HL Deb 12 February 1941 vol 118 cc297-312

LORD ADDISON rose to ask His Majesty's. Government whether, having regard to the proposed large-scale enrolment of men in the Army, they can make any statement with regard to the calling up of men engaged in agriculture and other vital industries, whilst large numbers of men continue to be employed in less essential industries; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure we should all desire on this, which is, I think, the first opportunity of welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, as Leader of the House, to express to him our united good will. Although politically we have been on opposite sides of the Table in another place a good many times, I think it is true to say that mutual friendship and good will have existed in a special measure between us for many years. Every one of us wishes him success in the great office to which he has passed, and will gladly assure him, so far as any of us can, that we will be as helpful to him in this House as he would wish us to be.

I make no apology for bringing before your Lordships the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name. The use of the man-power of the nation represents one of the most vital, and certainly one of the most difficult, problems with which we are confronted. It relates mainly to the needs of the Fighting Services and to the needs of essential industries. I myself have a vivid recollection—an altogether painful recollection—of the perpetual difficulties in which we were involved in this connection during the last war, and I am quite sure they are not a bit less to-day than they were then. But we do have this advantage to-day, that we are equipped now with an experienced and able staff at the Ministry of Labour, whereas during the last war all the various expedients had to be invented as best we could as we went along. Yet, although His Majesty's Government have what I may call this mechanical advantage in dealing with these terribly involved human problems, the solution is just as difficult as it was then. I confess, however, that I do think that a statement of the policy which His Majesty's Government are proposing in the main to follow would be useful because I think there is some confusion in the minds of a good many of us-certainly mine is not very clear anyhow, and that is the reason why I put the Motion on the Paper.

May I refer first to the needs of the Fighting Services? I take the Army as the only illustration. We have been told, and I dare say quite rightly, that there will in the near future be a very considerable call-up of men in addition to those who have already been called up and there is not anybody anywhere, I am sure, who would object provided they know what it is for. With regard to the Army, even if we call up all the men we could we should never have an Army as large as the German Army, for the simple reason that there are not as many men, but, happily for us, we have not the same demands upon us. We do not have to police and try to keep in order a congeries of nations from the North Cape to the Black Sea. Such a call upon us never would have entered into our scheme of things at all, and of course it must make—let us hope it will make—an increasing demand upon the German forces. The more turbulent and restive these subjects are, the more I think most of us will rejoice.

If there is one lesson which emerges clearly from the present war already, so far as France, Libya, and other fronts are concerned, it is that mere numbers are not the most vital things. Equipment, training, efficiency, and leadership mean more than numbers, as General Graziani has learned to his cost during the last couple of months. So far as equipment is concerned, we need to bring into the manufacture and assembly of supplies all the men and women capable of helping, and we know that in the highly technical, mechanised Armies of to-day there must be an increasing number of men required—technical experts, engineers, electricians, wireless operators and a whole host of others—who do not, as such, go into the fighting line at all, but are absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the service. With regard to training, it would not be inappropriate to enter a word of protest against the demands which have been made from time to time for men from the Army to come and render this or that civil service. Of course we know that men in the Army are human beings who require their humanities to be looked after. We cannot expect them to work all the time. They should be interested and instructed and made as much use of as possible; but it is perfectly clear that the First-Line Army must be allowed to continue its training in this country with the least possible interruption. I deplore, merely as an outsider, the demands which have often unthinkingly been made on the War Office to release for other jobs men who ought to have been training for their proper duty. The First-Line Army clearly needs the best continuous training we can provide. That must have accounted for the success in Libya to a very great extent. So far as the First-Line Army is concerned, these matters of equipment, training, and leadership are more vital and of more consequence than mere numbers, and, so far as leadership is concerned, I hope those responsible will be ruthless in selecting efficiency and getting rid of inefficiency.

The other branch of the Army, the Home Defence Army—I leave out of account the Home Guard because they are pursuing their civil occupations—might well in some places be looked into to see if there is not some waste of man-power going on. The recruitment of the Home Defence Army was on a rather wholesale scale in the early days, and although the demands upon it will not be anything like those which will be made on the First-Line Army, it needs to be efficient and well trained in its duties. We art; probably suffering from some waste of man-power in the Home Defence Services, but that is a relatively small matter. The other big demand on our man-power is for the essential war services. We have vast new factories coming into production. The sooner they are in full production the more we shall rejoice. In this respect I wonder if the location of the new factories has always been decided upon in the light of the labour supplies that will hereafter be required. I am afraid that in all cases that is not so. After all, when you have got a factory, the people who work in it must have somewhere to live. They must have somewhere to live within reasonable distance of their work. We cannot move populations about anyhow regardless of these elementary and daily necessities.

It follows from this that the first line of recruitment for labour in essential services must be from the non-essential industries in the areas in which they are located—not simply the scheduling of reserved occupations en masse, but with due regard to where people are going to live. I shall give one illustration which I have taken some trouble to examine in this respect. I am suggesting now, as to the first line of recruitment for labour in essential factories, that we should have regard not simply to occupations as a whole, but to the occupations in that area. Take the Midlands region. It is fair to say that in the Midlands region now 30 per cent. of the employed persons—probably more—are still employed in nonessential industries. It clearly must be to those industries that we should look as our source of recruitment in the first place. It must be easier to get them that way than to bring people from a distance and find new homes for them.

The waste of labour in non-essential industries requires a little more scientific treatment than it appears hitherto to have received. To take a homely example—and I am glad to see the Minister of Food present—we still see a number of milk roundsmen going about, probably four or five in the same street. That must be a waste of labour. I know the difficulty the noble Lord is confronted with in combing it out, but there it is. It is a waste of labour as far as it exists, and I rather think that the distributive trades, taking them as a whole, provide the most conspicuous instance of waste of labour. I take another example. I see that in the list of reserved occupations all those over twenty-five defined as managers, foremen, or overseers of warehouses in the distributing trades are included. From fifty thousand to one hundred thousand men are involved. I should require a bit of convincing that we need a reservation at twenty-five for that category. I only use that as one simple illustration. If we looked through the list we should probably find a good many more.

I hope your Lordships will not mind my mentioning another interesting illustration—I hope no noble Lord will feel hurt—which I think would have a painful effect upon the man in the street. The News Chronicle on February 7 quoted the following advertisement from The Times of January 28: Second footman or second parlourmaid required at once; four in family; 13 servants. including four in pantry.

I know many of your Lordships have suffered from the misfortune of inheriting large houses, and that you naturally wish to keep them in a proper state. I never have been disposed to envy you in the very least in respect of that position, because I have always felt it must add enormously to the needless waste of life. I do hope that these people will not be very lucky and get a second footman. I think it may be well that they should practice the virtues of self-help a little more and do without so many servants. But that is a triviality. The point I am seeking to make is that I think a policy of closer scrutiny is required of the waste of labour, or, as I may put it, the not full use of labour in national industries that are essential, and that the first line of policy should be to pursue it not en bloc over the country as a whole but particularly in the regions where the labour is required, because by doing it in that way you will avoid housing and other difficulties.

When I came to look, as I tried to do quite honestly some time ago, at what I feel is the not full use of labour in present circumstances, I was rather aghast at the suggestion that there would be a further call-up from agriculture. Your Lordships will not be surprised that I now raise this matter. I am quite sure that agriculture no more wishes to avoid its duty than any other industry. I know that Mr. Hudson is putting up as gallant a fight as any man could for that vital industry, and, largely due to him, it is probably making, as he said the other day, as great an effort as it has ever made since Napoleonic times. We will all wish him success, but the fact is that a demand of the kind to which I have referred must have been made as the result of insufficient thought. What are the facts? The facts are that this spring we shall have ploughed up in this country nearly 4,000,000 acres more land than was ploughed before the commencement of the war. Now in the old days it used to be said that arable land required from three to four men per 100 acres—machinery has, of course, reduced that—and that grassland required about one man for 250 acres. If we put it at only two men per 100 acres for arable land it means that this industry requires at least 80,000 more workers to look after the land which we have already ploughed—and we need every square yard of it if we are going to defeat the submarine threat.

Here, then, is an industry which requires at least an additional 80,000 workers, and it is also an industry which happens to have been already very much depleted of workers for other reasons. I tried to find out what the numbers were. It is difficult to do so, but I think it is within the mark to say that, apart from recruitments to the Services, agriculture since the beginning of the war has lost at least 40,000 men to munitions and other industries. These workers have been attracted from agriculture by higher wages and other circumstances. Therefore you have an industry requiring an immense reinforcement of labour already dangerously depleted. There is also this peculiarity about agriculture, which I am sure every one of your Lordships will agree is the fact, that all the men engaged in agriculture are skilled. Agriculture differs from most other industries in that respect, because it would be very difficult to go on to a farm anywhere now and not find a man who is not a skilled worker. Therefore it is all the more essential that we should be careful in any action we take with regard to recruiting from that industry. I was very glad to note the assurance given yesterday in another place by the Under-Secretary, and I am quite sure that the Ministry and all concerned will take care that skilled men are not recruited from agriculture. I only mention this as an illustration of the need that I think there is for clearer guidance on policy in this matter than we have had so far.

Whatever assistance we may get from women's labour—and we shall get much—and even from prisoners of war, I do not think we can expect to maintain the proper cultivation of this immensely increased acreage if we take away from the agricultural industry any experienced worker who is now engaged in it. Apart from the mere cultivation, thanks to the Minister of Agriculture and his fine inspiration, we are getting an immense amount of drainage done, and this is essential if we are going to bring a lot of new land into cultivation. I do not know what is the case in other counties, but in one county with which I am intimately acquainted I think it is correct to say that hundreds of miles of farm ditches are being cleared at the present time, and the drainage work that is going on is far beyond anything that has been done previously. Then, as Lord Phillimore reminded me the other day in expressing his regret that he could not come here to-day, there is also a great demand now in the timber and woodland industries for additional labour.

I have brought these facts to your Lordships' notice and given a few illustrations in the hope that the noble Lord opposite will be able to give us a little guidance and information as to the procedure which the Government propose to adopt to meet the situation. I am quite sure the outstanding facts of the case are that the First-Line Army needs not so much to be numerous as to be perfectly equipped and perfectly trained, and that we need every man and woman that we can get from non-essential industries drafted into essential industries so far as they are not needed by the Fighting Services. We need, I think, a more selective, a more local, method of recruitment than so far as I know we have hitherto had. At all events, I am sure the importance of the subject is so great and so urgent that your Lordships will be with me in bringing it to your notice. I beg to move for Papers.

LORD BINGLEY

My Lords, may I take the opportunity of reiterating what the noble Lord opposite has said in congratulating my old friend Lord Moyne upon the position he now occupies? The noble Lord opposite has raised the general question of the recruitment of men for the Services and also the question of how far agriculture is going to be depleted of labour. I do not wish to deal with the general question, which the noble Lord elaborated very well, but I should like to impress upon your Lordships' minds the rather alarming picture he has drawn—I do not think he was at all guilty of exaggeration—of the position we are in now of having a very large acreage of newly-ploughed land and needing, as he says, at least 80,000 men to get proper results from it. There is no doubt, as the noble Lord said, that the drainage system of the country is deplorably in arrear. For many years in this country drainage has been neglected and at this moment a considerable acreage is entirely under water. If we are going to get proper results from newly-ploughed land we must have adequate labour.

I am the last person to wish to save any particular class of men from the service of the country, but I think it is essential to remember that it is not enough merely to dig for victory. You have to do something more after you have finished digging. Merely to turn over the land will mean a great waste of whatever fertility there is in the land. I have been associated with the "Dig for Victory" campaign in trying to stimulate allotment gardeners to produce more. I have been addressing meetings and attending conferences, and there is no question that there is a great opportunity for increasing home food production by greater activity on allotments. There is, moreover, a further opportunity in the private gardens of the country. At this moment a great many of the larger houses, not necessarily the great houses to which the noble Lord alluded and which he rather pitied some of your Lordships for having to occupy, but houses with gardens of a reasonable size—a great many of these houses are now occupied by schools or evacuees or the military and are not being lived in by their owners. The military are going to do their bit by turning on men to cultivate these gardens, but, as everybody must realise, the turning of untrained soldiers on to these gardens will not produce results which can be compared with those which can be brought about by the work of skilled men. It must be borne in mind also that military units of necessity must be constantly moving, so that you will not get continuity and consequently you will not get the best results.

There is, I believe, a special opportunity of increasing home food production by the cultivation of the gardens of the country, large and small, and I hope that the Ministry of Labour or whichever Government Department is concerned will be very careful not to deplete unduly the supply of trained gardeners. There are, in a good many places, glass houses of various kinds which at other times are devoted to the growing of flowers and grapes and other luxuries, and the owners of them will be perfectly ready to let them be used for more necessary things. A great deal can be got out of them if they are properly managed, but the ordinary unskilled labourer turned into them for the first time is not going to be of much use in producing real results. Nobody can deny that it is necessary that we should increase home food production. There is obviously a very serious situation opening out before us. The war agricultural committees have been given the duty of making a selection and recommending which men should be taken and which left, and very well they are doing it; but it is obvious that their bias will be in favour of retaining men on the farms and the tendency must be to say," Let the gardener go, but keep the farm labourer." I want to plead that the Government should be very careful not to deplete unduly the gardeners who are available because one acre with a skilled man in charge can produce a good deal more than land tilled by unskilled men. If we take away the skilled men we are not going to get the best results.

We are told that old men and girls can be employed, but that is not the same thing. I believe that efforts to increase home production of food will be seriously handicapped unless something is done about "keeping skilled men who can really do the job. We have heard far too much about what a wonderful man the farmer is and how well he is working, and then telling him that he is going to lose a great deal of labour and that he must make the best of it and employ girls. Girls are not going to be so easy to get as some people think. There is a great demand for them for munition making. A certain element of fashion enters into this. It is rather the fashion for a girl to go into a munition factory in preference to getting up at any hour of the morning to feed animals in the dark on a dirty, muddy farm. That is not a very attractive job for girls who have been employed in town surroundings. Girls have been doing splendid work, but we must face the fact that there is a shortage. Substitutes have been recommended in the same way for work in gardens. That may be rather more attractive work, but still the shortage is there. I hope that the Government will tell us that they are going to be very careful not to spoil the chances of increased home food production by taking away the really skilled men.

LORD MOYNE

My Lords, before I come to the substance of the Motion may I say how very much I appreciate what some of my old friends both here and in another place have said as to my present position? When I came to your Lordships' House ten years ago I thought I had finished for good and all with active political work and I never dreamed that I should be called to the responsibility which came to me last week. It happens that Government inquiries and interest in travel have taken me to Colonies all round the globe—not only British Colonics but foreign Colonies and also mandated territories. I am very conscious that I have no such experience in the business of your Lordships' House. I remember that when people make their maiden speeches they generally appeal for generosity and tolerance, but I am sure that no one has ever been more sincere in making such a request than I am in asking for your Lordships' forbearance with me in my inevitable shortcomings.

The Notice of Motion of Lord Addison raises a rather different aspect of the labour question from that which we discussed some three weeks ago, when, I am sorry to say, the noble Lord was not able to be with us. I welcome his action in bringing this matter up again because there is undoubtedly uneasiness in various quarters as to whether we are making the best selected use of our man-power, which is necessarily unequal to that of the Nazis and therefore calls for the most efficient organisation. The noble Lord, I understood, wished for a general explanation of the procedure, dealing specially with the points which he raised. He laid emphasis on the necessity that the less essential industries should make full contribution and he also urged that the possibility of keeping people working in the same area where they had been already engaged should be studied. I think that is a most excellent suggestion and I feel sure that it is well in the minds of the officials of the Labour Ministry, who are more and more going to deal with manpower and the claims between one industry and another on an individual basis, going into each case on its merits and using persuasion and selection rather than coercion.

The method with these unessential industries has been to use them as a kind of sponge from which you could squeeze out men as they were required elsewhere. The Ministry of Labour keeps in touch with the requirements of the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade by the use of a rationing order—I think it is called the Limitation of Supplies Order—which enables them to get specialized labour in the right place. Of course we cannot shut down these unessential industries altogether. Not only is there need for some of their products in this country, but they help to maintain our exports, and wholesale contraction would be out of the question. The Trade and Labour Department work together in this rationing scheme in closest touch with the Ministry of Labour, loosening the pegs and by persuasion and selection helping to fit round pegs into round holes.

There has been lately a big move on the part of the Minister of Labour towards a wider mobilisation and redistribution of our existing labour forces and this move is not due to any past neglect or any unnecessary delay. The noble Lord, who was, I think, the first Minister of Munitions this country ever had, will bear out how long it takes to fulfil a programme of completing factories, and of course we are now reaching a stage when we shall be able to get these factories into full production; we are very quickly reaching the full volume of our war effort behind the Fighting Forces. Therefore we have got to come into the existing industries, sift out their labour, and be sure that they are using it to the best advantage, in a way which was not necessary when we could draw upon the unemployed and the unessential industries which had kept the larger proportion of their men. The noble Lord dealt with the lesson we have had that the size of an Army is less important than its adequate equipment, and he will not expect me to deal with figures in that respect. But, obviously, it would be wasteful to equip and clothe more men than an Army can train, and it is a very complicated matter to see how soon equipment will be forthcoming and to have men ready trained to receive it. The noble Lord talked of the importance of leadership in the Army. I think there has never been a greater example of skilled leader-ship and the wonderful results of training adapted to the new and unexpected conditions of modern warfare than has cheered us all in Libya.

But the leadership in the Army is only one side of leadership. We have got to have leadership in the planning of manpower, and in all problems connected with the locating of factories and the making of the change-over with the least possible friction. The time has now come for two steps with the double purpose of securing recruits for the armed forces, under the limitation I mentioned, and their equipment, and also of ensuring the development of the factories which is now reaching fulfilment. Firstly, the ages of liability to military service are being extended, and secondly, the method of reserving those essential to national work has to be developed. Changes cannot be made all at once. It is very necessary that industries should have time and should give voluntary co-operation to this difficult matter of readjustment. A recent Royal Proclamation extended the liability to military service to the whole range of ages covered by the authorising Act. The nineteen-year-olds will be called up almost immediately and those who are not reserved or postponed will probably join the colours from about mid-April onwards. The present intention is then to register the groups from 37 to 40 and to leave the youngest group, the eighteen-year-old group, to the last.

Of course there are not enough men in the country to do all the fighting as well as supplying our needs in munitions and food. For that reason we cannot avoid calling up men of military age who can be spared from the work which they have been doing, if that work is of a type which can be carried on by older men or women. The registration of women is now in active-preparation and proposals are being worked out for utilising them in the national effort. Here again, as with the transfer of male labour, we shall find that the Minister of Labour is anxious to go to the fullest length of persuasion rather than compulsion, and I think that is the most efficient way. The system of reservation or postponement for civil work is being made more flexible. The House knows that men are reserved according to their occupations above certain ages, with a view to maintaining the manpower in vital industry, and in addition to that there has been postponement of service even in the unreserved age-groups for younger men. I agree with the noble Lord that it is essential that these skilled men should be kept on the land, because it is not possible to turn out skilled agricultural workers in a short time. In certain other industries, however, a new method is to be added to those with which we are familiar, by the reservation of manpower in certain protected industries at different ages from those of reservation by occupation. In future it is intended to select certain vital industries for this additional protection from disturbance, by reserving heir workers from a lower age than would be the case merely on the ground of occupation., Side by side with that, the existing system of reservation of key-men below the reserved ages by occupation, and not by protected industry, will continue, but subject, of course, to closer supervision.

It is not proposed to extend this new method to agriculture, or, I think, to coal mining. Owing to the variety and specialisation of the conditions of labour in agriculture, agricultural workers are not suitable for the same treatment as factory workers, and flexibility must play a very large part as compared with automatic reservation. The present intention is to obtain the extra men by an amendment of the ages at which occupation will be reserved, putting those ages at such a level as to make a much larger number of men than the number which will actually be needed liable for service. In this way the war agricultural executive committees will have a far greater choice when they consider deferring men on the ground of indispensability. The noble Lord, Lord Bingley, has very exceptional knowledge of the subject which he mentioned, horticulture, and I can assure him that this matter is very much in the mind of Mr. Hudson. It will, of course, be dealt with in the same way as other agricultural occupations—namely, by alteration in the schedules, with ample scope to the local authorities concerned to make recommendations to the Ministry for deferment.

It is very important for agriculturists to realise that the raising of the age of reservation is really in the interests of their being able to retain skilled men. I am alarmed lest when this new schedule comes out there should be misunderstanding, and lest it should be thought that a great many more men will be taken than it is actually contemplated should be taken. If three or four or five times the required quota are freed from automatic reservation by age, it will mean that two-thirds, three-quarters or four-fifths will be eligible, under the quota scheme, for deferment on the recommendation of the war agricultural executive committees. The employer will have to take the initiative, and steps are in contemplation to see that the employer does not mis- Understand his opportunities. Apart from this, there will still be the provision for hardship, by which men, on individual grounds of hardship, not of occupation, can go to the Referees under the Unemployment Insurance Act. There was a very interesting letter in The Times this morning from an experienced agriculturist, who drew a distinction between the experienced agricultural workers and the younger men whom he very rightly called apprentices. These latter are in many cases replaceable, and men of much less training can also work in the drainage and other gangs who move about the country. For this purpose we are looking forward to the help of Italian prisoners of war in addition to that of women and conscientious objectors. It is very important that agriculturists should realise that there is going to be this comb-out. although only on a small scale, and that they should get to work at once to help on the training of substitutes.

I have already made it clear that the exact number of men required for the Army from agriculture and from horticulture has not yet been settled, but I am able to give three assurances. In relation to the total numbers employed, the men to be withdrawn will be only a very small proportion. Arrangements will be made to guarantee the retention of all men who are really indispensable. In arranging dates for calling up, special consideration is to be given to the seasonal conditions and operations of agriculture; for instance, I hope that there will be no interference with facilities for this year's harvest. I have explained that, although the Minister of Labour has worked out his scheme in principle, there arc many details which are still under consideration, and I am not, therefore, in a position to lay Papers. The noble Lord can rest assured, however, that the Government are planning the utmost economy and efficiency in the use of human power. The purpose is to secure that every man of military age will be either in the Forces or doing work of national value which cannot be done by the older men and by women, to whom we are looking to come forward as willing substitutes in our need.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, it is a source of deep regret to me that I should have to find the first reply of our new Leader so profoundly unsatisfactory. I am afraid that agriculturists throughout the country who were already aware that the Minister of Labour was no agriculturist will have had brought home to them their extremely dangerous position owing to that lack of knowledge on the part of the Minister. I am completely at a loss to understand—and I feel certain that other members of your Lordships' House who are agriculturists will be with me in this—how it is possible that an industry which, as my noble friend who opened the debate said, will at the lowest possible computation need another 80,000 men above its pre-war complement, can conceivably be an industry from which you can make an additional combing out at all immediately.

Incidentally, I should like to add that I consider that 80,000 is an extremely conservative estimate, because it does not allow for the extra 40,000 which he himself has computed, again in my opinion very conservatively, to have left agriculture for other employment. Nor does it take account of the number who have already gone into the Forces, and I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, though agriculture was reserved at the lowest possible age, in fact it has, I believe, made as considerable a contribution to the military man-power of this country as any other industry because it had far more of its men in the Territorials and on the Reserve than any other single industry in the country had. I do not wish to keep your Lordships, but I could not resist saying that I do not think that the reply of the noble Lord and of the Government will be considered at all consoling or at all satisfactory by agriculturists. I sincerely hope that the members of your Lordships' House, so many of whom have great and profound knowledge of this particular subject, will prevail upon the Government to take a more enlightened view.

LORD ADDISON

My Lords, in thanking the Leader of the House for his statement I hope that your Lordships will not think it impertinent of me to express my regret that I shall not be able to continue to attend the debates to-day owing to the changes in our programme. Several of us who had intended to attend the debate to be initiated by the noble Lord below the Gangway (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) will unfortunately not be able to be present. I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for his statement. He will see the kind of misgiving that is felt by people reflected in the spontaneous expression of my noble friend behind me, whose heart is in the land. I hope that when we have examined carefully the three very important assurances which the noble Lord gave us, they will provide some consolation for my noble friend behind me. They were very important statements, but everything depends upon how they are worked. I am sure that all of us will have welcomed the opportunity of this debate because it has elicited the statement that we have had from the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.