Lords Sitting of 23 April 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GENERAL SIR ARCHIBALD WAVELL.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, the Leader of the House, a question of which I have given him Private Notice and it is this: To ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any truth in the persistent rumour that General Sir Archibald Wavell has suffered curtailment of his powers of direction in the Middle East and Balkans campaign owing to the recent visit of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to the Middle East, and whether they will give an assurance that this is not the case, and that General Wavell still enjoys their full confidence.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, there is no foundation whatever for any such rumour as is stated in the noble Viscount's question, and I am obliged to him for giving me the opportunity for saying that General Sir Archibald Wavell enjoys the full confidence of the Government and has suffered no curtailment whatever in his powers of direction in the Middle East and Balkans. The recent visit of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to the Middle East was in accordance with the normal practice under which personal contact between the highest military authorities at home and in the field is consistently maintained.

TEMPORARY MIGRATION OF CHILDREN (GUARDIANSHIP) BILL. [H.L.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE DOMINIONS (LORD CECIL) (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable provision to be made for the temporary guardianship of children sent out of the United Kingdom during the present war period, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Cecil.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HOSPITAL STAFFS.
LORD GREVILLE LORD GREVILLE asked His Majesty's Government what steps the Minister of Health is taking to see that the civilian staffs of hospitals be made a reserved occupation owing to the serious depletion of staffs already taking place. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief in the remarks I propose to address to you on this question. I think your Lordships will all agree that the hospitals of this country are doing national war work of great importance, and to carry out their work the machinery necessary to run the hospitals must be in full working order. Naturally, owing to the calls of the various forces of His Majesty's Government, we have lost a good many people. There are also other calls, especially in the women's department, and we are losing our staff at such a rate that the question may arise that we shall have to close wards in our hospitals. That, I think your Lordships will agree, would be a very lamentable state of affairs.
The staff of a hospital can be divided roughly into three parts. First of all there are the medical men, and may I say how greatly I welcome the action of the President of the United States in allowing young doctors to come over here to help our very much overworked doctors? Then there is the nursing staff. The nurses are reserved and cannot leave their work. And next we come to the lay staff. People on the lay staff, with very few exceptions, are not reserved and that is where we are feeling the pinch. First of all, there is the Secretary Superintendent's department. That really is the mainstay of the administrative side of the hospital. Those on that staff deal with all accounts and all correspondence; they keep an enormous number of records and have to attend to insurance matters affecting all the staffs of the hospital. Then there is the Steward's department, which is a very important department. The Steward has to deal with all the food, all the supplies, cleaning materials and everything required for the hospital, and naturally he has to have a certain staff. Then we come to the engineering staff. They have to deal with all the boilers, with the stoking and with electrical work which is always increasing in a modern hospital.
There are also the foreman and his staff, who have to deal with all repairs.
32
In the hospital with which I am connected we had an instance of the importance of that last Wednesday, when most of our windows were blown out. Owing to the black-out they had to be replaced very quickly. The foreman, who is responsible for all the cleaning, must have quite a large staff. Then we have the porters, who can be divided into two divisions. First, there are the skilled porters. By those I mean men who work in the operating theatres and the surgeries. They are all men who have been with us for some time and have a knowledge of doctors' ways and their duties. They are not easily replaced. They certainly cannot be replaced at a week's notice. Secondly, there are the ordinary porters who are responsible for moving patients from the wards to the operating theatres, for any transfers that take place and for the reception of incoming patients. To give an instance of what their work means, I may say that last Wednesday, as a result of the raid, the porters were on duty from 10.30 to 7 o'clock the next day. They were so overworked that I had to get up some of the stokers to help them. These men also are very difficult to replace if they are called up on His Majesty's Service because of the higher wages paid for fire spotting, demolition and other work. If we had to raise the minimum wage to any wage that would attract porters to the hospital, it would cost £1,600 a year extra. I understand that my Committee are considering that matter to-day at the hospital.
Then we come to the female lay staff. They include the almoners, who are reserved, masseurs, X-ray experts, registrars and office staff. They are all skilled and are not easy to replace, because many of the clerks have to work in various medical departments and must know certain medical terms and certain medical usages. Then there is the domestic staff. Of course the kitchen staff is very important and must be maintained. We must also have maids to work in the dining rooms and bedrooms and do the rougher work in the wards which nowadays we do not ask nurses to perform. It is very difficult to keep these people. They are being attracted away by higher wages. Only last Saturday, seven went off in a body from the hospital with which I am connected to one hotel in London and we are absolutely unable to replace them. The only people reserved, apart from nurses and

33
doctors, are potters over thirty, pharmacists at twenty-five, and the assistant secretary at thirty.
Some time ago—I think it is nearly two years ago—I drew the attention of the Minister of Health to the likelihood that we should be very short of lay staff in the hospitals. I am afraid that that had very little effect In fact the Minister seemed rather inclined to brush the matter aside. What I would like very humbly to suggest to the Minister of Health is that he should approach the Minister of Labour, because with all these registrations going on now of both men and women, I should think there would be very many unsuitable for munitions work or for such services as fire fighting and A.R.P. who would be willing and anxious to work in the hospitals. There must be a great many women who have done domestic duties in their own homes who could do similar duties in the wards and other places. The same consideration applies to many men who are now registering. There must be many men over forty who are capable of doing ordinary porter's work and other work in the hospitals. I think if the Ministry of Health could arrange through the Ministry of Labour to have attention drawn to these vacancies in hospitals, we should probably be able to keep our staffs going. I also think that work in hospitals should be made a reserved occupation so as to prevent these people leaving their work and causing great difficulties in the hospitals.
The object of my addressing your Lordships to-day is to put before the Ministry of Health the situation which is to be found, I think I might say, in all hospitals. We all have great difficulty in replacing lay staffs. There is one other matter which I should like to mention. Although I have not given him notice of it, I feel sure that my noble friend, with his usual courtesy, will approach the Ministry of Health with regard to it. I refer to the delay in opening country branches of London hospitals. We were approached by the Ministry of Health before Christmas and asked if we could start 100 beds in the country. We said that we would be delighted to do so. It was a question which had been on our minds, the keeping of so many nurses and other staff in London in these dangerous days, for if anything happens you have nowhere to go unless you make
34
arrangements beforehand. Mot long afterwards I got in touch with the member of the Ministry who had approached me. He said that he had no further information, and could not do anything about it, and that it had gone into the hands of the Ministry of Health. So, if the noble Lord, Lord Croft, will approach the Ministry and let us know when we are likely to be able to take over and staff these hospitals in the country, I shall be greatly obliged. I think in these days it is a very urgent matter.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend in what he has said, but in doing so I feel very like a minnow following a Triton, in view of his knowledge of the London hospitals. To my mind the really important members of hospital staffs in this connection are the engineers and porters and permanent lay staff. Most hospitals now supply the nucleus of an A.R.P. and Emergency Centre which does work in connection with any incident which happens in the neighbourhood and, if we are deprived of the physically strong porters and engineers, men who know about the management of electric light, men who very often come from the Services, there is a risk of bringing the whole of the work of a hospital in an emergency to nothing. The question of the nursing staff is of course much more difficult. I think that if the Ministry would arrange for the engineers and porters and the male lay staff to be exempted, they would be doing something which would benefit the whole of the local community.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Greville, by his question, was referring to the question of the male staffs of hospitals or to the more general question of providing for the essential staffs, both male and female. He has now made it clear from his remarks that he is covering the wider aspect of this question. Taking first the question of recruitment for the Fighting Services, the Minister of Health has had fully in mind the difficulties in which hospitals are placed in maintaining adequate male staffs, especially as the hospital facilities of the country have been greatly expanded under the Emergency Hospital Scheme. He has kept in touch

35
with the British Hospitals Association as well as the Minister of Labour on the problem. But he has been bound to recognise that the need for men in the Forces at present is so great that the voluntary hospitals must make their contribution equally with local authorities, and that both must look to the employment of women substitutes wherever possible as a solution of these difficulties.
The noble Lord was, I gather, not really stressing the question of the medical staffs. Special arrangements are already in operation for them through the machinery of the Central Medical War Committee. As to administrative staff, the noble Lord will see from the revised Schedule of Reserved Occupations published just before Easter that hospital secretaries are reserved at the age of twenty-five until Stage B is reached, when the reservation age is raised to thirty, rising again at Stage C to thirty-five, whilst for other administrative and clerical staffs the reservation age remains at thirty until Stage C, when it rises to thirty-five. This gives a very considerable measure of protection to the hospitals and should allow ample time to train women substitutes or older men. Individual cases of difficulty can still be considered on their merits. Similar consideration has been given to the subordinate grades. Without going through all the occupations concerned, it may be mentioned that hospital porters remain reserved at thirty while hospital orderlies are still reserved at the same age and will only be recruited below that age if required for similar work in the Forces.
Turning to the wider problem of retaining adequate staffs, and especially nursing and domestic staffs, at the hospitals, both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health are fully conscious of the vital importance of hospital staffs in deciding on the steps to be taken to mobilise the man- and woman-power of the country. Reference may be made to the Minister of Health's statement on the nursing problem in another place on April 3. He then described the appeal which had been made to the women and girls of the country to come forward for nursing duties, and said that the appeal would be specially brought to the notice of young women in the age groups now registering with the Ministry of Labour.
36
This registration system will also be used as far as possible for meeting the needs of those hospitals that are particularly short of domestic staff. Special arrangements have been made for the hospitals to notify their needs locally to employment exchange managers. Officials of the Ministry of Labour will then, when interviewing women who are available and suitable for this type of work, place before them the important part which domestic work in hospitals plays in the national effort. At the same time, women who are already employed in hospitals will be encouraged to stay there rather than to transfer to other occupations which may appear to them to be more attractive. The Government feel sure that they can rely, without resort to compulsory powers, on the patriotism and good sense of the women, and that the great majority of them will realise that this type of hospital work, although it may not be very spectacular, is nevertheless of the greatest importance to the country at the present time.
With reference to the question of the delay in opening country branches of the London hospitals, to which my noble friend referred, I will certainly convey his request for information to my right honourable friend, and will inform him at the earliest possible date. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for emphasizing the point, which he thinks of great importance, and supporting the view of my noble friend Lord Greville with regard to engineers and porters. I will see that his views also are conveyed to my right honourable friend.
LORD GREVILLE: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord, Lord Croft, for his reply, which I hope will relieve some of our difficulties. I should like to point out, however, in view of the Minister of Health's suggestion that we should employ more women, that we cannot fill the vacancies for women which we have now, and that is why some of those who are now registering might be allocated to the hospitals. It would be difficult to replace the men in the hospitals by women; stoking, repairs to buildings and electrical work are not suitable for women. I would again thank the noble Lord for his very courteous reply.

CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRY.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in connection with the statement of policy on concentration of industry, they are able to indicate what procedure is contemplated to achieve the necessary co-ordination between the Departments concerned, and to safeguard the future of individual firms; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion in my name was originally placed on the Paper for March 19 last, but was then withdrawn because of the debate which took place in another place. The Recess followed, and some time has elapsed, therefore, since the Motion was put down. I must admit that it is with some heart-searching that I occupy the time of Parliament in discussing matters essentially concerned with the home front at a time when Ministers are admittedly doing the very best that they can, but this problem is one which is causing grave concern in the country as a whole and arousing many misgivings as to whether it is being dealt with in the most happy way.
My decision to put this Motion down was made after the announcement of Government policy and the publication of the White Paper. It followed immediately on a meeting at the Federation of British Industries which was composed of representatives of a very large number of industries, and at which a discussion took place to which I listened for about two hours. It is natural that in such a gathering the problems which are foremost in the minds of industrialists should be voiced, not critically but with a genuine desire for information; and under present conditions it must be admitted that it is the intention of industrialists throughout the country to be helpful. It is, indeed, in that mood that I bring forward this Motion to-day. The progress of events since that time has affected many of the points which were raised at that meeting, and the situation has been further advanced by the statement of the Minister of Labour in the debate in another place on April 2 on the issuing of the revised Essential Works Order and Protected Works Order.
It is recognised that this movement for the concentration of industry affects mainly the consumer goods industries.
38
It necessarily cannot apply to a large extent to the capital or durable goods trades, which are in the main fully occupied on Government work, although it may be that certain subsidiary industries in this class will be subject to it, in so far as they use metal. I would acknowledge at the outset that the President of the Board of Trade, speaking in another place on March 27, did his best to make clear to industrialists, so far as was possible in the difficult conditions then existing, what were the intentions of the Government. He went to great pains to explain, with lucidity, what was intended and what it was hoped to achieve, and did his best to enlist the sympathy and assistance of industrialists as a whole. I do not doubt that what was one of his earliest major efforts in the House of Commons will have had the very good effect in Parliament and in the country as a whole to which it was entitled.
However, in the course of the debate—which I have read with great care in the Official Report—very grave perplexities and misgivings were expressed; in the first place, as to how these proposals would work, and secondly, as to whether they would really achieve the objects in view. Many still remain in perplexity on these points. It is recognised that improvisation of this character is essential, that it must necessarily produce many pitfalls, that there must be the procedure of trial and error, and that there will be delays; but it is undeniable that there is much anxiety as to whether the methods which are being followed do ensure the greatest avoidance of unnecessary bureaucracy and the least disturbance of desirable customary trade practice. I am glad to understand that the view of the Government is to be put forward by a noble Lord who will have the confidence of the House, as being himself a practical industrialist who will, therefore, view with sympathy the many problems which are confronting his colleagues in industry, and who will be assisted in his explanation by his great and long practical experience. If I may have your Lordships' indulgence, I would congratulate him on the lucidity of the answer which he gave to a debate in this House some time ago, when he was replying for the Government.
The aims in view are to achieve the greatest release of labour and factory space at the cost of the least avoidable disturbance to the actual structure. I

39
wish emphatically to say that in relating this matter I am in no way in conflict with the aims of the Government. There are, however, grounds for anxiety. This affects a very large number of industrialists in this country at the present moment, and extends beyond them to the workers whose livelihood is affected by the continuance or discontinuance of their employment. What is to be the position of labour in the interval before the granting of provisional certificates? What is the position of those firms awaiting provisional certificates who may lose their labour? If some certificates are granted in one industry and others are not, naturally there will be a flow away from one category of work to another category, or from one firm in one class of industry to another firm in the same class of industry. That is the practical and realistic problem of the moment. This revised Schedule of Reserved Occupations and protected work forecasts a drastic raising of the age of reservation. The Schedule formulates a lower age of reservation for these workers. This is to become effective in three successive stages—the first to operate from April 10, the second at some date believed to be about the middle of May, and the third category at some indefinite time subsequent to the second category. Safeguards, it is true, are suggested, but to invoke these means a lengthy and involved process, and they do not allay the anxiety of industrialists.
There is a great difference between essential work and protected work. For the sake of clarity I should like to explain what I mean by that. The distinction between essential work and protected work is this, that the latter relates to the age of reservation for military service, while the former is intended to restrict the movements of labour out of essential undertakings. In any undertakings scheduled under the Order as essential, the power of the employee to leave and the employer to discharge will be restricted. The problem is really one of the withdrawal of labour. Then comes the requisition of factories. You have got the Ministry of Aircraft Production, the Ministry of Supply, and the Admiralty all working for the Government. Over and above them all, you have the Ministry of Labour, which is indeed responsible.
It has frequently been urged in this House, before and since the outbreak of war, that there should be a central purchasing organisation somewhat similar to the Ministry of Munitions in the last war. The Ministry of Supply was intended to fulfil this purpose, but, in fact, the Ministry of Supply does not buy for all the Government Departments. You may have a contractor who is producing for the Ministry of Supply, the Air Force, the Admiralty, the Post Office, and, as far as air-raid questions are concerned, the Ministry of Home Security. What a multiplicity of Departments all purchasing separately! The public does not know to what extent co-ordination is achieved, but it is not through a central Department. Perhaps that is one of the things my noble friend who is going to reply will be able to make clear.
I do not wish to make difficulties or to exaggerate at all. I am only quoting what one hears from many sides in the country as a whole. I have a case of a factory working 80 per cent. on Government requirements which was requisitioned by the Ministry of Aircraft Production. It was taken over in circumstances of national emergency, which satisfied the directors, whose original intention to resist was substituted by a readiness to yield to the tempo of national requirements. Incidentally, in that particular case, the proposal of the Ministry of Supply, for whom the factory was largely working, was to strike it off the list of suppliers, and in that way torpedo the whole arrangement for the concentration of industry as set out in the White Paper. I am sure that that is not what Parliament intends or desires to be achieved.
I admit that the requisition of buildings has now been settled by the appointment of Sir Cecil Weir as Controller-General in respect of factories and warehouses. I am sure the brilliance of his achievement in past activities in Government service promises that that difficult task will be as successfully undertaken as it can be. Your Lordships will agree with me that when one pictures, say, a conflicting claim between Lord Beaverbrook and some of the other Ministers, he is going to have a difficult task, and we wish him well because his brilliant ability merits it. To review these competing desires is introduced the Board of Trade

41
with a large staff, presumably to check the requirements of all the other Ministries, while in turn the Board of Trade is to be subject to another Ministry, the Ministry of Labour. What danger there is of overlapping, what danger of wrong interpretation, where so many Government Departments are concerned.
To return to the consumer goods industries, these will be affected by this concentration of industry. Some are subject to one limitation of supplies order, another group is subject to another. Then, again, you have another group which comes under the Raw Materials Control Order. Government requirements come under the Ministry of Supply, and export requirements under the Board of Trade. Take the cotton industry, one of the great industries of the country. Here you have Government requirements coming under the Ministry of Supply, and export requirements—and they are still vital today—coming under the Cotton Control Board, which falls under the Board of Trade—that is, two Government Departments.
I should like to give another instance of control, the leather industry. Here you have an industry admittedly under the Ministry of Supply, but you have the maximum of simplicity of control and the minimum of bureaucracy, because the customary procedure in the industry has been followed. It is a. curious coincidence that in the one industry in which simplicity has been followed, the Controller is the same Controller who was responsible in the last war, in contradistinction to the other Controllers, and therefore, having learned all the pitfalls by experience, he did not fall into them on this occasion. I believe that as a result the price of leather has been kept lower than it was before the war began, whereas in other industries the cost of raw materials has been raised by over 70 per cent. The real anxiety is lest under all this bureaucracy we have a strangling of private enterprise. There is still a desire in the country that, in so far as the requirements of the nation at war permit, private enterprise shall be given due consideration. In that connection I wish to notice that the Ministry of Supply controls the orders for all the raw materials. We have a Minister who, by his past record, has a vivid realisation of these questions.
I should like to place it on record that it is with no anxiety as to the person or outlook of the Minister of Supply or the President of the Board of Trade that one approaches these questions. On the contrary, they are both men whose characters and achievements would allay anxiety as far as possible. I am no worshipper of formalism. Who is the Minister responsible to Parliament where you have a division between all these Ministries? The President of the Board of Trade appointed an Industrial and Production Council, to which I shall refer in a moment, but meanwhile there is the Production Council presided over by the Minister of Labour. Perhaps that is the body which is aimed to co-ordinate this aggregation of Ministries. Anyhow, I confirm that I see the Minister of Labour is the Chairman over the other Ministers. These controls of raw materials are supervised by the Director of Raw Materials—a civil servant. Fortunately, in this case (I happen to know him well) he is a very knowledgeable and a particularly painstaking civil servant; but there have been in your Lordships' House many expressions of misgiving as to the propriety of putting decisions of great importance as to the future industrial structure of the country, apart from war requirements, in the hands of civil servants as against men who are not professional politicians or civil servants. There does exist amongst traders some genuine apprehension on this point, based on past procedure, because in the procedure instituted in different industries there are examples of discrimination against merchants and brokers; and certain practices, which were opposed in the past and discussed in Parliament, still rankle with traders in the country as a whole.
Now I am going to turn again to the practical side of it. It is proposed to grant provisional certificates to nucleus firms. What is "full running"? I hope my noble friend who answers for the Government will give an explanation of what is intended there. I suppose the importance of export is going to be defined in its direct relation to Government requirements. It may be right to assume that export has a very important place in the whole picture. There is a divergence in practice between different industries, and probably that is appropriate, but it is definitely confusing, and the debate in another place will have

43
made clear how great was the confusion arising from that. In the urge to safeguard smaller men there was also raised the danger of monopoly. One quickly thinks of industries like the rayon industry, where so large a part of the production of the country is the output of a single firm. There are some half-a-dozen other producers. What is to be their position under the programme set out for the concentration of industry?
I return to the main industries, which are subject to the Raw Materials Control Orders. One reads of provisional certificates in the case of cotton. I saw the record of an incident in the Press last week where 111 certificates had already been granted. That was in cotton. May I ask my noble friend what are the certificates which have already been granted in the hosiery and the wool textile industries? I would particularly emphasize again to him the request that he will make clear what is the position of labour in the industries not affected by these various Orders I have enumerated. These industries are numerous and diverse, such as the making-up trades, the furnishing trade and others, which are largely employed on Government work. What is the position of their labour under this multitude of Orders?
Now I turn for a moment to the export angle. There can be no doubt that the export angle is an important one. The Board of Trade are responsible for it. I referred a minute ago to the Industrial and Export Council. It is true that of existing potential exports from the consumer goods trades textiles must necessarily be the largest. If you take exports to the United States you see what a large proportion is textiles, because our exports in the capital and durable goods industry have fallen off. But their pre-war proportion was very large. Therefore in this present picture it is the textile trades—cotton, silk, rayon, wool, linen, jute, and so on—that all ought to be making a handsome contribution to this much-needed flow of hard currency or dollar exchange, which is not only going to help the war effort, but is going to convince the United States that we are doing our best to help ourselves. That is a vital aspect of this whole problem. Any of the concentration arrangements which imperil the supply and production of goods and reduce export are
44
a great disadvantage to the country. With regard to the Industrial and Export Council, I looked into the personnel—I inquired into it. I find there is not on that body, dealing with all these industries, any practical textile man. That is a serious weakness in that body.
May I turn again to my noble friend who is to answer and ask: What is the position of the wholesaler in this situation? The wholesaler is in the habit of passing his favours to certain selected manufacturers. He, therefore, controls the position of the manufacturer in so far as he is employed on civilian work—in the main, it may be, largely or wholly, export civilian work. But, internal or export, it may come through the wholesaler to the manufacturer. He is in the position to dominate the work. The quota, then, lies in the hands of the wholesaler and not in the hands of the manufacturer. How is that to be dealt with in this problem? On the question of compensation, I should like to know whether the cost of maintenance with this all-obsolescence allowance is to be charged to trading. Again, are profit standards to be affected by unused capital? What is the situation under both these heads in this complicated programme set forth in the White Paper?
I hope my noble friend will be able to give me the assurance that there is going to be no discrimination in the allocation of raw materials to nucleus firms. What is going to be the position when Government work declines? Is there to be a recognition in virtue of past export effort? What is to be the position of firms in those industries, subject to the Raw Materials Control Order, which wish to make individual arrangements but are given no indication as to whether they should make individual arrangements or whether they should be subject to some arrangement by a trade federation—whether it is to be by individual effort or by a a levy on the whole industry? I hope, again, that my noble friend will give some indication on these complicated problems. With regard to the recognition in virtue of past export effort there is some definite fear of victimisation in several of these trades.
I would also like to ask my noble friend whether there is to be any reallocation of unfulfilled Government contracts in cases where individual firms are, by

45
reason of requisition of premises, being compelled to make some arrangements under this concentration scheme. In this case, again, there must be a conflict of interest between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply. Then I would turn to my noble friend and ask: What are the plans for retail? What is to be the position of these hard-working, meritorious individuals throughout the country who do serve the community? It is important to them to know. It may be that in many cases (probably your Lordships will agree with me) they could be drastically cut down, but still they are entitled to some pronouncement as to what is the intention under these Orders. I hope my noble friend will bear in mind that under these Limitation of Supply Orders certain of the semi-voluntary bodies like N.A.A.F.I., the Women's Voluntary Services, the Y.M.C.A., the M.T.C. and various others, are in a precarious position with regard to their supplies, and perhaps he will indicate whether they are to fall within or without the actual codes.
I ask the indulgence of the House for having tried to explain as rapidly and as lucidly as I can some very complicated problems which affect not only the industrialist but also the civilian side of life, because they affect the war production and the war as a whole, and that is the vital thing at this moment. This is an engineering war, and since 1939 there have been in your Lordships' House many appeals that that should be recognised, but many of these appeals were too long disregarded. The appeals that the engineering; experience of the United States and Canada should be made use of were disregarded, and it would be well that we should not repeat our earlier mistakes. There are many who feel that it would be better to take fewer men into the Army. Let us have more tanks and less infantry. Tanks are what we can fight the Germans with better than infantry. Relatively little was achieved by some earlier efforts of a Governmental character, and there is the thought now that the moment is opportune for proper thought and care to be given to these problems. It may well be that by a review of the organised stocks, and by a review of the issue tables of Government supplies, something can be done. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Croft,
46
here, as he will fully realise the implications of what I am saying. Let us rigorously suppress waste of material and manpower, and, lastly, let us be generous in explanation and sympathy, and industry will not fail. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, as one who has been associated with the Federations of British Industries for many years and also with the Federation of Employers, I do think there is a feeling among many employers that they have not been sufficiently consulted by the Government in regard to some of the Orders which have been issued. Many questions have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and no doubt he desires an answer by the Government to them, but it seems to me that many of these matters ought to be dealt with between the Government and those two representative bodies of industry rather than that we should enter into a long discussion in this House. All I desire to urge is that we may have an assurance from the noble Lord who is to reply to Lord Barnby, that so far as possible employers shall be consulted by the Government and that their views and very long experience in industry shall be considered by the Government.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as one who has been connected with the elder brother of the Federation of British Industries—namely, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce—I should like to be permitted to say a few words on this matter. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce represents 40,000 firms. What I would like to say to your Lordships is this, that a great majority of the firms in this country, indeed three out of four, probably, employ not more than twenty-five people. It is, therefore, a little misleading to those who are not engaged in industry for my noble friend to infer that he is dealing not with producers of consumer goods but with producers of capital goods and so leading us to believe that only the great firms are interested in this matter. It goes much deeper than that. Of course, like every other human being in these islands, we put in the forefront our determination to do what we can to help the Government to win the war. There is no question about that. At the same time it must be recognised that this new policy of concentration of production, upon which this

47
Motion is based, is subversive of the existing order of industry, just as much in its own way as was Sir Robert Peel's repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. No change in the commercial or trading life of Great Britain has taken place to compare with the new policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws.
I approach this matter very much in the same spirit as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford. I am amazed that no consultation has been made day by day and week by week to enable various Departments to understand what we think in principle and what we would suggest in detail. I know very well that it is a good thing on economic grounds to reduce the amount of dispersed labour and to concentrate it in factory space and to conserve raw material. But there is another side to it. Even the economic side falls a little behind that, and it is this: Defence rather than wealth. If you are to take all these thousands of little firms which all contribute to the main stream of production in industry, if you are going to telescope them into smaller areas of productive foci, it will put us in great difficulty if an area is bombed. I think therefore it is very foolish to put a number of the smaller firms into one area, although they may be producing goods dearly or dispersing labour. So long as they are subsidiary suppliers to great firms producing for the Government they should not be telescoped into big firms, but should for safety against bombing be kept apart as far as possible.
I have received a communication from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, in which they express their alarm as to what is to happen to the smaller firms after the war even if they take less account of what happens to them now during the war. During the war the small firms are ready and eager to do whatever the Government wish them to do, within reason. But what is to happen after the war to these firms which have been telescoped? Who is to have unlimited power to say that this small firm shall be put into that other firm? Who is to say, for instance, that a firm in Norwich shall be put into a firm in Leicester? I know Sir Cecil Weir; he is a colleague of mine. Is he the ultimate appeal to whom the firms may turn in case of their protesting that they ought not to be telescoped? Think of the uncertainty as to
48
what is going to happen to such firms at the cessation of hostilities. It is causing grave alarm. It appears that this thing has all been decided on in a hurry by the Board of Trade, which usually does things at the last moment and in a hurry. It never remembers what Burke said: "Look a little ahead so that you shall not have to do at the last moment what you are not prepared for until the necessity arises." This ought to have been thought out and disclosed months ago.
We had it thrown at our heads a few weeks ago; and one of the Ministers in another place said in regard to the small men who are retailers: "Oh, well, let them get out of business and invest their money in war loan." I think that is not the way the productive or distributive industry of a great country should be treated. If we are to deal now with the distribution of foodstuff and essential commodities, I think it is madness to shut up the little shops. We have heard lately of docks in the north being bombed and foods and goods lost in consequence. The merchandise in those docks should have been distributed to various parts of central England months ago instead of being telescoped into great dock warehouses where they can, and did, suffer destruction. Even the little shops in the back streets contain a stock of stores and it may be good policy still to keep those stocks in the little shops. You could ask also the multiple shops to do this in areas where there have been evacuations of the population. That I think would be of very great value as distributed stores of goods. But let the little shops be kept open and let them have their stocks as local reserves in case of bombings elsewhere. Let the multiple shops be asked to keep open their shops in all parts of England. For that reason I support what my noble friend Lord Barnby has said in relation to the actual terms of his motion.
We want to know what will be or is being done to safeguard the future position of individual firms after the war. It must be remembered if the small retail firms or producers are now absorbed that, after the war and after the public mind has been stretched to this new idea, it will never go back to its former dimension and we shall never see individual industry and distribution again in the position that it has to-day. And every small

49
producer and distributor will be a victim. I think the small firms arc the backbone of the country. Rationalisation is implicit in this proposal. Rationalisation and cartels are beloved by the metal and chemical industries, but rationalisation has not been a success here. Big firms become unwieldy and they find difficulties in turning round when conditions change. I would express the hope that the Board of Trade will not rush into this matter blindly, but will think and experiment a great deal more and, above all, will consult industry before taking any, final step forward.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (LORD PORTAL): My Lords, I will try to answer the questions of the noble Lord. Lord Barnby, as briefly as I can because, as your Lordships will realise, this is a very technical subject. In the form in which the noble Lord originally put his question on the Paper, he asked what steps were being taken to safeguard the future of individual firms, and that matter was also referred to by the noble Lord who has just spoken. I would like first to state briefly the reasons for concentration of industry. The first and most important is labour requirements for essential war work. During the next three or four months it will be absolutely essential to get more men and women into factories to help win the war. That was the primary reason why concentration was decided upon.
Another point connected with labour requirements is the location of industries. I hope to prove that there is some coordination between various Ministries, although the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, seemed to doubt whether that existed. There is a great deal of co-ordination between the Ministries concerned. The Ministry of Labour have prepared a plan of the whole country showing quite clearly the districts where labour is required most and where industries are situated. If you have a good factory it is essential that you should have men to work in it, and therefore labour requirements are the first essential in this matter. Lord Barnby referred to the requisitioning of factories and warehouses and spoke of people taking factories away from one another, but in the end he did say that a controller of factories and warehouses had been appointed. That is true. Sir
50
Cecil Weir has been appointed Factory Controller, so that the requisitioning of factories for war work and storage will be co-ordinated under one man.
LORD BARNBY: Who will be under the Board of Trade.
LORD PORTAL: No, he will be above the Board of Trade. He will be responsible to the various Ministries concerned. He was appointed by the Board of Trade.
LORD BARNBY: Which Minister will be responsible to Parliament for his actions?
LORD PORTAL: The President of the Board of Trade. The third reason for concentration of industry was to produce greater efficiency and economy. There are many people who ask why that could not be achieved by the Limitation of Supply Orders and the licensing of raw materials through the various Controls that have been set up. If we were to go on in that way we should have a very expensive form of production and a gradual petering out of various trades whose output might drop to 20 or 30 per cent. of capacity. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, asked so many questions that if I tried to answer them all I should have to keep your Lordships here for a very long time. If he would allow me to answer some of his questions by letter it would be much easier. The noble Lord referred to working to 100 per cent. capacity, but everyone connected with industry knows that it is impossible to work to 100 per cent. Really 100 per cent. is that most dangerous of all figures, a target figure. I would much rather take a practical figure than a target figure.
The policy of concentration of industry is under the Board of Trade, but as the noble Lord said, the Board of Trade overlaps with the other Ministries. To deal with that position the Board of Trade has formed a Council for dealing with concentration. One of the members of that Council is Mr. Tomlinson, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who has great industrial knowledge, and another is the Parliamentary Secretary who deals with raw materials in the Ministry of Supply, represented humbly by myself. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour is also on the

51
Council, so that that Ministry also is consulted. Then there are six well-known industrialists who will act as advisers and guides to the respective industries which are to be concentrated. I think noble Lords would also like to know that we have on that Council, in addition to those whom I have mentioned, Mr. Dukes, of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, and Mr. Hutchinson, of the Boiler Makers' Union. That is briefly the constitution of the Council that is to watch over this very difficult subject. As most of your Lordships will know, those in the Raw Materials Department of the Ministry of Supply have a great deal to do with this because they have many of the Controls in their hands. They do the licensing and they always collaborate closely with the Board of Trade. If you were to try to bring about this concentration through the Limitation of Supply Orders or through the Controls and licensing, His Majesty's Government do not think you would get such a tidy proposition as if it were done in the way now proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, made a point about consulting the Federation of British Industries and other organisations. In reply to that I may say that every industry which has been consulted so far has been consulted through its own federation which is a part of the Federation of British Industries. Everybody who has had anything to do with industry knows what an impossible situation it would be to try and treat every industry in the same way. You must let the industries try to put their own case in regard to concentration, and in view of the special circumstances of the present time we have arranged that they shall take into consultation their respective trades union representatives in bringing forward these proposals. I am certain that if the F.B.I. have anything to put forward, if they do it through their trade federations, that will probably meet the case which the noble Lord has raised.
The industries themselves are being asked to formulate their own proposals, and the guiding principles for concentration, I think, are four. First, the requirements of the three Services. I am sure that nobody in this House would not admit that the case for the Services must come first, and therefore their requirements must be taken into consideration
52
when stipulating the various factories and industries which are to meet orders for equipment necessary for the Services. In every case Directors of Equipment for the Services have got to be consulted as to which factories are absolutely essential for them. As Lord Barnby mentioned, with this matter of the needs of the three Services is allied the subject of the export trades of this country. It is most essential that we should try to keep them going at the present time. The necessity of preserving our export trade is, therefore, another of the guiding principles for concentration.
A third principle is the importance of maintaining the good will and the trade marks of the various firms. If a firm is going to be concentrated, that is to say, if firm B has got to work with firm A, one realises that the good will and the trade marks will be essential to enable each firm to carry on after the war. I am one of those who maintain that the wages which we were able to pay in this country before the war were largely owing to the hall mark and the quality of the goods which we were able to export. I am certain that it is of the greatest importance to try to preserve these trade marks. There is a great feeling that small firms may be likely to suffer, and I can say on behalf of the Government that those very small firms at least which really cannot help towards this contribution to labour are going to be left entirely alone. Small firms should not be the losers by this scheme. With regard to the larger firms they will no doubt be able to do their concentration among themselves. Those who are trying to carry out this very difficult policy fully realise the value of the small firms that have done so much to help to build up our trade. In fact there is very often a greater soul in a small firm than in a large one, for the large one often tends to get further away from the people they employ.
Each industry will require different treatment. That is why as far as possible it is being left to the industries themselves. Firms which will be kept running within the concentration group will be known as nucleus firms. They will get a provisional licence to continue at once. It will only be a temporary licence extending over a period of three months. There will be some people who

53
will suffer, but it should be possible, and it may be required, that some of those people who are lucky enough to get Government and export orders should be ready and prepared to contribute towards the wellbeing and maintenance of some who are worse off than themselves. That is why they will only be given a provisional licence for the time being. This is a subject upon which one could speak for a very long time. I am not very well used to discussing subjects in your Lordships' House, but as there are more important speakers to follow, I would ask your Lordships, if any of you have any question upon which you want clarification, to put it to me and I will give all the help I can. I have tried to explain how the various Ministries try to work and co-ordinate amongst themselves, how the smaller men will be preserved as far as possible and how good will and trade marks will also be preserved. I have also tried to bring home to your Lordships that some of the small industrialists are of great value to this country, and that those who will be in positions of responsibility after the war must bear in mind the services which they have performed and see that they get as far as possible a chance of continuing to work after the sacrifices which they have made.
Lord Barnby referred to the question of labour. The nucleus firms will have a great deal of advantage in the matter of labour over other firms directly they get provisional licences. They come under the special case where they will be looked after by the Ministry of Labour. They will get a lower age of reservation and deferment for their workers and the Ministry of Labour will do its best to maintain their labour forces. Labour will not be deflected from the nucleus firms into others. Their premises will be protected against requisitioning, their supplies of raw materials, as far as possible, will be safeguarded, and Government orders will be given to them. In connection with this question of labour your Lordships have to remember—and this is a matter to which Lord Barnby referred—that if you have got labour under these conditions and employees are not able to give notice, employers should not then be able to give their people notice unless they are able at the same time to find them other jobs. You cannot ask for it both ways.
54
My personal view, and I know it is the view of His Majesty's Government also, is that if you keep labour from going elsewhere you must give labour a fair deal. To me, helping as I am in only a small way towards this concentration, it seems as I look back over the three or four years before the war, when I spent three-quarters of my time trying to start some hundreds of new industries in special areas, that it is very apparent, as it will no doubt be to many of your Lordships, how difficult it is for me to close down industries. If there is anything further I can do to explain the essential question of concentration perhaps your Lordships will ask me and I will do my best.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I think I detect an impatience to proceed to the next Motion on the Paper. I will ask the indulgence of the House merely to say that to spend an hour in discussing a question so momentous as the effect of the Government's policy upon industry as well as upon the production of the vital implements of war, which is an essential reaction from it, is not too large a demand on your Lordships' time. I should like to add how much I appreciate the patience and consideration which my noble friend has shown in his reply. I dealt with many aspects of this problem, in the hope of bringing to his notice the anxieties felt by industrialists throughout the country. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gainford, who, like myself, is a Past President of the Federation of British Industries, and is familiar with the many aspects of these problems, for what he has said. It would be easier to deal with these matters by negotiation rather than expect those who speak for the Government to deal with them in detail, but I would urge my noble friend who replied for the Government to take the trouble to read what I said, with a view to seeing whether he can reply in writing to any points to which he did not reply just now. In justification of my Motion, I would say that much benefit has accrued to the country as a whole from the debates which took place in another place, in March last on industry, and earlier this month on the labour situation and industrial man-power and on agriculture, discussions out of which many constructive suggestions arose.

55
My noble friend who replied brought out two points. The first is that industries are being asked to formulate their own proposals. That is in conflict with the plans set out in the White Paper and with what was said by the President of the Board of Trade in another place. The second is that labour is to be consulted in all these matters. That is a statement which requires thought. Among the many points which I raised, there were two to which I would draw the noble Lord's attention. In the event of the provisional licence being given, until that provisional licence has been given what is the position of firms with regard to their labour? In the meantime, are industrial arrangements to be proceeded with individually, or are they to be delayed pending arrangements by whole trades? I must apologise for trespassing so long on your Lordships' time, but I feel no regret at having raised this matter, which has aroused widespread interest throughout the country and is important to our war production. I am very grateful to my noble friend for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PRODUCTION AND ACQUISITION OF AIRCRAFT.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government if the supply of complete aircraft, as well as the equipment and spares for these aircraft, coming from the United States of America is in accordance with the programme as laid down by the Ministry of Aircraft Production; and to inquire whether the steps which have been taken to avoid delays in bringing these aircraft into service and maintaining them at the highest standard of operational efficiency have proved completely effective; and to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, whether he will put the proposal that the House do go into Secret Session after the statement by the Minister for Aircraft Production?
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, although as a rule I have been opposed on principle to Secret Sessions. I do feel that,
56
in connection with the debate which may take place on this matter, there is a case for a Secret Session after the Minister has replied, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, will agree to a Secret Session on this occasion. I believe that as a rule the members of your Lordships' House can get into touch with Government Departments and represent their views, which will receive adequate attention, without resort to a Secret Session, but on this occasion I think that a Secret Session may be necessary.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I think it will be most convenient if after the Minister for Aircraft Production has made his reply, we resolve ourselves into Committee, so as to give my noble friend greater opportunity of answering any points which may be raised; and, as there is a wish for a Secret Session, the beginning of our proceedings in Committee will probably be the most suitable time to move that the House do resolve itself into Secret Session. If, however, any noble Lords wish to comment in public on my noble friend's statement, perhaps they will give me notice, and I will move at the appropriate time that the House do go into Secret Session.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, the remarks that I propose to submit for your consideration are those coming before the suggestion which has just been made to your Lordships with regard to a Secret Session, and can be discussed in public. I feel that it would be advantageous to do so at this time. I have been privileged on several occasions to submit for your Lordships' consideration suggestions appertaining to the aircraft industry and the use of the products thereof, whether for purposes of defence or of commerce. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will bear with me for a short time, so that I may expand on the Motion which stands in my name regarding the supply of air material from that very great nation, the United States of America, that is marshalling and dispatching to us with all rapidity so much of the resources of which she is possessed. These matters have been previously referred to in open Session in your Lordships' House, and I submit that it is distinctly to the public benefit that a statement should be made in general terms regarding the dispatch by boat or by air of these most vital supplies, indicating

57
their suitability for active service and the rapidity with which they are being brought to bear against the enemy. Statements have appeared from time; to time which would indicate that undue delays have been experienced, and public confidence will be greatly heartened if it can be shown, as I feel sure will be the case, that such difficulties have been re moved or are being very rapidly overcome.
The importance of air power is becoming greater, as has so often been emphasized in your Lordships' House; and, as one who is justly proud of again serving in the Naval Air Service, I need not emphasize to your Lordships the vital need for us to obtain more aircraft for the Battle of the Atlantic, the Mediterranean struggle and elsewhere. These requirements, of course, are small by comparison with those of that magnificent Service created by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, the Royal Air Force, the deeds of which will decorate the pages of history for all time; but they are vital to our national security as a great Naval Power.
The American aircraft industry produces some of the finest aircraft and aircraft engines in the world to-day; in fact there is no air service, whether of a military or a commercial character, that is without some example at least from this great industry. An appetite once whetted becomes like that of Oliver Twist, and the demand is ever for more. We are the leaders in this demand to-day, and we have an appetite which will not be satiated. American air material is, as your Lordships will be aware, in many respects different from British, and a new technique for the best way of handling it has to be learnt and put into practice. We must remember that the American Naval Air Service and the Army Air Corps, whose distinguished chief, my old friend General Arnold, is once again over here to help us, and to an even greater extent than in the last war, have had an intimate contact with our own Air Services, and we have learnt and can learn much the one from the other to the benefit of both, and to the advancement of our common cause, that of freedom.
The Army Air Corps, as your Lordships know, is represented over here by General Scanlon, who is regarded as one of ourselves and has been ever anxious to help us to solve some of these intricate technical
58
problems which are too involved to weary your Lordships with. I hope we may be lucky enough to see over here before very long Rear-Admiral Towers, the distinguished Director of the Naval Air Service. Perhaps he may come over when General Arnold returns to the United States of America We are fortunate, too, in having Mr. Harriman, the chief expediter of all supplies from the United States, and Professor Warner, the aircraft expediter, a very old friend and a world-known figure in the field of aeronautics—all sent over here specially by that grand personality President Roosevelt, for whom no words of praise can possibly be too high. The nation he leads so proudly is doing all possible. The throttle is being opened, and the speed of production is rapidly increasing in consequence.
We are essentially a people of tradition, and dislike change and novelty. Such a characteristic makes itself evident even in aeronautical development. I suggest that His Majesty's Government did not plan ahead against the inevitable resistance to change by setting up a school in which those who are going to use American air material should be trained in the new technique as might be necessary. With your Lordships' permission I shall illustrate this point. We have, as you will be aware, a number of high-performance bombers from America, the famous DB7, one of the first modern aircraft to be fitted with the new tricycle undercarriage and a new type of carburettor. The effective use of such aircraft demands a different handling technique both in taking off and landing, and through failure to school our pilots in this, damage has been done to many aircraft that are urgently required in the front line, and blame has been improperly attributed to the design. I submit that this type of undercarriage, the tricycle undercarriage, is rapidly becoming the type of the future, and we must inculcate in all our pilots a practical knowledge which will lead to its effective use. We have certain small training aircraft here with an undercarriage of similar design, but so far none has as yet been ordered for so obvious a training purpose. It may be mentioned, however, that interest has recently been shown in one of these, but it was suggested that the tricycle undercarriage should be removed and one of the old

59
design fitted in its place. The utility of such a type, a small type, as referred to, may well be gauged by the fact that that distinguished officer and pioneer, Air-Marshal Sir William Mitchell, Inspector-General of the Royal Air Force, has chosen one of these aircraft for the highly important duties that necessitate his flying all over the country and in all weathers.
The American radial air-cooled engines have a tremendous background of experience behind them, in commercial aviation in particular. It is not at all surprising that some troubles have been struck with military usage as we understand it over here, when engines are called upon to operate at a greater power of output than they would normally do in commercial usage. The troubles are not serious, and do not affect the basic soundness of the design, but they must be dealt with practically, and far more rapidly than has been the case. That such types are very much appreciated is clearly indicated as they are being fitted to a number of important British aircraft, and some indication of this policy might with advantage be given by the noble Lord, the Minister for Aircraft Production, when he replies. May I give your Lordships one example? A good number of engines, one of the most up-to-date American radials, have suffered from bent air-screw shafts, the result of pilots landing with under-carriages withdrawn. Such a state of affairs could never occur on the scale it has in commercial aviation where, perhaps, one or two in a year might be found. We have met with a similar difficulty with our own engines, and have worked out a salvage procedure which has made serviceable a lot of equipment that would otherwise have been scrapped under peace-time conditions. These particular American engines are still lying idle and unserviceable whilst the matter is under discussion between ourselves and the United States of America. A procedure to avoid such occurrences should be arranged for. The American service engineers that we are fortunate enough to have over here are first-rate men, but they are not development engineers with design and development experience, and cannot therefore, themselves alone, deal with this particular problem.
60
Turning now to American aircraft, these are splendid machines to handle, but war usage has introduced special requirements necessitating alterations and additions in armament, armouring, and so forth. Much delay could have been avoided had what might be termed the mature operational requirements been put to the designers and constructors at the very start. The case of the Lockheed Hudson may be cited as an example of the effectiveness of such a policy. When ordered some four years ago, the Director of Technical Development at the Air Ministry, Air-Commodore Verney, went over to America and outlined operational experience on the spot, with the result that when this well-known aircraft was delivered over here and put into service it was successful from the start. The Naval Air Service has obtained a number of useful aircraft from America, in particular the Grumman Martlet ship fighter, and is ever on the lookout for more of this and other types.
The taking into service of a new type is not easy, and must be prepared for by the receipt of adequate pilotage, technical and practical instructions as to how to operate and maintain these machines in service, and tools to assist in this operation and a list of the essential spare parts that will follow. Without such essential information, unless, of course, pilots and engineers with all such experience are available, delays and difficulties must inevitably occur. Such have occurred, and these difficulties need not have been had there been better planning in advance. The absence of such information has resulted in accidents that could have been avoided, and the absence of spare parts has kept, and is still keeping, these aircraft, or a number of them, out of commission. I fully realise the difficulties that have faced the Ministry of Aircraft Production in this immense task, as a fair portion of the air material which has come from the United States of America was ordered by the French Government and others to specifications not in accord with our standards and requirements at that date. This important point in these discussions certainly must not be lost sight of. I am sure your Lordships will agree that whether the aircraft are of American or of British manufacture, it is essential that special tools, ground equipment and spares must be available in sufficient quantity, as without such effective use cannot be made of the aircraft.

61
I have submitted for your Lordships' consideration some technical points and would like, if I may, to make some suggestions with regard, to the manner in which our requirements are made known to our very good friends across the Atlantic. It is all-important that they should, one and all, feel that they fully understand our problems and that we are most anxious to take advantage in the most complete manner of their considerable skill in design and efficiency in production. The immense potential of the American aircraft industry has not yet been made full use of. We have some eminent men of business and others equally eminent in the technical field in America, hut this is not enough, as we want more of those who are good mixers and psychologists and can "get over" our requirements to their American opposite numbers. It is essential that we see to this matter, as all will not be happy until we do.
The American aircraft industry has a very justifiable pride in its undoubted genius, and the marrying together of this designing skill, especially in so far as it relates to aircraft, and our up-to-date operational requirements is a work of the highest importance to which sufficient attention has not yet, I submit, been given. The psychological aspect of this vital question of getting the scientific, technological and production effort of America one hundred per cent. with us cannot possibly be overstressed. During the last decade or so, many British aircraft designers and engineers have visited the United States of America. Some return full of ideas and a great keenness to go over again, and others return and say they have learnt nothing. The fault lies primarily with ourselves. We must break down that frigid English reserve and meet American designers and technicians with enthusiasm, telling them of a truth, as we may, what grand fellows they are—how we admire their work and need their fullest co-operation in every direction.
To bring about a fuller and more effective co-operation is, I am sure, the desire of your Lordships' House. It has been said before, and may well be said again and yet again, that "transportation is civilisasation." Transport must play an all important part in these vital American-British contacts. The crossing of the
62
Atlantic, as your Lordships know, is difficult in these days, but we have the means of bridging it regularly and in hours, and should forthwith, I submit, inaugurate a regular passenger service across the North Atlantic so that first-class men of science like Sir Henry Tizard, of Air Operations, like Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of the Air Staff and Service Head of the R.A.F., skilled in the Trenchard tradition, Rear Admiral Sir George Lister, the Fifth Sea Lord and Director of the Royal Naval Air Service, Aircraft Production authorities, like Mr. Westbrook and the senior assistants of all those I have mentioned, can go over for a few days at short notice and tell their opposite numbers what our latest problems are. I am fully aware of the shortage of long-range aircraft, whether flying-boats or land machines, but so urgent a matter demands, I submit, action without delay along the lines recommended.
Then the question of the spoken word demands special consideration too, and I submit that the trans-Atlantic telephone service be more freely used so that like may speak to like and, for example, the running and the development engineers over here can rapidly submit the problems which crop up to their principals in America and settle points at issue far more rapidly than is now possible. The benefits that will accrue are considerable and will far outweigh the possible danger that might result by the enemy being made aware of the particular methods to be used in straightening the bent airscrew shafts to which I referred or of avoiding the carburettor in the Allison engine cutting out under certain flight conditions.
I thank your Lordships for having borne with me for so long, but the questions are of the utmost importance. I have ventured to submit my ideas somewhat fully, having been intimately concerned with the technology and practice of aeronautics for some thirty years, and also having been privileged to act with the late Sir Sefton Brancker and Sir Henry Fowler in the last war as Aeronautical Adviser to the American Government of that day for a period in 1918. The American aircraft industry, as we know it to-day, was born then. I know the designers, technicians and operators well. I am proud to be dubbed one of

63
their friends and have a sure knowledge that they will give us material that will usefully advance our great cause in which they, too, believe. A simple illustration, if I may give it to your Lordships, will show how splendid is the spirit that animates both the men and women in the American aircraft industry. But a few months ago the workers in the Lockheed Vega Corporation gave us one complete Lockheed Hudson, which is doing splendid service with the Coastal Command that co-operates so closely with the Navy, and works under the operational control of the Naval Staff. The workers, too, of the Wright Aeronautical Corporation gave us two Cyclone air-cooled radial engines, quite one of the best of such a type in the world to-day. Each man and woman in these great plants saved for months and then, en masse, made this magnificent gesture. It is not so much the aircraft and the engines that are of account but more by far the splendid spirit that moved these men and women to this generous action. I am sure your Lordships will allow me to ask my noble friend the Minister for Aircraft Production to convey a suitable message from your Lordships' House to Mr. Harry Hopkins, who is doing so much for us in America since his return from this side, where he studied our problems at first hand with great energy and showed a sympathy that we shall never forget.
On July 11 of last year I submitted some suggestions to your Lordships touching the same question, and urged that what we wanted was American aircraft as quickly as possible, and without any undue delay in attempts to make these one hundred per cent. British. It was essential that we should get aircraft quickly and your Lordships may be assured that American aircraft designers are in the front rank, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister for Aircraft Production will agree. The American Naval Air Service and Army Air Corps are fine services and make good use of these aircraft, but they would be the first to admit that the designers thereof have not as yet had the full advantage of war experience that alone can enable them to put the finishing touches to the development of the best fighter torpedo-bombers and reconnaissance types. This essential information must come from us and it is to
64
be hoped that as a gesture in this direction His Majesty's Government may send examples of our latest types to America so that the lessons of our experience may be learnt in the most practical manner possible, by the flying of the aircraft that have proven themselves in the heat of battle. Such a step would achieve a great deal, and we should give our best friends the finest examples of the art of aeronautics and aeronautical engineering that we have. In this manner a new policy could with great advantage be cast as, instead of endeavouring to make American aircraft British with all the fuss and flurry of constant modifications, we should expound clearly and regularly to the brilliant aircraft American designers the problems of an operational nature that we have to face. I recommend this course most strongly in so far as aircraft are concerned. It would avoid an infinity of delay of the kind that we have been facing.
With regard to engines, I would recommend the building of one or two British types in America along lines already partly the policy of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, which perhaps my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook may say something about in his reply. I have on several occasions in your Lordships' House been privileged to refer to the very splendid and highly useful services rendered by my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook as Minister for Aircraft Production. I do so again with pride and a certainty that I am right in stating that he was the one man we needed, and that he has performed his task with a superhuman energy and a clear vision of the needs of the hour. I appeal to him now as the father of a distinguished son recently decorated for gallantry in the air, a brother pilot of mine, and also as the Minister for Aircraft Production, to take full note of the suggestions I have had the honour of submitting to your Lordships, which I hope will find favour in his eyes and receive the Beaverbrook touch, thus ensuring instant action. I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL, who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether, without detriment to the public interest, they can make any general statement as to the production and acquisition of aircraft, said: My Lords, I do not rise to make any observation

65
on the Motion that has been presented with so much knowledge and ability by the noble and gallant Lord, but intervene only for a moment to make a suggestion on procedure which may be for the convenience of the House and of the Minister who replies for His Majesty's Government. It may be that the Minister for Aircraft Production is in a position without breach of the necessary secrecy to make a statement on the supply of aircraft generally on which such vital consequences depend. Such a statement would, of course, be received with the greatest interest by the House and by the country, and beyond. I therefore put down the question which stands next upon the Order Paper. If the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, can make such a statement perhaps he would find it convenient, in addition to replying to the points specifically raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Sempill, and without derogation of the importance of his Motion, to answer my question in the same speech. If so I should be very grateful and in that event my question need not of course be put.
THE MINISTER FOR AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (LORD BEAVERBROOK): My Lords, I came prepared to deal with the general issue of aircraft production, so that I am in a position to meet the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. With your Lordships' permission I will reply very briefly to my noble friend Lord Sempill on the question of American aircraft. I propose first of all to do what I can to dispel any doubt in my noble friend's mind about delays. The delays in delivery are not serious. Some of the firms are quite up to time and some of them even ahead of time. My noble friend spoke of the engine difficulties—the difficulties with the air-cooled engine. They have been overcome. We now find that the American engines are quite as good as any other engines in the world, and are most useful and most valuable. My noble friend spoke, too, of sending fighter and bomber aeroplanes to America. That is being done at the present time. Practically all the operational types are being sent out. Some of them are being sent by sea, and some of them are being flown over, but very shortly the Americans will be in possession of every type, and they will also have available several types of engine. I will deal shortly with the
66
question of the manufacture of engines in America. As my noble friend knows, we have already embarked upon one engine programme, and I will deal with the second which is in contemplation. My noble friend also spoke about the telephone. That is in daily and in constant use between the Aircraft Ministry and the British Aircraft Commission in Washington. It is not neglected in the very least; sometimes I think it is used too much and too freely. There ought to be restraint on it rather than any further encouragement to our staffs to use the telephones to the extent they do.
The last time I spoke in your Lordships' House I dealt with this very issue of American aircraft, and then I told you that we were ordering American machines in great numbers. I said that we had made immense American purchases, and now I am in a position to tell you that we have received immense American deliveries. There are very many of these American machines in operational use. We have handed over to the Royal Air Force nearly 1,000 assembled American and Canadian aircraft. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is a very large addition to our equipment here, and I am prepared to say on authority that they are fine machines and that they are ready to fly and to fight. There is the Liberator, a very fine type. I had a thrill the other day standing on the airfield with the American Ambassador when the first Liberator arrived in Great Britain. It has four big engines. The wing span is less than that of the Stirling but it is a very big aeroplane, and it is said to be faster than the Stirling; certainly it carries a very fine bomb load. Then there is the Tomahawk. The Tomahawk is the subject of discussion, but the Air Marshal who makes use of the Tomahawk told me the other day how pleased he was with this aircraft. I have just seen a report on the Tomahawk. It is a report of performance in comparison with Hurricane I. The report claims for the Tomahawk a better climb, and that it is more manœuvrable than Hurricane I. It is said that the pilots feel that their view is better too. That is a very fine account. Then there is the Catalina. The Catalina has a splendid range and a most reliable engine. Our need for the Catalina is very great and the supply is considerable. The Glenn Martin, another American aircraft,

67
is doing excellent service in the Middle East. Then there is the Brewster Buffalo, a most excellent machine, and the Navy were very glad to have it. Admiral Lister tells me that pilots are delighted with its performance. We have always praised the Hudson. It has been a most admirable aeroplane and has served us magnificently.
Everything I have told you so far, all these details of aircraft, have been published in the newspapers, but here is something new. The First Lord has told me that he has received in the last few days ninety-five aircraft by sea, 355 tons of aeroplane parts and 326 engines—surely a first-rate consignment. These engines are needed. They are of excellent quality and necessary to us just now for particular purposes. There has been, of course, a steady drain on our shipments by sea of aircraft from America due to losses in convoy. We deplore greatly the destruction of splendid aircraft so suitable for our purposes, but the disappointment we have sustained is somewhat dissipated by our knowledge that the flow of aircraft from the United States is now increasing with such rapidity that we shall, one day for a certainty, reach the supply which I was authorised by the United States to promise just six months ago.
We have been ferrying aircraft, too, bringing them over by air. We have had a ferry service by air ever since last autumn, all through the winter months. We have brought over a great many. The air service has been big and it has operate most satisfactorily. One aeroplane made the journey from coast to coast in seven and a half hours. Another made the journey from the airfield in Canada to the airfield here in less than nine hours. You will know what that means when I mention that the American Clipper to Lisbon takes twenty hours or more. The German broadcast has just announced that we are about to discontinue ferrying our aircraft because our losses have been so severe that we cannot stand the strain any longer. That is not very convincing to us, because I am in a position to tell you that during the whole ferry service up to this moment we have only lost one aeroplane—only one. That aeroplane we lost makes a sad story. Five aircraft started out from Newfoundland for our country; four arrived. One sent a message asking for bearings, turned back and landed in the trees, and
68
Sir Frederick Banting, the Canadian scientist, lost his life. He was the only passenger we were carrying in those five 'planes and we were so unfortunate as to lose that particular machine. But let it be said that the ferry system by air is not only continuing but is likely to be developed and extended, for it is quite a possibility that we will be able to fly over some of our fighters before long. It will be by a route somewhat different from that taken by the bombers, but none the less we hope the day is not far distant when both fighters and bombers will be brought to this country by air.
It was very sad that Sir Frederick Banting, the scientist, should lose his life while in our keeping, for the scientists are more necessary to the aircraft industry possibly than to any other industry. We have a great many scientists. I take pride in our scientists and our technicians. I think they are the best scientists and technicians in the aircraft industry to be found in the whole world, and I say that after close relationship with them. I would not change for any others. The number of our scientists and technicians is very great. If I were to tell you that the increase in their numbers since I have been Minister is something like 25 per cent. you would not be much impressed by my percentage, but if I were to tell you the actual numbers you would probably say that I was so extravagant in the conduct of the Ministry in regard to scientists and technicians that I ought to be curbed. This is certain, that in scientific pursuits in the Aircraft Ministry and also in technical pursuits, you can rely with absolute confidence on the distinguished men in our service. They can be trusted to make the plans and to launch the projects for the future, which will give us the improvement in aircraft design that we require.
It has been said in your Lordships' House that technical staffs should be given the opportunity to apply themselves to operational uses of their own devices. In the Aircraft Ministry they are given that opportunity, and not only are they given it but they take it, and they take it with extraordinary results. A few days ago—perhaps it was two weeks ago—one of the officers in our development branch who is engaged in the design of bombs actually went off to the airfield after he had tested his

69
great bomb and found it satisfactory. He left the Ministry at 4 o'clock and arrived on the airfield in the evening. He loaded his big bomb upon the aeroplane and off he went with it to Emden. There he dropped it on the town. Back he came and arrived at the Ministry at 9 o'clock in the morning. At 10 o'clock he told me his experiences in technical terms. He had gone so far in the pursuit of his vocation as to see the bomb through to its final destination. That bomb created the greatest interest not only in Germany but in the newspapers here. It was the biggest bomb ever flung out of an aeroplane and the name of the officer was Squadron-Leader R. H. Gardner.
Then there is Air Commodore Huskinson. He has pursued the application of science very persistently. During Wednesday night's great attack upon London, Air Commodore Huskinson left his bed and went to the window and there he stood watching to see what the effects of the explosion of the bombs might be. Unfortunately an explosion resulted in the loss of his sight. I am glad to say there is some possibility of his sight being restored, and we are anxiously waiting his return to the Aircraft Ministry.
The task is always the same whatever the contribution of the scientists may be. The task is to build bigger bombers, faster fighters, higher flying aircraft and night flying aircraft. That is the job and scientists and producers are alike engaged in it. This is what they have achieved since I became a Minister, but let me make it perfectly plain that I am dealing with achievements that were initiated by my predecessors and not by me. I am not claiming credit; I am giving credit. We have launched three fighters—the Beaufighter, the Fulmar and the Whirlwind. We have launched three bombers, the Stirling, the Halifax and the Manchester. These aircraft I can describe to you. Where do I get my information? Out of the American newspapers. The Whirlwind has two Merlin engines and the Stirling has a wing span of 127½ feet, a range of 3,000 miles and a speed of 330 plus. It has four engines, is faster than the Flying Fortress, the American aircraft, and faster than the Consolidated B24, sometimes called the Liberator. The Manchester has a. span of 90 feet, a maximum speed of 325 miles per hour and two
70
engines. The American newspapers do not tell us what these engines are, but I will tell you; they are Vultures. The American newspapers do not give us any particulars of the Halifax. They make up for that neglect, however, by telling us about the Tornado, a single-seater fighter with a speed of 425 miles per hour and one engine of 2,000 horse power.
That brings me to the subject of new engines. We have brought into use since the Ministry was formed five new types. There is the Sabre, and there is the Vulture which develops 2,000 horse power, and I must here give credit to the firms responsible for these two engines—the Napier and Rolls-Royce concerns. We are working on some other new engines, engines of very interesting types which will be quite surprising in the matter of the power that can be developed from limited size and small weight. These new products, as I say, are all the work of my predecessors with the exception of the Sabre. The Sabre was put into production in my time and it was put into production without waiting for any tests, without being quite sure of how it would turn out and what the results would be. But, fortunately, I am in a position to tell you that the Sabre is a great engine, perhaps one of the greatest engines that has been produced.
We have other activities, too, in the Ministry of which you will want to hear. We have activities which do not depend upon scientists or producers but upon our men of business. That is true with regard to the system which we have carried out of dispersal of plants. We have carried it out on a very large scale. We took the decision to disperse over the countryside just about the time the Ministry was formed, and dispersal has been carried out on a very daring basis indeed. It might have led to trouble in production, and it certainly led to criticism. It was launched against opposition, but that I find is essential to good judgment. I have good judgment. I asked for Cabinet authority for the dispersal and I got it. The sums of money involved were very big indeed. Now there are criticisms sometimes directed against the Ministry because dispersal is not carried out fast enough or far enough. We have got to balance ourselves nicely on the desire for dispersal on the one side and on the intention to maintain production on the other side. Dispersal does do damage to

71
production and sometimes very considerable damage. However, the system, as I say, has worked out very satisfactorily and has proved a success.
When bombings have taken place, your Lordships may occasionally have heard on the German wireless and elsewhere of our immense losses in aircraft and aircraft capacity, but they have turned out, in fact, to be nothing at all because our aircraft production had gone away. We were out of the bombed areas altogether. One plant which used to occupy a single site is now scattered over five counties, with forty-two separate centres of production. In order to destroy the production of that undertaking the enemy will have to find a great number of these plants, but of course, we take precautions when dispersal occurs on that scale to equip ourselves with duplicate production in order to avoid just such a contingency. The dispersal of aircraft factories still goes on and also the dispersal of the raw material plants. We carry out that dispersal on an extensive scale also. We find that it is a very satisfactory thing to do because, of course, we do want to conserve all the raw materials we can.
It is not only in regard to raw materials that we find our difficulties but also in the fabrication of raw materials. In the past, we have not had enough capacity in fabrication. We have had plenty of capacity always—and it was left to me by my predecessors—for the production of air frames and the manufacture of engines. We did not need to increase our capacities in these respects, but the fabrication of raw materials for aircraft and engine factories had not marched along with the large expansion of aircraft factories and engine works. The reason why the fabrication of raw materials had not kept pace was that it was assumed that, as fabrication was in the hands of private individuals and great firms of high standing, they would develop their fabricated output as the necessities arose. It was thought that the operation of the law of supply and demand would have provided for the necessary increase. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort occurred. There was a lag on the part of fabricators, and also a considerable lag in the manufacture of tools, presses and so forth for the production of raw materials.
72
So it was in that branch of production that we found our greatest difficulties and most of our troubles. We were confronted with an urgent need for increased output. We are now in a better position—our position has somewhat improved. I sent a telegram a few days ago to aircraft factories. I have that telegram with me and I want to quote from it. In it I referred to a gentleman named Mr. Mitman, who was an American citizen when the war broke out but after France fell he became a British subject. I am pleased to say that I have had some part in securing his naturalisation. He has acted in a voluntary capacity for the Ministry as Controller of the fabrication of raw materials specially for the fighter output, and it was in accordance with a conversation between him and myself that I sent this telegram to the factories on March 26. I said in the telegram:
"I have seen Mr. Mitman who assures me that no fighter aircraft for the Royal Air Force or for the Fleet Air Arm are held up this day on account of steel alloys, light alloys, forgings and stampings including magnesium. Survey shows that the position in this respect is, if anything, better than before war broke out."
That telegram met with immediate response from every manufacturer save two. There were only two who disputed Mr. Mitman's claim. I concluded the telegram by demanding that there should be refutation of Mr. Mitman's claim if that was the position, and that there should be more production on the other hand if Mr. Mitman was right in his statements. I am bound to tell you that only two factories made a protest against Mr. Mitman's telegram.
Equipment has also been a trouble to us. By "equipment" I mean guns, radio apparatus, navigational devices and so on. We were not in a position when the war broke out, and for some little time afterwards, to put aircraft into immediate operation because of the lack of equipment. It has been a difficult job to build up our equipment requirements, and in particular the providing of guns has been a hard and tedious business. Equipment shortages still exist, but these can perhaps be overcome by more drive and more energy. That, however, means taking advantage of every opportunity.
I come now to a very important development in the Ministry, and that is

73
repair and maintenance and salvage. Repair has really added to our strength, and salvage has been a first-rate venture with us; for instance, we have salvaged an enormous amount of aluminium. We have salvaged so much aluminium that we can now say that we require only eleven months of raw material instead of twelve months. In other words, out of the salvage of aluminium we have been able to supply one month of our necessities in the form of raw materials. The repair of engines has also been an interesting job, and a great repair organisation has been built up which can be relied upon in the day of adversity and when difficulties confront us. The repair of aircraft and engines and the collection of salvage have been on a fine scale, and have made a first-rate contribution to our resources. Here let me say that we find that serviceability is of the first importance not only to an Air Force but to a mechanised Army also. Everything depends on the success of repair and maintenance if a mechanised Army is to be kept in the field. I am certain it will be found that many mechanised Armies will fail completely and crash absolutely in the days to come for want of serviceability in the form of repair and maintenance. Generals commanding vast mechanised Armies will pay more and more attention to repairs and serviceability.
While the importance of salvage, repair and maintenance must be very plain to all of us, you will ask me what is the present production position. During the last nine months, three types of aircraft have been withdrawn from operational use to service with the Training Command. They have been abandoned as operational aircraft and turned over to the Training Command for the training of pilots. I refer to the Anson, the Botha and the Battle; all three have been removed from the list of operational aircraft. Yet, rapidly as the Royal Air Force is expanding, strengthened, too, by the flow of pilots and crews from the Dominions, the aircraft in storage—that is, aircraft in storage at the back of the operational aircraft, and awaiting use—show a satisfactory condition. In fact, of the five principal operational types, we have a reserve now in our storehouses, scattered far and near, that
74
is equal to the total operational strength—a 100 per cent. reserve. That applies to the heavy bombers; if we add one light bomber, then the reserve comes to more than 100 per cent. But do not let it be supposed for a moment that we are satisfied with a reserve of 100 per cent. Very far from it; we think that the Royal Air Force is entitled to a reserve of 200 per cent. or even 300 per cent., and that ought to be the object and purpose of the Aircraft Ministry
My noble friend Lord Sempill spoke of the production of engines on the other side of the Atlantic. When the Ministry was first formed, we made a contract in America for the production of the Merlin 20. That contract was made with the Packard Company. It is our money, our design and our pay-roll The Packard engine in America, the American Merlin, sometimes called the Packard Merlin, should be in production very shortly. In the last day or two we have received a message from Washington to say that it is the intention of the American Government to produce in America for their account the Sabre engine. That has been settled and is concluded. All the same, we must continue our own production. We must step it up as fast as we can and as far as possible. Our own production is and always must be of first importance, and we recognise that fact. We must never let help from America, for which we are so grateful, turn us from our main purpose; on the contrary, the mere fact that they are dealing with us so generously and are giving of their assets so freely should make us more determined in furthering our own resources to the uttermost.
In production, things are not bad. In February we produced more bombers and fighters of the operational type than ever before, and the month of March outstripped February; March was a record output, the biggest output of operational types—fighters and bombers—that we have had. In March the output of fighters and bombers and other operational types was two-and-a-half times the production of March last year, and our March output exceeded our target programme.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee in Secret Session to consider the statement of the noble Lord.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee in Secret Session to consider the statement of the Minister for Aircraft Production.—(Lord Moyne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee in Secret Session accordingly.
At the end thereof:
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister for Aircraft Production, on the fact that he has arranged to send, and may have already sent, certain of our first-line aircraft by boat or by air over to America. This is a really splendid move. I would ask that to-day's proceedings as set out in the Official Report be circulated to the heads of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, so that they may be carefully studied and effect given to the various suggestions as far as possible. I beg leave to withdraw my motion.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: My Lords, I will see that effect is given to the noble Lord's suggestion.
Motion for. Papers, by leave, withdrawn.