Lords Sitting of 8 November 1939

Preamble
The House met at half past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PRIVATE BILLS AND SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)had given Notice that he would move, That the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills and Special Orders be amended as follows: Standing Order 212, page 78, line 18, at end insert ("It is hereby declared that an Order requiring an Address to His Majesty by the House before it is made is for the purposes of this Order an Order requiring an affirmative Resolution.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. I think perhaps it requires just one word of explanation. As your Lordships are aware, all Special Orders which require an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament are submitted to the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House and a Report is made upon them to the House. Standing Order No. 212 specifies those Orders which require an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The other day an Order came before your Lordships' House which required an Address to His Majesty by the House before it was made. Obviously such a procedure is equivalent to an affirmative Resolution: it is moved in the House that an Address be presented to His Majesty to make the Order operative. A little doubt, however, arose as to whether the Standing Order does really require that such an Order should go before the Special Orders Committee. On my own responsibility I brought it before the Committee to ask their advice on the subject, and the unanimous opinion of the Committee was that such Special Orders requiring an humble Address to be presented should be considered to be of the same nature as Special Orders which require an affirmative Resolution. Therefore it was thought proper to bring an Amendment of Standing Order No. 212
1740
before your Lordships in order that the matter might be made perfectly clear.
I ought to make one further observation. The Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, was of course law for many years before the Special Order procedure was introduced into your Lordships' House. That Act requires an humble Address to be presented to His Majesty. The procedure is so well known that it was not thought necessary to raise this question in regard to the Military Manœuvres Act, which as far as I can ascertain is the only one which specifies this procedure. But when the procedure became used in other Acts it seemed necessary to bring it on to all fours with the existing procedure for Special Orders. In those circumstances I thought it proper, with the consent of the Special Orders Committee and their approval, to bring this Amendment before your Lordships, as I say, in order to bring the whole matter into line. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills and Special Orders be amended as follows:
Standing Order 212, page 78, line 18, at end, insert ("It is hereby declared that an Order requiring an Address to His Majesty by the House before it is made is for the purposes of this Order an Order requiring an affirmative Resolution").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE LOSS OF H.M.S. "ROYAL OAK."
3.35 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they have any further statement to make about the loss of H.M.S. "Royal Oak."
THE MINISTER FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF DEFENCE (LORD CHATFIELD): My Lords, I will make on behalf of His Majesty's Government what I hope you will consider a frank, if necessarily in some respects a restrained, statement upon this matter. It is now established that the "Royal Oak" was sunk in the early hours of October 14 by a German submarine which penetrated the defences of the land-locked anchorage of Scapa Flow. These defences were of

1741
two kinds: first, the physical obstructions by nets, booms and blockships; and secondly, by small patrolling craft upon the approaches to the various entrances or sounds, which are seven in number. Neither the physical obstructions nor the patrolling craft were in that state of strength and efficiency required to make the anchorage absolutely proof, as it should have been, against the attack of a submarine on the surface or partly submerged at high water. Measures had been taken, and were being taken, to improve the physical obstructions, and indeed the last blockship required reached Scapa Flow only on the day after the disaster had occurred. All the more was it necessary, while these defences were incomplete, that the patrolling craft should have been particularly numerous. But from a variety of causes connected with the movements of the Fleet, which was not at that time using the anchorage, these patrolling craft were reduced below what was necessary.
It will be appreciated, I am sure, that I am unable to enter into details, because a full explanation—and no explanation is worth giving unless it is full—would reveal to the enemy matters which would throw a light upon our methods of defence. This light would illuminate for them not only the past but also the future. It would not be right to discuss in public, in time of war, these intimate matters of naval defence, and I ask the House with confidence to support the Government in that decision. I must content myself, therefore, by saying that the long and famed immunity which Scapa Flow, with its currents and defences, had gained in the last war, had led to a too easy valuation of the dangers which were present. An undue degree of risk was accepted both at the Admiralty and in the Fleet. At the same time I must point out that many risks are being accepted continually by the Fleets and by the Admiralty as part of the regular routine of keeping the seas, and these risks which were unadvisedly run at Scapa Flow seemed to highly competent persons to be no greater than many others. No more striking measure of the strong sense of security against submarine attack which existed at Scapa Flow at the time can be found than in the fact that, after one torpedo from the first volley had struck the "Royal Oak," none of the vigilant and experienced
1742
officers conceived that it could be a torpedo. The danger from the air was the one first apprehended, and large numbers of the crew took up their air-raid stations under armour, and were thereby doomed, while at the same time the Captain and Admiral were examining the alternative possibilities of an internal explosion. It was in these conditions that the second volley of torpedoes was discharged. Thus the forfeit has been claimed, and we mourn the loss of 800 gallant officers and men and of a ship which, although very old, was of undoubted military value.
The inquiries, which have been completed, have brought out all the knowable facts. The Admiralty, upon whom the broad responsibility rests, are resolved to learn this bitter lesson—namely, that in this new war, with its many novel complications, nothing must be taken for granted; and that every joint in our harness must be tested and strengthened so far as our resources and ingenuity allow. Having most carefully considered all the issues involved in this particular case, the Admiralty intend to take such steps within the Service as are proper and necessary, but the Government do not propose to embark upon a judicial inquiry with a view to assigning blame to individuals. Such a course would, they consider, impose an additional burden upon those who, afloat and ashore, are engaged in an intense and deadly, and as many may well think, not wholly unsuccessful struggle. It is on this that all our thought and strength must, I submit, be concentrated.
3.42 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, after the very frank statement by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, my noble friends and myself do not desire to probe this matter further. We accept what has been said, and join in the regrets for the loss of life, as we did on the earlier occasion. The only matter I would just like to refer to is the remark of the noble and gallant Lord about having no further Court-Martial or other inquiry. It used to be the custom always to have a Court-Martial, which did not mean any stigma on anyone in many cases, whenever any of His Majesty's ships were lost, and it was a very healthy practice, as the noble and gallant Lord, I know, will agree. This does not mean, I hope, that this

1743
ancient and well-established rule of a Court-Martial on the loss of a ship, with all the value that comes from this custom, is going to be permanently put on one side in the present war.
3.43 p.m.
LORD CHATFIELD: No, that is by no means the intention of His Majesty's Government, nor of the Admiralty. There are times when a Court-Martial is considered by the Board of Admiralty to be essential, and there are times when in their discretion they can fulfil all the necessary steps without a Court-Martial. This is one of those cases where, in their judgment, a Court-Martial is unnecessary, as also it would be, in their opinion, undesirable.

EXPORT TRADE.
3.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to foster the export trade of this country; whether in view of the importance of maintaining so far as possible a proper equilibrium between imports and exports, the Board of Trade and the Central Priority Committee of the Supply Ministry are in full and practical collaboration in this matter and whether there is any expert ad hoc committee in charge of this question which is so vital in the conservation of our financial resources for the prosecution of the war; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I wish it to be understood that I have brought forward this Motion in no spirit of carping criticism, but rather in the form of an inquiry, and in the hope that the debate that may take place may provide certain useful suggestions to the Government, who no doubt are just as anxious about this country's export trade policy as are some of us in this House and outside it. As a nation which is paying to-day a graduated Income Tax of some 7s. 6d. to 17s. 6d. in the pound, and is also heavily taxed in other directions, which is asked to spend and save at one and the same time, and, further, which realises that the limit of taxation is not by any means reached, whether the war be short or long, I think that many of us are seeking, at any rate in our own minds, to try to find a way
1744
of conserving our financial resources, and expanding them where possible, to meet the tremendous financial burdens which we have to face.
That is the reason why I have brought forward this Motion to-day. It is an axiom that the export trade of this country is the main artery of our economic life, and that with a falling export trade we must relatively decline in wealth and strength. Indeed, so far as the prosecution of the war is concerned, with a reduced export trade we shall find it more and more difficult to provide the necessary exchange for the purchase of raw materials required for the prosecution of that war. It is true that we possess gold reserves in large quantities, but we cannot utilise, or we ought not to utilise, those reserves for that purpose, because if we do so we shall deteriorate our currency owing to the fall in our assets, and consequently the cost of those raw materials will become greater to us. Further, our direct export trade is more important to us to-day because of the condition of what are called the invisible exports. As your Lordships are all aware, invisible exports consist of the dividends received on over-sea investments, which to-day in many cases are smaller, and in some cases have disappeared altogether. They also consist of shipping receipts, and insurance and banking receipts, all of which have been affected already by the war, and will be still more affected if our direct export trade falls.
There is another form of invisible exports, and that is a form of international trade done through foreign countries, with goods of foreign origin, but instigated from London. This trade aggregates in the year several hundred million pounds in value. Unfortunately, and possibly through ignorance, the Ministry of Economic Warfare issued an order at the beginning of the war which has had a most deleterious effect upon that trade. All that trade in the past had been transacted through bills of lading, which were made out to order. By that notice the Ministry instructed those concerned that in future they should be made out to consignees, thereby giving away to neutral countries where that trade is conducted, and the whole direction and origin of that trade. I do not propose to detain your Lordships on this point at any length.

1745
It is a fact that the Ministry of Economic Warfare have attempted to put this matter right, but they have not put it right. They have issued another order which does not effect what is really wanted, and I suggest to His Majesty's Government that the Ministry of Economic Warfare, with the Board of Trade and all the other Departments, whoever are concerned, should take this matter into very serious account and see whether we cannot save at least some of this trade, of which we have already lost quite a considerable amount.
That, shortly, is the general situation with which we are confronted economically owing to the fall in export trade. What I am asking His Majesty's Government to-day is how they are going to meet that situation and what they are going to do to maintain and, if possible, improve the export trade. I should be the first to admit that there are many difficulties in the way; but we have at least this in our favour. Through our magnificent Navy and through our equally magnificent Air Force—and I say this in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, who so ably commanded that Navy for so long—we have command of the seas such as is possessed by no other nation. Then we have an Empire which stretches from one end of the Seven Seas to the other, and from which we can draw practically every kind of raw material required for the manufacture of armaments as well as for the manufacture of goods for our export trade. These are initial factors of enormous advantage to us and should by themselves give us courage and enterprise to overcome the many difficulties ancillary to the war connected with this question.
Germany, on the other hand, owing to the successful suppression of her mercantile fleet by the means I have described, is gradually being driven off the face of these seas. This is leaving the door open to us in markets which Germany is now on the point of vacating or has already vacated. This applies not only to countries which are contiguous to Germany, but also to other foreign countries like South America and elsewhere, and it applies, too, to our Dominions and Colonies. I cannot urge too strongly upon the Government to take every step they can to provide every facility to maintain and expand
1746
export trade wherever possible. I do not think we need be, to-day, too particular as to what form of trade we enter into, whether for cash, or by barter where the country concerned cannot afford to pay cash but is a country of sufficient substance and reliability to carry out its undertakings. We may, through control of exchange in these countries, be able to direct export trade to them.
By the latest published statistics I have observed that, compared with September, 1938, imports in September, 1939, showed a reduction, in round figures, of £25,000,000 or 33 per cent., while exports were down by £17,000,000 or 42 per cent., or at the rate of £200,000,000 for a full year. These figures, I understand, have shown an improvement in October, and for all I know they may show a further improvement in November and onwards, but, nevertheless, they are sufficiently alarming to be a reason for a search for remedial measures. That is what I am asking the Government to do. Last week in your Lordships' House the question was raised and debated of the hindrance to trade and the loss of time in the issue of licences for exports and imports. The Government gave a reassuring statement of what they were doing to speed up these licences. I am in touch with certain parties who are gravely concerned in these matters, and I understand that there has been a definite improvement. Whether that improvement is the result of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, or whether it is a natural impetus and urge is immaterial. The fact is that, I am told, there is a definite improvement, although I have no doubt that improvement might be further speeded up.
LORD STRABOLGI: If the noble Viscount will allow me, I understand the improvement is largely due to the energy of Viscount Cobham, who has taken the matter up.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am very glad to hear that my noble friend Lord Cobham is at the back of it, and I heartily congratulate him on the result which, I understand, he has been able to obtain. I should like to read an extract from a letter to show that, from the shipping point of view, things are not yet altogether right. This is a letter from a friend of mine who wrote after seeing my Motion on the Order Paper, and who

1747
is very interested in shipping matters. He wrote to me as follows:
"I have to keep in touch with the liner shipping situation to India and the Dominions, and it is deplorable to see ships sometimes a third or more empty and having to shut out cargo solely on account of the delay of the authorities in releasing cargo for shipping. Week after week this has been happening."
I understand this has improved—the letter is dated November 3.
"The effect in making the voyage of the ship a serious loss is exasperating to ship-owners; but far more serious is the effect on the economic position of the country. All these commodities of which I speak, which have been held up at the docks, are in the cases I have mentioned goods for India, Australia, or other British Dominions. It is hard, indeed, to remain patient when one sees such examples of departmental delays doing active injury to this country."
Only eight days ago a certain vessel, which will be nameless, left this country 2,000 tons short of cargo which it had to leave on the wharf because it did not get Customs release. These conditions may have been improved, but I state them again to the House because they have not entirely improved and require further investigation.
I understand that there is a certain system called the pre-entry system, and that under that pre-entry system an exporter can either take a licence for goods which he knows are all right or else he has to take a licence for goods which may be all right or not. This has caused considerable delay because exporters, naturally, were in the difficult position of not knowing which goods were exportable and which were not. I am going to suggest that the Board of Trade should have prepared a list of reputable exporters who can be relied upon to export goods which are not of contraband nature. I understand that in the last war that was done. There will be no difficulty in preparing such a list in consultation with certain commercial bodies in this country who would give all the information that is necessary for that purpose. In addition, it may be necessary to prepare a list of those exporters who are not so reliable, and possibly the Government have already started to prepare such a list.
I am quite ready to admit that the manufacture of war requirements must come first, but after that I consider that the manufacture of articles for export
1748
should come second in importance, and that this should be made a definite policy of the Government. I have examined the departmental machinery which controls the priority of the arrangements for the different manufactures and different raw materials in this country. In answer to a question in the House of Commons on the October 18 last, Mr. Burgin, the Minister of Supply, made a statement giving us information regarding this which is summarised shortly as follows: Firstly, there is a Ministerial Priority Committee under the Chairmanship of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. (I am sorry that he has now left the House, because I am going to criticise to some extent the composition of this Committee.) Secondly, subject to this Central Committee, there are five Priority Sub-Committees dealing with (a) labour, (b) materials, (c) production capacity, (d) transport and (e) building labour. These five Sub-Committees are under the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of the Departments to which their special subjects refer, and all these Sub-Committees have a central secretariat and register in the Department of the Central Priority Committee. Lastly, on all these Sub-Committees there are representatives of various civil Departments holding watching briefs, and, presumably, there is among these a representative of the Board of Trade watching exports.
I understand that on the Ministerial Central Priority Committee the President of the Board of Trade has a seat, and we shall be no doubt told that he pays in this capacity special attention to exports. That may sound all right, but actually it is not so good as it sounds, because on looking at the reply to this question, I find that the Sub-Committees of the Central Committee are expected to be the main machinery for reaching decisions in regard to all matters of priority. Those matters probably never reach the Central Committee, because these Sub-Committees have full power to come to decisions and make orders quite irrespective of the Central Committee. Supposing one of the Sub-Committees had at the head of it the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade, and that Sub-Committee were devoted specially to looking after export matters in regard to priority and other questions ancillary to it, then one might have greater confidence that the export trade was being attended to; but

1749
what chance has the export trade in these Committees to-day?
The Ministry of Overseas Trade, it is perfectly true, may have representatives on these Sub-Committees looking after the Ministry's particular interests, but there are members representing other interests, civilian interests, looking after those interests, and all of us who have had any experience of administration in this House know how difficult it is for any one individual, however able and however determined, to carry a policy through against a body of men who have other interests and who are just as able and ready and determined to represent those interests. I wish to recommend to the Government that they appoint a Sub-Committee of practical men to look after this question of exports in connection with the Ministerial Priority Central Committee. Unless they do this I cannot see, with such knowledge as I have of Governmental machinery, how exports are really going to be properly looked after in this country. I wish to conclude by saying this. I stated earlier in my remarks that our export trade is the most vital link in our economic existence and it is essential that it be so recognised by the Government. It is certain that unless it is so recognised, and supported and encouraged, our financial strength will falter and weaken, and with this will become increasingly difficult the prosecution of a war which is bound up with the preservation of those ideals of human liberty that have helped this country so much in the past and have given so much happiness to this country and to our Empire. I beg to move.
4.8 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I apologise for addressing your Lordships again after having spoken at some length last week. I can only offer the excuse, if your Lordships will allow me, that I was connected officially with the Department of Export Trade and also with that trade in a personal capacity. Therefore I deem it almost a duty to speak on behalf of those associated with me, particularly the Association of British Chambers of Commerce with whom I work from day to day. More especially I feel that I ought to speak because members of the Government have in the other House asked manufacturers to try to do their best to expand our exports. I agree that we should do so as a matter of duty, quite
1750
apart from any question of profit. We need the exchange, which exports will create, to pay for our war materials. We also want to keep the export trade going so that when our men come back from the war we shall have trade waiting for them in which they can obtain employment.
For those reasons I venture to address your Lordships, to deal with certain undesirable details of control and, if I can, to suggest remedies for them, and so, where it is possible, to sweep away current hindrances to the export trade. But before coming to my general argument I would like to mention two things. In one matter I support my noble friend who has just spoken. He referred to the bills of lading alterations as recently laid down by the Government. I think it is a childish and wasteful thing that they should order shippers to omit the words "to order" from bills of lading. It is a technical matter; I shall not weary your Lordships by explaining all that it means. But on balance I cannot see that it would do us much harm if we reverted to our former practice. The enemy might perhaps reap a trivial benefit. On the whole I think the game is not worth the candle, to hurt our export merchanting trade by leaving out the words "to order," and thus disclose to our competitors what we are doing and who our customers are. Our competitors will take advantage of that disclosure, not only now but later on, and the extensive and lucrative London merchanting business, and all its ramifications, will suffer.
One other thing I had hoped my noble friend (Viscount Elibank) would mention, for I see that he has been in correspondence with the London Chamber of Commerce who know much about the subject of this Motion. I was hoping he would refer to the difficulties of cargo owners as distinguished from those of shipowners, bankers and underwriters. I think that there has been a forgetfulness on the part of the Government when organising the Ministry of Shipping in not putting on the Advisory Committee a representative of the cargo owners, of those who ship the goods for export, and other relative services. The Advisory Committee is composed, for the most part, of ship-owners. I would like to take this opportunity of suggesting to the Government that Sir John Gilmour should be asked to invite one or two representatives of

1751
those who ship cargoes and of those who finance and insure the exports—drawn perhaps from the London Chamber of Commerce—to tell him what they think ought to be done. Here is one instance of detail which shows that unnecessary obstruction takes place. One cannot now export without a censorship permit. I have received, since I came to my seat just now, from the London Chamber of Commerce this letter:
"On October 12, the Censorship authorities told us that it was hoped to issue permits within, at latest, two or three days of completed declarations.… Four instances reported in the last few days are of applications made 14, 12, 11 and 11 days ago and still the permits have not been received."
You cannot carry on export business or any other business under those conditions. The censorship permit method must be overhauled. It must be re-examined and improved.
This is my general argument. The Government rightly say we must expand exports. Very good. Yet they forget two platitudes: One is that if you want to sell goods to overseas buyers you must be allowed to have raw materials to work up into the goods. After all, one cannot make bricks without straw to-day, any more than one could 3,000 years ago. Secondly, you must be allowed to ship goods to your customers when they are made. Yet the Government seem to put clogs in the way of allowing manufacturers to buy or import, or to use, raw material. Manufacturers cannot get raw material except after much delay and discouragement. More than that, they cannot get permission to export the manufactured goods except after further delay. The position is that manufacturers can neither get nor use raw materials nor can they get, in a businesslike manner, permission to export goods when they have made them. Still we are begged to maintain our export trade and to expand exports. What a farce. How can we?
The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce report that it is difficult to get licences to import goods even although the particular goods were ordered long before the war and were goods needed for Government work. Why should these goods be held up? If they are for Government work, it means that Government work is being held up. Why? A letter in my pocket
1752
from a Northampton firm, dated November 4, reports that the firm cannot get replies to earlier letters about import licences. There is nothing more silly, more stupid, more incompetent, than to leave business letters unanswered. It ought not to be tolerated for a moment that business letters should not be answered within a reasonable time. Then a Newcastle firm reports the receipt of an inquiry from my old Department, the Department of Overseas Trade, for a quotation for ten tons of lampblack wanted for Calcutta. The Department of Overseas Trade quite properly told the manufacturer "We can probably sell for you ten tons of lampblack in Calcutta." Yet the manufacturer was recently refused a permit to export lampblack to Brisbane. It is not likely that lampblack going to Brisbane or Calcutta will get to Germany; and yet a permit was refused. Evidently the Department of Overseas Trade was unaware of the Brisbane permit being refused. At the same time, the firm is waiting for permission to export to Rotterdam.
Why do not the various Government Departments concerned work together and keep one another informed? There are a large number of Departments concerned, directly and indirectly, in the export and import trade. They should have a permanent committee, composed of representatives of each Department, in continuous informative contact with each other, so that each Department should know what all other Departments want and are doing, and at the same time avoid having to send round papers from one Department to another. The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce reports that irritating and incompetent handling of business, the failure to get replies from the Export Licensing Department. I hope the Government will come down severely on any Department that does not answer letters promptly. Nothing creates more friction for a Government Department than failure to answer business letters punctually.
We need raw material from overseas to convert into manufactured exports. But foreign sellers of raw materials will not wait for us to take delivery because we cannot get official permits to import from them, and within a reasonable time, materials ordered a long time ago. The foreigners will now ship elsewhere at better prices, and will leave us to buy

1753
at higher prices the similar materials later on. I worked with the noble Lord opposite, Lord Addison, at the Ministry of Munitions, twenty-five years ago. Manufacturers then who wanted supplies were quickly told how much they could have and where they could get the permitted amount. I think the system under the noble Lord, twenty-five years ago, worked better than the system which we are working now. If the noble Lord, Lord Addison, will be so good as to speak afterwards, I think he will be able to tell us of the advantage of having one central body to deal with permits and supplies. To-day controls, which I admit are inevitable, have been scattered all over the country, just as one peppers Greek accents on a page of school prose. The cities of controls are widely apart. They are at Reading, or at Bristol, or at Dundee, or at a dozen other places. But the documents all have to come back from the provincial cities of control to the Strand before a licence can be obtained.
I do not make complaint without suggesting remedies. The first remedy I would suggest is that there should be a single co-ordinating permanent committee of information composed of representatives from every Department concerned. It would be able to decide, without passing papers round several Departments, what controlled goods or materials and how much of the controlled goods or materials can be released per week to export manufacturers. The committee would be able then to grant quick permission to export to those countries through which goods cannot possibly reach Germany. I should think export could be permitted without question to Empire countries, to North and South America, to France and to Belgium. Further, some decision should be reached now at once as to which are the neutral countries to which manufacturers may export. At the same time the committee should come to a decision as to what are the goods which do not contain materials needed for carrying on the war. Those materials could be easily defined. There would be no need then to decide in a hurry or at the last moment, for fear of delay holding up an export order. The materials could be defined so that permits could be granted without a day's delay. The delays are the trouble.
1754
I come now to the timber control. The import of timber is a vital matter for Britain. The timber trade has a competent organisation, with plenty of money behind it, and with able men in control. Yet the Government have set up a separate control over timber instead of using the existing organisation but guided by Government control. It that had been done the expense of a separate Government control would have been saved. The long established organisation needed to tackle the problem was there, and the capital of the trade could have been used instead of the Treasury being called upon to find the money to finance the timber control. I think the timber position should be overhauled and reconsidered as to method of control.
Now I will pass to another aspect of our export problem; although I shall not be able to explain it fully within the time available and besides I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with the details of it. I shall not show your Lordships the minute hand, but I shall perhaps be able to strike the hour on the clock of what I mean. We need to export to pay for Government imports; so we need exchange. It may come to this: it may be necessary to order all our exporters to sell in terms of United States currency or some in Argentine pesos or some in Brazilian milreis for exported goods going to that side of the world. In addition I make this point: the goods should be sold by means of bills of exchange, written documents under the bills of exchange law. The bills received for exports by us should be sold to the agent of the Government—I suppose the Bank of England, but certainly for the Treasury's use—and the sterling value given to the exporter by the Treasury. The Treasury will give the proper exchange value for them, and if necessary and through the Bank of England, discount the bills if they have days to run. But a proportion of the foreign currency which is due to the exporter for his sold goods should be handed to the exporter to enable him to pay for imported raw materials which he requires for his trade. That is a rough outline of something that I think will lubricate the friction now in the export licensing machinery.
Of course it implies a snub to the pound sterling by ourselves. But the pound

1755
sterling can stand a good deal of snubbing without much damage. We are at war; there is no reason why we should not, for our own benefit, have our exported goods sold by bills of exchange and invoiced in various foreign currencies, by order of the Government. I know that in some cases exporters are already selling and invoicing some of their goods in foreign currencies. In any case, the injury to our export trade by awkward handling of control or by petty obstruction or by delay in administration cannot be tolerated any longer. I beg your Lordships to tell the controlling Departments what the country will not stand. I hope your Lordships therefore will ask for remedies, such as those set forth by my noble friend Lord Elibank and myself, methods by which the defects of control I have outlined in this discussion can be abolished.
4.23 p.m.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I hope the reply to my noble friend's Motion will not show too complacent a spirit, for I think there is little doubt that the present condition of our trade and its corollary, employment, is not wholly satisfactory. There are certain general considerations which at once leap to the eye and which bear, to my mind, on the root of this trouble. The first is that this Government took not only general but also particular powers to deal with almost every branch of life in this country to a degree to which we are certainly not accustomed, which was not used at the beginning of the last war and to which we only gradually, as we found our way, got used at the end of the last war. I cannot say that I think the result at the present time is happy, and I do not think the employment figures are going to do anything but bear me out in that respect. Your Lordships will remember that, when we were at our busiest in the last war, an enormous number of women were being employed in munition factories. Is there anything comparable to that to-day? Is the labour force that is working amplified and increased, or is it on the whole, looking over the whole country, diminished? I venture to say it is the latter, and that bears pretty closely and very importantly on the subject raised by my noble friend.
1756
Lest we should be too complacent about this, it may interest the House to hear two sentences from a very recent report from a very trustworthy source as to German trade with Belgium as it is being conducted now. To give a short instance:
"In Brussels a firm of opticians ran short of lenses for eyeglasses, which it had been buying in France. The French company did not appear to be likely to fulfil the order. The optician reluctantly telephoned to a German firm and placed a small rush order. In four days the lenses arrived by parcel post from Germany."
Another paragraph says:
"The Germans have been accepting and fulfilling contracts to Belgium for general machinery and machinery for munition plants, machine tools, precision instruments like sights for guns, all kinds of chemical products and fertilisers, finished leather, coal, barley and other foodstuffs."
That report is only a few days old. It shows how keenly the Germans are making use of their possibilities of export. At the same time it illustrates very clearly the markets that we might be gaining or we might be losing.
There are some most important markets available to us to-day with which one would have thought we could have dealt with perfect security. I may mention amongst European markets, Spain, which, after all, is, as far as land communications are concerned, cut off from our enemies and which has an immense potential market if the necessary finance for it can be found. I pass to the other end of the world, to Australia, our own Dominion, where the expansion of her forces is, I am told, involving them in the expenditure of £40,000,000 of fresh money. I am sorry to say I am told that a large part of that money will have to be spent in the United States because it is considered that this country is incapable of fulfilling their orders. With such opportunities as that, some much greater effort should be made to make use of them, to expand our markets, and to get our people to work producing wealth and, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft points out, exchange for this country.
If I may for a moment turn to the question of timber control, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, spoke of it from the importer's point of view. From the home-grown timber point of view it is remarkable that almost the first circular sent out by the Control was to forbid anybody who owned growing trees to fell more

1757
than a minute quantity per month. That is how Government Departments work. It is no reflection on the Civil Service, or on those who have been recently imported into it, to say that the first thing a Government official must do is to hold everything up until he has got that grasp of the situation which the trader has had for many years. The next thing he does is to "pat the ball," as it is called, all round the other Government Departments concerned, with the inevitable result that delay ensues. At the beginning of the war there was a question in my county of how the necessary supplies for the farmers could be obtained, and we found that to get one lorry from the county town to the farms involved no less than four Departments, all of whom had to issue a licence for the purpose.
That sort of thing is absolutely killing trade, and the real cure for this state of affairs is to release a great deal of Government control and to put the control back, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft suggested, in the hands of the trade associations. It must be remembered that since the last war there has been an enormous development of trade associations, coupled on the whole with a parallel development of employers' federations and at the same time of the workers' organisations. All these things are now fitted together with things like the Whitley Councils, and especially the Consultative Council which has been set up since the war. The real cure, I reiterate, is to do away with as much control as you possibly can, let business go back as far as possible into its normal channels, and work the trade associations and workers' organisations for all they are worth for the good of the country.
4.31 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to intervene for a few minutes in response to what was said by the noble Lord opposite. It has been my business lately to make some inquiries into the machinery and the operation of this control and of the Ministry of Supply. I must say that I think the criticisms of the noble Lord opposite are more than justified. So far as I understand the position at present, if a manufacturer wishes to obtain material for manufacture he must apply to different Controllers in various parts of the country who are supposedly
1758
in control of the supply in sight of the different materials. But of course, as we all know, there is practically no complex manufactured article which fails to make a demand upon a considerable number of materials. That means that at present applications have to be sent for different materials to different parts of the country. Therefore the man who deals, let us say, with tungsten does not have any cognisance of the man dealing, say, with aluminium; nor has he any notion whatever of what sort of reply to make. That in the first place necessarily involves delay.
As I understand, too, so far as the requirements of Government Departments are concerned, they have, so to say, if it is for war services, priority. That is what we would expect; and we must have some practical means of securing that that priority is obtained and exercised, with regard at the same time to the vital needs of industry. As far as I can see at present, there is no machinery at all for associating the one with the other. What actually seems to happen is this. If the demands of manufacturers for particular materials amount in the aggregate to more than the Controller has in sight at the present time, the case will ultimately be brought up by the Board of Trade at the Priority Committee. It means, therefore, that the manufacturer, when he has to apply for his licences, has to go through the whole gamut of these applications, and it is only afterwards, when the aggregate demand, so to say, exceeds the available supply, that the Board of Trade, on behalf, we will say, of the Manufacturers' Association or of an individual firm, may bring it up at the Priority Committee. That process necessarily involves prolonged delay. It must involve all sorts of references and interchange of references—letters and all the rest of it—between the different Controllers before ever it gets focused in a priority question at all.
Then, finally, the Board of Trade will bring it up at the Priority Committee, on which these Service Departments are represented. It may be that the priority can be granted in half a dozen materials but not in one, and it is only after the whole of this elaborate and complex process has been gone through that the unfortunate manufacturer will be able to know whether or not he will get the

1759
licences. It is impossible to imagine a more complex system or one more calculated to be beset with annoyances all along the line. I suggest that the fault of the system—and it is an obvious fault—is that there is no centralisation of this matter at all, no central statistical knowledge available to any body of persons upon which decisions can be made. As the noble Lord has reminded us, in the course of time, it is true, and with many tribulations, a system was developed in the last war which got to work, I think I can say, fairly expeditiously and reasonably. But it could only work fairly and expeditiously in the interests of manufacturers for two reasons. First, the manufacturers' associations were used to the utmost, so that they could focus and express the needs of their members in different collective fashions; and, secondly, there was a central department which had knowledge of the demands of the Service Departments and of the demands of different branches of private industry, some more vital than others, upon which priority decisions could rapidly be obtained. There is, so far as I understand, now a complete scattering of all these controls, with no central cognisance of the position of affairs until after all the difficulties have been threaded through by applicants. It is an entirely unworkable system, and I believe from all the evidence that it has greatly prejudiced the supply.
But there is this to say: that in addition it does not appear at present that there is any efficient body, apart from the individual "control agencies"—whatever that may mean, and I do not know what it does mean—for promoting increased supply. That is to say, we know well enough that there are some materials of which home production could be increased and in which shortages are in prospect, additional supplies of which might be produced by efforts at home. But there does not appear to be, so far as I understand the working of the machine at present, any collective arrangement for securing an increased supply where it will be called for owing to the demands of civil or military industries. If noble Lords will refer back to the speech of the Minister of Supply in another place made about a month ago, they will see that he said that where there is likely to be a shortage of supply
1760
he considers the necessity of importation—that is to say, with all the difficulties of exchange and foreign purchase—but that is only after difficulties have arisen. We could have a central body, with central statistical knowledge derived from the demands of trade associations, under the War Department, which itself should take the necessary steps through the industries in various ways to increase home supplies where there is a prospective shortage. At the present time trade in almost every direction is a victim of overgrown control—shall I say, run to seed?—scattered all over the country, and I think that it is an entirely unworkable system. We are indebted to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the difficulties which beset manufacturers and traders of all kinds, both in the home market and for purposes of export.
4.40 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am sure the House is indebted to my noble friend for raising this question, and from the succeeding speeches, including that of no less eminent an authority than the noble Lord, Lord Addison, who was so active in directing the Ministry of Munitions in the last war, there seems reason to believe that this is the sort of subject which should be ventilated in your Lordships' House. It is with some feeling of diffidence—almost of indelicacy—that I presume to address your Lordships, because to one who returned only this week to this country, after an absence in distant parts since the period before the war started, it is almost uncomfortable to be in England when one is not in uniform. But when I saw here the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Mottistone, of whose distinguished military career your Lordships are aware, and many other of your Lordships who are no longer in uniform, it will be understood that we have to admit that age brings these things about. As one who spent a good deal of time recently in listening to debates in the Upper House in the United States of America, dealing with legislation which was of particular interest to this country, it is some consolation to return to the dignity and composure of this Chamber, which show that the difficult conditions of administration in present circumstances do not move this House from its traditional calm.
With regard to the question under discussion, one cannot but be impressed with

1761
criticism coming from one so familiar with overseas trade as Lord Mancroft, and those instances that he gave were certainly striking. He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, and now we have had the noble Lord, Lord Addison, adding to the criticisms that have been made. I repeat, it seems indelicate to say anything when one has so recently returned and is completely out of touch with conditions in this country; and I suspect that while criticism is loud where some grounds for dissatisfaction exist, there is silence on the many aspects where the greatest achievements of the Government have been made and the highest commendation of the Government is merited. So it is that one would wish to dissociate oneself from any specific criticism, but it seems to me on returning from abroad that under these conditions if one has time to attend your Lordships' House it is the duty of those members of this House who can contribute from their past experience of any of the major controls in the last war, to make any practical suggestions that they can as part of the obligations of being a member of your Lordships' House.
It is in those circumstances that I venture to add just this two-fold comment on the position. Whilst I was in the United States and Canada, where I travelled many thousands of miles and had contacts with a great number of commercial communities, besides being in touch with our own authorities in Washington, Ottawa and elsewhere, I have observed as far as one could whilst abroad, marked and increasing criticism during the last few weeks of the apparent mechanism which controls trade in this country and in those countries. I feel it is right to say that, allowing for all the difficulties of current conditions, more rapidly working administrative machinery should have been possible. It is dangerous for the impression to get abroad, in the United States in particular, as it has, that this country is not going to be in a position to supply exports, and therefore that people in the United States can, if they wish, turn to other sources of supply if they are available. Encouragement is thus given to those multitudinous inquiries which, I have been informed, are pouring into the United States from distant parts of the world for a vast number of supplies which hitherto have
1762
been furnished by this country, but which it is now currently believed it will not be possible for this country to supply in the near future, and to the feeling that therefore those users of our goods in distant parts of the world had better hook themselves with the United States. That is dangerous, if it is not essential.
If it is our aim to assist our exports to the greatest degree possible, surely the first thing is to try to build up dollars in the United States. I am encouraged to intervene because in this House there have been many debates of this kind and many of us have been disquieted at the reluctance of the Government to intervene long ago in the direction of giving greater encouragement to the production of goods for export. But it is now necessary to concentrate attention on loosening the machinery so as to make a greater volume of these overseas sales possible. I have spoken to a good many of our consular officers abroad, and can give individual instances where one knows that greater expedition could have been shown and that danger exists of losing our trade. I hope that the noble Lord who is, I understand, to reply for the Government will be able to deal with that particular point.
The other point I wish to make relates to the uneasy feeling that one obtains from such despatches as one could see while abroad, reinforced in many cases, to my surprise, by several telephone conversations with those with whom I was in touch, as being connected with one of the controls in the last war—an uneasy feeling of anxiety, almost of dismay, as to what the position at the moment is. That has caused me to raise this point and to hope that it will be dealt with by the noble Lord. There is a suspicion that in those controls and for those trades where the Government have already found it necessary to interpose material controls involving the commitment of public funds, there is a failure to understand the importance of the mechanism of the merchant and the intermediary, in so far as that has been in the past an essential part of our commercial and industrial organisation. I am in ignorance of what may be the intention of the Government, but it is well to raise that point now because there is, I know, in Canada, extreme disquiet lest the policy followed by His Majesty's Government in the controls which have been injected during

1763
this war may disregard the maintenance of that delicate, highly technical organisation for collection and distribution, involving essential intermediary trades in the belief that all this can be substituted by Government machinery.
I am fully conscious that that is a subject which was discussed in the last war, and my noble friend Lord Addison must have spent a good deal of time listening to it. With some experience and a full sense of the difficulty of dealing effectively with conflicting risks, I feel justified in intervening in this debate in order to express the hope that the noble Lord will, in his reply, be able to give the House an assurance that the utmost regard possible is going to be had to the maintenance in this country of the long established machinery, in all its forms, which carries on our trade in peace time, because this is going to cause a reflex action in Canada, where it is already being watched with anxiety, and it might well be that there would be an unwelcome impetus to a similar tendency in the United States. It is on these grounds that I interpose, with some diffidence, for I am in ignorance of the policies which have been followed up to now.
4.53 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a question of very great importance, and I can assure him at the outset that I am not in the least complacent. My noble friend Lord Phillimore was afraid I was going to be complacent, but I assure him that His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the very important question of keeping up our export trade to which he referred and on which he is such a great authority. We have here two distinct points of view. There is the point of view so ably expressed by Lord Mancroft, who is also a great authority on these matters, and by Lord Phillimore. They want really practically all Government control taken off.
LORD MANCROFT: Obstructive control.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: That does not affect my argument. They want most Government control taken off and the matter handed back to private hands. I am afraid that is not possible, as I shall try to show later on. I can assure your Lordships that the Government, in imposing this control are doing their best
1764
to interfere as little as possible with the import and export trade on which our country depends. It is a well known saying that this country must export or perish. If that is true in time of peace, it is still more true in time of war. The question may be viewed from two angles. My noble friend who brought forward this Motion did not dwell very much on this aspect in his speech, but it is in the Motion where he asks the Government what steps they are taking to foster export trade in view of the importance of retaining, so far as possible, a proper equilibrium between imports and exports. The problem assumes concrete form in connection with the provision of foreign exchange to pay for essential imports. In other words we want to export as much as possible in order to earn sufficient to pay for essential imports. For exchange reasons, the countries to which we chiefly want to export are the United States, Canada, Argentina, Scandinavia, Holland and Belgium. But my noble friend made the point that we ought not to exclude exporting, if we can, to other countries, especially the sterling countries of the British Empire.
The achievement of a sound trade balance is assisted by regulating the inward flow of goods as well as the outward flow. In normal times, as far as possible, the channels of trade are kept clear, but in war certain restrictions have to be imposed, and they are being imposed by the Government on two classes of goods—firstly, luxuries which can be dispensed with, and, secondly, goods which can be supplied from home sources. This control is helping to solve this part of the problem—namely, the equilibrium to which my noble friend has called attention. As regards exports, we cannot export at all costs. The question of cost is very important, and by cost is meant cost by way of expenditure in exchange, and particularly difficult foreign exchange. Under present conditions, it is exports of the more highly finished goods which contain the largest servicing content in proportion to the raw materials involved which are most desirable. Quite apart from the question of paying our way now, there is the long-term aspect to be considered, to which my noble friend referred. The last war, as we know, left a serious gap in the way of lost foreign markets. The fight to get back our markets, and keep them, during the last twenty-one

1765
years since the Armistice has been a very severe one. The Government do not want to lose them again, and will make every effort not to lose them, so as not to make our task of reconstruction after the war more difficult than it is going to be already.
My noble friend, and indeed all the speakers, referred to the fact that exporters have had a very difficult time during the last few months. I fully recognise that. I have to say that His Majesty's Government are trying to reduce the restrictions which they have had to place on the export trade. We had a debate on this matter only a week ago when a question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to which my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War replied. We were discussing, then, restrictions in connection with the export licensing system. This has only been imposed in order, first of all, to keep supplies of essential goods in the United Kingdom; and, secondly, to prevent exports from us reaching the enemy, either directly or indirectly. His Majesty's Government are trying to administer this as quickly and with as little hampering of the normal export trade as possible. As regards active steps to deal with this problem, my right honourable friend and the Board of Trade are in close co-operation with commercial and industrial associations, and I think the problem in this connection may be divided into two parts: first of all, the removal of immediate difficulties, and, secondly, plans for the future.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask my noble friend whether, when he speaks of his "right honourable friend" he is referring to the President of the Board of Trade, or to whom?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The President of the Board of Trade. As regards the removal of immediate difficulties, the President of the Board of Trade sent a memorandum on October 17 to the Federation of British Industries, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the National Union of Manufacturers. I do not know whether my noble friend has seen this memorandum, but if he has not I shall be very glad to show it to him. My noble friend has pointed out the great importance of the maintenance of our export trade and the necessity for some kind of war-time control. May I point out to him that the one object of
1766
sending this memorandum was to remove the psychological difficulty that at the beginning of the war there was a feeling of great uncertainty among traders as to whether they could safely quote for export orders and the same feeling on the part of overseas customers? I am told that this memorandum has gone a great way towards removing any discouragement that may have been felt about the prospects of maintaining export connections.
As regards the second part of the problem, plans for the future, the Board of Trade are now in consultation with the major exporting industries. Discussions have already been held under the Chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade with representatives of the woollen textile trade, the Irish linen trade, and the motor car industry. On the 30th of last month the President of the Board of Trade sent another letter, which I will show my noble friend if he cares to see it, to about thirty important associations, inviting them to frame plans for their particular industries and asking them to send information to enable His Majesty's Government to see what those plans involve by way of materials. It is hoped that the result of those inquiries will enable His Majesty's Government to allocate to exporting industries all supplies of raw material which will put them in a position to conduct their business with confidence.
My noble friend found fault with the system of pre-entry requirements. I am informed that a certain number of complaints have been received as to the pre-entry requirements but I am told they are not at all numerous. They appear largely to arise from a misconception of the object of the requirements, and such difficulties as have been experienced seem mainly to be due to the failure of exporters in some cases to furnish their entries promptly and in time. As exporters become familiar with the requirements such difficulties should tend to disappear. There have also been complaints, mainly from overseas, arising out of the declaration of ultimate destination. Most of these complaints appear to have been based on a misconception of what is required, and steps have been taken to ease difficulties. Both these matters are under constant review with a view to

1767
granting any further relaxation which will help traders without prejudicing the general object of these measures. In the second part of his Motion the noble Viscount, who dwelt upon this with some force, asked me whether the Board of Trade and the Central Priority Organisation of the Ministry of Supply are in full and close collaboration. The answer is, yes they are. I was going to give your Lordships an account of the composition of the Ministerial Priority Committee and the various Sub-Committes, but my noble friend did that for me, so I need not trouble your Lordships with it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I did of the Sub-Committees but I did not of the Ministerial Committee. I understood the President of the Board of Trade was on the Ministerial Central Committee, but I am afraid there is nothing to show us who the other Ministers are on that Committee. If the noble Lord was going to give us that information I hope he will continue and do so.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: All I can say about it is that the Ministerial Priority Committee was envisaged by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the House of Commons in a statement on April 20 last. It was set up on August 3 last, and it is a Committee of Ministers under the Chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Chatfield, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. As my noble friend has said for me, and I say now, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is a member of that Committee. But I am coming to my noble friend's objections. He found fault because of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was not a member of any of the Sub-Committees.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Not Chairman.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: He is not Chairman, I know. It was thought that the Chairmen of the various Sub-Committees—the present holders of those offices—would be most suitable for the position of Chairman. I do not mean personally but because of the offices they hold. I should like to say in answer to my noble friend that there is always a right of appeal from any of the Sub-Committees to the Ministerial Committee. If the Board of Trade were aggrieved by a decision of one of the Sub-Committees
1768
they could refer the matter to the Ministerial Committee. In fact, no such appeal on behalf of the export trade has so far been necessary, since the Priority Sub-Committees have shown themselves fully alive to the importance of export trade.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, what I said was that, having regard to the fact that a representative of the Board of Trade sat on a Committee with many other representatives, the special question with which it has to deal—exports—was probably likely to be smothered, and that if it were not smothered—I did not use the word "smothered" at the time—in any case there are other representatives dealing with their own special matters, and it is not possible for one individual or two individuals to press their own policy through a committee, a policy which, after all, is second in importance to armaments, so that there is not sufficient representation to be able to make that policy felt.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I quite see the noble Viscount's point, and I would like to set his mind at rest, if I can. Although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is not a member of any of the Sub-Committees, there is a very high official of the Board of Trade on each of those Sub-Committees. I am perfectly certain that if he were aggrieved he would have sufficient desire and sufficient weight to make his views known pretty forcibly, and he could appeal in the way I have just stated. But I will, of course, bring what my noble friend says to the notice of the Department, and it will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I am afraid that is all I can say about that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: And what my noble friend Lord Mancroft said on the same subject?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Yes. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Addison, in a most interesting speech, brought forward what were to me some exceedingly technical matters about these priority committees, and raised the whole subject. He will forgive me, I think, if I do not answer him now. Such a contribution as that of the noble Lord to this debate is bound to be taken notice of by the Department, and I am afraid that that is all

1769
I can say about it at the moment. I have dealt with most of the points raised to the best of my ability.
LORD BARNBY: May I ask the noble Lord whether he can say what is the aim of the Government in present circumstances? Is it to maintain as far as practicable the maximum of export trade and to deal with distribution in those industries to which the Government have had to pay particular attention so far as it involves the employment of public funds? May I also ask whether he can make any statement about the use of the telephone to the United States of America? It is a great disadvantage that, while business men in the United States can telephone to Germany, they cannot telephone to the United Kingdom. It makes a great difference to the trade between the two countries.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I must ask the noble Lord to excuse me from answering those questions at the moment. The first question is rather technical, but as regards the use of the telephone I can probably ascertain the position, and if he will allow me I will speak to him afterwards. We have had a very interesting discussion. I think it is very useful that this question should be discussed in a helpful and friendly manner, as discussions always are in your Lordships' House. I am sure we are all exceedingly obliged to my noble friend for bringing the matter before the House, because the debate will not only help His Majesty's Government and therefore help the country, but it provides another proof of the value of our Parliamentary institutions, a value which is just as great in time of war as it is at any other time.
5.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord for his courteous reply. I was very glad to hear from him that the Government do not view this question complacently, but that they really realise the extreme importance of it in the economic interests of the nation. I must confess, however, that after listening to the criticisms and suggestions that have fallen from noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, I am disappointed with the reply given by my noble friend. He referred to certain memoranda which had been issued to certain commercial bodies in this country. I know that in at least
1770
one case a reply was sent acknowledging what was contained in the memorandum of October 31, but pointing out that many points which were not dealt with in the memorandum required attention. It must be obvious from what we have heard this afternoon that there are many points to be cleared up in the control which now exists of the delicate machinery of commerce.
I am particularly disappointed with the reply to the suggestion of the appointment of an expert committee to assist in the special question of exports. In that matter I was very strongly supported by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who has great experience in these matters. Others to whom I have spoken on the subject believe that it will not be possible to deal properly with the question of exports until there is a committee set up to deal specifically with it. I wish to urge the Government not to leave this question merely to the President of the Board of Trade or his officials. It is not enough to say that the debate will be read in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or to say that note will be taken of it. I would ask my noble friend to urge upon the Government that there is a strong body of opinion in favour of setting up an expert committee, consisting of people who understand the question thoroughly and who will be able to advise the President of the Board of Trade and the Central Priority Committee immediately, so that it will not be necessary when criticisms are received to go out amongst commercial people in order to get suggestions which will ultimately result in these mistakes being rectified. I am glad that I raised this matter this afternoon, because I feel that it has been shown that it was necessary that the subject should be aired on the floor of your Lordships' House. I hope and believe that the noble Lord will take steps to see that proper note is taken of what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GAS PRODUCING PLANT EXPERIMENTS.
5.18 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM asked His Majesty's Government if they can now make a statement as to the progress made by the Fuel Research Station in collaboration with the

1771
British Coal Utilisation Research Association in the design and production of a suitable gas producing plant for use with motor vehicles.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a few weeks ago I ventured to draw the attention of your Lordships to the arrangement that has been made between the Fuel Research Station and the Coal Utilisation Research Station for the pooling of knowledge in the experimental designs of a suitable gas producing plant for use in motor vehicles. I do not propose to weary your Lordships to-day by covering the whole ground of gas producing plants again, because this matter has been frequently debated in your Lordships' House. I understand that great advances have been made in the design and production of suitable gas producers, and I trust that steps have been taken to explore the right type of fuel and the supply of that fuel and its distribution. In spite of what has been said by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, and I think in one or two articles in the Press, it is a very major point.
There is one other point to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention, and that is, what are we going to do with the petrol we shall save if we can get gas-propelled vehicles on the road? I would like to make one suggestion in regard to that, and it is that it might be used to increase the rations allowed to the distributive trades. They use a very large number of light delivery vans which are quite unsuitable to be fitted for gas producing plant and I think that they have suffered a great deal of hardship. I hope that His Majesty's Government are now in a position to make a statement in reply to the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
5.20 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for having put this question on the paper. He has on many occasions shown great interest in and knowledge of the subject, as is natural in one who is President of the Transport Producer Gas Association and therefore intimately connected with the subject. I am glad to say that I am in a position now to be able to make a statement on behalf of
1772
the Government which was not possible when this question was debated some six weeks ago. A considerable amount of progress has been made and perhaps we have been incited thereto all the more by the urgency of the question in view of the pressure of war conditions.
My noble friend mentioned the Fuel Research Station and the British Coal Utilisation Research Association. I should like to preface what I have to say to-day by placing on record the satisfaction of His Majesty's Government, in which I am quite sure your Lordships will wish to join, at the co-operation which has existed between these two bodies, between the Government Fuel Research Station and the research association of the coal industry, in arriving at a solution of this question. It is a very happy augury for the further development of the gas producer plant and for its much wider use in this country. But although I should like to point out how close the touch has been between these two bodies, of course they are actually dealing with the question from two rather different points of view, and that is perhaps why, coming at the question from two different sides, they have been able to make so much progress.
The Fuel Research Station is, as your Lordships no doubt know, a branch of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the Lord President of the Council is the responsible Minister who has to reply in Parliament on behalf of that Department. Therefore I have taken a very considerable interest in its work. Ever since I have had the privilege of being Lord President I have been going into this question with some thoroughness and have been anxious to be able to tell the country that we are now at a stage of having made really very satisfactory progress. The research station was, of course, set up primarily to ascertain sources and quantities of natural fuels available in this country, and also to advise industry as to their best development and employment. I think there are many members of the public and perhaps some in this House who wondered why coalowners should be told what were the various properties in the fuels which they were mining and what was the best use to which they could be put. That is I think no longer true, because certainly the coalowners and a very large part of industry has already discovered how valuable has been the

1773
knowledge which the Fuel Research Station has been able to put at their disposal, and I have not the smallest doubt that as time goes on that knowledge will get more widespread and the advantage of the station will be more and more recognised.
The investigation of methods of manufacturing suitable artificial fuels is naturally closely allied to this work of considering fuels and how they should best be used in their natural state, and that question of making artificial fuels has been for a considerable time engaging the attention of the Fuel Research Station. Indeed, I think when I was Civil Lord of the Admiralty some thirteen or fourteen years ago, I visited the station to see the developments which were then in progress in regard to low-temperature carbonisation. As part of the same inquiry into artificial fuels, we have been seeking to find means by which solid fuel—part of our own natural resources—can be substituted for petrol on motor vehicles. I well remember, I suppose some six or seven years ago, the late Lord Rutherford making a most striking speech in your Lordships' House—I think the noble Lord, Lord Snell, will remember it—in which he used the phrase "importation of power." That is a phrase that certainly struck those who heard it very much at the time; and of course, as your Lordships know, we have had a good many debates on this subject in which several members of this House have expressed concern as to how largely we were dependent on imported fuel. I am not going to say that we have found a solution to that, but at any rate we are finding it possible to take some steps to reduce our dependence on imported fuel for all the many purposes for which petrol is now used.
This work of the Fuel Research Station upon the use of solid fuel in place of petrol was greatly increased and stimulated when His Majesty's Government set up a Committee under the able guidance of Sir Harold Hartley, Chairman of the Fuel Research Board, in order to examine the scope of the use of producer gas for the propulsion of commercial vehicles in an emergency. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words here on the all-important question of fuel for producer gas plant, the significance of which a great many people, I think, do not realise. I have already reminded your
1774
Lordships that the primary task of the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research was to ascertain the sources and quantities of the natural fuels available in the country and to investigate methods of manufacturing suitable artificial fuels. As the work proceeded the desirability of taking a long view of the fuel question became evident, and the staff proceeded to design and to develop new types of producers specially adapted to deal with the fuels available, or likely to be available, in this country. Much of the necessary information on fuels had already been obtained by the Fuel Research Coal Survey which my Department has undertaken. Their work has been greatly assisted by the coalowners of the districts, and we are all very much indebted to these coalowners for the help they have given.
The natural fuels available are the anthracites, so that it was necessary to examine the whole of the anthracite field of South Wales. The examination of the coals in the laboratory was carried out at the local Coal Survey Laboratory, but consignments of representative samples of the whole range of anthracites have been taken to the Fuel Research Station, where trials have been carried out on the road in fully laden three-ton lorries. When I was at the Fuel Research Station recently I was shown a plan of the whole of the South Wales coal field, showing a very large number of collieries in which investigations have been made and samples taken. The matter has been fully developed both scientifically and practically in the Fuel Research Station. For effective comparison between these various fuels and the use of them in producer gas vehicles, it was necessary to adopt a certain standard of practice and each fuel was therefore tested over a distance of 100 miles on a rather hilly main road. Gas samples for analysis were collected throughout the day at the same point in each journey and the numerous measurements necessary to define the performance of the vehicle were continuously made under standardised conditions. In borderline cases longer trials, extending to 200 or even 500 miles, have been made.
From these tests it was possible to compare the results obtained from day to day not only with different fuels but with the same fuel in different producers. It was also possible to observe any deterioration

1775
in performance during one long run. As a result of this experimental work it has been shown that the greater proportion of the anthracites of South Wales are satisfactory fuel for producers, and it has been possible to indicate the sources of suitable anthracite. It will, however, be necessary to have additional sources of fuel to meet the possible demands which may be made upon them, and particular emphasis has been placed upon the production of suitable artificial fuels. The obvious method of increasing the supply is by the carbonisation of bituminous coals. Numerous kinds of low-temperature coke made from different types of coal and by various processes operating on a commercial scale have been examined. In addition, other kinds of low-temperature coke made on an experimental scale have also been tried.
It has been found that most types of coke produced by low-temperature carbonisation can be used as producer fuels. Some of these are eminently satisfactory, whilst others are not so good. To produce satisfactory fuels it has been found that suitable coals must be selected and precautions taken to reduce the tar present in the coke below a certain critical figure. It must be understood that low-temperature coke as prepared for domestic purposes is not necessarily a good fuel for producers. The limiting factor will, of course, be availability of fuel, and in this connection it is greatly to be hoped that the fuel industry will co-operate closely with the motor trade.
In order to stimulate the use of these fuels, the Government have decided that various uncertainties in the fiscal and general position should be removed, and I am in a position to give certain assurances. First, to meet fears that the Government might propose a tax on home-produced coal, coke or gas when used as a fuel for motor transport, I can assure the House that, so far as the present Government are concerned, there is no intention of proposing such taxation within the next five years. Secondly, in the case of services of national importance, the Government have no intention of rationing these alternative fuels, which I am sure will be a relief to those who are opposed to rationing of any sort or kind. Thirdly, since the weight of the auxiliary equipment is included in the
1776
unladen weght of vehicles for the purposes of taxation and of the Road Traffic Acts, the addition of this equipment will in some cases put the vehicle into a higher licence duty category and a lower speed limit category. Your Lordships will remember that lorries over two and a half tons in weight are limited to thirty miles an hour, but lorries above that weight are limited to twenty miles an hour. I think the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, who raised this question on a former occasion, complained that gas-producer vehicles were not treated fairly as compared with electrically-driven vehicles, because the electrically-driven vehicles were allowed to take off their batteries before they were weighed and therefore came into a lower weight category, whereas the gas-producer equipment was considered part of the equipment of the car and its weight was included for taxation purposes. The Government have decided to make concessions on these points, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is taking the necessary steps, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to give effect to these decisions.
Another difficulty which arose and which my right honourable friend has taken into consideration was that the length of a petrol-driven vehicle is limited, I think, to twenty-six feet—it may be thirty-six feet. At any rate, with a trailer behind it, that might take the length of the vehicle outside the amount allowed in one vehicle. That was particularly the case in regard to motor 'buses used by the public on the roads. Already the Minister of Transport has made that concession to motor 'buses: that they can have a trailer behind them with a producer apparatus on it; and he is going further into that question in regard to lorries and other types of vehicles.
Sir Harold Hartley's Committee, to which I referred, and which includes representatives of the Department of Mines, the Ministry of Transport and several important road transport operating companies, as well as the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, decided as a result of the road trials which I have mentioned to your Lordships that it was desirable to design a producer for the conversion of existing motor vehicles and capable of rapid mass production. Experience gained in the early work of the Fuel Research Station has provided data

1777
upon which to base the design of a producer which could be put into manufacture on a large scale. The Committee do not claim any particular originality for the design, and they acknowledge their indebtedness to the experience gained in operating all the commercial types of vehicle available in this country. Special attention was paid to the need for confining the design to those materials which are not only inexpensive and easily obtained, but which also lend themselves to mass production by the type of plant and labour likely to be available in time of war. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that a practical design has been evolved, and it is proposed to make the design available to firms able and willing to undertake manufacture.
Most of your Lordships probably know already what producer gas is, but to give a very brief description in non-technical language I may say that it is obtained from solid fuel in place of petrol, which involves the use of the so-called producer, in which gas is obtained by partial combustion from solid fuel, whether anthracite, coke or other similar fuel. The producer must be built into the vehicle or towed behind it on a trailer. The gas is drawn from the producer through the induction pipe of the ordinary petrol engine, whence it passes into the cylinders and is fired in the normal manner, and so provides motive power in the same way as the gas produced from liquid fuel. One of the questions to which a completely satisfactory answer has still to be found is that of production of a thoroughly efficient filter, in order that gas may be cleansed of all abrasive and corrosive constituents before entering the engine. Your Lordships will realise that gas produced from anthracite, coal or coke naturally has a certain amount of ash in it, and if that gets through into the cylinder of a motor car, of course it may very speedily wear out the cylinder unless the gas is filtered before it gets there. That has really been the main difficulty with which they have had to deal at the Research Station—that of getting a filter which is really efficient for the different types of fuel. Experience has shown that the present design is satisfactory for a certain range of fuels, but, as already said, we are not entirely satisfied, and further investigation of this problem is being actively
1778
pursued on an adequate scale at the Fuel Research Station. The crux of the problem is the amount of suitable fuel of various types available in this country, and the adequacy of the fuel supply will require careful organisation and co-operation between the fuel interests and the motor trade. That is a point to which my noble friend Lord Teynham referred and is one of really supreme importance in this matter. As research and discovery progress on fuels and filters so will the supply of suitable fuel increase. A producer gas component consists of a hopper at the top, which is usually a round cylinder rather like a large petrol tin, in which the anthracite is placed. Below it is the combustion chamber, and then come a series of coolers to cool the gas down before it is taken to the cylinders of the motor car. Between the coolers and the motor car engine, as I have said, is the filter which is such a very important part of the equipment.
Your Lordships may ask: Is the gas produced from these fuels as efficient as petrol? The answer is, "No, it is not." To put it briefly and in a way which I think is easily understood, it is one gear less efficient than a motor car. In other words, if you have to put your car into third gear to get up a hill on petrol, you will have to put it into second gear to get up that same hill on producer gas. On the flat I think it is practically as efficient as petrol, but up a hill you have to go one gear lower than on petrol. I travelled about in one of these producer vehicles the other day, a fully-loaded lorry, and although we had just started from the Research Station and the engine had not got fully warmed up, yet it was quite flexible in London traffic. The only thing that one noticed was that the engine, because it had only recently started running, went at a rather higher speed than would the engine in an ordinary petrol-driven motor lorry in ordinary circumstances. It was quite efficient on the road and, although we were held up in a traffic block for some time, it restarted straight away like any ordinary lorry.
It is asked, "Does it take a long time to start the engine going?" The answer is, "No." When these things are inspected, of course they never do as well as when they are doing their ordinary run. They told me it would probably take four minutes because I happened to be Presi-

1779
dent in charge of the Department, and so it did, but I believe that on ordinary occasions it would probably take only two minutes instead of four. I do not think your Lordships will think that an excessive time. A three-ton lorry fully laden can run on one single charge for 120 to 150 miles, but it is a very simple operation to re-charge it. All you have to do is to draw in at the side of the road and fill up your hopper at the top with a further charge of fuel, and off you go again. It is, of course, a plant which is more suitable for long runs with heavy vehicles than it would be for dodging about in a town, and doing short runs because the gas is being made all the time that the hopper is in operation. Although you can close it down for a longish halt, and then start it again, obviously it is wasting fuel if it is stopping constantly; whereas with a petrol-driven car you turn off your supply of petrol.
As a result of the experience which the Committee have gained they found that the necessary alterations to the ordinary lorry or motor car were often so expensive, or were so wasteful in carrying space that on the whole they found the best results were probably got with a trailer drawn behind the vehicle. They have now been able to produce a trailer with a satisfactory attachment to a car, useful both for lorries and for 'buses. The particular trailer that I saw was some distance behind the lorry to enable the lorry to be unloaded without having to unhook the trailer—obviously a great advantage; but in the case of the motor 'bus you would be able to bring it much closer to the rear of the vehicle, and therefore take up a good deal less road space.
I do not know that I need say very much more at this moment, because I hope that these vehicles will be taken up by the trade and appear in large numbers on the road, and your Lordships, who probably know a good deal more about motor cars than I do, will no doubt be able to appreciate the value of these producer-gas plants more fully by seeing them in operation, than by anything I can say in the House. But I think we should all like to express our thanks to those who have been giving such deep thought, and working so hard on this question, and particularly to Sir Harold
1780
Hartley, the Chairman of the Fuel Research Board, and to the firms who have given able and ready assistance in carrying out road trials of different designs and of different producers. Remember that necessity is the mother of invention, and the war in which we find ourselves is perhaps a very considerable urge forward, to encourage us to try to find types of fuel which we shall not have to import into this country. In addition, the fuel which we do get is thereby freed for other uses; my noble friend suggested, for the distributive trades, but also for use in aeroplanes, or in other ways.
I think that we may expect that, once the gas-producer operated vehicles appear on the roads in any substantial number, they will be improved out of all recognition. Your Lordships will remember the type of aeroplane that prevailed at the beginning of the last war, and the type of aeroplane that was produced by the end of it. I am not one of those who think this war is going to be as long as the last, but I do think that as soon as these vehicles begin to appear on the roads we shall find they are improving very rapidly, and it is impossible to say now what the type of producer vehicle will be by the time progress has been made with this new form of propulsion, or whether it will be as unrecognisable as the early motor car would be to those familiar with the motor car of to-day. At any rate, it seems to me that it may eventually develop into a real alternative to the petrol-driven vehicle, as efficient in performance and as economic in operation. I do not pretend to say it is that at this moment, but it is at any rate a very useful substitute. In view of petrol rationing, I think there are many who wish to use power-driven vehicles who may find this a very useful form of substitute for petrol, and one which will enable them to carry on the trade of the country in a way which they would not otherwise be able to do.
5.46 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to refer very briefly to the most important statement made by the noble Earl. When the Lord President assumed his present high office it was my pleasure to congratulate him on having under his care what I considered by far the most important body in the whole of the State, and that is the

1781
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I would like on behalf of my noble friends to reinforce what he said about the great work that that Department has done, particularly in recent years, in so many directions at the Fuel Research Station. It is really only the people in the coal mining industry who realise what they have done, and I know my miner friends in another place are very conscious of the great contribution they have made to the prosperity of the country, especially to the country's future prosperity.
The statement made by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government is of the highest importance. We are promised, as far as this Government are concerned—and of course no Government can bind Parliament—no tax for five years. Well, we tremble to think of the present Government being in office for five years; it is a dismal prospect. Nevertheless, I would like to say this. I have not consulted my noble friends—and we could not bind our Party at all—nor have I consulted my Party, but I intend to bring this matter up with the authorities of my Party to see if we cannot get some statement along the same lines, as far as we are concerned. I should think, in view of the strength of the mining interest in the Labour Party, and knowing as we all do the pressure the miners have been putting for years and years in this direction, that the Labour Party will be quite prepared to say ditto, as far as they can bind Parliament, to this very important statement by the Lord President. What he said about rationing and no rationing and the concessions which he indicated was very satisfactory. I should like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, on the result of his long efforts in your Lordships' House on this matter. One thing was not quite clear. At present I understand that if I wish to have a trailer drawn by my motor car I have to pay a licence. Now, will these trailers, only used for the purposes of the producer-gas plant, have to pay the extra licence?
EARL STANHOPE: No, I do not think I can say anything about that at present. I think the Minister of Transport is going into the matter. I understand a satisfactory solution is likely to be arrived at, but he has not reached a decision yet.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged. I see the noble Lord, Lord
1782
Cadman, here, and I know his great interest in this matter. I am sure if he ventured to address your Lordships he would say that the great oil interests with which he is so closely associated naturally take a wide national point of view in this matter, and they would welcome the Government's statement just as much as I have done. I am sure he and his experts will be delighted at the result of the Government's investigations, and will hope to see some of the embarrassment on the oil supplies of the country removed by this means. I just wanted to say these few words and to congratulate the Government—that is always a pleasant thing to do for those who occasionally have to criticise—on having tackled this very important question and brought it to some fruition.
5.49 p.m.
LORD CADMAN: My Lords, as I have been referred to in terms that are very unusual to me, may I say that I endorse what has been said, and further endorse the remarks of the Lord President of the Council with regard to those who have been working on this matter? He referred to Sir Harold Hartley and the great work that he and his Committee have done. I would like also to pay tribute to the men on the station who are doing this work. I know what they are doing. Dr. Sinnatt and those working with him are engaged on a very difficult and very tiresome job. I am sure no one welcomes the progress that is being made more than my colleagues and myself. I do not want for a moment to suggest that my mind is entirely devoted to oil, or that I owe allegiance to oil. I started in coal, and I shall finish in coal. I think the main product of this country, which is coal, must be watched and watched unceasingly. I admire the way in which the Government are tackling this problem. It is a fine piece of work, but I must give one word of warning. One cannot hope to make a liquid out of a solid at anything like the price that one enjoys in the case of an oil that flows from a well.
5.52 p.m.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl if he would clarify one point in his speech. I rather gathered, when he referred to the results of the Fuel Research Board, that they had arrived at some kind of approved

1783
Government design of producer-gas plant. Will this approved specification be open for the inspection of all manufacturers of repute? I ask that question because I happen to know one or two firms who have seen this approved specification, but the firm with which I am connected was refused permission. I am quite sure noble Lords would resent any partiality on the part of the Government towards some firms as opposed to other firms. I should also like to ask whether, if a firm presents to the Fuel Research Board a design which attains to the approved design, they will be able to obtain a certificate or something saying that their gas-producer plant has passed the test or reached the test of the approved Government specification plant? The same with fuel: Will a manufacturer of a fuel which has attained to the same standard as the approved specification of the Government fuel be able to obtain a certificate or something to say that his fuel has reached the standard of the approved specification?
5.54 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, if I may address your Lordships a second time, I did say that the design was available for all motor traders who wished to apply to make this engine, but my noble friend definitely put in the words "those who were approved" because he realised the importance of that. We are not particularly anxious that certain parts of this machine shall get abroad to Germany. They have a great many producer-gas plants there already, but we hope ours will be better, and there are certain parts we hope we shall be able to use in this country which will not be exported abroad. As regards other plants, I think I am right in saying that the Research Station would be prepared to examine them and see how far they would go, but there is no question of giving a certificate in regard to any particular plant. All they would do would be to give it a test and say it reached such-and-such a standard, and leave it at that. Similarly in regard to fuel. The idea is that the Hartley Committee is going to produce three reports—one for the manufacturer, which will be a sort of working specification, one for the user of the machine, and one for the fuel producer. The fuel producers will be told that they must not
1784
have a tar content above a certain point, and various other matters of that kind. It will be quite easy for any person who produces fuel to say, "My fuel comes up to the standard which is considered necessary for producer-gas vehicles."
5.56 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to His Majesty's Government for the very full statement which has been made by my noble friend the Lord President of the Council. I was particularly glad to notice the reference to taxation, not only in regard to fuel but in regard to vehicles. The producer-gas industry and the motor vehicle industry will be given a great lead by this statement which we have had to-day. Great credit is due to all concerned, and not least to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who was largely responsible for pressing this matter when he was Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence.

REQUISITIONING OF HORSES.
5.57 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON had the following Notice on the Paper: To draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the ill-considered and inconsiderate commandeering of horses, the inadequate compensation paid and to the heavy casualties suffered among the horses so commandeered owing to their unsuitability for the work and incompetent care of them; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall follow the admirable example in brevity which has been set by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. When I put this Motion down I was not aware that the subject had been very recently raised in another place, but I do not think I need apologise for that, because since I have been inspired by the sufferings of my neighbours quite independently to put down a similar Motion, it seems to me that the reply made on behalf of the Government in another place is largely invalidated as it was there suggested that the cases quoted by the honourable member who raised the subject were exceptional. As I have found similar cases amongst my own neighbours, that can no longer be maintained. I do not intend, as I say, to speak at any length, but I shall quote one or two cases that have come within

1785
my own knowledge of valuable horses being ruthlessly commandeered and most inadequate prices being paid for them.
For example, one of my neighbours had a horse commandeered for which last year she paid £250. For this she was paid £60. Another of my neighbours was even more unfortunate. He had two horses commandeered, and was paid £100 for the pair, after having paid, last year, £300 for one and £250 for the other. These are the sufferings of private individuals; but other cases are even more disturbing. One is that of a trainer who had a horse, a thoroughbred, commandeered, which I am informed, not by himself but by those who knew the horse, would be reasonably valued at £1,000. He received £60. Another case—not, I am interested to note, the same case as was quoted in another place last week—is that of a dealer whose stock was decimated by the remount officers. This case and that of the trainer seem to me far more serious than those of private individuals because they represent taking away these particular persons' means of livelihood.
That, I am sorry to say, is not the end of the story, because the careers of some of these horses have been traced by their owners. The thoroughbred of which I spoke was sent to a Yeomanry regiment, where it proved completely useless. Nobody was able to ride it, and it has now been returned to its owner, branded and probably useless. That is not a unique experience. I have heard of worse cases of which I shall tell your Lordships shortly, of other horses whose careers have been traced. They were ladies in this case. Ladies take perhaps a more sentimental interest in their horses, and they traced these horses. One was sent to the Yeomanry and the lady discovered it was dead. It was one of 150 horses which had been left out in wet blankets. I understand that even waterproof blankets were not available at this particular regiment. The horses were left out in all weathers, and 150 of them died. The other lady traced her horse, and she obtained permission, from perhaps an unsuspecting Colonel, to inspect the lines. She found that the horses were all, in her opinion, in a very distressing condition. She is a very good judge of the condition of horse flesh. Many of them had got their four feet entangled in the ropes, and had rubbed
1786
their legs till they became sore. Her own horse had been kicked by a horse in the line behind it, and had an open wound which apparently, after several days, had not been dressed at all.
This is the burden of my complaint. A real injustice has been done to people by commandeering their property at an extremely inadequate price. Even more serious I think from a national point of view, is the wastage involved, because I think it is universally admitted that our horse flesh is one of the assets of the country. These horses which have been taken are not of a suitable type for the purpose. Incidentally I may say that I have had complaints from officers in these regiments that they have found the horses practically useless because their men cannot ride them. To take these horses and to put them in conditions in which they cannot be of much use, and in conditions in which some of them die because they are not used to such rough treatment, seems to me to be an iniquitous waste of a national asset. That, very briefly, is my case, and I do hope that His Majesty's Government may be able to give us some sort of encouragement. I would suggest that it might be possible to compensate more adequately those who, I venture to say frankly, have been robbed, or failing that, that these horses which are unsuitable should be returned to their owners. Speaking for my own part of the country, I know that suitable horses were available and could have been bought in adequate numbers at the standard prices. I suggest, therefore, that these horses which have been so commandeered might perhaps be returned to their owners. I beg to move.
6.3 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I make no apology for speaking upon this subject because I happened during the last war to be Acting Director of Remounts. I carefully read the debate which took place in another place, and I am sorry that the noble Lord who has moved this Motion did not derive any satisfaction from it. The terms of this Motion seem to me rather ill-advised, and to be too stringent and too censorious. In a matter of urgency of this kind there must be mistakes made by the officers who have to go round and get horses. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that during the last

1787
war there was a system of giving ten shillings a horse to retain the horses, and that that system no longer exists. Therefore a great deal of difficulty was experienced by our officers in securing the horses needed. I should like to know how many complaints were received, how many horses were actually commandeered against the will of the owners, and how many horses were taken whose owners were delighted to get rid of them.
At the beginning of the war there was a big slump in everything concerning hunting and the riding of horses generally. I should think that for the most part the prices paid for those horses that were taken were very good prices to give for them at the particular moment they were taken by the Government. This question is raised some time after the war started, and I ask your Lordships to remember the difficulties which had to be encountered at the outset. Officers were suddenly ordered to get these horses for the Army. Of course mistakes were made and always are made under such conditions. But the evil is not really so great as may be imagined from the speech of the noble Lord, because the number of horses being used by the Army now is nothing like so great as it was in the last war. At the start of the last war we had something like 19,000 horses, after four years of war we had nearly half a million, and at the end of the war we had 720,000 animals all over the world.
I can assure the noble Lord, when he goes into the question of horses being left out in the open, that that is a natural thing to do under conditions of war. After all, there are not so many Cavalry regiments left in our Army. These horses were sent to Yeomanry regiments for the most part. As your Lordships know, the great bulk of the Army has been mechanised, and very naturally there is some difficulty on a wet night. When horses are pegged out in the open they do not get that careful attention that is given to them when they are in a regular regiment's headquarters. Some horses do get kicked under the best conditions in the world, so I do not attach so very much importance to the complaint about one horse being kicked by another. As regards the price paid for the horses, I may say that we had a great many complaints of high-class horses being commandeered that ought not to have been
1788
commandeered, and the War Office, by leave of the Treasury, met a great many of those cases and gave satisfaction. People will understand, of course, that in times of emergency we must requisition horses and must get what we want. After all, the national interest comes first. I am quite aware that there are grievances, but I think most of your Lordships will agree that those who had to do this work of getting the horses required at the beginning of the war did it under extreme difficulties. I am sure they did the best they could.
In conclusion I should like to quote a letter which appeared in the Veterinary Record of November 4. This was from a veterinary officer who accompanied some of the remount officers. He wrote:
"As one engaged in that work I venture to state that conditions are not quite so bad as your report would indicate."
The writer was replying to a letter which had appeared in the previous week in this veterinary journal making similar complaints to those adumbrated by the noble Lord in his speech. The writer of the letter continues:
"Perhaps I have been lucky in being attached to purchasing officers who knew their work and being in a country where there are plenty of good useful horses to choose from, but I can say we had no difficulty in getting our number of as useful saddle horses as it was possible to find in any country. Having been at the same work in the last war I consider we found better quality animals and at almost as cheap a rate as we did in 1914. Of course, on this occasion we were allowed more time and the number needed was very much less. I have never yet seen the necessity of commandeering. Owners are very good to work with at such times. Occasionally an owner—and generally it is a lady owner—will burst forth and tell you he or she would rather shoot them than let them go to the Army, but just a reminder as to how they stand usually serves the purpose at once. The reception given to the buyer to-day by the hunting men is very similar to that accorded him by the cabmen in 1914; it is usually, 'These are our horses; take what you like and do the best you can for us.' Members in the House seem to forget that, immediately war broke out, all hunters, regardless of cost, and probably almost four-fifths of all racehorses were reduced to Army value in one day."
That is signed by a gentleman I do not know, Wm. A. Campbell, Veterinary Infirmary, Boroughbridge, York.
I would prefer to take the testimony of a man who did work in the last war and has also done work in this war. There must, of course, be complaints of this

1789
kind, but I am perfectly sure that if they are investigated it will be found that they are very rarely of substance. There is a remedy now in the County Court, under Section 113 of the Army Act, and I am confident also from what happened on the last occasion that the War Office will take into consideration any exceptional cases.
6.11 p.m.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT COBHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord is of course perfectly right when he says that this matter has been brought up in another place and replied to by my right honourable friend and the Finance Member on several occasions. It is a matter of some surprise to us, even those of us who have dealt very largely in horseflesh, that the members of that community should be so extraordinarily vocal. After very careful and full investigation of the whole of these complaints we cannot find that there is a substantial justification for the words "ill-considered and inconsiderate commandeering of horses." Ill-considered! This plan for the impressment of horses was laid down in 1937, two years ago, and careful arrangements were made over a certain number of districts in the country. The plan did not cover the whole of the country—that I believe is one of the grounds of complaint—but owing to lack of money, and also to the great extent of the mechanisation of the Army, it was not considered necessary to have more than eight district assistant remount officers. These officers were given very definite instructions as to what was to happen when an emergency put this particular order into operation. They were then to appoint buyers—buyers had been appointed before then, but their appointment was reviewed every three years—for every part of their district. These buyers would seek the help of other gentlemen, or of retired officers, who could give assistance in the work of collecting horses. That in the great majority of cases is what occurred.
Commandeering! Out of the large number of horses acquired from the start of the war up to to-day less than 3 per cent. were acquired by compulsion. The great majority were acquired in the way in which they were acquired in my own country. Owners of horses got notice from the buying officer that he would visit
1790
a certain place at a certain time on a certain date. Anybody who wished to sell horses to the Government could take his horses to that spot at that time. No one was compelled to send horses, but it was astonishing how many were sent to that locality. I myself sent a number of my own hunt horses. None of them were taken because none of them fell within the required specification, but that is as may be. All those horses that were sent certainly cost more than £100 to buy originally, and I dare say most of their owners thought them still worth more than £100, but owing to the outbreak of war and owing to the necessity of cutting down establishments they were glad to take what the remount buying officer was prepared to give for them.
District remount officers impressed upon their buyers that in every case the utmost consideration should be given to the sellers of horses. In a big undertaking like that, carried through rather at a rush, I think it really surprising that complaints have not been far more numerous than they have been. No doubt here and there mistakes were made—the noble Lord referred to one mistake—but of all those from whom horses were bought only nine made appeals, and all of them knew they could appeal. Two of them have since withdrawn their appeals, and so there are only seven cases now before the Courts. What is the fair value of a horse? It has been suggested that we ought to standardise the price of a horse in the same way that secondhand motor cars are now standardised. But when does a horse become secondhand, and to whom is the real value—is it the value to the man selling the horse, or is it the value to the buyer? I think the noble Lord will know perfectly well from his own experience in his own part of the country that the value of a horse in the eyes of a seller is very different from the value of the same horse in the eyes of a buyer. I shall certainly find out about the horse that cost £1,000. Of course that was a mistake. No horse of that value should have been acquired in that way. The fact that it was unridable may be surprising, but the fact that it was returned after being branded certainly does not make it completely unsuitable for use.
LORD FARINGDON: It was rather the treatment that it received that made

1791
it doubtful whether it would be of any further use, I understand.
VISCOUNT COBHAM: At the start of the last war we used to receive batches of remounts, and quite a number of them were difficult to manage. We had to get them so that they would behave themselves in the ranks. We had to train them to stand quietly in all weathers and get them used to the shackling rope on their heels. Your Lordships will understand that it is sometimes not easy to do that without certain strong treatment. The noble Lord made complaint that 150 died in one regiment. Out of the whole number of horses bought since the beginning of the war and of horses belonging to the Army before the war, including officers' chargers and cavalry horses, exactly 115 have died. That is out of a great many thousands. As to horses standing outside with wet blankets on: of course they would probably be very much better without their blankets on. But compare it with the last war. When we started, we took over a number of horses that had been turned out all the summer. We gradually tried to get them in condition, but immediately we put them into cold and draughty stables indoors they immediately began to fall away in condition and began to run at the nose. We had all sorts of difficulties, and so we turned them out again and left them out in the open air until November or December. The open air is the natural place for a horse, and it is a great deal better for it to be there than in some of these barns, stabling and various places where the Yeomanry are trying to accommodate their horses at the present time.
I do not want to keep your Lordships any longer. I have tried to answer most of the points raised by the noble Lord. But there is one other matter to which I should like to refer. Both the noble Lords, Lord Faringdon and Lord Jessel, have mentioned it. That is, that the lady owners have perhaps more affection for their horses than the men owners. I have heard it said in many cases: "We do not want to sell our horses to the Army, because what they do at the end is to sell them to these foreigners, and we know what treatment they get from the foreigners." It has been said before in another place, and I wish to repeat it, that now no horse
1792
is allowed to be sold abroad from the Army in any circumstances. Horses that are sent abroad, if they are fit and young enough—that is, if they are not worn out—will be brought back to England; otherwise they will be destroyed under military supervision. There is no question now of their being sold for a very small price and left in the country to which they had been taken.
There are many of us in this House who have spent a long period of our lives with horses and with the Cavalry, and I can really assure the noble Lord that when these horses get into the hands of the Cavalry or of the Yeomanry they do receive the very best treatment. You cannot always control the places in which they find themselves; you cannot control the mud in which they sometimes have to stand; but actually, as to their treatment, the commanding officers and the squadron leaders are not doing their duty unless they see to it that the horses that are put in their charge receive the very best consideration and treatment.
6.23 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer, which I hope will prove consoling to those who read it and who have not had the occasion to hear it. Might I say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, that I hear everywhere favourable comparisons between the commandeering of horses in the last war and the process during this war? I think neither of the noble Lords quite appreciated—and particularly Lord Jessel did not quite appreciate—my point that a suitable type of horse, a type of horse which would not have suffered from hardships, is available, was available in the last war and was taken in the last war, but is not apparently being taken at the present time. That is the burden of part of my complaint. The noble Viscount who replied for the Government described conditions in his own countryside which are peculiarly different from those obtaining in mine. So far as I know, people were not asked to send their horses to a certain place; they were informed that the remount officer and the veterinary officer, and perhaps a buyer, would visit them on a certain date, and these officers came and picked what they would have. The owners were unofficially informed beforehand that it would be better for them not

1793
to make any fuss lest a worse thing befall them.
Both the noble Lords have referred to the tender hearts of the ladies. I have not had myself any experience of a case where a lady owner has said that she would rather her horse were dead than that it should go to the Army. On the contrary, I have found everywhere a generosity of giving. My complaint, and the complaint of most of those people, has been that their horses are unsuitable horses for the purpose and that they have therefore suffered. In fact, most of my informants have not complained particularly bitterly about the rate of remuneration, although that has struck me, and it may strike noble Lords, as low. It is all very well; the noble Lord may talk about a difference between the price which a seller is prepared to take and the price which a buyer is prepared to give, but there is a difference between the price given to a willing seller and the price given to a forced seller. I am sure the noble Lord will see that there is a very perceptible difference there. It may be that the values of hunters and such horses did fall very heavily immediately on the outbreak of the war, but the noble Lord admitted tacitly that it has already improved somewhat. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, who said that that was two months ago. I think most horse owners would have been prepared to keep their horses for at least two months to see if their value improved. By the way, the noble Lord, Lord Jesse], implied, as did the other noble Lord, that the cases I have mentioned were exceptional. I can assure him that the cases I have mentioned are the rule amongst all my neighbours.
LORD JESSEL: You are very unfortunate, then.
LORD FARINGDON: No, my neighbours are. But still, that is the case, and I am sorry that the Government have not been able to give us more comfort. I can only hope that the misfortunes which certain people have suffered in the past will not be repeated in the future. The directions given to the officers are perfectly satisfactory in themselves. The orders are that they should find a suitable type of horse at a suitable price. That is perfectly satisfactory. Evidently in many cases, or in certain areas at any rate, they have not followed those directions,
1794
and I trust that His Majesty's Government will see that in any future cases those directions are sternly followed. With your Lordships' permission I will withdraw my Motion.
6.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, on that Motion, the noble Lord hopes that this will be a consolation to certain owners; but I wish at this stage to draw your Lordships' attention to the procedure adopted by Lord Faringdon. He moves the innocent Motion for Papers, but he precedes that by a preamble of the most offensive character, bringing charge after charge against a very responsible, a very hard-worked and a very honourable body of men. I venture to say that those who have listened to the explanation given by the noble Viscount, Lord Cobham, will agree with me in saying that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, is utterly unjustified, grossly unjustified. Here are his words: He charges this corps with "ill-considered" action, with "inconsiderate" action, with paying improper prices for the goods that they commandeer, with handling the matter so badly that these poor horses have suffered heavy casualties; and he goes on to say that the people who did this work were unsuitable for their task and incompetent to take care of the horses. That is a very gross series of charges, and if they are measured or to be tested by the few definite charges which he made and the definite answers which the noble Viscount, Lord Cobham, gave, I say that the preamble is utterly unjustified. One hundred and fifty horses commandeered for one unit, put out at night in the month of August, and 150 of them died—it is inconceivable.
LORD FARINGDON: I beg the noble Earl's pardon: I did not say that 100 per cent. of those commandeered had died.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I understood that 150 horses in one unit had died.
LORD FARINGDON: That was the figure I was given.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I say it is inconceivable that horses taken out in the month of August could have died and nobody should have heard about it. The noble Viscount below me said that, taking

1795
all the horses commandeered and adding to them all the horses in the Army since the beginning of the war, only 115 have actually died—less than 1 per cent. The preamble to a Motion for Papers cannot be amended. It is impossible for me to record my dissent to the charges made in that preamble, and I therefore take the only course at my disposal, after the charges made by Lord Faringdon and the overwhelming answer made by Lord Cobham, by expressing my emphatic dissent.
6.32 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, before the Motion is put: I think it is the privilege of any noble Lord in this House to move for Papers and to present the best arguments that he has on the best information that he has in support of his case. I resent the censorious attitude adopted by the noble Earl who has just spoken. A noble Lord gets information about this matter and tries to bring it before your Lordships as a matter of public duty. He has to rely upon information that has come to him, and has not all the weight of a Department whose statements we cannot test to-day. These facts ought not to prevent a Motion so submitted from being received
1796
courteously by members of your Lordships' House.
6.33 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I do not think that quite meets the case. Here was a Motion down on the Paper attacking a whole corps of officers who, as the noble Lord opposite knows, cannot defend themselves. They are not allowed to reply in the Press and are not allowed to make statements. Here is a member of your Lordships' House who takes advantage of his position as a member of this assembly to put down charges on paper attacking this whole corps of officers in the way which my noble friend behind me described it. I think the noble Earl was quite justified in complaining of the terms of this Motion. Every noble Lord is, of course, entitled to complain of and criticise Government Departments, but to put down a Motion making charges against and criticising persons who cannot reply is to set an example which I think ought not to be followed.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The preamble to a Motion cannot be voted against.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before seven o'clock.