§ 55. Sir John Mellorasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the discretion now given to county councils to substitute council control for police control of the air-raid wardens service with out necessarily securing the approval of his Department, the words, "with the 2776 concurrence of the Air-raid Precautions Department, if the Department is satisfied," contained in the last paragraph on page 3, of Memorandum No. 4, 2nd edition, published in February, 1939, are in future to be disregarded?
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson)I am afraid that I unwittingly misled my hon. Friend and the House in a reply to a supplementary question on 30th March. The position is that, while the local authority is responsible for arranging for the organisation of the air-raid wardens' service in its area, I have recommended that this service should normally be organised by and under the control of the chief constable; and I have asked that any local authority desiring to defer the adoption of this arrangement should inform the Department in order that I may be satisfied that there are in the particular case special reasons for deferring the adoption of what I regard as the normal system of organisation. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity of making the position clear.
§ Mr. John MorganAre we to take it from that reply, that the right hon. Gentleman's Department accepts full financial responsibility for employing the police for this purpose and not the local authorities concerned?
§ Sir J. AndersonI do not think the question of finance arises. If any additional expense is involved in the arrangement by which the chief constable is made responsible, that additional expense will rank for grant.
§ Mr. PilkingtonIs my right hon. Friend satisfied about the co-ordination between the local authorities and the police?
§ Sir J. AndersonBroadly speaking, yes.
§ Mr. GallacherIs the right hon. Gentleman satisfied about the co-ordination between the working classes in these areas and the police?
§ 56. Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that in the urban district of Seaham out of 30,000 gas-masks required only 18,150 have been supplied; and whether he can say when the balance will be at the disposal of the local authority?
§ Sir J. AndersonThe deficiency of respirators for Seaham Urban District Council was reported by the Durham county authorities on 21st March to be 7,537 and these were delivered to Seaham yesterday.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this week I received a letter from the clerk to the Seaham council stating that only 18,150 gas masks had been delivered.
§ Sir J. AndersonThe figure communicated to the Department was communicated by the Durham county authorities who undertook the distribution. It may be that the Durham county authorities had a supply which, together with the supplementary supply from the Department, enabled them to satisfy the demand.
§ Mr. ShinwellCan I have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the full number of 30,000 gas masks will be supplied?
§ Sir J. AndersonThe number required by the Durham county authorities has been supplied, but I will look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
§ 57. Mr. Edeasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the action of the air-raid precautions officer for Croydon in asking a candidate for appointment as industrial liaison officer was he a member of the Labour party, and, on receiving an answer in the affirmative, saying that that would make it difficult for the appointment to be offered to him; and whether he will make it clear that questions about their political opinions should not be put to candidates for appointment under air-raid precautions schemes?
§ Sir J. AndersonI am informed that out of 280 applicants for this appointment, one candidate appeared to interpret a question put to him about his previous experience upon joint industrial councils as an inquiry regarding his own political opinions. I am assured by the local authority that no question about his political opinions was put to him or would be put to any candidate for appointment.
§ Mr. EdeDoes the right hon. Gentleman know that the man in question is a most responsible man with a very considerable amount of public experience, 2778 and that it is exceedingly unlikely that he misinterpreted any question which was put to him?
§ Sir J. AndersonI have given the House the information given to me by the local authority.
§ Mr. Garro JonesIn view of the great importance of ascertaining the truth in a matter of this kind, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought it necessary to interview the applicant concerned and get his version of what happened; and, if not, will he do so?
§ Sir J. AndersonIt seems to be a very small matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The House knows that the Government have always maintained that in this matter of civil defence, no question of political opinion arises.
§ Mr. Garro JonesIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that no charge or suggestion is being made against the Government and that this question suggests that the local authority have misinterpreted their duties; and will he do his best to clear the matter up in a more impartial manner than he has done?
§ Sir J. AndersonI have done so, and I have received an explanation which seems to be perfectly reasonable.
§ Mr. BuchananIn view of the fact that there are two parties implicated in this matter, namely, the local authority and the man, and in view of the great importance of the matter, would it not be fair of the right hon. Gentleman to see this man personally and to balance the two statements which have been made as to what happened?
§ Sir J. AndersonI really think that I should not be justified in rejecting what, on the face of it, is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
§ Mr. MagnayIs the Minister aware that if you want to know how to do this sort of thing you have to go to the Durham County Council where they will tell you that for executive offices only Labour men need apply?
§ Mr. AmmonDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that if this continues, he will wreck the whole scheme?
§ Mr. EdeSeeing that I have given the right hon. Gentleman the name and the 2779 public record of this man, and his personal associations with myself, which enable me to vouch for him as a responsible person, will the right hon. Gentleman not see the man and hear his side of the case?
§ Sir J. AndersonI will certainly consider any representations made to me by the man in question, but I am not aware that a suggestion that he misinterpreted a question involves any reflection upon him.