much more convenient in some cases to telescope two existing infantry battalions into one, and create an anti-aircraft unit separately. Instead of conversion, I suggest, amalgamation of existing units should take place and there should be creation of new units de novo. I wish to raise another point. In the past there has been considerable difficulty as regards the position of men of the Territorial Army who, for the time being are out of work, when they go to camp. A man who is out of work, and in receipt of unemployment relief, finds himself in camp for 15 days drawing Army pay with or without marriage allowance. If his family at home suddenly find that they are not allowed to draw the unemployed benefit, which they have been receiving in the past, a great deal of hardship may be caused. Considerable feeling is being created about this matter. The War Office, I suggest, ought to get into touch with the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board to see that this kind of position does not arise in the future. I am aware that the matter has been under consideration and that local arrangements have to some extent mitigated the hardship to which I refer, but the position is not clear and it ought to be made clear. I do not suggest that a large number of unemployed men go into the Territorial Army because they are unemployed. What happens is that a man who has had many years' service may suddenly find himself unemployed and may, against his own inclination, have to go on benefit of one kind or another. When such men go to camp there occurs this upset in their domestic arrangements which I have described. I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will take this matter in hand with a view to a general pronouncement on the proper system to be adopted in these cases.
§ 8.17 p.m.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithI realise the necessity which exists in these times for building up some kind of force such as the Territorial Army for home defence, but I wish to protest against some of the methods which are being adopted in recruiting for the Territorial Army. These methods are to be deprecated because they are apt to create friction in industry and may lead to serious consequences. In some parts of the North 2362 we find that local territorial associations are concentrating upon certain factories and getting the employers to make all kinds of concessions to workers on condition that they join the Territorial Force. In this way they are creating differentiation in the conditions inside the factories. They are going so far in some cases that serious results are likely to follow inside the factories. It is a case of giving preferential treatment to men who join the force.
§ Sir J. NallHear, hear!
§ Mr. SmithThat may be all right from the hon. Member's point of view, but it is not all right from the point of view of many poor people who are placed in the very position of which he has just been complaining. He has mentioned one instance. Apart from that, there are many men, as good as any of us in this House, who cannot see their way to join up in the Territorial Army and yet if this country needed defending, as it did in the last War, those men would probably rally to the defence of the country quicker than some of those who had been associated with this force previously. I would ask those responsible to stop this policy of creating friction in the workshops by differentiating between one workman and another and to pursue the more enlightened policy of making the service attractive to young men. I have been in one factory during the last 12 months in which I had almost to face a very serious situation as a result of the policy which is now being pursued.
I suggest that other methods should be adopted. For instance, instead of allowing military bands to perform only at places like Eastbourne and Bournemouth, why should they not be allowed to perform in the parks in the industrial centres of the North? Why should the people in those districts not be allowed to enjoy the music which they have a right to enjoy, but which they do not get the opportunity of enjoying to the same extent as the people in those resorts in the South which I have mentioned? Of course, people can listen on the wireless to music from many parts of the Continent, but in this country, and particularly in the North, unless in an enlightened municipality people have few opportunities of listening to these bands. That is only one of the methods which could be suggested. My main purpose, however, is 2363 to protest against the present policy of obtaining recruits inside the factories. There should be a more scientific policy of making the service attractive and obtaining the men on the basis of merit and fitness instead of bringing pressure to bear as is being done at the present time. These methods are making the people concerned feel very uncomfortable, and may lead to a situation in which certain organisation will be forced to consider taking a stand in the matter. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider the point I have raised and consult those who ought to be consulted in a representative capacity in the industrial areas, to find whether some alternative policy could not be adopted with better results.
§ 8.22 p.m
§ Mr. CooperThe speeches to which we have listened have been designed to suggest improvements in the Territorial Army. I must thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Lieut.-Colonel Clarke) for the tribute which he paid to the Department for what has been done in the past year. I assure him that his suggestions will be looked into and if it is possible in the future to extend still further the privileges and concessions which have already been granted to the Territorial Army, I will pay careful attention to the points raised by him.
The question of the headquarters for the new divisions is, as I indicated earlier in the Debate and in the Memorandum, one of the most difficult problems with which we have to deal. It is difficult to find suitable sites, it is difficult to acquire them and it is difficult to set about providing the buildings as swiftly and as efficiently as we would like. But my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Emmott) must not think that, because all the sites of all the headquarters are not now available, therefore the new units are not being formed. It is true that in some instances recruiting has had to be damped down owing to the crowding of the units—sometimes two or three having to be accommodated in a building only intended for one. But although this is very inconvenient, it is not preventing us from getting on with the work. My hon. Friend was not quite correct in his interpretation of the statement in the Memorandum. That refers to two divisions, 2364 the London Division and the Midland and Northern Division, and I hope that by the summer of next year all this work will be accomplished and as many new barracks will be set up in the Northern and Midland Division as there are in London. We are acquiring sites and setting up buildings as rapidly as we can.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester (Sir J. Nall) is wrong in thinking, as he seemed to suggest, that adjutants of Territorial battalions are chosen by any other standard than merit. We are most careful to choose, as far as possible, people whom we consider to be well adapted for the work which they have to do. Wherever I have been I have heard the greatest satisfaction expressed with the adjutants.
§ Sir J. NallI did not suggest that any of them were unsuitable. I was complaining of the delay in getting them posted to their jobs.
§ Mr. CooperI am very glad to hear the hon. Member say that. Equally with regard to instructors, we try to get the best men for the jobs. With regard to the question of clerks, we endeavour at the War Office to make a uniform standard apply all over the country. While bearing in mind that policy, it is equally important to bear in mind the different local conditions, customs and demands. We must remember that it is a Territorial Army founded on a territorial basis under an association, and that associations vary all over the country. What differentiates it so much from the Regular Army is that we cannot run it in the same way as we can the Regular Army, in which we can have uniform standards all over the country, and tact and sympathy must be used in dealing with the Territorials.
The hon. Member who spoke last raised a point, which he thought an important point, whether there is any undue influence brought to bear on men to join the Territorial Army? I hope that nothing of the sort of being done. There was a paragraph in a newspaper earlier this week which spoke in the heading of intimidation being used to get men to join. When I read the paragraph I did not find a single instance of intimidation. I hope that there is not. We must make a great distinction between rewards and intimidation. The policy that is being 2365 pursued now by a great many firms all over the country is to give the men who join the Territorial Army a free fortnight for attendance at camp which does not interfere with any other holiday to which they are entitled. That is giving men who join the Territorial Army an advantage which they deserve, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will disagree with me that it is desirable that firms should give this advantage. It is a voluntary army, and you cannot run a voluntary army unless everybody does his bit towards helping. Those employers of labour who cannot themselves join the Territorial Army can do their bit, and it often means sacrifices to them to give their men a fortnight's holiday apart from any other holiday to which they are entitled. There is a great line fixed between encouragement and intimidation. I am all for encouragement and for giving it to the greatest possible extent. I am all against any form of intimidation, and if anything of the kind is brought to my notice I shall do my best to prevent it.
§ Sir J. NallWill my right hon. Friend say a word about the change in the uniform for junior officers?
§ Mr. CooperThe grievance has been brought to my notice for the first time by my hon. Friend. I have not heard of cases where hardship has been inflicted, but if he will bring any instances to my notice I will look into them.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
Fourth Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ Mr. KellyI want to raise a point in order to obtain an explanation in regard to item G on page 218 of the Estimates, which deals with works and land for factories, etc., other than Royal Ordnance Factories. I realise that these factories should be managed by some individual who may be the owner of a factory which joins buildings erected by the War Department. What conditions are laid down in regard to their control? Is there any possibility of such a thing happening as happened after 1919, when some of these buildings, erected at the cost of the community, passed out of the hands of the 2366 community, with the result that some people had a handsome present made to them? I hope that the Minister will make it clear that in expending this money upon these factories and this land the factories will still remain in the possession of the War Department although they are managed for the purposes of manufacture by the people who use the buildings.
§ Mr. CooperI understand that the hon. Member is afraid that we shall set up a factory on land and not acquire ownership of the land.
§ Mr. KellyNo. The War Department may erect a building on land of which they have acquired the ownership and allow the building to fall out of their control into the hands of the people who are controlling manufacture in the buildings. I want to know whether the War Department will take precautions to see that the factories and land do not pass out of their possession and get into the possession of those who are controlling the manufacture.
§ Mr. CooperIt has always been the policy of the War Office, as far as possible, to retain the ownership of a factory, even although it is put into the hands of other people to work it. Cases may have arisen at the end of the War in which factories, having very little value left because there was no particular work to be carried on in them, were acquired by those who were running them on extremely generous terms. It is, however, in general the policy of the War Office in circumstances such as the hon. Member described to retain ownership of such factories.
§ 8.35 p.m.
§ Mr. LawsonI beg to move, to leave out "£582,600" and to insert£582,590."
I move such a small reduction because this Vote covers wages and a whole number of other charges which we should not like to vote against, particularly as the Vote is for the Royal Ordnance Factories, but it is only on this Vote 2367 that we can raise certain points with which I wish to deal. The House will see that the Vote this year is down to the sum £582,600, though there are Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £15,481,000, and according to a footnote the total includes sums aggregating some £8,000,000 which, subject to statutory authority being obtained in accordance with the terms of the Defence Loans Bill, will be provided out of the Consolidated Fund. This Vote deals with many factories producing divers things and performing many functions, including the Royal Gun-carriage Factory, the Ammunition Factory, the Filling Factory, and the Engineering and Building Works Department at Woolwich, the Small Arms Factory at Enfield, the Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey, the Filling Factory at Hereford and the Cartridge Case Factory at Burton. The important point is that certain stores similar to these are supplied to the Services by private trading firms, and I would point out that the Royal Commission on the manufacture of arms treated the production of munitions for State purposes very seriously indeed, and suggested that one way of getting out of some of the difficulties which any country is in as the result of the private manuafcture of arms would be to develop Woolwich Arsenal and all its adjuncts.
I suggested during the Debate on the Estimates that it was very necessary that the House should get some grip on this expenditure. That was regarded as a mere propagandist statement, but as a matter of fact it was made in the business interests of the country. I do not intend to deal with them to-night, because I cannot do so, but it would have been more illuminating had we been considering warlike stores, to discuss some of the items which are presented to us, because such information as we have about all the warlike stores furnished by private production really conveys nothing to show what we are spending the money upon, except in the very general sense that the stores are for the purposes of war. When the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence is asked what grip we have upon this expenditure he tells us that there is a costings system, and one of the most appreciated points of the speech made by the Secretary of State for War was the statement that the War Office are privileged 2368 to look into other people's books under the costings system. That is all very well; but the House has no guide as to particular items of expenditure. I think Woolwich produces the 18-pounder gun, and I should like to know how the Government ordnance factories are being affected by the rise in costs of production.
The House is not too critical of expenditure on munitions at the present time, but it does want to feel sure that it is not giving large sums to certain persons who may be unknown and that the money is really going in the production of more guns for the Forces. I should like to know the cost of producing an 18-pounder gun in the Government ordnance factories this year as compared with last year. I gave notice to the War Office to-day that I intended to raise these points, and perhaps it might have been wiser if I had given them more notice. I think Woolwich produces also some sections of transport, and I should like to know what the cost of production is now as compared with last year. I do not know whether they are producing only small arms and machine guns. I believe the War Office favour the Bren machine gun, which is foreign, and is one of the latest machine guns. I believe that the War Office are using it in preference to the old Lewis gun. What is the comparative cost of the Bren machine gun this year?
Those are some of the points which I wish to raise. There is a further point of how far the ordnance factories are used to check the other factories upon whom the country depends for private production. Sooner or later this House will face a storm, as a result of the rapidly increasing prices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an answer to-day in which he explained the rapidly increasing prices of certain commodities which are material to the production of guns and of what is generally known as warlike stores. I do not think he was satisfied with that answer, which was very unconvincing. The prices of steel and other commodities necessary for the production of guns, transport and everything directly or indirectly required for Defence, are leaping up. The Government must be alarmed themselves, from the point of view of making the best use of their money.
2369 Those increases will make fortunes rapidly for certain people; it is regrettable that some of the money is not going in wages to the workers. It would improve their position, if only temporarily. It would give a good deal of satisfaction if we knew that the extra money was being paid in wages and that the cost of production was going normally. I regret the need for this expenditure, but we would, in those circumstances, know that we were getting value for our money. Without any need for propaganda, there will be a storm in the country on this matter which will compel this House ultimately to take steps to get a thorough grip upon its own business. There is no indication from the Estimates that we are in a position to do that at the present time.
There are between 300 and 400 pages in these Estimates, but, under the present generalised system, it is impossible to be quite accurate and to put any particular sum down to any particular item, except in a generalised way. Even the most expert Member cannot find out, even a year afterwards, what the money has been spent on; it is almost impossible to get at it. I asked for the Army Accounts. I understand that the Paper was ready on Monday, but I do not know when we shall be able to get the accounts, and when we do get them they will be only for the year 1936 at the most. I know the difficulty, but I use that as an illustration to show how literally true it is that the House is working in the dark in these matters. There are critics of State management, but I do not think that many of them—except to the extent that one can criticise almost any business—would be critical of Woolwich and the Royal Ordnance Factories. I suspect that some of the most advanced knowledge and technique upon which many of the great war factories in the country are priding themselves, had their source in the Woolwich Research Department, which is entitled to considerable credit for some of its discoveries. It is a really marvellous place. The research work -is so thorough and useful that I believe some of the big armaments firms even paid a retaining fee for the benefit and the value of that work.
I am asking the Financial Secretary to the War Office to give us some particulars about relative costs. It is in the interest 2370 of the House as well as of the War Office that he should do so. I agree with some of the things that the right hon. Gentleman said about the War Office, although not with all of them. I do not think I should be exaggerating if I said that when the War Office is handling these ordnance works it is extremely efficient. I should like the Financial Secretary to reply first of all to the question whether anything is being done, in this time of the nation's need, towards the recognition of the finding or suggestion of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of Armaments, that the State works should be used on a much larger scale for the production of the various arms necessary for defence. Will he also give us comparative figures and more information, for which I have asked? I should also like the War Office to be efficient in a matter which has been taken up by the other Service Departments, in the reinstitution of a costings system. If there is a kind of plunder or semi-plunder going on, let them be as frank about it as will enable this House to make some show of getting a grip on this expenditure, as the House which is responsible to the people. The country should have such information, so that the disquietude and mental disturbance felt by most thoughtful people on these matters may be allayed in the sure knowledge that we are doing our business properly.
§ 8.55 p.m.
§ Mr. Anstruther-GrayI should like for a moment to, follow the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in his reference to the Bren machine gun. His concern was chiefly that of cost—whether we are getting value for money; and I agree with him as to the importance of that question. He can depend upon any Scotsman, as well as people South of the Border, being anxious that Government money should not be wasted. My anxiety; however, is in regard to the delay that has taken place in manufacturing and issuing the Bren gun. I understand that it is fully 18 months since the Army Council approved of the Bren gun as the right gun to take the place of the Lewis gun, but now we are told that not until next atitumn will the gun be issued to units. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether this is the responsibility of the ordnance factories, whose Vote we are considering now, or whose responsibility it is, because it is a most regrettable thing. It means that soldiers who 2371 have been trained during the last i8 months with Lewis guns, and who will be trained with Lewis guns during the next six months, with all the tedious mechanical problems that that training involves, will in fact be wasting their time; and not only will they be wasting their time, but they will know that they are wasting it. Further, the men who pass to the Reserve during these two years will have been trained only in the use of the old, obsolete Lewis gun, and they will be of no value if they are recalled to use the Bren gun, because they will never have seen it. I should like some assurance that in future, when new weapons are issued, whether they are manufactured, as I believe this new gun is in part, by the ordnance factories, or whether they are manufactured under sub-contract by private firms, this delay will not be repeated.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert)The hon. Member may be in a difficulty here. The first part of his question, so far as it relates to Government ordnance factories, is in order, but on this particular Resolution we cannot go into the question of the production of this gun by other firms, nor can we go into questions of general administration.
§ Mr. Anstruther-GrayMay I, then, turn to my next point, which is the location of the factories? I see on page 4 of the Estimate that only one of the factories is located in Scotland, at Irvine, and that the number of people to be employed there in April of this year is only 40. That is out of a total of 20,000 employed in ordnance factories all over the country. I dare say that is not quite a true figure, because the Irvine factory has not yet been fully completed; but, even so, I see from page 5 that the cost of the Irvine factory is going to be only £600,000 odd, as compared with £2,500,000 in the case of Chorley, over £1,000,000 in the case of Bridgend, and over £1,300,000 in the case of Nottingham. I would ask the Government to consider whether a fairer share of the work could not be located in Scotland. I understand that factories are still to be started the sites of which have not yet been announced. I appreciate that there may be arguments against announcing the precise situation of all our munition factories, but I can assure my right 2372 hon. Friend that, if he could give an indication that some of the new factories were going to be in Scotland, in order to bring us our fair share of this Government work, it would be very welcome news north of the Tweed.
§ 9.1 p.m.
§ Mr. PetherickI take it that, when the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was speaking of profiteering, he was referring to sub-contracts. Probably all Members of the House are against any form of profiteering in goods supplied to the Army if it can possibly be avoided, and it would have been very helpful if the hon. Member had been able to bring forward some specific instances of the plunder, or semi-plunder, which he alleges is taking place. It is impossible for the War Office or for this House to stop such practices unless these rather vague allegations are supported by specific facts.
§ 9.2 p.m.
§ Mr. ParkinsonWith regard to the filling factory at Chorley, I notice that it is to cost about £6,000,000, and that during the present year £2,500,000 is to be spent upon it. I think it will be in order to refer to the munition factories, because not only is the Chorley factory in the Estimates, but I notice that there are some six more factories for which sites have not been definitely fixed, and I should like to draw attention to the fact that there are many parts of the country where the establishment of such factories would help the people very considerably, and where, in my opinion, quite eligible sites are to be found. The question of Chorley has been raised in this House on more than one occasion, and I think the Minister ought to give attention to other northern areas, as was suggested by the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Anstruther-Gray). We have a tremendous population in Lancashire, and we have tremendous areas which the factory at Chorley does not touch at all, so that they are suffering very considerably. I do not want to repeat any of the arguments that have been put forward in the House about the site at Chorley, except to say that, speaking as a civilian, I feel that it is not answering the best purpose to which it could have been put. I am sure it could have done much more work and provided much more employment.
2373 I want to ask the Minister one or two questions with respect to the other sites. I see that there are to be two filling factories, three explosives factories, and one fuse factory. Have the sites been definitely located for these factories? If not, I would appeal to the Minister once more to consider those districts whose need is great, and where, I think, the allocation of sites would meet the needs of a greater number of people. Something in the neighbourhood of £8,000,000 is to be spent. That is a large sum of money which, spread about tin the areas where it is badly needed, would help, not only the Government and the country, but also the War Office. It would help in the work that they have directly before them. We have heard about appeals to join the Territorial Force. If you are going to need these men in the future, and have any inducement to offer, surely you ought to consider them now. You cannot go to them in the moment of necessity and say, "We want you to do this or that," after you have been neglecting them for many years. I would ask the Minister if, before they allocate the whole of these factories, they will give consideration to the part of the country between Bolton and Chorley, which ought to have something done for it. There are 15,000 unemployed in an area of six miles round Wigan. If the Minister wants to do something to help recruiting in that part of Lancashire, he will do better if he helps them in the time of their distress and poverty than if he waits till the time comes for them to give service to the nation.
§ 9.7 p.m.
§ The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender)I can assure the hon. Gentleman that very full consideration is given to the claims of various parts of the country, as far as possible, in selecting sites and we keep in touch with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour before any decisions are come to. As regards the factory at Chorley, that was a somewhat peculiar case. It required to be situated in a very special type of country. It was only after the most exhaustive inquiries and the visiting of many parts of the country that the site was finally selected. I do not think there can be any doubt that, taking everything into con- 2374 sideration, Chorley is a long way the most suitable place for this large filling factory.
§ Mr. ParkinsonThe hon. Baronet would have difficulty in justifying that statement if it were examined by independent minds.
§ Sir V. WarrenderMany minds were applied to the problem and the committee sat on it for a great length of time. It is hard to find a site suited to the needs of any factory, but I am satisfied that in this case the right choice was made. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very conscious of the needs of the Special Areas and we do our best to help them. The other sites mentioned on page 5 have no names attached to them because we are still in the process of acquiring land, and we are not in a position yet to announce their location. My hon. Friend behind me need have no fear that the interests of Scotsmen will be neglected.
I should like to thank the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) for the complimentary remarks he made about the staff at Woolwich and the other Royal Ordnance Factories. He has had experience of the working of these factories. I think he was impressed as I was, with the great enthusiasm shown by the staff, and I am sure they will appreciate what he has said. His chief anxiety was as to whether we were getting value for money in the large amounts which will be spent in the purchase of guns, ammunition and warlike stores. He will see the value of these purchases on page 191 of the Estimates, so far as one can separate them between guns, ammunition and so on, but even then, of course, they are not brought down to any small items. If they were, the Estimates would have to be contained in a much larger volume.
The hon. Gentleman asked me if I could give him the cost of producing an 18-pounder, for instance, at Woolwich, what is the cost this year as compared with last year and what is the cost in the ordnance factories compared with the trade. So far as the trade is concerned, it is not the practice to disclose prices. There are obvious reasons which prevent us from doing so. Nor has it been the practice to disclose the cost of similar articles made in the Royal ordnance factories. This was set out in a memorandum which the War Office submitted to 2375 the Royal Commission on Arms last year, and it was there pointed out that even if we could disclose these figures, they would be of very little assistance to the layman in arriving at any very definite conclusion. To compare the price of an article manufactured in an ordnance factory with the price charged in the trade really leads nowhere.
The advantages that the ordnance factories have over outside manufacturers, and the disadvantages which the outside manufacturer has vis-a-vis the ordnance factories are so wide and varied that you cannot enter into any comparison that is of any value whatever. May I enumerate one or two mentioned in the memorandum? In ordnance factories, for instance, no profit need be earned, no interest has to be paid on capital, no selling organisation is required, we have no bad debts and the prices do not include delivery at the depots. Let us turn to the disadvantages. There is practically no market for anything but warlike stores, and there is no market outside the British and the other Empire Governments. There can be no true comparison, and that was submitted to members of the Committee, to whom it was said that, although there were variations in individual cases, they were satisfied that the costs of the Royal ordnance factories and the trade were both reasonable. Let me come to the method of arriving at some estimate of whether we are getting value for money from the factories engaged in the outside trades.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI have been watching very carefully. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in his speech just kept in order, and I hope that the hon. Member the Financial Secretary will do so also and bear in mind that we cannot here go into details in regard to the production of private firms in competition with the Royal ordnance factories. The only question of that kind that we can go into is that of subcontracts by the Royal ordnance factories, or purchases of something in the nature of war material by the Royal ordnance factories.
§ Mr. LawsonI thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker for the reference to my remarks. I recognise all the time, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, that we are 2376 moving on a very thin line as far as the Royal ordnance factories are concerned in their relation to other factories, but on page 3 of this Estimate in the second paragraph, it is made quite clear that certain goods similar to those made by the ordnance factories are also supplied to the Services by trade firms. Do I take it that your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, gives the hon. Gentleman the right to deal with the sub-contracts that are made with the other firms?
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI think that this raises the very point. As far as the goods similar to those made by the Government factories are made by independent firms, we cannot go into the question of cost of those made by the independent firms and supplied in competition with the Royal ordnance factories. We can only consider goods made by private firms in so far as they are supplied by way of raw material for use in the Government factories.
§ Sir V. WarrenderI appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I apologise if I was going outside it. I was merely endeavouring to answer the point, as I understood it, of the hon. Member opposite, which was to ascertain whether the Government were not paying too high a price for the armaments which they were buying from outside firms and were not being manufactured in the Royal ordnance factories. I think that in view of your Ruling, however, it is almost impossible for me to reply to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerMay I make the matter clear? I followed the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) very carefully indeed, and I thought that he was careful, and perhaps rather clever, in confining himself to the goods which were manufactured for purposes of sale to the Royal ordnance factories. As far as that is the case, it is quite in order—I think that the broad distinction is between goods produced for the Royal ordnance factories and goods which are produced, as I described them, in competition with the Royal ordnance factories and so are outside this Vote.
§ Sir V. WarrenderAs I cannot proceed with my argument across the Floor of the House, it is almost impossible for me to answer the hon. Gentleman. I come back to the remainder of my statement. It is not the practice to disclose the cost of the 2377 manufacture of weapons, vehicles or tanks in the Royal ordnance factories. As far as the Bren guns are concerned, it would not be possible to do so, because the production of the Bren gun has only just started. My hon. Friend behind me complained about the delay. There has been some delay, and I am afraid that delays are very apt to occur when you are beginning the manufacture of an entirely new weapon. But I have reason to hope and believe that we can expect with reasonable certainty the issue of this gun in the course of this year.
§ Mr. Lees-SmithWill the hon. Gentleman answer the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has raised? I suggest to him that, if he would give us the information as to the control and prices of sub-contractors who are providing material, that would equally answer the point which we wish to have cleared up.
§ Mr. LawsonSuppose Armstrongs are producing an r8-pounder gun which the War Office have ordered, is it not possible to tell us the price which they are paying as against the price at which Woolwich Arsenal is producing the same gun?
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerWhat I gathered the hon. Member was trying to get at would be quite in order. It would be in order to ask a question or discuss the question as to what was the cost to the Government factories of producing a particular gun. But then, of course, one knows that, having got that information, you could compare it with information as to the cost to a private firm if you could get that information: but that would have to be on some other occasion. That is about what it comes to.
§ Mr. LawsonMay I try to put the point more clearly? I take it that Woolwich produce the 18-pounder guns, but they cannot produce them quickly enough. Certain guns similar to those made by the Ordnance factories are also supplied to the Services by other firms. That is to say, Woolwich make contracts, say, with Armstrongs or whatever firm it is, to produce i8-pounder guns. If this comes upon the Ordnance Vote, will it be possible to get these figures?
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI did not gather such is the case. I understand that guns which the Royal ordnance factories cannot make are supplied to the War Office, 2378 but not to the Royal ordnance factories. If that be so, they are outside this particular Resolution. That is the whole point.
§ Sir V. WarrenderI would like to apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I did take the trouble to make a comparison, but I am afraid that by the Ruling of the Chair I am debarred from going further. Perhaps I may say that we are investigating these matters, and that the system does work satisfactorily. I do not think that there were any other points raised in the discussion, but I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman opposite that, if we cannot discuss these matters across the Floor of the House, he will come and have a discussion with me afterwards.
§ Mr. Lees-SmithWill the hon. Gentleman give particulars of sub-contracts of the Department, which would be in order?
§ Sir V. WarrenderThe method upon which we are working is that in the case of non-competitive contracts, through the machinery of our cost accounting office, we investigate the books of the contracting firms, and, having experience ourselves of the manufacture of these articles, our officers are able to know accurately what they should cost. If it is discovered that costs are unduly high we protest, and if a dispute arises it is left to my right hon. Friend to decide what is a fair margin of profit for the contractor on that particular order. Otherwise the system we work on is not, as is so often imagined, a cost plus profit basis, but a system in which the contractor quotes a maximum price. He completes his order, and if it is then found that the cost of the work has exceeded the maximum he has quoted, he has to face the loss; if it is found to be less, we still have the right to examine the books and ascertain from costing his work whether we are being charged a correct price or not. Those are two of the systems under which we work.
The knowledge we have ourselves of the cost of these articles is of the greatest value to us. In addition, we have the safeguard of contracts on a competitive basis. We can ascertain whether the prices quoted are unduly high, and in that case they are immediately investigated. The date on which these accounts have to be laid is set out by Act of Parliament. It is true that the 1935 account 2379 of the Army has only just come to hand, but by law it was only due to be in the hands of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on 31st December, and in the hands of the Treasury on 31st January, and in this House on 15th March. To that date we have adhered. The accounts of the Army Ordnance Factories are not due here until 31st March. They are complicated accounts, and are not closed for a considerable time after the end of the period that they cover.
§ Mr. E. J. WilliamsCan the hon. Gentleman give us any information about the Bridgend factory, for which I see there is in the Estimate a sum of £1,150,000? Is that to be spent during the current year, and if so, is all the money required for the contemplated site? May I ask also whether the site has been taken, what was the price paid for the land, what number of persons is likely to be employed from labour exchanges in the vicinity, and how many persons are likely to be transferred?
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI would point out that the Minister cannot reply again except by leave of the House.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Mr. KellyI would like to know whether the Department is going outside the country to purchase machinery and machine-tools while there are firms in this country anxious to perform the work, and able to produce machine-tools equal to or perhaps better than some of those that may be brought in from Germany and the United States. I would like to be assured that such a thing is not taking place under the War Department. There are few, if any, machine-tool makers better than those to be found in this country, and it is an amazing thing to find the Government at this time, when it is talking so much about employing people in this country, going to manufacturers in other countries while our people are looking for work. Some of this work has been put into the hands of large firms who are not doing the whole of it themselves but are passing part of it on to other people as sub-contractors, and I find that some of these sub-contractors are outside this country.
With regard to the projected factories at Nottingham and Hereford, we see an estimated expenditure at Nottingham of £1,374,000, and an estimate of the number 2380 of people to be employed there in April this year of 300. Are we to take it that that expenditure is for the employment of only 30o people? A question in regard to Irvine was not answered and I would like to know, if the Department has made up its mind, what number of people is to be employed there. With regard to the other site the explanation was unsatisfactory. We are told that the reason the location is not mentioned is for fear that some other people might purchase the land in order to make the Government pay more for it. How has this estimate been arrived at for each of these projected sites? I find in one or two parts of the Estimates reference to payments to the Metropolitan Police connected with superannuation allowances; £30,000 in the main Estimate, and £19,500 here. Are these separate amounts paid by various departments of the War Office? If not, why are they put separately? I hope that the question of wages at Woolwich, as well as the other matters which have been mentioned, is going to be dealt with satisfactorily, and that we shall have no difficulties so far as working conditions are concerned.
§ 9.36 p.m.
§ Mr. CooperI cannot at this moment give the hon. Member all the details with regard to the factory at Bridgend, but I can assure him that the work will go forward rapidly. I believe that all the land has been purchased, but I will find out and let him have the number of people who will probably be employed. This is only an estimate of the number of people who will be employed in April of this year. As the hon. Member is aware, most of these factories are not yet completed; some are still being developed. The factory at Nottingham has only just come into production. It was taken over only late in the autumn, and the numbers who will be working there in the future will be very much greater. The exact figures I cannot give. With regard to the acquisition of factories generally, we keep in touch with the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health in order to see that as far as possible they are put up in areas where employment is most needed. We shall continue to follow that policy.
With regard to the purchase of machine-tools, it is true that we have been obliged to purchase a certain percentage of machine-tools abroad owing to the 2381 urgency of the great scheme of rearmament which the Government have undertaken. We are endeavouring to do a great deal in a short time and where machine-tools have been purchased abroad it is because they would not be available in this country in time. These purchases are now coming to an end, and, although I would not like to give the hon. Member a definite assurance, there is the probability that there will be no such purchases in the future because more machine-tools will be available in this
| Division No. 117.] | AYES. | [9.38 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Palmer, G. E. H. |
| Acland-Troyta, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Gridley, Sir A. B. | Patrick, C. M. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'shro, W.) | Peake, O. |
| Albery, Sir Irving | Grimston, R. V. | Penny, Sir G. |
| Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E. |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) | Petherick, M. |
| Apsley, Lord | Gunston, Capt. D. W. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Guy, J. C. M. | Plugge, Capt. L. F. |
| Assheton, R. | Hamilton, Sir G. C. | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. |
| Atholl, Duehets of | Hannah, I. C. | Radford, E. A. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Slanlay | Hannon, Sir p. J. H. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. | Harbord, A. | Rankin, Sir R. |
| Balfour, G. (Hampstead) | Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) | Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) |
| Balfour, Copt. H. H. (Isle of Thanst) | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Rayner, Major R. H. |
| Beauchamp, Sir B. C. | Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) |
| Blair, Sir R. | Holmes, J. S. | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) |
| Blaker, Sir R. | Horsbrugh, Florence | Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) |
| Boulton, W. W. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) | Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) |
| Bowaler, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Hume, Sir G. H. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Bower, Comdr. R. T. | Hunter, T. | Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) |
| Briscoe, Capt. R. G. | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. | Rowlands, G. |
| Brooklebank, C. E. R. | Jones, L. (Swansea W.) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) | Keeling, E. H. | Russell, S. H. M. (Darwan) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) | Salt, E. W. |
| Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) | Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) | Samuel, M. R. A. |
| Bull, B. B. | Kimball, L. | Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavartree) |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. | Simmonds, O. E. |
| Cary, R. A. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | |
| Channon, H. | Latham, Sir P. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. |
| Clarke, Lt.-Col R. S. (E. Grinstead) | Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.) | Somerset, T. |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Leskie, J. A. | Spears, Brigadier-General E. L. |
| Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Spans. W. P. |
| Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S, G'gs) | Lees-Jones, J. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Crooke, J. S. | Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. |
| Cross, R. H. | Loftus, P. C. | Tasker, Sir R. I. |
| Crossley, A. C. | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Tate, Mavis C. |
| Crowder, J. F. E. | McCorquodale, M. S. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Cruddas, Col. B. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ress) | Thomson, Sir J. D. W. |
| Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) | MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. |
| Dawson, Sir P. | Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) | Turton, R. H. |
| De Chair, S. S. | Maclay, Hon. J. P. | Wakefield, W. W. |
| Donman, Hon. R. D. | Manningham-Buller, Sir M | Walker-Smith, Sir J. |
| Donner, P. W. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Dower, Capt. A. V. G. | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) |
| Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) | Meller, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S. |
| Duggan, H. J. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Warrender, Sir V. |
| Eastwood, J. F. | Mitchason, Sir G. G. | Waterhouse, Captain C. |
| Emery, J. F. | Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.) | Wedderburn, H. J. S. |
| Emmott, C. E. G. C. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Erskine-Hill, A. G. | Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. | Womsrsley, Sir W. J. |
| Everard, W. L. | Munro, P. | Wragg, H. |
| Furness, S. N. | Nall, Sir J. | Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C. |
| Ganzoni, Sir J. | Neven-Spenoe, Major B. H. H. | Young, A. S. L. (Partick) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | O'Connor, Sir Terence J. | |
| Gluckstein, L. H. | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Granville, E. L. | Orr-Ewing, I. L. | Commander Southby and Captain |
| Hope. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, D, (Consett) | Ammon, C. G. | Benson, G. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) | Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. | Bevan, A. |
| Adamson, W. M. | Barr, J. | Brooke, W. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Batey, J. | Brown, C. (Mansfield) |
§ country. With regard to the last point, the superannuation allowances for the police who have been employed for the protection of our factories, we have now our own constabulary and, therefore, we shall no longer have to employ Home Office police.
§ Question put, "That '£582,600' stand part of the Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 17o; Noes, 92.
2383| Buchanan, G. | Kelly, W. T. | Sanders, W. S. |
| Cassells, T. | Lathan, G. | Sexton, T. M. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawson, J. J. | Shinwell, E. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Leach, W. | Silkin, L. |
| Cocks, F. S. | Lea, F. | Simpson, F. B. |
| Cove, W. G. | Leslie, J. R. | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford | Lunn, W. | Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Leaf- (K'ly) |
| Daggar, G. | Macdonald, G. (Ince) | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Dalton, H. | MeEntee, V. La T. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | MeGhee, H. G. | Stephen, C. |
| Day, H. | MacLaren, A. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | Maclean, N. | Strains, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) |
| Ede, J. C. | Maxton, J. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) | Milner, Major J. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Viant, S. P. |
| Gallacher, W. | Noel-Baker, P. J. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Watkins, F. C. | |
| Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) | Oliver, G. H. | |
| Groves, T. E. | Paling, W. | Watson, W. McL. |
| Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Parker, J. | Westwood, J. |
| Hall, J. H. (Whilechapel) | Parkinson, J. A. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Hardie, G. D. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Hayday, A. | Potts, J. | Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) |
| Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Price, M. P. | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Henderson, T. (Tradeston) | Ridley, G. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Hopkin, D. | Riley, B. | |
| John, W. | Ritson, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Rowson, G. | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers |