Lords Sitting of 27 September 1939

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM.
The Right Honourable Frederic Herbert Baron Maugham, lately Chancellor of Great Britain, having been created Viscount Maugham of Hartfield in the County of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

EDUCATION (EMERGENCY) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD on EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to modify the provisions of the Education Act, 1936, in relation to the coming into operation of Sections 1 to 6 of that Act, and for purposes connected with the said modification; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EDUCATION (EMERGENCY) (SCOT LAND) BILL. [H.L.]
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to modify the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1936, in relation to the coming into operation of Section 14 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, and for purposes connected with the said modification; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 1a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BOYS IN CIVIL DEFENCE.
4.2 p.m.
LORD HAMPTONhad the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of many urgent representations received from all over the United Kingdom, the
1144
decision of the Minister of Home Security that boys under sixteen years of age should not be enrolled as National Service Volunteers in any branch of Civil Defence, may be amended so as to include boys who have reached the age of fourteen; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name. In doing so I cannot say that it has quite the gravity of the many questions which have occupied your Lordships during the last three weeks, but all the same I hope I shall be able to show that it is neither irrelevant nor unreasonable. I am speaking particularly on behalf of big boys' organisations throughout the country which have been doing, and are now doing, a considerable amount of work, particularly in Civil Defence. I am also speaking on behalf of many municipal and local authorities throughout the country who are employing these boys. I hope your Lordships will understand that I have to base most of my arguments upon the work of the association—the Boy Scouts—with which I am most familiar, and which I suppose has the largest number of boys engaged at the present time. It may be in the recollection of many of your Lordships still—I hope it is—that during the last war a very considerable contribution was made to what I may call the home front by the work of the younger generation of that time. This, of course, includes all boys' organisations which were then operating. From the point of view of our own association there were throughout the whole hostilities something like 45,000 boys on the spot, employed in a variety of duties, from coast watching to messenger work, and particularly messenger work, who earned the thanks of the Government of the day at the close.
To come to more recent times, during and even before the crisis of September, 1938, this association, as well as others, was fully alive to the contribution which its members might be called upon to make should their services be required, and in our case the response of the Boy Scouts was so great that it was found necessary to make a complete survey during the time it was in operation and to issue a report, which covers fifty pages of close print, which I have in my hand for your Lordships to see should you desire to do so. That report was sent to the

1145
then Home Secretary. It was also sent to all our overseas branches, and I understand that they are basing their own schemes of work in Civil Defence very largely upon that report. On this occasion also we were greatly encouraged by a personal letter of thanks from the then Home Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, coupled with an expression of his desire that we should do everything possible to continue our efforts should war come.
Since September, 1938, therefore, we have kept constantly before our members the necessity, through their training, of making and keeping themselves fit to carry out their duties. With this in view we have instituted what we call a National Service badge, and over 18,000 were earned by the boys during the year. There are many useful jobs which obviously quite a young boy can do during such times as these, but most important of all—and it is in this connection that we get the greatest demand for their services—is that of the messenger service. Your Lordships will readily appreciate that normal communications are even now much more difficult. There is great pressure on the telephone service, and so forth. You cannot move about so easily, and the ordinary means of locomotion are greatly curtailed. There are many offices in the Civil Defence Services in which people find they have no home telephones, and where a great deal of house work is necessary. It is necessary that these boys should receive training. A messenger needs training just as any other person doing service needy training. He wants, in the first place, to be quick and intelligent—quick in the up-take; he must know his way about in an intimate way, both in the building and in the surrounding districts; he must know where the air-raid shelters are and the most important posts in the district; and he must be able to repeat a message intelligently and not forget any part of it. All that needs training, and it means picking the boys and training them. That is a point which I want your Lordships to remember.
Up to four or five months ago there was no question of limiting the age to sixteen. In fact, boys of fourteen upwards have, for over a year, been training themselves in our association, and in other associations as well, for this kind of service, and so far as I am aware no organisation was consulted before the age limit was fixed. It was therefore a great
1146
blow to us, and to many other associations, to receive a letter from the then Lord Privy Seal, stating that it had been decided that boys under sixteen should not be enrolled as National Service Volunteers in any branch of Civil Defence Service; and that boys of sixteen to eighteen years of age who may serve as messengers in A.R.P. and relevant services in war will be covered by such arrangements as may be made by the Government for the compensation of volunteers in the event of death or injury sustained in the course of duty during time of war. Why sixteen, my Lords? I may be told, of course, that public opinion would be opposed to the employment of boys under that age. I would reply that the only public opinion with which we are concerned is, in the first place, that of the boys' parents, who, so far as I am aware, have only been too eager and anxious for the boys not only to train but to take part in these duties when an emergency came; and in the second place, that of municipal and other authorities, Chief Constables and so on, with whom we have been in touch, who have welcomed their services and see no reason why boys should not be employed down to the age of fourteen. I might mention here, and it will not be forgotten, that the youngest survivor of His Majesty's Ship "Courageous" is a boy of fifteen.
It might be said that public sentiment would be against the possible consequence of a boy of fourteen seeing the results of air raids. I am afraid if air raids do come that will affect young people wherever they may be. It may be impossible to keep the immediate results from them, but every precaution will be taken to see that they should not be allowed out between an air-raid warning and the "All clear" signal. Every precaution will be taken by the air-raid posts, and people in authority, to see that young boys are not brought in contact with unpleasant sights. The difficulty to us is that boys might be out in the street at the time of an air raid, but that is one of the unfortunate things which we have to face. It has been said that they would suffer from the strain and the long hours imposed by war conditions; in fact The Times has said that:
"It is felt that boys under the age of sixteen should not be exposed to the strain and long hours imposed by war conditions."

1147
But boys of fourteen years and upwards have always been exposed to the possibility of long hours in the workshop and on the farm, and if they are enrolled in the business of Civil Defence they will come under leaders who will see to it that they are not exposed to undue hours. I understand from personal observation that the average is four hours on and four hours off, with reasonable allowance for half-days. As for strain, your Lordships will agree with me that it is a matter for great thankfulness that young people do not, during times of national emergency such as this, suffer from strain and anxiety as their elders do. For them war or no war, the world is a playground, and may this ever be so!
Then we come to the question of danger. Large numbers of these boys, the majority I imagine, will be employed in areas which have been scheduled by the Government as neutral or safe, and in any case, is a boy in more danger taking a message under supervision from one spot to a clearly defined other spot, or in waiting about on duty under supervision, than he would be playing in the open or going to and from school? But these A.R.P. messengers are trained for their special duties, and they will not be sent out between the air-raid warning and the "All clear." After all, it is very difficult to say, anyhow at present, what average situation is safer than another. There is, of course, the question of insurance, which was promised by the Government for boys over sixteen. But I understand it is a fairly widespread experience in those districts which have been gravely affected by this order that municipal and other bodies are arranging, and are perfectly willing to arrange, their own cover.
Then comes the question of pay. That is not an important question with our boys. Most of them are perfectly willing to give voluntary service, but—and this is important—they do want to feel that they are enrolled. Your Lordships will readily imagine what it means to a young fellow to feel that he is enrolled in the service of his country. It is very different from being told, "You turn up when you like, and we will see if we can give you a job." They will not turn up then, and what many of our Civil Defence organisations are suffering from now is the uncertainty of the part-time volunteer.
1148
But if you enrol a boy, especially a boy of a disciplined and recognised organisation, then you enrol his loyalty as well as the boy himself.
We know for a fact that since this order went out, some public authorities are deliberately turning a blind eye to this age limit, because they cannot risk having all their arrangements upset. For instance, in one centre, for a year now they have had 2,000 of these boy messengers trained, and nearly 50 per cent. are boys under the age of sixteen, and other centres have accused those organisations which have obeyed the order and withdrawn their boys of deliberately letting them down. Now that is not fair. However, when the decision was reached, it was communicated to all our centres, and I understand the Home Office sent instructions to public authorities. It evoked an immediate storm of protest, both from our own people and from Chief Constables and public authorities all over the country. Many of these told us that their organisations were practically wrecked, and they would have to build them up again on perfectly new foundations.
I have a couple of letters here and I would like to quote from them—one from the North and one from the South. That from the South says:
"As far as it can be ascertained, the reasons for this"—
that is the under-sixteen order—
"are as under:
"That for boys to be on duty for eight hours at the age under notice is far too long. All scouts are on duty in reliefs, four boys to each relief, and their turn of duty is four hours, so that Point is settled.
"To expose boys to danger is neither right, just nor wise. All scouts under sixteen years of age are as safe as they can well be. An undertaking has been given that no boy will be sent out between the warning signal and the 'All clear.' Each boy has been individually told that should he be out when the warning signal is given, he must at once take cover and await the 'All clear.' Further, when indoors, they are under all the protection it seems possible to give them. In fact they are better protected than many of the A.R.P. staff.
"It is considered the boys if employed will, should bombs fall, be frightened, nervous and jumpy. Are they not much more likely to suffer in these respects when having nothing to do but aimlessly to wander the streets? The conditions mentioned above would surely to any ordinary mentality be considered an antidote to the ills which have suddenly dawned in some brain but which long ago were carefully considered by us and the necessary provisions made to guard against them.

1149
"The local authority find it difficult to appreciate why scouts under sixteen years of age are apparently able to serve the naval and military people and be at the same time debarred from duty with a Civil Defence organisation. …
"The local authority will, if scouts are withdrawn, lose the services of disciplined, smart and specially trained lads. In their place it will be only possible to engage youths over sixteen, who will be devoid of discipline and training and whose attendance will be uncertain. These youths will without doubt take full advantage of the circumstances and conditions now existing, and demand a full remuneration for their services, which will have to be paid, entailing a heavy additional expenditure. The local authority are of opinion it is possible the details given above may not be understood in Whitehall."
Then a communication from the North in which it is stated:
"I naturally thought that all boy labour under sixteen would have to do likewise"—
that is, be withdrawn under the order—
"but nothing of the kind. Instead of being done by scouts, this work is now being entrusted to numbers of school boys under the title of A.R.P. Messenger Service from which we scouts are excluded. The disappointment of our boys was bitter enough, but imagine their feelings when they found that anyone except a scout could do this work without let or hindrance."
That sort of thing is going on now all over the country. From the practical point of view, insistence upon the limit of sixteen years of age is resulting in a considerable shortage of young workers for this essential messenger duty. We reckon that it will affect the production of these boys—certainly trained boys—to the extent of thirty and perhaps even as much as fifty per cent. From perhaps an even more important point of view, it will prevent giving useful employment to many boys who have left school and have no other outlet for superfluous energy in this respect.
I would suggest that while concentrating, as we must do, all our energies upon war, we must at the same time consider the grave effect which the conditions of warfare are bound to have upon our young people, with the very large withdrawal of parental control which must result from war leisure and the very great difficulty under which voluntary organisations who otherwise would cater for them are bound to work. For instance, we immediately lost a great proportion of our leaders, many of them inevitably—the very best of our leaders. We have had our club rooms commandeered right and
1150
left, some of them unnecesarily. We hope and believe that that will be purely temporary and that as things settle down many of these buildings will come back. I know that the noble Earl, the President of the Board of Education, will be very sympathetic and help us wherever he can in getting these buildings back where possible. We are confronted by great difficulties, but at the same time we have been pressed by the Government to carry on, and it is obvious that we should try to carry on as far as we are able to do so. We have every intention of carrying on, if we can, without too many restrictions. From the psychological standpoint, it is a common experience among workers that young people from fourteen to sixteen years old are more easily trained, more amenable to discipline, and more generally useful for duties within their capacity than are those of the older age group approaching adolescence. We do not ask that every boy of fourteen or fifteen who wants to undertake these duties should be enrolled, but we do ask that we should have the right to enrol picked boys whom we can trust to do the job well, and that they should be able to consider themselves as enrolled in the service of their country.
In conclusion, I hope I am not creating a dangerous precedent, but I should like to read to your Lordships a letter from a twelve-year-old boy and let the boys speak for themselves. This youngster is a Scout in a Northern village, and he is writing, having failed to get satisfaction elsewhere, to the secretary of the headquarters of his district:
"Dear Sir,
"I am writing on behalf of a good many other Scouts. The reason why I am writing to you is on National Service. At seven o'clock this morning I was to be at Meir Senior School for running messages, etc. When I arrived at the gates our skipper was just coming out of the school, and he informed me that no Scouts under sixteen are wanted at all. What is the reason? I entered my name in the National Service paper, and I expected that I would be wanted, not to be refused and told that I am not wanted at all.
"You daren't look me straight in the face and say that I am not wanted after I have filled in the green form. It is not a very good way for a Scout to be refused like that. It is not our Scoutmaster, but it is you at the Scout headquarters, is it not? Make sure you give me a reply.
"A faithful Scout,
"S.D."
I quote that letter, not that we are asking

1151
that this age limit should be lowered to such a degree as twelve years, but because it is typical of the spirit of our boys in this country.
They are longing to do their bit, they are longing to serve their country, and Heaven knows it will be difficult to find employment for all these children. Under the great difficulties of evacuation and so on it is going to be very difficult indeed unless we have as much right as we can get to find them employment. What finer employment could we find for a youngster than to enrol him in the service of his country? That is going to influence him not only all through the war, but all through his life, and so I hope the noble Earl will be able to give us some crumbs of comfort at any rate. I beg to move for Papers.
4.24 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, you have heard the eloquent and powerful plea put forward by my noble friend Lord Hampton on behalf of the great organisation of Boy Scouts with which we all know he is connected. I want to say a few words on behalf of another boys' organisation of which I am President—namely, the Navy League Sea Cadets, which has many thousands of boys not only in this country but in every Dominion beyond the seas. I will not repeat, because it is unnecessary, the arguments my noble friend has put forward. He has disposed of the difficulties that seem to have been in the mind of the authorities as regards public opinion. He has pointed out tersely that if the parents are willing and the boys are willing, and the country and the local authorities need them, there is no other public opinion that matters except a sentimentality with which we are not concerned. As to long hours and hardship, I wish we could have heard the same plea in peace-time regarding some of the long hours boys were engaged. If there is a time when you ought to make an exception it is surely in war-time, because war-time occupation for a boy is far more congenial than ordinary peace-time occupation.
As regards danger, it is perfectly obvious, as my noble friend has said, that boys acting under rigid discipline and close supervision are in far less danger than they would be hanging about in
1152
their homes or in the streets during times of crisis. Our Sea Cadets are in a particular position, and their training reinforces what my noble friend has said as regards the Boy Scouts. We take Sea Cadets from twelve years of age, and from the moment they enter our organisation they are both recognised and inspected by the Admiralty. A Cadet enlisted at twelve years old, and therefore a part of His Majesty's Forces, has by the age of fifteen received three years' training in discipline, seamanship, and boat-work under retired naval officers, petty officers, and naval ratings, and you would see in the ranks of these Cadets that boys of fourteen and fifteen are self-reliant, capable, and keen. I could repeat some of the tributes which my noble friend has read. I have got one from a senior naval officer, who says:
"The boys have shown great keenness, and they have on many occasions given valuable assistance."
Another one, also a senior naval officer, says:
"The opening of this naval base has, under the circumstances of emergency in which the work has had to be carried out, been a work of considerable difficulty. This difficulty would have been much greater without the help of the Sea Cadets, and we are all deeply indebted to them."
Our boys have been already manning signal stations, guarding store depots, and important bridges, and they have been doing messenger work for A.R.P. organisations, fire brigades, and the Ministry of Information, although I do not suppose my noble friend knows that. Those below sixteen are in my judgment just as capable, from fourteen upwards, of rendering good service as the boys of sixteen themselves. I wish to echo what my noble friend has said. What a thousand pities it is to discourage a boy's keen spirit at that age. It was only about a year ago, after the crisis of last autumn, that I succeeded in persuading the Admiralty to give an undertaking that all our Sea Cadets, when called up under the Conscription Act, should automatically be drafted into His Majesty's Navy. If you knew the effect that had on all our lads in this country and in the Empire, and what an aid to recruitment it gave to our ranks, you would realise how closely boys below sixteen watch these things and how eager they are to serve at a lower age than that fixed by authority to-day.
The danger of discouraging boys' enthusiasms is really a very great one. The

1153
boys want to serve, their parents are willing, the local authorities need their services, and I plead with the noble Earl who is going to reply that really at a time like this their wishes ought to be considered. Boys have right through our history at a much earlier age than this given magnificent service in the Services themselves, taking the same risks and enduring the same hardships as the men, and they should not be classed with the women of this country. I really think it is a great piece of sentimentality, and I hope that the boys of this country from the age of fourteen upwards will be given the chance which they desire of rendering service to the nation.
4.29 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I know your Lordships have a great deal of rather important business to transact this afternoon, and I do not want to keep you more than a few moments, but I feel bound to support very shortly the plea which has been so eloquently made by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. I am bound to say, without prejudice to what I may hear from the noble Earl who will reply for the Government, that the case which they have made out seems to me so strong as to be really unanswerable. Boys of the age of fourteen to sixteen are just at the age when they are becoming aware of new energies of body and mind stirring within them. It is the age when their best instincts are either aroused or are dragged down. It is the age when that fine instinct of loyalty can be either trained under leadership or else perverted. It seems to me a thousand pities that boys of that particular age should be debarred from this opportunity of offering service to their country. In that connection I would add only a sentence, that I am sure nothing could be more short-sighted at the present time, even under war conditions, than to close down the various agencies, like club rooms, play centres and the like, which have been available for boys of that age. This is a matter that affects not only boys of the present time, but the future manhood of the country.
But to return to the main point, your Lordships have heard about the readiness, the eagerness, of numbers of boys to be permitted to take a share in this Civil Defence. You have heard what
1154
was done at the last war, and in this war the necessity of just the kind of service these boys can give is greater than ever, because Civil Defence occupies a place of great importance quite without any analogy in the last war. The kind of work that these boys can do has been described to you by Lord Hampton, and it is exceedingly useful in itself. Your Lordships know how these boys have not only alacrity but infinite resource. What is more, they are always proud of any work that is given them to do and they have a sense of self-importance in doing it, which is very irritating among older people but is very engaging with small boys. Now this being so, you have heard that the Boy Scouts and the Naval Cadets, and the scouts associations particularly, have been ever since last September training their boys in order that they may be able to fulfil this useful function. You have heard how public authorities have already made much use of them and how grateful they are. It seems to me very strange that after these few months suddenly there should have come this news that boys between fourteen and sixteen are not to be permitted to be enrolled in any branch of National Service for reasons which have been alleged and have been dealt with very effectively by my noble friend. I must say that I do not understand why these boys have been debarred not only from fulfilling a work of great usefulness at the present time, but also from finding an outlet for their energy and scope for their loyalties in the best possible way in the service of their country.
4.35 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for saying one word in support of this Motion, as I have been asked to do, seeing that I am what the late Mr. Will Crooks would call one of the "aborigines" of the Boy Scout movement. I hope the noble Lord will not withdraw his Motion because I know how much disappointment has been caused among these boys' associations and how much aggravation has been caused to the local authorities. It is astonishing how much foolishness, if I may say so, there is in your Lordships' House in one respect that I will mention. You may have been shocked, and I am sure your Lordships were, that only yesterday—and the same thing has occurred on previous

1155
occasions—the bright sunshine of a September afternoon was blacked out from this House by people coming round and blacking out our windows. They are doing so now, and I wish they would stop it. It is incredible that this senior House and this great deliberative assembly should be blacked out at half past four, three hours, or at least two and a half hours, before the sun sets. I inquired from the authorities here why we, of all people in the world, should be the only deliberative assembly among all such assemblies on the Continent of Europe to be blacked out two or three hours before sunset. "Oh," I was told, "we can't get the labour." "But," I said, "surely what you spend on the labour would be more than compensated for by the light you would get." If, instead, you asked either Lord Lloyd or Lord Hampton tomorrow to arrange for their Boy Scouts between fourteen and sixteen to pull down these blinds when darkness comes, the thing would be done.
What applies to your Lordships' House applies, I know, also, for I have seen the Mayors in many towns, to other places in the country. Here are we not only being subjected to inconvenience but being made to look supremely ridiculous, as we are at this moment, by being blacked out against a danger which is non-existent just because we say we cannot get labour. In these circumstances the Ministry has destroyed the labour of boys from fourteen to sixteen which would do all these useful things. I wonder what possible explanation of it there can be. Whatever can be said, I hope I may address the Lord Chancellor and say that he, as I understand, has a room which has been blacked out for his own purpose, but I hope we shall not allow the House of Lords to be blacked out so early as long as we can get boys of from fourteen to sixteen to do it at the proper time. As an old Boy Scout I hope this order will be rescinded, and that these boys will be allowed to serve their country as they wish to do.
4.38 p.m.
LORD GLENTANAR: My Lords, in adding but a few words to the very eloquent speeches which have been made on this subject, I crave your Lordships' indulgence in addressing you for the first time. From personal association with
1156
two of the leading boys' associations in Scotland, I would like to corroborate all that has been said by my noble friend Lord Hampton. The dislocation which has been caused by this order withdrawing the services of boys between fourteen and sixteen has been very real, and the effect on the boys themselves has been very unfortunate indeed. In the large cities, and also in the smaller ones, and in the towns of Scotland in nearly every case, the local authorities asked one or more of the boys' associations to organise boys for extra services. This was done, and it was done, I may say, very effectively. The boys in many cases had been trained; they were enrolled; the machine was ready and was actually working when this blow fell. A very large proportion of these boys, in fact more than 50 per cent. in most cases, had to be at once stopped.
It nearly stopped the machine of which they were a part, and in many cases special representations were made that the withdrawal should not be done hastily but gradually. In one case, the case of one of the principal cities of Scotland, the effect has been even more unfortunate, because whereas under the original circumstances it would have been possible for the three boys' organisations who undertook the work to maintain a 24-hour service giving the boys reasonable shifts and proper holidays, that naturally is no longer possible. The effect in this particular case has been that the authorities, if they have not already so decided, are considering abandoning all this voluntary effort and disbanding this voluntary machine in favour of a paid service. The two aspects we have to consider are not only the effect of losing what may turn out to be an extremely valuable service—as it proved in the last war—but also the effect upon the minds of these boys who feel that their services are being thrown away, and that they are considered to be of no use for jobs for which they have been trained and for which they have already proved themselves to be very fit. I hope that your Lordships will give the proposal your serious consideration.
4.42 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think that even if this case had not been so eloquently urged and so widely supported we should all feel a great deal of sympathy for it, and in spite of what I am going to say, I would like your

1157
Lordships to take it from me here and now that all the arguments will be put before my right honourable friend and colleague the Home Secretary and I will undertake to discuss them myself with him. We must all feel, I think, a very natural sympathy for the desire of these boys to serve, and I do not think anyone of us could fail to feel a certain prick in being British when we heard of the spirit shown in the letter which was read by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. These boys are keen, they are intelligent, they are trained and disciplined, but perhaps it is going a little too far, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, did, in making his case for the use of boys from fourteen to sixteen years old, to assume that all virtue resides in that particular age, and that when boys reach the age of sixteen they become undisciplined.
But in spite of all the arguments put—which must, of course, be considered—I am not entirely convinced. What do we really mean by this type of service? Why is it that at this moment we have to have an A.R.P. organisation at all? Surely it is because we believe that the danger of air attack over this country is real and because we believe that there is danger on the home front as well as abroad. It is not a bit of good talking—as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suggested—as if it were just a matter of boys being employed in pulling down the blinds in your Lordships' House. These boys will have to be on duty for A.R.P. work, and I think it is also suggested for fire and police work. You cannot have members of an A.R.P. force put into shelters at the one moment for which they have been prepared and trained. A.R.P. workers cannot be given an assurance that they will go down to shelters when there is an air raid in progress. These boys will have to be on the streets, going to the first-aid posts and to the hospitals, possibly seeing horrible cases of injury. That must be their job. If they are members of the A.R.P. force and cannot do that job, they are not going to be of great value in that force.
Do not let us, just because during the first fortnight or three weeks we have not suffered, I was going to say the full force, but any force at all of air raids, fall into the mistake of assuming that all this really means a very easy, pleasant job of running messages. I cannot help
1158
feeling that we should be very hard pressed indeed for man power before calling on these boys of fourteen and fifteen years of age to do what is really very close to being a front-line job, involving long hours, great risks and strain. You cannot in the least compare this sort of work with the work done by the Boy Scouts in the last war because of the facts which I have ventured to put before your Lordships. And I think that the Boy Scouts organisation really recognise these facts themselves, because they made application to the authorities for inclusion in the compensation provisions against death or injury.
LORD LLOYD: May I ask, as a matter of information, whether boys under sixteen are not employed in the Services, in the Navy and Army?
EARL DE LA WARR: I made a note of the Naval Cadets that the noble Lord mentioned.
LORD LLOYD: I mean in the Services, the Navy and Army.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am quite sure they are not sent to the front.
LORD LLOYD: Do they not go on battleships and suffer all the risks?
EARL DE LA WARR: No, not below sixteen. I think the naval cadets mentioned by the noble Lord do not go to sea even in peace time. They certainly do not go to sea in war time. I cannot help feeling that this war is quite bad enough and horrible enough for adults, even if you go down to as low an age as sixteen, and I do not think that this is purely a sentimental view to take. Your future generation is something that has got to be safeguarded and treasured, especially if you are going to wipe out a great deal of the present generation. That is really the line on which we are dealing with the age for military purposes. In the last war boys of seventeen, eighteen and nineteen were sent out to the front. In this war the decision has virtually been taken not to send them out until they are twenty. I should have thought that most of us in this House would feel that to be a right and proper decision.
I do not think any of us can fail to be really worried at the idea of these

1159
boys, full of enthusiasm, full of anxiety to serve, being thrown back on themselves and made to feel that they are not wanted. I cannot help feeling that the right way for the younger generation to serve at the present moment—and it is for us who are older to make them feel that this is in fact work that is really worth while—is to carry on with their existing jobs, but twice as hard as they were working. They should realise that the time may come, and come all too soon, when they are going to be called upon; and they have to be fit, they have to prepare for the future and train for the future. If there is going to be a long war, their services will be required all too soon; if not, then the reconstruction that this country is going to need after a war, no matter how short it may be, will call for everything they have to give, and it will be just as necessary as ever that they should be fit.
I do not think that anybody in this House would feel that there was a better training for either of these purposes than the training that they receive in the Boy Scouts. I myself would urge these boys to stick to that training and, as their war contribution, at any rate until they come to the age of sixteen, to work even harder at it, and there will be no question then of their country being able to use them. If this reply is disappointing to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and to others of your Lordships, I would nevertheless, whatever the ultimate decision on this point may be, ask the noble Lord to convey to his boys on behalf of the Government our very real appreciation of their spirit, and say that this is not only an order to stand by but a request to work and train so as to be prepared when called upon.
There is one other word that I should like to add. It is not strictly relevant to this debate, but I really think it does touch on the subject. I hope that all the scoutmasters and leaders of every type who are working either with Scouts or in any other type of juvenile organisation will feel that their work is of real national importance, and first-class national importance. One hears of cases of those who feel that it is necessary for them to take up other work which seems to them of more direct national importance. I hope they will think very carefully before
1160
they do so. The most reverend Primate has touched on this point, and I should like to confirm what he has stated. I hope in quite a short time to be able to inform your Lordships what will be the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to juvenile work during war-time, and I think that when that statement is issued it will only serve to confirm this appeal that I venture to make at the present moment to all engaged in the work, to stick to their guns and carry on.
4.55 p.m.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, may I with great respect and all humility congratulate the Government on the decision they have taken? I hope we shall keep clear heads and balanced minds in relation to the matter and think of the coming generation as much as we do of the present generation. I should only like to add that it is a painful reflection on the conduct of the last war to recall the way in which women were used up in six, eight or ten months because they were worked week-days and Sundays without intermission. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Addison, who was head of a great State Department at that time, will support what I say. Had not steps been taken to preserve the youth and energy of our country, we should not have brought the war to the successful conclusion which we eventually reached. Therefore I venture, with great respect and all humility, to ask for judgment in this matter, and that we should serve in every possible way the youth of our nation.
4.56 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I propose to delay your Lordships for only a short while. During this debate, in which I have been supported by the most reverend Primate and others of your Lordships, for whose support I am most grateful, I have been coming to the conclusion that, as the most reverend Primate said, the case we have put forward is practically unanswerable; and nothing which the noble Earl the Minister of Education said in his reply has caused me to alter that opinion. I am, however, grateful to him for one word of comfort in which he said he would report the matter to the Home Secretary. I hope, therefore, that this is not entirely the last word on the subject and that perhaps a

1161
compromise may be reached as to the age limit. I am not going to answer the points which he has brought up, because I think I answered them all satisfactorily in my first remarks; but on the point of danger, surely it is impossible to say that we in this country are not all, wherever we may be, in the front line of danger.
As for these A.R.P. shelters, from what I have seen of them they are far more prepared as a rule for safety than is any private home in which these boys are likely to find themselves. As for their running messages, I have already said that as far as we can take precautions they will not be sent out. Many of them in any case will be out at the time in the streets or parks, or going to or from school. Really, therefore, I do not think that point is one with which we need worry. I do not wish to detain your Lordships further except to say that, whatever the outcome of this debate may be, I should like to assure the noble Earl and through him the Home Secretary that the boys of all these organisations throughout the country will do their very utmost to help his Department, and through it the country as a whole. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILM INDUSTRY.
4.58 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGIhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what is their policy during the present war with regard to the British cinematograph film industry, especially on the production side; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the very important debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has taken rather longer than we had anticipated, and I beg leave to postpone my Motion until Tuesday of next week, if that is suitable to the noble Lord, Lord Templemore.

THE WAR SITUATION.
4.59 p.m.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL rose to call attention to the statements on the situation made yesterday on behalf of His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord said: My
1162
Lords, in the discussions that follow the weekly progress report that we now receive, the aim should not necessarily be to embarrass Ministers by criticisms which circumstances may prevent them from answering effectively. It should, I think, be to emphasize for the benefit of the nation as a whole the sequence of events which have taken place in a rather more emphatic way than the formal official phrases sometimes reveal. Parliament is to-day, as for centuries past it has been, the very focal point of British civilisation, and to it the people of our country look both for inspiration and for guidance.
It is right, therefore, that Parliament, in addition to the official pride which was yesterday expressed in regard to the rescues by the Royal Air Force of the captain and crew of the "Kensington Court," should itself say how moved it was by the beneficent action and enterprise of the members of that Force. If when we were boys we had read of shipwrecked people seeing wonderful eagles from the sky descend upon them to carry them to a place of safety, we should have been thrilled to our bones; but to-day we can only express our very great thanks and admiration for men engaged in such beneficent enterprises. The nation, I am sure, would wish the combined Forces of His Majesty on land, in the air, and on the sea, including the Mercantile Marine and the fishing fleets, to know how greatly what they are doing is appreciated and admired. I hope I may also be permitted to express my own personal admiration and appreciation of those U-Boat captains who, in a hateful duty, remembered the great chivalry of the sea and were courteous and helpful to the victims of their labours. Their act, in comparison with the sinking of the "Athenia," for instance, was as "a good deed in a naughty world," and I am sure our own gallant seamen will always meet such courtesy by reciprocation as far as possible.
There are only one or two points which I desire to mention in regard to the statement that we heard yesterday. I do not propose to say anything in the matter of supply, because my noble friend Lord Addison will have something to say about it later, nor shall I touch upon the question of the Ministry of Information. I desire first of all to say a word about the defence of Warsaw, which, in my judgment,

1163
is one of the great events of modern history. With everything in life to lose except honour, those men who are so valiantly defending their native land seem almost lightly to be meeting a death which history will ever remember, and I am sure their story will be told with awe and homage when the act of their aggressors will be just an execrated memory.
I would like to strike a different note in regard to the matter of labour co-operation in present circumstances. I understand that the matter of that relationship is under review, and I shall not speak long upon it. It is necessary to say, however, with all the emphasis that we can give, that the attitude that has so far been adopted has got to be altered. We are not appearing as workers now, cap in hand, on a mere matter of hours or conditions, and the stiff and haughty detachment that we know so well has got to be abandoned. It takes months to thaw the frozen official mind on matters of this kind, but the process must not take too long. That is all I have to say in the matter of criticism of the statement which we welcomed yesterday.
If the House will permit me, at the same time I should like to make a very short comment on the statement made by the noble Marquess in regard to India. The first word is that it is necessary we should not over-estimate the seriousness of the attitude which the Congress Party have felt it right to assume. It was natural that they should wish to take advantage of this crisis to further their own particular political claims. Those claims are not new. They are part of a very old programme, and are claims which are now being merely restated. All of us, I think, have been encouraged by what has happened in India since the Government of India Act was passed. It has shown signs of producing a rising statesmanship and an experience of administration that are going to be of increasing value both to India and the Empire. These will undoubtedly produce episodes, but they will be overcome, and every month of experience that is gained is something to the common advantage. Speaking for my friends on these Benches, we understand the anxiety of the Indian people about their political situation. We have always wished self-government in India to grow, but there is a time, or rather there are times, when
1164
to pause in demands is really to progress more quickly than by hurrying on where you cannot see clearly.
I have no sort of right, other than that of an old worker for Indian freedom, to advise Indians at the present time—they are able and loyal and sincere men—but we also have social plans of our own which we have had to suspend, and we shall not forget them when the time comes. But first things have to come first, and so the first thing now, before all of us in every part of the world where free men exist—for we are all in it together—is so to deal with lawless aggression that free men everywhere may feel that they can continue to live in a free world. India will share in these great benefits, and I am sure the Indian people will know in those circumstances what to do. I cannot help feeling, as my last word on this matter, that a very great opportunity is presented at the present time for us to send articulate envoys to India to interpret the present situation, and to explain and reassure the Indians of our interest and our belief in their future. That is all I think I need to say on the statements made yesterday, for which I again thank the two noble Lords who made them.
5.10 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I shall not attempt to cover any ground which has been dealt with by the noble Earl's statement, but I should like to add a word to what has fallen from the noble Lord who leads the Opposition on the subject of India, because circumstances years ago enabled me to get more first-hand knowledge of Indian affairs than is the lot of most people, and the more knowledge I obtained of those affairs the greater became my admiration and affection for India. Now it was no surprise to me, and I think no surprise to anybody acquainted with the subject, that the voice of India rang out clearly in support of the principles on behalf of which we have been forced into this unhappy war. The attitude of the Indian Princes and the Rulers of States can have been clearly anticipated. We know, and we always have known, the loyalty that they have felt to the King-Emperor and their conviction that the British rule in India is the happiest thing for them, as for the rest of the peninsula; and the class of those engaged in business in India would

1165
naturally assume a similar attitude. What is even more striking, the vast millions of the Indian people, the millions of cultivators, amid all the distress and poverty which afflict many of them, feel, I am sure, that on the whole the British dominion in India has been for their good.
But there is also, of course, the political class, to whom the noble Marquess the Secretary of State alluded, and whose position has been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Snell. Taking the Indian Congress as an example, it must be remembered that that body covers many different shades of opinion, and among those who hold what would be called Congress views there are certainly many who are not essentially opposed to our presence in India, and desire reform rather than revolution. We have all, I think, noted with interest the accounts of the interviews between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Gandhi being, as we all know, opposed to demonstrations of force anywhere and in any form. I trust that the outcome of these conversations will be altogether happy. In passing I should like to express a word of sympathy with the Viceroy in the heavy burden of responsibility which at this moment he has to bear.
The noble Marquess alluded to the fact that in some of the more extreme quarters there has been a disposition towards a conditional form of agreement with the policy of the Government—conditional on certain political advantages to be acquired in the future. I can say confidently that all the attempts to secure hypothetical advantages in the event of victory, whether those attempts are made by Allies or possible Allies, or whether they are made by different political elements in this country or in the Empire, are radically mistaken. During the last war there were many instances of proceedings of that kind, from none of which, so far as I know, advantage accrued to those who made the attempts, or indeed to the general cause of the victors or to the establishment of sound results from victory. The fact is that in a great world convulsion such as this nobody can possibly foresee what the repercussions may be on particular countries, or on the political hopes entertained by those who inhabit those different countries. It was wisely said long ago that "Things are what they are, and the consequences will
1166
be what they will be. Why then should we deceive ourselves?" All that we can say is that both in the West and in the East, when this storm is over, results may follow about which at this moment it would be foolish to prophesy. All that we can hope is that when peace comes, those possible changes will be considered and dealt with in a sober and quiet atmosphere, and with as little prejudice as possible.
5.20 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I need not say I share with the noble Marquess who has just sat down a great feeling of sympathy and admiration for the efforts which the Viceroy is making at this moment in his dealing with opinion in India, and I also share with him the hope that in the future any further conditions of change will be considered in an atmosphere of sobriety such as he has described. I also should like to say how greatly I sympathised with the noble Marquess the Secretary of State yesterday when he said we ought to be very grateful for the expressions of loyalty which have come from India, especially from the Princes and certain Mahomedan Prime Ministers whom he mentioned. All that I would most warmly echo, and I hope of course all the bitterness of past years may pass away.
But I ought to add this. When the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition congratulates the country upon the condition of things in India which has arisen out of the Government of India Act, there he places me in rather a difficulty. Since the Act passed, everyone will admit we have done nothing substantial to interfere with its working—of course not. The Act is passed, and it ought to be the hope of everyone that it will work satisfactorily; but I do not agree with the noble Lord in congratulating the country upon the results of the Act. I desire merely to place upon record that there are many of us who are conscious of what we said at the time the Act was passing, and our experience since leads us to differ very respectfully from the Leader of the Opposition in his congratulations.
As to what the special conditions are which the Secretary of State told us had been put forward by members of the Congress Party when he spoke yesterday, frankly I do not know, and I do not know how far they have been published. The

1167
noble Lord (Lord Snell) said it is very natural that that sort of plea should be put forward at a moment like this, and so it' is. Everybody foresaw that that would certainly happen. The one thing I should like to say is this, that we did not admire the Act and we do not admire it now, because it was a concession to pressure, and concessions to pressure are a mistake. They are the real author of a great deal of much greater evil which has followed in policy since. Concessions to conviction, yes, but concessions to pressure, no, unless you are so weak that you cannot resist it. Therefore I thought, without desiring once more to embark upon the Indian controversy, I would just like to utter this saving so as to show that the sort of language used by the noble Lord is not universally shared.
5.25 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, in the very few observations I propose to make in reply to what has been said with regard to the position of India I shall endeavour to steer between the Scylla, if I may so dub the noble Lord opposite, and the Charybdis, if I may so name my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, said it was natural, though perhaps rather ill-timed, that the leaders of the Congress should take this opportunity of reasserting claims towards a fuller form of self-government than they at present possess. I quite appreciate the fact that it is natural. I know many of the leaders of the Congress movement. They are men who are animated by a burning patriotism, and they do, I think, sometimes a little lose sight, by lifting their eyes to the stars, of the practical difficulties which stand in their way on the ground at their feet. But while I am ready to admit it may be natural that they should take this occasion to re-emphasize their claims, I cannot help expressing the feeling that it is somewhat unfortunate that they should have chosen this time to reassert these claims.
I say that for more reasons than one. The British people are very susceptible to treatment which they regard as honourable and appropriate to a particular occasion. They would be very much more willing when the time comes to
1168
listen to claims made to them if they were animated by a spirit of gratitude for assistance rendered at a time of difficulty than if they were animated by a spirit of resentment at the choosing of such an occasion for taking action which may be calculated to be embarrassing to them in a life-and-death struggle. I am sorry for a further reason and it is this. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Snell, said when he pointed out that it was a tremendous advantage to India that there were now a large number of ardent Indian Nationalists who had had the advantage of experience in the actual work of administration. It would be a calamity if such men at this time were to be withdrawn from the Governments in the Provinces. They have shown that they are capable of dealing with the problems which face them in their country, and they have co-operated in an admirable spirit with the Governors with whom they have been associated, and, as I said yesterday, I have nothing but praise for the manner in which, up to now, they have co-operated in carrying through the measures which have been necessitated by the outbreak of war. And so I say that I think the time has been ill-chosen by the leaders of the Congress for a reiteration of their claims.
I am not at the moment in a position to give to your Lordships any further information with regard to the discussions which are taking place between the Governor-General and leaders of opinion. As your Lordships are aware, the Governor-General had a long talk yesterday with Mr. Gandhi once more, and he is proposing to have, indeed I think he may actually be engaged in, a discussion at this moment with Mr. Jinnah, Leader of the All-India Moslem League. It is his intention to discuss matters with other leaders in the course of the next few days, and we can only hope that as the result of a frank and free exchange of views between the Governor-General and the leaders of the political Parties in India, we may find that they will co-operate with us in a task the aim of which they entirely approve, for there is not the smallest doubt that from one end of India to the other there is a growing appreciation of the necessity of uprooting and destroying, once and for all, the form of government which has been responsible for bringing upon mankind this great calamity.
5.34 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friends to invite your Lordships' attention for a short time to other matters arising out of the statement which has been made to us. Before doing so I would like to note a rather startling observation of the noble Marquess who has now left the House. I think he said that it was never right, or had never proved fruitful in big results, "to yield to pressure," or words to that effect. I am very surprised that one with his profound knowledge of history should give utterance to such an observation. I have known Governments yield to pressure lots of times; I have even known this Government yield to pressure lots of times, to the great public advantage, and I can only hope that in the discussions that may be initiated from time to time from an entirely patriotic motive we may stilt find the Government willing to yield somewhat to sensible pressure.
I think we all welcome the statement which was made by the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday. It was an example, I think, of the wisdom of telling the people something that really can be appreciated as relating to realities. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister of Information will have marked the excellent public effect of that frank and encouraging statement, and I hope that the small number of journalists who appear to be in his Ministry will be able, as a result, to exert a somewhat greater influence than they appear to have exercised hitherto.
But the matter to which I want to invite your Lordships' attention is the position with regard to supplies, partly arising out of the statement of the Prime Minister but chiefly arising out of the statement of the Minister of Supply in another place. I have before me—and I am bound to have it before me—the report of the Minister's statement of the 21st September, and I have to say to your Lordships that my friends, who have given a close study to this question, like myself, are dismayed at the prospect opened up by the Minister's statement. It is on that account that I am addressing you to-day. I would ask your Lordships just for a few minutes to allow me to remind you what it is the Minister has said to us, how he has presented the position. He has told us that the effort
1170
of the whole country is needed in furnishing the supplies required. He said, to quote his own words, that
"the task is for the whole industry and for the whole man-power of the nation."
We all agree with that, and what we have to ask ourselves is whether the steps proposed by the Minister are likely to mobilise the man-power of the nation and the whole power of industry in providing what we require.
If your Lordships will remember, the Minister told the other place that he was setting up in various parts of the country a number of controls of raw materials. Now everybody knows that the essential of supplies is making sure that there will be sufficient raw materials to manufacture things with, and I look at that from the point of view not only of what our war industries require, but what essential peace industries require—industries which are essential to the conduct and continuance of the life of the nation. The Minister made mention of a number of schemes that he had initiated whereby he had set up various controls, as they were called, and we are provided with a list of the materials that are to be controlled. I have the list before me—aluminium and so forth. But I want to invite your Lordships' attention to one or two remarkable features of this list. The first is that it makes no mention of oils and fats, and apparently no steps have been taken so far as the list shows to deal with the essential supplies of oils and fats. Now I remember very well in the last war that this was in many respects one of the most critical classes of our raw materials. It is impossible to exaggerate the folly of leaving it out in the first instance, or, in the next instance, of not taking the most comprehensive measures to secure the continuance or augmentation of our supplies. There is not a word about this in the Minister's statement. The whole possibility of our supply of propellant explosives, for example, depends upon it, apart altogether from homely things like cattle cake and soap.
There is nothing in the Minister's statement as to any steps which are to be taken to secure us in this respect, nor is there anything about chemical supplies, except sulphuric acid and fertilisers. There is another remarkable feature about the statement. Aluminium supplies are to be centred at Shrewsbury,

1171
hemp and flax at Chester and Dundee, iron and steel in London, jute in Dundee, molasses at Epsom, non-ferrous metals at Rugby, paper at Reading, silk and rayon at Macclesfield, sulphuric acid in Berkeley Square, Bristol, timber at Bristol and wool at Bradford. Well, as a matter of elementary organisation it is impossible to administer that scheme, because everything almost that you may imagine that enters into supply will require not one or two but a dozen of these things in it. Imagine the position of the unfortunate manufacturer who has to supply himself, supposing he is not supplied by the Ministry, which apparently is not proposed. If he wants aluminium, he must send to Shrewsbury, if he wants iron and steel he addresses his communication to Tothill Street, if he wants zinc or tin he addresses his communication to 46, Albert Street, Rugby, and so on. It beggars description as a piece of organisation. It will paralyse our manufacturers from one end of the country to another.
And what does the Minister say about the purpose of this organisation so distributed? He says that the purpose is to ascertain
"whether any shortage or difficulty is to be expected and then to see that what is available is used to the best advantage."
Those are both very praiseworthy purposes, but there is a startling sequel, which throws a light—an unfortunate light, I think—upon the mind of the Minister and the minds of those who are advising him. I should have thought that One of the primary purposes of an organisation of this kind would be not only to eke out what supply we have—which of course is very right and proper—but also to make sure that we can augment our supplies. On the subject of the augmentation of supplies this is what the Minister says:
"If there is any doubt whether supplies that could be obtained will still come by the normal processes of trade, it will be necessary to step in to see whether some other stimulus to importation is required."
I have not heard the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place to-day, although I dare say intelligence has filtered through to this side of the building as to what is happening about Income Tax, but if there is one thing certain, it is that difficulties of exchange will have to be borne in
1172
mind. The Minister, however, seems only to think of augmenting supplies by importation. Surely the first method of increasing our supplies is by increasing our home products. I will take one instance which I remember tragically well—that is, sulphuric acid. In the last war we had to set up immense factories to augment our supplies of fuming sulphuric acid because the war time requirements of this particular material were entirely out of accord with peace time requirements. That applies also to lots of other things. But the Minister says nothing about the activities of these various bodies scattered up and down the country in setting to work to augment our supplies. I should have thought that was the first essential.
I would like to carry a little further this examination of the Minister's statement. He defines the various purposes which he considers the Ministry of Supply should serve, and I think on the whole they are very well defined. But then he proceeds to tell us how the Ministry is proposing to tackle its job, and I would like to quote to your Lordships some of his statements. He said that in peace time the Ministry of Supply was the normal departmental machine, and then he went on to say:
"You cannot instantaneously produce from an empty field or an empty building, munitions of war. Machinery has to be collected, machine tools arranged in their right order, jigs and tools prepared."
He went on to say also:
"In some cases the lag between authority to begin and actual output even in war time cannot be reduced below twelve months.… There is gun production for instance, and there are certain kinds of explosives which cannot be produced within twelve months from the order to begin. If it is possible to do it more quickly of course we shall do so, but that is the advice which is tendered to us."
What have these people been doing? We have had a Supply Board long enough. We had an organisation which I thought—I think we all thought—was dealing with these things beforehand.
I hope the Minister is only using picturesque terms when he talks about being confronted with an empty building and having now to set to work to collect machine tools, jigs and all the rest of it. It is quite true, unfortunately true, that there are many things which certainly cannot be produced within twelve months of the starting of a factory—sometimes a

1173
good deal longer, It am sorry to say—but these gentlemen are the same people who were in the Supply Board. After all, the Ministry of Supply is simply the Supply Department of the War Office. It is not the Supply Department for the Air Ministry, and it is not the Supply Department for the Admiralty: it is the Supply Department of the War Office glorified by another name, separated from the War Office and called the Ministry of Supply. I think we are entitled to ask in view of this statement of the Minister, what in the world the Supply Board has been doing. The thing that should have occurred to the Board, I should have thought, would have been to make sure of the supplies of material, a liberal supply of jigs, gauges, drawings and all that kind of thing. But the Minister of Supply speaks as if he was beginning from the grass. It is more than a year now since we all agreed that the Territorial Force should be doubled. I suggest that these same gentlemen who constitute the Ministry of Supply should have given thought a long time ago to these questions, and that we should not have the Minister coming down now to the House and emphasizing the necessity of setting about collecting jigs and gauges.
But I think the statement of the Minister requires even a little further probing into. At a certain part of his speech he said that some of the work he was arranging for in the national factories. I am not in the least desirous of introducing any political feeling into it at all; I am sure the noble Lord who is going to reply will accept that. I do not care a bit whether it is a national factory or anybody else's factory; that is immaterial. But it was certain that immensely increased supplies would be required. Everybody knew they would be when we doubled the Territorials and arranged for the Militia, even before the outbreak of war. It is no good calling men to the colours if you cannot arm them when you get them there. It was known a long time ago that the forces to be equipped were vastly greater than the ordinary Army, and it was therefore essential that steps should have been taken to mobilise the industrial resources of the country to produce the equipment required.
1174
Here I come to an even more disappointing part of the Minister's statement, and that deals with how he proposes to mobilise the industrial resources of the country to produce these requirements. What is he proposing to do about it? This is what he says:
"Honourable Members will appreciate the desirability of ascertaining in the first instance whether the firms in question have real manufacturing capacity or knowledge."
Well, it is clearly desirable that we should have complete information as to the manufacturing capacity of our different firms. I think it is true to say that no country in the world has such riches in industrial capacity as we have, and it strikes one as alarming that only now the Minister talks about "ascertaining in the first instance" the capacity of the firms who produce. Then he goes on to say that, anyhow, he is setting up what he describes as a skeleton organisation—those are his words: "in skeleton form"—an area organisation, so to say, to find out what our different engineering firms up and down the country can supply, the parts they can make and so on.
This is what he says:
"I have great hopes that an area organisation which we have set up, and again of which I will give details"—
and I will refer to the details in a minute—will be able to elicit knowledge, say, of the manufacturing resources of our different cities. He wants this organisation—I am quoting again:
"to keep a close eye on the progress of armament orders and ….. I am hopeful that it will be possible from time to time to have on exhibition in each of these centres"—
that is, in these areas—
"a number of samples of articles of which almost illimitable quantities will inevitably be required, together with full manufacturing instructions, estimates of quantities and indications as to price."
That should have been done a year ago, two years ago, and even now the Minister of Supply is only hopeful that from time to time there will be an exhibition of samples.
Really, it is indescribable. I know as a matter of fact that in one great industrial City, Leeds, the manufacturers have a long time since got together and anxiously represented their capacity. The only way, as a matter of fact, of evoking the manufacturing capacities of the different

1175
districts is to have organisations in the districts through which the manufacturers, organised labour and others with whom they will associate and who will have a full knowledge of the manufacturing resources of their areas, can be used to help to distribute samples and give help in the hundred and one difficulties which arise in the early stages of manufacture. I remember how in the last war, as a result of many mistakes and much painful experience, we gradually developed an area organisation which all the best employers in the district supported and which helped to produce or to bring into use the immense resources of these different areas. Here we have the Minister at this late stage only "hoping" that he will be able to have samples—drawings. And in order to evoke the immense capacities of our engineering resources, he has appointed to each of these areas an officer.
Well, I have no doubt that they are very good fellows. I have nothing to say against them personally. I do not know anything about them; they are Engineer Rear-Admirals and retired Majors, most of them—I see that one is Engineer Captain Sargent; the others are Rear-Admirals and retired Majors. They may be excellent fellows; I have no doubt they are, but the only way to evoke the response of these proud manufacturing districts is to bring them in themselves, to get the manufacturers in the different areas to associate frankly and fully in the method and to help to bring to our aid the immense resources of these areas. Really, the only thing that occurs to me as I look at this picture as presented by the Minister in Parliament on September 21, either from the point of view of supply of materials or the evoking of manufacturing resources in areas, is that in my judgment the men who designed this scheme ought to be told to go away and play marbles. That is all they are fit for. It is so crazy as to be indescribable; that is what ought to be said about this. I do hope that before very long we shall get something more rational and more efficient, because we want to win this war, and not to have the same blunders as in the last.
There are three things that absolutely stick out as deficient in the Minister's statement. The first is that one sees no sign of a programme. Now the first
1176
essential, clearly, is to know what it is you are required to make. There are bits and pieces of programmes, clearly, but nothing like a programme as it should be. It is not enough to say "I want 10,000 machine-guns" or "I want 2,000 eighteen-pounders." That is not enough. That is only the beginning; that has to be resolved into what it means in terms of steel and lead and aluminium and explosives, down to fatty acids, sulphuric acid, T.N.T. and everything else; what it all is in terms of material, manufacturing capacity, shell-filling capacity and all the rest of it. I do not see a glimpse of anything of that in the Minister's statement.
There are in the Minister's statement odd bits and pieces, I agree, but it is not a programme, as it should be, and I came across an interesting illustration in quite a small way this week. Amongst the other group of commodities for which the Ministry is to be responsible is agricultural implements, which the Minister has undertaken to supply. We have got a few tractors, but it never seems to have occurred to the Ministry of Supply that such a thing as a plough is required. At all events they do not seem to have been ordered. The other day we were hunting over the county to find ploughshares. The men were held up because they could not get any. It is a humble thing, but it is a very essential part of a plough. It is no good having a tractor and a plough unless you have got a ploughshare. I remember coming across a similar illustration in the last war. There was suddenly a great shortage of horseshoes, and we had to mobilise all the village blacksmiths up and down the country and get them to do the best they could. They, however, were short of the appropriate metal, and we had to make arrangements about that.
Unless a programme is resolved into its constituents and arrangements made for every constituent to be supplied in proper quantities, then the programme cannot be carried out. I am very glad to see that at last men have been appointed, some of whom bear well-known names, and I was delighted to see that Sir Andrew Duncan had been put in charge of materials. I hope he will have great success, but he has got his work cut out, if we look at the disordered and scattered organisation with which he is faced. It is very disconcerting to see no evidence in the Minister's statement of anything

1177
like a thought-out programme and all that it involves.
There is another aspect of the Minister's statement to which I would like to refer—namely, its attitude to organised labour. I can see that he thinks really that organised labour consists of a lot of worthy persons who are all right to haggle about wages and hours of labour, and so on, but, for the rest, well, they do not come into the picture. He says, if we take the actual statement of the Minister, talking about the area organisation, that throughout the whole programme of munitions supply it will be his intention and desire to request the Minister of Labour to provide the machinery for dealing with labour problems. Later on, he goes on to say:
"It will, in general, be desirable for representatives of the Ministry of Supply to be associated in such discussions."
That, of course is better than nothing. The Ministry of Labour is asked to take on the dreadfully difficult discussions which will arise with regard to such technical matters as wages and conditions, and it is quite right that that very efficient Department should undertake the negotiation on these matters; but the Minister of Supply does not seem to have appreciated—I think from his statement perhaps the Prime Minister does—that these great labour organisations should be brought in, and the employers' organisations as well, as an intrinsic part of the machinery, and made the fullest use of. They can give immense help in a hundred different ways entirely apart from questions in dispute as to wages and conditions. These workmen's organisations are controlled by men of great working capacity, and of great experience, and I hope the Government will be willing to treat with, and bring in to their aid, the representatives of organised labour on a basis far better than that indicated by the Minister of Supply in his statement in another place.
I am sorry to have been so critical, but I have not for a long time read a statement of a responsible Minister, on a subject which one understood oneself, which was more completely disconcerting. I can only hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will be able to present the case better than the Minister of Supply did himself in another place. There is no doubt at all about it, that we have the capacity, if it is used, and
1178
if it is mobilised quickly, to equip our men in a manner unequalled by any other force, Our desire is to see that this is done efficiently, without waste and quickly.
6.9 p.m.
THE MINISTER FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF DEFENCE (LORD CHATFIELD): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has certainly made a slashing attach on the Government, in so far as their actions on supply, both for the moment and in the past, are concerned. I think he admitted that there were a few bits of use and good in what we have done, but that was about all he could say in favour of the work of the Departments of State who have been working at this problem of war supply for many years. In fact, the noble Lord seemed to feel that never can this country have gone into a war less adequately prepared, with less thought and talent given to its preparations; whereas I believe that we can perfectly fairly claim, and it will be shown, that we have never gone into a war when our preparations have been so carefully laid or so far completed in peace.
The noble Lord has said that you can do nothing without a programme. That, of course, is obvious. It has been obvious to all of us for some time. We have had a programme for our supply, our production for our Services, for some years, within the limits that we could see from month to month, based on the moneys that have been voted by Parliament. Now that we have gone to war it will be within the recollection of your Lordships that the Prime Minister has stated that our programme is to prepare as rapidly as possible to complete the maximum forces of all arms which we shall require for a war which will last not less than three years, if so may be. I do not think it can be imagined that when the Prime Minister made that statement, that in reality we had no programme, that we had not some conception in our minds as to what military forces we expected, to-day, to-morrow and ultimately, to put in the field, for which we must equip and provide the powder and shot before they can go into the field. I do not think the House will believe that we have not had an air programme, or that the plans have not been conceived

1179
for developing it to its maximum extent that the resources of the country will allow, now that we are unfortunately bound to do so. I do not know what the noble Lord means when he says that we have no programme.
LORD ADDISON: I said for the Ministry of Supply.
LORD CHATFIELD: The Ministry of Supply has its programme, as was implied, as far as could be stated, not in detail, by my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply in another place on September 21. Not only have we got a programme to go on with and to aim at, but we have been working on a programme of preparation for a number of years, as I endeavoured to explain to your Lordships some months ago in introducing the Ministry of Supply Bill. It is not possible that anybody can believe that we have done nothing, that we are now for the first time starting to try to find out what is the capacity of industry that can be applied to war purposes. We have been working on that problem for many years, and a great deal of the most important and valuable work had been largely completed before the outbreak of war. As I think my right honourable friend said in another place, the supply committees created by the organisation that was developed twelve years ago have examined, reported and prepared so that no fewer than 9,000 firms would be ready when necessary to go into munitions. That surely is not nothing. I think it has been a very great step of preparation, which reflects the greatest credit on the Chairman of the Supply Board and those who have worked under him for so many years.
Let me come to the question of raw materials, about which the noble Lord made such exceedingly caustic remarks. Oils and fats are not included in the list given by the Ministry of Supply on September 21. But there is a reason for that. Oils and fats do not come under the Ministry of Supply; they come under the Ministry of Food. The steps that have been taken to augment our supplies of oils and fats under the Committee of Imperial Defence during the past few years have been extensive. The controls are certainly spread over a large number of areas, but in a war of the nature that we are envisaging it is highly
1180
undesirable to centralise your controls in one place. Centralisation has been avoided, and the control has been extended to various parts of the country intentionally. We believe it to be the best plan. They have also been placed in centres which are suitable to the spread of the industry which we envisage—jute, for instance, at Dundee, and wool at Bradford, where it was when the noble Lord himself was Minister of Munitions. Of course, the Controllers are not only to see that the stocks of raw materials that we have accumulated are used to the best advantage, but it is also their duty to ensure that those stocks are kept up to the extent that is necessary. It is fully realised that they must do that. It does not necessarily follow that there are a great many of those raw materials which will have to be provided by dollar exchange; they come from various countries where that is not necessary. It is the duty of the Controllers to take a general control and to see that those raw materials are available, and at reasonable prices. I do not believe myself that Sir Andrew Duncan will find that the difficulties and the inefficiency and the unreadiness implied by the noble Lord are really there in fact. At any rate, I hope not.
The noble Lord referred to four points. The first was one I have already mentioned, when he asked why we did not do a great deal more before the war started. That I have dealt with briefly. He also said that the Ministry of Supply ought to be a much more comprehensive authority, covering the Air Ministry. That of course is a very old question, which we have already debated many times in your Lordships' House. But you will remember that I have already stated that the Government intended to create a machinery which could at any moment be expanded to the necessary extent if and when it was required, either in peace or in war; that the decision whether or not this should be done would not be a decision given on some theory, or on some political consideration, or on any consideration other than what was advised by the experts in the country who were responsible for the results that would ensue if you had this amalgamation. If the enormous programme that the Minister of Supply has to carry out for the War Office proves to be such a burden on industry, on man power, on raw materials, and on labour as to cause continual

1181
clashes of requirements between the Service Departments and that amalgamation is needed in order to get smoother running and a more effective result in our common object in waging this war to the utmost effect, then the noble Lord may rest assured that amalgamation will take place. But, as I have said before, we have a highly efficient organisation controlling the bulk of our aircraft production, and it has performed, in my opinion, something deserving of far more generous appreciation than has been given to it this afternoon.
LORD ADDISON: I never referred directly or indirectly to the Air Ministry, for I share with the noble Lord admiration of their excellent work.
LORD CHATFIELD: I thank the noble Lord. I am very glad he has made that statement. I understood there was nothing in the work that had been done in preparing for war for which he really had any admiration. I am only too glad to accept his generous statement about the Air Ministry and the work of those who have worked with them and for them. The noble Lord also spoke about the question of area organisation. I should like to say a few words about that. Let us remember that we have had a period of peace—perhaps a long time ago—but during that time it was the practice of all Defence Departments to have representatives throughout the country. These representatives were responsible for watching the orders placed by the Service Departments and for dealing with such local difficulties as might exist. In so far as the War Office was concerned, which is after all the main problem of the Ministry of Supply, in addition to the permanent resident inspecting staff, officers had been appointed prior to the war in a limited number of areas. In laying down these areas account had to be taken of the necessity for conforming as far as possible with the boundaries that had been laid down for the existing Civil Defence organisations and the divisional organisation of the Ministry of Labour as well as the various industrial organisations and those concerned with other Defence Departments. On the outbreak of war it immediately became necessary not only to appoint representatives of the Ministry of Supply in these areas, but actually to sub-divide the existing areas
1182
on account of the increasing volume of work that was foreseen. The duties of these officers, as at present defined, are to get in close touch with local authorities and with representative industrial organisations with a view to settling any local difficulties that may arise, and further with a view to drawing attention to any suitable capacity that might be available or might become available for war work.
The personnel detailed as local representatives of the Ministry of Supply has come very much under severe criticism. It should be evident, however, that their choice for this expansion at short notice was a matter of considerable difficulty, as it was necessary that the representatives should have a working knowledge of requirements, which was a very important factor in the problem which had to be dealt with, and should also have considerable experience and administrative ability. We have had some very critical things said about Engineer Rear-Admirals. I feel perhaps, owing to my own position in the Navy, some diffidence in sticking up for what might be called my own yardarm, but I should like to say a few words in justice to those officers whose capabilities for this purpose have been so severely criticised. It is not the first time, of course, that severe criticism has been made of people in the Services and statements made denying their ability to do anything more than is necessary for their own particular duties on board ship. But I want your Lordships to appreciate that that thought by no means does justice to the very great experience of industry that these distinguished engineer officers have, based on long periods of work in supervising the building of ships, of engines, and of machinery of all types for the Government.
After all, it is that work of naval production that is the basis of everything we have at the present time in supplying any of our Services. The figures that have arisen in this country in developing war material have been to a very great extent created by naval needs, and it is the guidance that has been given by these engineer officers of the Navy in creating this engineering work for naval purposes that has been largely responsible for the wonderful development that has taken place in this country, and which is, I

1183
believe, greater than that of any other country in the world. I may take two of the officers who have been so severely criticised. Admiral A has been the Admiralty Officer for the Leeds and Sheffield districts, supervising all Admiralty contracts with armament firms for seven years. An officer who has had that experience cannot be justly accused of having no knowledge whatever of industry. Officer B has been overseer for the Admiralty. And let me remind your Lordships that the Admiralty overseers are not small people who just go to a firm to look on at what is happening. They have to guide by their experience the development of the naval manufacture that is going on, and very often the Admiralty officers are largely the means of ensuring that steps are taken in time to see that material is ready.
I have had to deal with this matter myself for three and a half years when I was Controller of the Navy and had to ensure that delays did not come from the contractor himself through not looking far enough ahead. Officer B has been overseer at John Browns, at Thornycrofts, at Alexander Stephens, at various periods from 1913 to 1919 (six years), and again at Cammel Lairds from 1927 to 1929 during the building of the "Rodney." He has commanded and initiated the Naval Mechanical Training Establishment where the whole of the naval artificers have been trained. I do not think it can be said justly that those officers have not got the knowledge, the administrative ability or the experience to provide what is required in those areas. And remember that those area organisations have got a limited function. Their duty is to overcome difficulties as regards labour, transport, overlapping of work; to see that full use is made of productive capacity; to go round and help the firms concerned; and at least to be able to foresee the requirements of the contractors and the sub-contractors of the Ministry of Supply organisation and act with the utmost rapidity.
As was stated by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply in another place last week, we also hope to create area organisations which will be representative of labour, of equal status, and indeed we shall welcome the collaboration of labour in this united task that lays
1184
before us. I do not think that I can do better than to reiterate the points that were made by the Prime Minister and also by the Leader of your Lordships' House yesterday in regard to the immense importance of this matter. I agree with the whole spirit of the remarks of the noble Lord on this problem. I know that he is absolutely right in emphasizing the enormous importance of getting the most complete and willing and friendly collaboration between the two great sides of industry. I would emphasize once more the statements that were made yesterday by the Prime Minister. The whole force of our industry has now to be marshalled, directly or indirectly, to war needs. If we are successfully to accomplish this, the co-operation of the workpeople themselves is the first essential. The Government are ready and anxious to take any steps that may be necessary to secure their good will. We are wishful that organised labour should approve the general scheme of expansion that we have framed, and we shall be glad to consider any proposals made to us, because the support of the employers and the workers' organisations is essential if we are to defeat our common enemy.
As your Lordships know, there are discussions now proceeding of a most important and naturally somewhat delicate nature between the Minister of Labour, the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Federation. These discussions have been concerned with the joint machinery through which the trade unions and the employers' organisations can co-operate in the consideration and settlement of questions affecting labour conditions and supply, and at the conference to which the Prime Minister referred the procedure for the achievement of this object will clearly be an important question for decision. At the present moment, however, the special question of the relationship of the trade unions with the Ministry of Supply, which is part of the larger question, has been raised and, as the Prime Minister has said, we shall be very glad to consider any proposals which may be made to us for the purpose of securing the co-operation of all parties in industry with the Ministry. I understand that the Trades Union Congress General Council has met to-day, and they may wish to have a further talk on this most important subject. If that is so, I

1185
can assure your Lordships that the Government will most gladly welcome it.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON GAS, ELECTRICITY, AND WATER UNDERTAKINGS.
Minutes of Evidence (together with Appendices) taken up to Friday, the 19th of May last, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. The Proceedings of the Committee up to Friday, the 19th of
1186
May last, laid upon the Table, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, before we adjourn I wish to remind your Lordships that it is proposed to meet at three o'clock to-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before seven o'clock.