§ Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to state the personnel of the Industrial Advisory body which he announced on 17th November?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. I have constituted this body in the shape of a panel. The members are:—
The Secretary will be Major J. A. Davies, Committee of Imperial Defence.
- J. S. Addison, Esquire.
- Sir George Beharrell, D.S.O.
- Peter F. Bennett, Esquire, O.B.E.
- J. O. M. Clark, Esquire.
- Sir Geoffrey Clarke, C.S.I., O.B.E.
- Francis D'Arcy Cooper, Esquire.
The scope of the work of the panel will be seen from the following extract from the letter of invitation I sent to members of the Panel:—
In pursuance of the statement which I made in the House of Commons on the 17th November, I propose to establish a panel to receive representatations as to any delays, defects or difficulties in supply or production under the rearmament programme and to suggest remedial action in such cases, and also any general improvements in regard to the execution of the programme or any measures in regard to the position of industry in time of emergency which their knowledge of industry may dictate to be desirable. Labour questions will be outside the purview of the panel and it will be understood that questions can be referred to the panel on behalf of the Government if it desires so to refer them.My intention is, as stated in the House of Commons, that the panel shall be independent of any Minister. It will meet in the offices of the Cabinet and Committee of Imperial Defence and will have a Secretarial staff from those offices. Whilst the executive responsibility of Ministers for the execution of the rearmament programme must remain, I propose to reserve to the panel the right of direct access to me should they desire it.
§ Mr. AttleeIf the Prime Minister now says that there is going to be a panel, not a committee, do I understand that reference will be made to individuals, or whether this body will sit as a committee, and whether representations made direct to the right hon. Gentleman will be made by individuals or by the committee acting as a body?
§ The Prime MinisterI think it will be for the panel themselves to decide how they will receive representations. When I said that they are to be constituted as a panel, I meant that it would not be necessary to have the whole number of members present at any meeting. With regard to representations to me, I think they will probably be made by such members of the panel as have taken the question concerned into account.
§ Mr. AttleeDo I understand, then, that these business men are being put in a position in which should anyone of them receive a complaint it is possible for him to go over the heads of other Ministers to the Prime Minister?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that is the way they would act.
§ Mr. AttleeIs that the intention? The outline that the Prime Minister gave at the time was that they should have a right of direct access to the Prime Minister over the heads of other Ministers, and I am asking whether he is contemplating this entire innovation in which Service Ministers are going to be bypassed by business people representing particular interests?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman may remember that when that was discussed, some apprehension was expressed by hon. Members that complaints addressed to the Service Departments did not always receive the sort of attention which they thought they should receive because the Service Departments might consider themselves to be the accused parties. It was to avoid any apprehension or anxiety on that score that I provided that if this panel could not obtain satisfaction from a Department, they would have the right of direct access to me.
§ Mr. AttleeWould it not be a better method to put in charge of the Departments people who know how to run them?
§ Sir Archibald SinclairWhen the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister first made an announcement on this subject, he used the word "committee," and now the word "panel" has been substituted. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what that means, whether, in fact these gentlemen will be expected to meet collectively and whether there will be any opportunity for them to meet at one time as a committee and to discuss the questions which may be raised, or whether some authority outside is going to choose and select among them the people who are to discuss particular questions?
§ The Prime MinisterI think the best plan would be to leave it to the panel to decide what is the best method of dealing with the questions. What I anticipate is that it might not be convenient to these gentlemen, who are all busy men, to be present at every meeting of the body. It should be possible for them to arrange among themselves which of their number should be present when a particular question is to be discussed.
§ Mr. AttleeDoes not this mean that any one of these business men, on being appealed to by a firm, will be able to say that the Minister and the Ministry have not suitably dealt with the applicant, and that that business man will then be able to go to the Prime Minister, bring the matter before the Prime Minister, and make his complaint over the head of the Service Ministry? Is not that an extraordinary way of doing business?
§ The Prime MinisterThese exceptional times demand rather exceptional methods. I do not think that would be a businesslike way of going about the matter, and, after all, the Prime Minister must depend upon his own judgment as to whether any representation made to him has sufficient backing or not
§ Mr. AttleeDoes not the Prime Minister realise that even in exceptional times, this House is concerned with seeing that Ministers are responsible to this House?
§ The Prime MinisterI said, in the passage which I read from the letter that I addressed to the Panel, that
the executive responsibility of Ministers for the execution of the rearmament programme must remain.
§ Mr. H. G. WilliamsHas not my right hon. Friend every reason to believe that these six intelligent gentlemen will, in fact, act intelligently?
§ Mr. Henderson StewartWhen the Prime Minister first announced this scheme, he indicated that individual firms might approach the Panel. May I now ask him whether Development Councils, for example, that represent Scotland, may also approach the Panel?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is a question of which I have not been given notice. Perhaps I had better have an opportunity of considering it.
Mr. AlexanderI want to put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman. If this Panel is to deal with business priorities in many cases, can the Prime Minister assure us that the gentlemen concerned have no interests in firms contracting with the Government; and secondly, is he going to consider the abolition of the Ministry for the Co-ordination of Defence, as it seems that this Panel is going to do so much of that work?
§ The Prime MinisterI think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. It is no part of the work of this body to decide priorities. The answer to his second question is in the negative.
Mr. AlexanderDoes it not occur to the Prime Minister that many of the complaints that have been made have been in the direction of whether or not they have been given proper priorities? We ought to know, seeing that these men are going to have so much of the decision in their hands, whether they have interests in Government contracts.
§ The Prime MinisterThe priority does not depend upon the firms, but upon the relative importance of the demands made upon them.
§ Mr. HicksWill the Prime Minister kindly explain what he meant by saying that labour would be outside their consideration? The right hon. Gentleman said that the question of the execution of the programme will be under consideration. Seeing that labour is most likely to have a predominant part in the execution of a programme of this kind, how will labour be consulted and how will it be able to put its point of view?
§ The Prime MinisterI thought it best to exclude labour questions from the purview of this body. It is intended to get assistance from prominent men of business on the side of production and supply. I think that questions of labour will really be better dealt with by the employers and the employed, and of course, the Ministry of Labour will always be ready to assist.
Mr. AlexanderWill the Prime Minister answer specifically the question whether or not these business men, who are all excellent business men—I have no complaint against them—are interested in Government contracts in connection with the rearmament programme? I think the House ought to know that. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question about the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I have.
Mr. AlexanderI am sorry, I did not catch the reply. Will the right hon. Gentleman also inform me whether, if Members of the House wish to put any questions arising out of the work of the panel, they are to address those questions to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence or to the Prime Minister?
§ The Prime MinisterAs to questions concerning the work of that body, I think that, perhaps, they had better be addressed to me. As regards the interest of these gentlemen in contracts, none of them is connected with armament firms or firms primarily armament firms. Sir George Beharrell is chairman of the Dunlop Rubber Company, but I think that generally it may be said that they have been selected because they are not particularly associated with armament firms.
§ Mr. Arthur GreenwoodMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that questions concerning difficulties of production may be as fully understood by labour representatives as by business men who are outside initial production, and whether we are confined in our consideration of this problem to narrow labour questions? Further, will he explain what is his definition of a panel as distinct from a committee, whether a committee 1618 is not a body which meets under authority, and whether a panel is not a body of people who may be chosen and called together at any time by persons in authority?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman's question was rather a long one, and I am not quite sure whether I have got all his points. With regard to the difference between a panel and a committee, I have already explained what, in my view, is the difference. As to labour questions, I do not consider that the work of these gentlemen will be primarily concerned with labour questions. Of course, if there is some difficulty in production, and it is found that that difficulty arises out of a question of labour, then I think this body will go to the Ministry of Labour.
§ Mr. GreenwoodWith all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, when he replied on this matter in the Debate on 17th November, he talked about this body being one
to whom a firm can come if they feel that their work is being held up by something which they think is unnecessary, or that too much attention is being paid to routine or red tape..…—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1938; col. 1210, Vol. 341.]and so on. I am suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman that on matters of this kind labour has strong views perhaps, and is as closely in touch with them as the directors of firms, and ought to have that approach, and ought to be part of the panel.
§ The Prime MinisterI think the right hon. Gentleman is unduly suspicious in this matter. I think he misunderstands the whole purpose of the panel, which is set up for a particular purpose and has, I think, the general approval of the House.