Lords Sitting of 10 February 1942

Preamble
The House met, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack,
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CHILDREN IN THE POTTERY INDUSTRY.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the General Emergency Order of the 23rd December, 1941, for potteries; and to move, That this House disapproves any increase of hours of employment of young persons under the age of sixteen as contemplated under that Order, and requests His Majesty's Government to give an undertaking that there shall be no such increase.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that I feel obliged to criticize the terms of an Order made on December 23 in regard to the hours of employment under the Factory Act, 1937. I have done my utmost to warn the Government that there must be a very strong feeling against an increase of the hours of employment of young persons, especially those under sixteen, employed in factories. I first of all placed a Notice on the Order Paper, in order to draw attention to the matter. When I understood representations were being made to the Labour Department, I had every hope that these representations might be effective, so I withdrew my Motion. Then I heard that the Government intended to go on with the Order issued on December 23 extending the hours of these young people from forty-seven to fifty-three hours per week. I therefore put a question to the Leader of the House on January 28, in order that he might realize that there would be a strong feeling against this extension of hours. He replied very courteously, with information no doubt supplied to him by the Ministry of Labour, but it was a most unsatisfactory reply from my point of view. I therefore have felt compelled to put down the Motion I am about to move in your Lordships' House.
A warning undoubtedly has been given that there would be opposition to this extension of hours of work. I do not know to what extent the old traditional Parliamentary system of collective Ministerial responsibility still obtains, but I cannot imagine that some of my late colleagues in the Government who administered the Factory Acts could defend this particular Order which has now been issued by the Ministry of Labour. The imposition of increased hours on these young children in a non-vital industry seems to me to be absolutely unjustifiable. I am surprised that, in reply on January 28 to the question I placed on the Paper, my noble friend Lord Moyne admitted that the medical inspectors who were under the Home Office, and are now under the Ministry of Labour, were not consulted with regard to this extension. The noble Lord went on in his reply to say that both parties—that is the employers and the employed—in the industry have been asked to see whether there are signs of undue fatigue, as the result of the operation of this Order. That is an entire departure from the system that has grown up, taking away authority from the factory inspectors. I would point out to your Lordships that there is no safeguard whatsoever, in the interest of the children, in leaving this matter merely to be one as between the employers and the employed. I did ask in my previous question that the inspectors might have the power to exclude from the operation of the Order these young children who were overworked and suffering from strain by reason of long hours, but that is apparently not contemplated by the Government judging by what they said in reply to my question.
I do not only blame—I think there is some blame—the Ministry of Labour for this extension. I think the blame is to be shared by the British Potteries Workers' Society, which is the trade union, and the British Potteries Manufacturers, representing the employers—two very able organizations who have agreed that the Government should extend the working hours of young children from forty-seven to fifty-three. Both sides, no doubt, going on patriotic" lines, want to liberate labour from a non-vital industry such as pottery-making into the more vital industries which manufacture munitions.
I suppose no one takes any exception to the increase of hours provided it is justified, but both sides apparently think—the employed by receiving overtime and the employers by getting their costs down through working longer hours—they will be able to help the industry to carry on in spite of a certain number of adult workers being taken into more vital industries. Obviously the object of this Order is that the children should work exactly the same hours as those with whom they work—the moulders. That is to say, if the older people are entitled to work fifty-three hours the young children should also, as their assistants, work the same number of hours. It is to that particular decision that I take exception.
Let me point out to your Lordships what the total hour; of these children are. Under the Factory Act, 1937, it was generally laid down that forty-four hours were adequate for the employment of young children of fifteen or sixteen, or even fourteen; but there was a provision that, after an inquiry, if the industry necessitated it, the hours could be extended to forty-seven. In the last three or four years that increased number of hours for children employed in the potteries has been adopted. I want to emphasize the fact that this is not a vital industry in the interests of the war. It is in many ways a very dangerous industry, yet there is not a single vital industry in this country which works children of fourteen and fifteen years age for more than forty-eight hours a week. In this particular industry, however, children are going to be compelled to work not only the forty-seven hours which they have been accustomed to work, but up to fifty-three hours per week, and this is the only industry in the country in which such an Order has been promulgated. The hours of work, as I have pointed out, were forty-seven, and they are now fifty-three.
I think I ought to read to your Lord-ships exactly what the Regulations say in regard to hours. So far as I am concerned I have not seen these Orders published in the Press. The Regulations say:
" The total hours worked by women and young persons employed in pursuance of this Order… shall not exceed in any week such number of hours being neither less than 48 nor greater than 53 as may be specified in writing by the inspector of factories… and shall not exceed 10 hours on any
714
week-day other than Saturday, or 5¼ hours on Saturday.
" The period of employment of such women and young persons shall not exceed 10 hours on any week-day other than Saturday, or 5½ hours on Saturday and shall neither commence earlier than 7 a.m. nor end later than 7 p.m., or, on Saturday, 1 p.m."
That, in ordinary language, means that these children shall be employed five days a week of ten hours. They cannot be employed more on the five days, but it will be necessary for them to work not less than forty-eight and up to fifty-three hours in a week. They can be employed for two spells, one of four and a half hours and another of five and a half hours, but they are, being employed for fifty-three hours during the week. Let us suppose they are being employed ten hours a day for five days a week;, that would leave them to be employed on Saturday three hours. I submit to your Lordships that such long hours for these young children must be a strain and cannot be justified. I also submit that it is not right to impose upon children these long hours, and that they should be so employed is to me a cruel, retrograde and almost inhuman step.
I want now to come to the point as to why the employment of these children is arduous and dangerous in these factories. I exclude the factory recently put up by Messrs. Wedgwood, who are setting an example to the whole of the industry in the magnificent factory which they have recently put up. But in the ordinary factory in the pottery districts potters clay contains deleterious dust, flint and particles are breathed by the children as well as by the adults. Silicosis supervenes, death follows. The death rate per year in the factories remains constant at between forty-five and fifty-five deaths as a result of silicosis. It is, therefore, a dangerous trade. Amongst other methods in the potteries there is the glazing process, but to this I am not referring particularly. I do not think children are employed in the glazing, but glazing cannot be done without the use of lead, and lead-poisoning is constant in the industry. Therefore it is doubly a dangerous trade, and it is scheduled as a dangerous trade because of the silicosis and on account of the lead-poisoning.
Now the operation to which I want to draw attention is a continuous operation on the part of the children to whom I specially allude. These children do what is called mould running. There are many

715
branches of the industry to which I need not refer in which the work is done by decorators, biscuit brushers and so on. Those do not really come very much into the picture. I want to deal with these children who get the earth clay from the moulder, carry it to the stove, and then bring back the empty mould to the pottery maker. These children have to run backwards and forwards with this material and have to go into a hot, humid, dusty atmosphere. They go into the stoves themselves in every case except, I think, in the firm represented so well in this House now by my noble friend Lord Wedgwood. All other firms, I understand, have these children running backwards and forwards constantly for ten hours. Now I do submit to your Lord-ships that in this atmosphere it is a cruel imposition to compel these children to work ten hours a day in circumstances of this kind. The duty of these children is to keep the moulders always supplied with moulds and their function is to get the dry first product and mould back to the moulders so that they are constantly going backwards and forwards to the stoves into which they enter.
I come now to another point. These children are in a blind-alley occupation. This occupation, I am told, is not very popular among a certain number of parents in the district for their children, and possibly it is not easy to duplicate the number who are already employed in it. The children, after their employment in these potteries is ended, drift away in a great number of cases because, I am told, there is no room for them in the industry. I am informed that if a moulder works for thirty years he has employed probably from ten to fifteen children for two years, and when he vacates his position as a moulder there is only one place vacant for every ten children who have been employed in this mould-running process in their early and tender years. Therefore there is a real tendency that these children should drift afterwards and should not find employment in the factories. It is not for me to say how this problem of finding children to do children's work if the hours of the adult worker are extended—willingly, no doubt, out of patriotic motives—should be dealt with, but there is the old adage "Where there's a will there's always a way," and
716
I do feel that it is for the industry to find some method by which these younger people (I am speaking only of those under sixteen) may be liberated from the excessive hours now imposed upon them.
I referred a few moments ago to my noble friend Lord Wedgwood. I have been reading lately a very interesting book, which I can recommend to your Lordships, containing his memoirs. The Prime Minister pays him a tribute at the commencement of this book entitled Memoirs of a Fighting Life in which he says "The distressed of the whole world have looked to him for the redress of wrongs." This is a wrong, and I do hope that my noble friend will be able to participate in trying to find a solution for the difficulty which I am now placing before the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, in his book, alludes to the humane action of at any rate six generations before him marked by their great consideration towards their workpeople. Here and now I wish to pay the highest compliment I can to the Wedgwood firm for being absolutely model employers. They have erected at their new works a factory which avoids many of the strains which are now suffered by children and they are eliminating some of the practices to which I have referred. If other pottery makers would follow their example no doubt the strains might be reduced from what they are at the present moment.
I have put this matter on the Order Paper because I want support from all quarters of your Lordships' House in asking the Government to stop what I call, if not criminal at any rate reprehensible extensions of the hours of labour. I ask myself why we are at war. Certainly one of the things we are fighting for is to obtain a better world for those who come after us, for our children, our grand-children and our great-grandchildren. To force children to work fifty-three hours a week is to destroy their happiness, to destroy all opportunity of play and of recreation, and to turn their work into slavery. That is putting the clock back. I would like to conclude with a parody of some verses of Hood in a well-known poem:
" Oh men with children dear,
Oh men who love their wives,
It's not mere plates you're turning out,
But destroying children's lives.
Oh but for six less hours,
A respite, however brief,
No blessed leisure for love or hope,
But only time for grief."
Moved to resolve, That this House disapproves any increase of hours of employment of young persons under the age of sixteen as contemplated under the General Emergency Order of December 23, 1941, and requests His Majesty's Government to give an undertaking that there shall be no such increase.—(Lord Gainford.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what has already been said on the subject of juvenile employment in war-time, and on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches to express to the noble Lord who has just spoken our gratitude for ventilating what is a most important social problem peculiar to a war-time economy, and for the fine and humane spirit, if I may say so, and the exhaustive knowledge displayed in his speech. It is a commonplace, I think, that during a war there is always a danger that the strength of young children and adolescents may be overtaxed. We saw this during four years in the last war. These young people desire, of course, just as much as their elders to contribute whatever they can to the war effort, but I am sure that we should associate ourselves with the noble Lord in trying to see that they should not be allowed—in the mistaken belief held in certain quarters that we might thereby get an increase in production—to expose themselves to abnormal risk of injury or to continue at work for excessively long hours. It stands to reason that if their health and efficiency are undermined in this way we shall in fact lessen their future productive capacity and therefore defeat the very object we set out to achieve.
Since the end of the last war a comprehensive legal code has been set up for the protection of young workers in almost every branch of trade and industry, and I should like to appeal to the Government—I am sure as the noble; Lord, Lord Snell, is to reply, that the appeal will not fall on deaf ears—to make perfectly sure that these wise conditions laid down in the provisions of many Acts of Parliament are; not overridden in the stress of war, and that employers and employees alike shall be discouraged from taking advantage of any loopholes that these Statutes may leave for excessive pressure on young people. I should like to reinforce the case made by the noble Lord by drawing attention to certain other
718
rather disquieting features of the war-time employment of juveniles. In the last report of the Chief Inspector of Factories stress is laid on the alarming increase in the number of industrial accidents involving young persons, an increase of eighteen per cent. among boys and of eleven per cent. among girls as compared with the figures of the preceding year. It is especially important that the training of these young recruits to industry should not, even in these days, be rushed, as otherwise they cannot hope to acquire a sound knowledge of safety measures and of the careful and intelligent handling of the machinery they would be expected to look after. The discretion of local authorities to regulate the hours of work of children during their holidays has not always been wisely used. In certain rural areas children of twelve to fourteen have been permitted to work six or seven or even eight hours a day within certain periods in the year when helping with the harvest. Surely this holiday period should not be regarded, even in war-time, as an opportunity to make children work harder or longer than is good for them.
The amount of overtime now usual in the great majority of factories, added to the ordinary working week, has disastrously lengthened the hours of employment of the growing child. In many factories children of sixteen are working fifty to sixty hours a week, and I should like to illustrate this by quoting from a summary of the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories given in The Times Educational Supplement. Figures are given showing that in 5,493 factories engaged on munitions work permission has been given to extend the normal working week of women and young persons over sixteen from 48 hours to 54, 55 and 56 hours. In 3,428 factories they are allowed to work over 56 but do not reach 60 hours, and children between fourteen and sixteen are working 48 hours instead of 44 in 1,421 further establishments making a wide variety of articles. In this connexion it should also be noted that the recent report of the Medical Research Council of the Industrial Health Research Board lays down 55 to 60 hours as the maximum working week for adult women without injury to health or impairment of efficiency. The application of that to children is obvious.
It is true, of course, that this valuable report, which is a warning against the

719
fallacy that very long hours of work produce an increase of production, makes no direct reference to young persons, and I should like to put to the Government this request: Will they urge the Board to pursue its inquiries into the working hours of the adolescent factory workers and their effect on health and production, that is to say to extend the inquiries concerning the adult to the growing child? I think it would be common ground in this House that if boys and girls are to give us the maximum output we need in the months, and possibly years, that lie immediately ahead, and, at the same time, to grow up into people who will be keen to improve conditions in this country after the war, they should be safeguarded against the tremendous strain and exceptional risks of employment in war-time industry.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Gainford, not merely for bringing this question forward, but also for the more than kind things that he has said about the Wedgwood firm. The real difficulty in this case is that the trade union has not stood by the children. Unfortunately our potters' trade union is not a strong one, and therefore has not got the same control in the industry that trade unions have in many other trades in this country. I would like to tell your Lordships that the firm with which my name is connected do not propose to use this change in the rules or to increase the hours of work. They do not wish to take any special credit for that; it happens to be inconvenient in their case, and I think they also share the hereditary views of the family. But this question of longer hours does bring up a great many questions which really ought to be considered by the new Minister of Production when he gets into his stride. In our case, we have a new factory some way outside Stoke-on-Trent; some way from the dwellings of the working people. We had hoped to build our "Wedgwood Garden City" to house them on the spot, but, owing to the war, that has been stopped. Therefore these people have to come in by train from Stoke-on-Trent, and that means that men, women and children working in the factory are realty working longer hours than appear on the timetable because they have to go to and fro.
720
It is not easy, therefore, to expect them to extend their hours of work any further.
That brings me to this issue: that in this question of securing maximum production you have not got to consider only hours of labour. What you have to consider is the extraordinary difficulty experienced by women employed in all factories now to get foodstuffs and prepare meals. Really, in considering maximum production we have got to consider not only hours and where labour can be got from, but also something in the nature of communal kitchens where the workers can get their meals, and the solving of the housing problem so that people working in the factories can be housed somewhere near them. Every day many hours are wasted by reason of workers having to travel substantial distances to and fro. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this matter up. I hope that his speech—a speech so inspired by knowledge of the industry that I thought he must have been brought up in it—will have the effect of stopping the use of extended hours in the potteries. Apart from any law, that moving speech of his will, I think, do much good. I hope the Minister of Production will consider also the wider issues of how to increase the production of this country by facilitating the manner of getting food, the means of getting housing, and the opportunities for real recreation for the young people.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire very briefly to say a few words in support of the Motion which has been made in such very eloquent and moving terms by my noble friend Lord Gainford. We all know the pressure which exists both on the young and the old in these days, and I am sure it is the general desire that growing boys and girls should, so far as possible, be spared that pressure. After all, the growing generation, at any time, represents a great national asset, and any custom or any action which tends to retard or stunt that growth is a waste of that national asset. And that has to be borne in mind. Of course, it is true, as my noble friend admitted, that this is not altogether a simple proposition. There are certain industries, of which the pottery industry is one, in which it is found that unless a certain amount of juvenile

721
labour is available during working hours the adult labour employed in it becomes hampered and meets with difficulties. The fact has also to be borne in mind that this trade is a valuable export industry at the present time, and, as we know, it is of paramount importance to maintain our exports. Those are considerations which cannot be overlooked. At the same time, I think that we can appeal to His Majesty's Government to see whether it is not possible—even, in the last resort, by some limitation of output—to avoid this extra strain and hardship which are entailed by these long hours for growing boys and girls.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to register my disappointment at the fact that it seems likely that the Government will approve of the lengthening of hours for work in factories. I am sure that there are many who, like myself, are interesting themselves in youth welfare, who will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for raising this important question. I find it very difficult to think of any fresh arguments to bring forward in support of his case, but perhaps one which has not been emphasized as much as it might be is the necessity of allowing; young people to have as much recreation and healthy leisure as they can obtain. That is especially the ease in war-time. Another argument, which may perhaps sound a little far-fetched, arises from the increase in juvenile delinquency about which a great deal has been said and written recently. Your Lordships will have seen the reasons which have been given for that increase in time of war, and with those reasons I think that I can say that I agree; but I am not sure that I agree with all the arguments brought forward to show how that difficulty should be met. It seems to me that the way to meet the difficulty is to reduce the hours of employment. When his hours of employment are reduced, a young person naturally receives a lesser wage. I think that that is the best way of tackling this difficulty, and, although the point may be a small one, I suggest that that is an argument in favour of reducing hours of work. I do not know whether I shall be out of order if I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, should struggle a little harder in other directions to bring forward a
722
remedy against the increasing hours of labour of juveniles. I am sure that he would be regarded almost as a second Sharp—or should I have said a second Wilberforce?—if he could achieve that object.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the subject which has been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, is one of very great importance, and is rightly brought before the attention of Parliament. If I may say so, there is a special satisfaction in feeling that the question of the welfare of young persons has been brought before your Lordships' House by one of its most venerable and respected members. With most of what has been said in the various speeches which have been made, I find myself in personal agreement. With the principal contention which has been made there can, indeed, be very little disagreement; no one welcomes the employment of young people for periods beyond their strength, and in normal times this would not be tolerated by your Lordships.
The times, however, are not normal. We are living in a time of acute crisis, a time when all of us have to work harder and longer, and when all of us have to forego certain privileges and standards and accept a lower standard of life. We do so in order to preserve the very sub-stance of liberty itself; to save freedom we consent to suspend freedom for the time being. The whole question before your Lordships to-day, therefore, is whether that sacrifice which we are now having to make should also be required of young people. No one who knows my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service can believe that he had any sort of pleasure in making this Order to which attention has been drawn. If your Lordships will permit me to say so, probably I know the strain which long hours of labour put upon children better than does any other member of your Lordships' House. It is not fair cither to the child or to the nation that a child should be deprived of the joy of games and of recreation of all kinds. All of us know that it is not for the national good that children should be given work beyond their strength; they have amazing vitality, but it is not enduring, for nature appears to require a great deal of it for her own purposes.
Looking at the problem in principle, however, we can at least say that things

723
are better than they were. At the time of which I am thinking especially, young children worked for 65 to 70 hours a week at strenuous farm and factory labour, so that we can at least feel that things have improved, and, if this Order appears to represent some kind of retrograde step, it is necessary to remember that children are not being now employed in this case for merely increased profit—not being used because child labour is cheap; they are being used because it is felt, rightly or wrongly, that they are making a contribution to an urgent national need. If we look at the Order itself it would appear that the district inspector of factories can authorize at any factory in the pottery industry the employment of young persons, including those under sixteen, for hours in excess of 48 but not exceeding 53. The justification for that power and Order is, as was pointed out to the noble Lord in the answer to his question on January 28, that the conditions existing in the pottery industry are somewhat exceptional. It is recognized that in the Act of 1937 some industries might be so dependent on the employment of young people that they would be seriously prejudiced if young persons were not allowed to exceed 44 hours. The Act referred to provided that public inquiries into these matters should be undertaken. An inquiry was made in regard to the pottery industry, which was found to be one of those particular industries referred to, and therefore weekly hours up to 48 have continued to be legal. That is the real question.
The Minister of Labour and National Service recently had to appeal to the industry to increase the regular working hours so as to release more workers for work of national importance, and representatives of the workers and the employers agreed that those hours could be extended up to 53. It may be, as my noble friend Lord Wedgwood has pointed out, that the trade unions did not put up as stiff an opposition as they might have done, but the fact is there that the trade unions did agree, and on that basis the Order was made. The Minister satisfied himself that there would be exceptional difficulties in the industry if 48 hours were to be the maximum for young persons under sixteen, and at the same time the desired quota of older persons for National Service were to be released. This need
724
for giving more workers to National Service outweighed the objections which in ordinary times would have been decisive in regard to the employment of children up to 53 hours.
In regard to the health of young children so employed it should be remembered that special Regulations have been made, and everything is being done to try to reduce special strain and danger. The noble Lord has referred to the question of the mould runners. This work, I am told, is not really heavy, and it has to be borne in mind that the Pottery Regulations contain various restrictions on heavy work by young persons. The work apparently involves the entering of hot stoves from time to time, and there is a certain amount of silica in the dust of the pottery shops, but it can hardly be argued that there is any serious risk involved in entering the stoves on a few more occasions than usual, or being present in the pottery shops for a few more hours. The danger, if it is a danger, exists all the time: it is just a question of whether the extra hours would provide additional dangers. One of the difficulties in this industry is that most of the work that these children are doing is not suitable for men. A high proportion of it which is done by girls has to do, I believe, with decorative processes, and this kind of work would be wasteful use of women's labour. The work of the potters and their assistants is one of the special cases in which exceptional difficulties would arise out of the difference in the working hours.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has enlarged the scope of this debate somewhat beyond what the Notice on the Paper envisages. He referred to the increase in accidents to young persons mentioned in the Chief Inspector's Report for 1940. These figures, however, are for young persons under eighteen in factories, and do not relate particularly to juveniles under sixteen in potteries, whose position is raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, and whose maximum hours were increased by the Order of December 23 last to which Lord Gain-ford referred. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, also referred to the hours of work of persons between sixteen and eighteen, and urged that the Industrial Health Research Board should pursue its inquiries into the working hours of adolescent factory workers and their effect

725
on health and productiveness. The Board's inquiries on this subject have been confined to people over eighteen, but it is merely a question of researches by the Board. The working hours of those between sixteen and eighteen under war conditions are closely controlled and watched through the factory inspectors. Moreover, while it is no doubt true, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, says, that in many factories those between sixteen and eighteen years of age are working 60 hours a week, in the majority of cases, even of those engaged in urgent war work, the hours are very much less than 60.
The difficulties with regard to the industry have been mentioned by several speakers, and I have tried to indicate the degree of importance that the Minister of Labour and National Service attaches to them. I think I can say that he will closely note what has been said to-day, and one can only hope that if this Order has to be enforced the need for it will shortly pass away. In ordinary times I should have been most reluctant to plead that longer hours should be worked by young people—I know far too well all that it means—but we are living, as I have said, in abnormal times, and it is very difficult to live upon established physical or even moral standards so long as that crisis exists. The Government do not say that what is proposed in this Order is desirable, or even that it is unobjectionable, but the Potteries have now become a munitions area, with a heavy demand for munition workers, which in the urgent need of the nation must be met. Large numbers have been imported into the district, accommodation has been very severely strained, and it is therefore desirable that as many local workers as possible: should help to man the local factories. The longer working week to which both sides of the industry have agreed does constitute a direct contribution to the war effort. It is on that ground of acute need that the Government regret they are unable to accept the proposal of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken on behalf of the Government has said it was with great regret that he personally had to plead the case entrusted to his hands. One can well believe that, for I am sure, with his views on this subject, nothing could have been less palatable to him. It was not any lack of cogency in his own speech
726
that made his case unconvincing. He was, in my judgment, unable to make out any valid reason why this industry alone should come to the Government and appeal for sanction for a measure of this kind. My noble friend who moved the Motion mentioned that this Order was unique over the whole field of British industry, including munitions, and that has not been gainsaid by the noble Lord who has just spoken. That being so, his argument fails when he urges that in time of war, in view of the critical need of war production, everyone must work harder and forego normal advantages. If that were so, Orders of this character would be necessary throughout the whole field of industry, including munitions. One cannot believe that it is only these particular processes—of all the methods of production employed in this country—which must have extra hours of work from children of fourteen and fifteen years of age. Moreover, we have been told that one of the principal firms in the pottery industry has no use for this Order, and does not propose to take advantage of it. That being so, why should it be impossible for the others to adapt themselves to the ordinary requirements of the law?
When the great consolidating, amending Factory Bill was before this House a few years ago, I remember that this question of hours of work of young persons and children was one which, in the Committee stage and other stages, caused considerabble concern to many members of your Lordships' House, and, if I remember rightly, furnished one of the principal topics of discussion when the Bill was passing through Parliament. We were assured that the safeguards included in the Bill, and which were, entrusted to Government Departments charged with its administration, would be ample to prevent abuse. This case where young childdren are to be allowed to work ten hours a day for five days a week, in addition to travelling to and from their homes, with a shorter day on Saturday, seems not to be warranted in all the circumstances, and I trust my noble friend Lord Gainford will give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the matter.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am in somewhat of a difficulty. In time of war your Lordships' House has, I think, never had a Division. I take a very strong view that no case has been made

727
out for the employment of these children in this way. I admire, if I may say so, the loyalty of the noble Lord (Lord Snell) to his colleague the Minister of Labour, and I know that the Minister of Labour is influenced wholly by patriotic motives in his desire to help the industry in the difficulty in which he is placing them by removing men from a non-vital industry to more vital ones. The noble Lord alluded to its being a retrograde step admittedly, and he has explained that he himself is against the employment of children. He used one argument which I think is somewhat fallacious—namely, that when children are engaged in a dangerous atmosphere, full of tiny portions of flint, an extension of an hour's work a day, which this Order means, is not going to do them more harm as the result of the amount of flint they breathe into their lungs. It is bound to damage them to a certain extent. If they breathe in a certain amount in five or six hours, they are bound to breathe in an increased amount if the hours are extended, and there is an increased tendency to silicosis.
LORD SNELL: Perhaps I did not make my meaning clear. I said that inasmuch as if silica were present the danger existed all the time they were there, the problem in reality was reduced to whether the extra hour would constitute a really serious additional danger.
LORD GAINFORD: The noble Lord does not understand the employment of children in such a case. Unfortunately I have had a good deal to do with silicosis in the collieries. The longer the hours the more susceptible child workers become to these dangers. If they work long hours they are more likely to suffer from silicosis than if they work shorter hours. I want to point out that, whilst I give all credit to the adults for being prepared to make sacrifices, adults have much greater resistance to disease because they are stronger than children, who are more delicate. It is on behalf of the children I am speaking, and I want your Lordships to agree with me, at any rate, in the first part of the Motion which is before the House—namely, that we disapprove of the extension of the hours of labour mentioned in this Order. If you do that, I am quite prepared to leave it to the Government, having regard to the expression of your Lordships' opinion, to reconsider this matter and see whether
728
they cannot carry out the second part of my Motion at a later date, giving a subsequent reassurance that they will try to intervene and prevent this extension of child labour. This is as far as I can go. I do feel inclined to press the first part of my Motion on the Paper, leaving out the last two lines so that it would then read, "That this House disapproves of any increase in the hours of employment of young children under the age of sixteen as contemplated under that Order," the Order being that of December 23 referring to the potteries industry. I do ask the Government to make an appeal to their colleagues so that the matter shall be reconsidered, and I would therefore move the Resolution in the form I have indicated.
VISCOUNT WOLMER: My Lords, it appears to me to be a very strong order to ask this House to pass this Resolution on the debate to which we have just listened. After all, this matter was considered very carefully by the Minister of Labour and National Service, and it was decided by him on the merits of the case. The noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government did not, of course, go into all those details which necessarily had to be considered by the Minister. I think it would be very difficult for your Lordships' House, without the first-hand knowledge of the matter that the Minister possesses, not only to pass something which would be in the nature of a censure on the Minister, but also in the nature of a censure on the trade union which agreed to this extension. I am quite sure that your Lordships' House would not view the principle of extending the hours of child labour with anything but disfavour. If I may say so, I think my noble friend has rendered a public service in instituting this debate and drawing attention to the matter, but it is generally at that judicious point that your Lordships' House stops.
I think it is not generally the custom of this House—I speak as a very newcomer—to pass a Resolution unless some useful purpose would be served, unless it wishes to record something in the nature of a vote of censure on the Government. I hope that my noble friend will not press this Motion to a Division. He has drawn attention to the matter, and I have no doubt it will receive further consideration in the light of what has been said this afternoon. I should like, with great respect,

729
to suggest to him that it would be better that the matter should be postponed, and, if he thought it necessary to bring up the matter again in a short time then he could do so; but to pass a Motion of this sort after a debate of an hour or two, I think might be a mistake. I would remind your Lordships not: only, as I have said, that the Minister and the trade union have agreed to this, but also that the factory inspector is given authority to decide each particular case. I presume it was because the Minister was satisfied that there were particular cases where it was in the national interest this should be done, and where it could be done, presumably, with the minimum of evil effects, that he gave his assent to it. Therefore, if my noble friend does press this to a Division, I shall support the Government.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, may I ask a question following on what the noble Viscount has just said? Your Lordships are familiar with occasional laws, and laws, I am sorry to say, in decreasing numbers, under which Orders are made that require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I presume this is an Order that did not require that approval, but of course my noble friend opposite (Lord Gainford) was quite within his right in moving this Motion. I would suggest to him that even if he carries it it will not have the desired effect which I think he wants—namely, of abolishing the operation of the Order.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate, and I should like to say a few words upon the suggestion that Lord Wolmer made a few moments ago. We are in a very great difficulty here. I do not wish to express any disapproval of the way the noble Lord opposite has spoken beyond pointing out that we are at present in a time of great difficulty. The object of us all no doubt would be, whatever the cost and whatever the sacrifice, to bring the war to a successful conclusion. While I sympathize with what has been said in regard to the employment of children, I feel very strongly that we could not accept anything so strong as the Motion which the noble Lord opposite has moved. We should be satisfied by drawing attention to the matter and leaving it in the hands of the Government, who will now be aware of what this House feels in regard to the
730
matter. Perhaps it would be advisable for the noble Lord to leave the matter as it is and see whether the Government could not, perhaps, make the factory inspectors, in carrying out the law, introduce necessary modifications to see that the dangers which the noble Lord has referred to are minimized. We might I think leave it there, and see what further action transpires in practice.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Can we have a ruling on the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, there is no doubt as to the position. There is no need for any affirmative action by this House to validate the Order, and as to the general situation, I am afraid I could not accept what would, in effect, be a vote of censure on the Government for their decision that this Order in their opinion is necessary. I feel sure that what has been said in this debate will be very carefully considered by the Minister of Labour, and I will undertake to press that he does give the matter the most sympathetic consideration. But I am afraid I could not go further than that, and if the noble Lord feels that he must press the matter to a Division I am afraid I should have to be in the "No" lobby. I suggest that in view of the full statement of the case against the Order the noble Lord would probably lose nothing by withdrawing his Resolution to-day and leaving us to discuss it with the Minister of Labour. That would not in any way preclude him from bringing up a Resolution on the same subject later on if he feels so disposed.
LORD ADDISON: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, whether it will be possible for him to give an undertaking that no Order shall be made putting this Regulation into operation without a further report? That would avoid any censure, and we might have a chance of considering the matter again. It would not be difficult to give an undertaking that no sanction should be given to such extensive powers till the House has had a further opportunity of considering the matter, or something of that kind. I offer that suggestion as a possible way out.
LORD MOYNE: I am afraid I could not go so far as that. So far as I know, the Order is in operation.
LORD GAINFORD: Yes, it is in operation. What happened was this. In November there appeared in the public Press of the locality a statement that an arrangement had been arrived at between the Minister of Labour and the trade union and employers' association in order to carry out the arrangement that these children should work from 48 to 53 hours per week. It was necessary for the Order to be made under the Defence of the Realm Act and it came into operation on December 23. So far as I know these children are now working these long hours. They cannot work less than 48 and they may be made to work up to 53. These hours are being worked in the factories with the exception of that belonging to the Wedgwood firm, and all honour to the Wedgwood firm, I say. If we do not disapprove of what the Government have done, can we not express regret that this has been imposed upon the children? I should like it to be made manifest to the outside public that your Lordships do not like this extension of the hours of work of children. It is admitted that it is a retrograde step, and surely in those circumstances the Motion might be accepted by the Government in this form:
" That this House regrets any increase of hours of employment of young persons under the age of sixteen as contemplated under the Order of the 23rd December, 1941, relating to potteries."
Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved to resolve, That this House regrets any increase of hours of employment of young persons under the age of sixteen as contemplated under the General Emergency Order of the 23rd December, 1941, relating to potteries.—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I am afraid that even in that form of words the Resolution would lead to the inference that the Order was not justified and would be a vote of censure on the Government, although not so strong a censure. I should be obliged to the noble Lord if he would not press the Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I would really ask the noble Lord to reconsider the attitude he has taken up. Surely he has done everything he is required to do in bringing this matter before your Lordships and the public.
732
The public will read the report of the debate, and will know quite well the feeling of your Lordships in regard to this matter and will know the reasons given from the Front Bench for the Government's attitude. I do feel that your Lord-ships should not pass a vote of censure on the Government because, as the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, has said, that is virtually implied in this amended form of words. I appeal to the noble Lord with all respect to follow the usual course and withdraw his Motion. If he likes he can bring forward the matter again and ask for the support of your Lordships.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, surely the Government do not take the view that we want to censure the whole Government simply because we do not want young people under sixteen to work more than forty-eight hours a week. That really, I think, is pressing the matter a little too hard. If we accept that doctrine we really cannot express our opinion on anything if it happens to be contrary to what any Government Department has done. We do not want to defeat the Government or the Minister of Labour, but really we ought to be entitled to express our views about a simple human problem of this kind
VISCOUNT WOLMER: My Lords, the point I want to make is that to pass a Motion of this nature after a short debate is not to treat the subject with the seriousness it deserves. As has been said, this Order is only permissive. It leaves to the proper Government official discretion to deal with each particular case. How can your Lordships pass a Resolution regretting authority being given to a Government official to allow an extension that has been approved by the Minister after the most careful examination and approved by the trade union concerned? It seems to me far better to leave the matter as it is, and then if my noble friend finds that any real injury is in fact being done to children under this Order he could bring up the matter again. He would then have the sympathy of the whole House with him.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Addison, L.

Hare, L. (E. Lislowel.) [Teller.]

Atkin, L.

Mersey, V.

Bethell, L.

Mottistone, L.

Samuel, V.

Braye, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Davies, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Aberdare, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Stanmore, L.

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

Wedgwood, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lucan, E.

Barnby, L.

Palmer, L.

Vane, E. (M. Lundonderry.)

Blackford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwillium.)

Selborne, L. (V. Wolmer.)

Benneu, V.

Sherwood, L.

Hailsliam, V.

Croft, L.

Snell, L. [Teller.]

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donougkmore.)

Hampton, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Maugham, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Tyrell, L.

Moyne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

PROTECTION OF VITAL PUBLIC SERVICES.
LORD DAVIES LORD DAVIES rose to call attention to the protection of vital public services; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a few days ago we had a debate upon the subject of the protection of aerodromes. In the course of that debate my noble and learned friend, Viscount Maugham, drew attention to the fact that aerodromes were not the only vital places that ought to be defended in the event of an invasion, and he gave us a very grave warning as to what might happen unless the whole problem of protection was adequately dealt with. Now the Motion which I have ventured to put upon the Paper includes of course all vital points. It includes power stations, key factories, public utilities, key points in railway connexions, and, what I believe is the most important of all, the water supplies and the reservoirs of our country. I do not think it is necessary for me to impress upon your Lordships the importance of our water-supply. What would happen, for instance, if some of our major reservoirs were destroyed and there was a water famine in some of our big cities and industrial centres? Then there is also the factor that these works are not capable of being repaired in any short time. If they are destroyed, the time factor comes in, and it may take months, possibly, in some cases years, to restore the water supply.
I have ventured on three or four occasions to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to this very important question, and we have had promises from the Government that the whole question will be reviewed, but so far as I understand it, the situation is very much the
734
same as it was twelve months or even eighteen months ago. Everybody, I am sure, will agree as to the importance of safeguarding water supplies not only for domestic purposes but, especially, for industrial purposes, because if anything happened to water supplies in our industrial districts it would mean a sort of creeping paralysis industrially; it would affect adversely the production of munitions, and seriously cripple our war effort. In the last few months we have seen the terrible results which may occur if a water supply is destroyed as it unfortunately was in Hong Kong. That destruction contributed, to some degree at any rate, to what happened, and to the difficulties of defending the port.
As was shown in the debate last week the Government have already recognized the importance of protecting our aerodromes. This has at last been recognized, and after many months steps are being taken to provide that protection. What I want to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply to-day is: If it is necessary to protect aerodromes then surely must it not be equally necessary to protect our major water supplies? I cannot help feeling that the view which was taken, at any rate some time age, and which was expressed in a letter which the Secretary of State for War wrote to the Press—I think it was to the Western Mail—indicates that the authorities are under a misapprehension in regard to the importance of this matter. In that letter, the Secretary of State for War states that
" There are something like 3,000 reservoirs in the United Kingdom, and it is, I think, fair to assume that the supply from at least half of them, that is 1,580, would have to be interrupted before the water problem became critical."
That appears to ignore the fact of the importance which attaches to some—I

735
think probably to only a few—reservoirs as compared to the vast majority of them. It all depends whether the major reservoirs, those which supply our big cities and industrial centres, are included in the 1,500 the destruction of which Captain Margesson apparently imagined would create a crisis.
As I have pointed out, there are 3,000 of these water undertakings and something like forty-five cities in this country with a population of over 100,000. I believe that there are eighty reservoirs each supplying more than 100,000 people. Therefore the whole problem of protection and defence applies only to these major or key reservoirs. I do not suppose there are as many as eighty or a hundred which need a considerable amount of protection. But it is obvious that there are a few, the destruction of which we could only regard as a national disaster. Of course, the destruction of the remainder, if it occurred, would create a certain amount of inconvenience and hardship to people who lived in the affected areas. But those people would have to put up with it—our production of munitions or our war effort would not be affected.
May I also point out that there are two possibilities which apparently are envisaged? One is sabotage, but here the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Home Security and the local authorities have been called in. I have no doubt it is quite right that they should be called in and that they can help in preventing sabotage. But there is the other problem of preventing the destruction of these undertakings by attack from the air. I cannot understand why it is that, apparently, the War Office have tried in the past, at any rate, to evade this responsibility. After all, in each of these cases, as I understand, there are three particularly vulnerable points in connexion with any reservoir. First, the control towers; second, the filter beds; and thirdly, the dams. These are three vital points which must be protected. I have never been able to understand why it is not possible, as in the case of aerodromes, to have a sort of fortified zone which will provide strong points—pill-boxes, and other forms of protection and defensive works—to protect these vulnerable points.
With regard to the question of how to provide a force which will be strong enough to deny access to these vulnerable points until such time as the mobile column arrives on the scene as a reinforcement, I know that one of the objections is, as I think Captain Margesson said in the letter to which I have already referred, that there must be no undue dispersal of the troops. If it were necessary to disperse them over 3,000 reservoirs, one could understand that statement; but all that I am pleading for this afternoon is that at any rate these major and key reservoirs should be protected, and that, I imagine, is not going to involve a tremendous dispersal of troops. In that connexion, I venture to ask why training and protection cannot be carried on together. We know that troops in training are scattered all over the country. Why cannot they be trained on sites sufficiently near the reservoirs to enable them, if necessary, to man these strong points, in order to prevent access to vulnerable areas as the result of a surprise attack from the air? I do not profess to be a military expert, but it seems to me to be a matter of common sense that these units which are being trained should be trained in such close proximity to areas liable to attack that, if there was an alarm, they would know exactly what to do and could man these defensive points, while at the same time their training would not be interfered with.
I suggest that some of the areas in which reservoirs are situated would constitute admirable training grounds. We must be training raiding parties in order that we may be able to assume the offensive on the 2,000 miles of enemy coast-line whenever an opportunity arises. Why should not these raiding parties be trained in embarkation and disembarkation at reservoirs, as a preparation for any raiding exploits which they may be called upon to undertake? I offer no apology for raising this question once again. We have been told that there is still the possibility of invasion. We are certain that, if invasion takes place, there will be further exploitation of the air, and there may—we do not know—be some surprises in store for us. We have read in the Press that an enormous number of gliders has been prepared in Germany, and they must have been constructed, I suppose, with only one object in view, which is to help in an invasion of this country. We

737
know perfectly well that in the past the power of the air has been grossly underestimated by the military authorities. We cannot help hoping that they will not be caught napping again, because, if that happens, irreparable damage might be done to our war industries, and our war effort might be very seriously crippled. I make this appeal not to the War Office alone, because this is a matter not for the War Office alone but for the Government, since other questions are involved besides that of the training of troops. I appeal to the Government to reconsider their attitude on this matter, and to take every possible precaution for the security and protection of our water-supplies.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Davies, bases his criticism in this matter upon any particular instance of where some important water-supply of which he may have knowledge is not adequately protected; but, as one who has the privilege of being a platoon commander in the Home Guard, I should like to tell him that some of the key reservoirs are, to my mind, very adequately protected against those attacks from the air of which the noble Lord is so afraid. It is possible that not all our water supplies are so well protected, but I thought it might be of I some comfort to the noble Lord to know that at least some of them are.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Croft replies—and I presume that my noble relative, Lord Sherwood, will also reply with regard to the protection of aerodromes, which are vital services—I desire to say a word. I support my noble friend Lord Davies in drawing attention to these vital services. With regard to water supplies, I am aware from the information which I have, and which I think is common to your Lordships—in fact, it has been made public—that very special arrangements are being made for the safeguarding of our water supplies. However, fresh dangers have arisen, and I support my noble friend in drawing attention to that aspect of the matter. That, however, is not the most important aspect of the problem. There are vital services throughout the country which have to be protected, and which we have endeavoured to protect ever since six months before the war began, by arrangements then made, but
738
the defensive arrangements for which are still faulty, because the number of vital points in this highly industrialized country is so great, and because the noble Lord, Lord Croft, has been unable to provide the Home Guard with as many weapons as he would wish. He humorously suggested that a pike is not a bad weapon. We know that, and we know that there are a great many weapons in the possession of the Home Guard; I am responsible for the arming of a very large number of them. At the same time, I know that the situation is still unsatisfactory, as the noble Lord has himself admitted.
The point which I wish to make is this. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, has drawn attention to the protection of vital services. Who is to protect them? In the case of aerodromes, we hope that it will be the new Royal Air Force Regiment, which I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, is engaged in raising for this purpose. Who is to protect all the other services? The Regular Army is busy elsewhere, and indeed, as has been pointed out, it is difficult to have troops in cantonments or on the spot near a water supply, for obvious sanitary reasons. It is necessary to rely either upon the Home Guard or, I would submit, on the people in the neighbourhood. If the enemy knows that if he attempts to tamper with a vital spot every able-bodied man in the neighbourhood will at once fly at him with whatever weapon may be available, his task is made enormously more difficult. I do ask the noble Lord's attention to this point. In your Lordships' House only last week a noble Lord who knows what he is talking about said that in a particular area if a German started to commit a hostile act less than one able-bodied man in seven would be ready there to withstand him. Did your Lordships appreciate the extraordinary nature of the revelation made by Lord Buckmaster? So many men are exempted from the elementary duty of shooting a German when they see him that one in six or one in seven—so he told us, and no doubt that is true—is available for that purpose. I suggest, in fact I implore, Lord Croft and Lord Sherwood to get the Prime Minister to make a plain statement that this country stands in the same relation to this problem as the inhabitants of Russia stood when they were attacked by Germany.

739
Wherever a hostile man is encountered it is the duty and privilege of any man who meets him to fly at him at once with any weapon that he has. It is not as though the point I am raising is academic. It is just because this fantastic plan that Lord Buckmaster disclosed last week obtained in Holland, in Denmark, in Norway and in Belgium, and to a less degree in France, that those countries were overwhelmed. Tiny parties of Germans in each of those countries first infiltrated, and then they scored a victory. Of course it is true that Lord Croft may say we have made plans by which various vital points are protected by bands of Home Guards, in some cases by Regulars, and now there is the new Royal Air Force Regiment coming along. But let the Prime Minister announce that we, like the Russians, are fighting the men who come over in large or small numbers wherever we can find them, and that no one is exempt, not one man. For my part I draw the line at women; I do not think women ought to shoot. But I am quite sure that it ought to be the bounden duty and the rule, and ought to be openly proclaimed, and quickly, so that before the invasion comes—and come it surely will—every man, as in Russia, will know that he is bound and must be prepared to go and shoot the enemy if he has got a gun, or attack him with the leg of a chair if he has not, or with my noble friend's pike.
We have havered about this long enough. On the Continent of Europe, as I know, they are watching us; they are wondering if we are playing for safety, as they seem to have done in Holland, in Belgium, in Norway and in Denmark. Are we? Why is it that in a certain area out of seven men only one is ready to shoot the enemy who is going to destroy our vital property? I implore the Government to put an end to this mystery at once, and say that every man must put himself in touch with the military authorities, or the naval authorities at a seaport, or the Air Force authorities if he is near an aerodrome, and realize that it is his bounden duty to go for the enemy when he sees him. Put an end to this timid theory, whereby a policeman may say, "I cannot shoot a German because I am under the civil authority," and another may say, "I cannot shoot a German because I am only an A.R.P. Warden," or still another, "I cannot
740
shoot a German because I am only in the Fire Service." Every man is bound to serve, and to attack the enemy as soon as he sees him. Will the noble Lord insist that a clear declaration is given?
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like on behalf of my friends to say a word in cordial support of Lord Davies. He has brought this subject up before, and I think I could almost tell in advance what the noble Lord, Lord Croft, is going to say in reply. He shakes his head, and perhaps he has got something better than one had been led to expect. But when I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, just now, and he exhorted every man to go for a German if he met one and to shoot him, what I was aware of—and I think he was, too—was that so very many men have nothing to shoot with. It certainly applies to a very large number of men, and I sincerely hope that, following our recent discussion, the noble Lord and his colleagues will do their best to see that the Home Guard is fully supplied as soon as possible. And there are other weapons besides rifles which are useful. Grenades can be made by the million quite easily, as I happen to know. They can be supplied, and people can practise with them, I would not say in the back garden, but at all events quite easily. These are very dangerous and effective weapons, which can be supplied everywhere.
But apart from that, I understand that the noble Lord will say, and will say rightly, that we are training our Armies in considerable units for offensive operations and equipping them accordingly, and that we cannot carry on our training if they are to be dispersed in little groups all over the country defending all sorts of important points, aerodromes among them. That is true, and it is obviously sound. But I do not think it rules out by any means the possibility, indeed the necessity, of doing what the noble Lord is urging in his Motion. Some time ago, as the noble Lord is aware, I brought up the subject of aerodrome defence, and I am still, I may say for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Croft, and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, not at all satisfied with the arrangements which have recently been announced. We shall hope to hear more about them before long. But the real trouble is that it has been nobody's business, I think,

741
effectively to organize or arrange for the defence of these vital points. The noble Lord shakes his head, but we will see. It has been left to certain people in the Regions and I think in the Commands to make arrangements about aerodromes, but information that has come to me of an authoritative kind leaves it beyond question that in respect of a number of important and vital points adequate arrangements for defence are not in being.
That does not mean that any of us would expect a dispersal of the first-line forces—of course not; but I do suggest that what is wanted is a plan drawn up according to the instructions of the War Department, and if the noble Lord will make himself responsible for getting a coherent plan drawn up, with driving force behind it, he will render an immense national service, because at the present time it seems to me that this matter consists of a large number of bits and pieces. You have certain elements of old defence battalions in various areas responsible for the defence of various points. The Home Guard in places where they have an enthusiastic officer practises at certain important spots, and where that happens it is all to the good. But it is largely by chance. There is not an organized scheme of defence. There is not, I am sure, an efficient well-thought-out national plan with authorities competent to see it is carried out.
I suggest that this should not be left to the initiative of any one in the area command. That is not good enough. Nor should it be left to the enthusiasm of the local Commander of the Home Guard. That is not good enough either. I am just adding a modest plea that the noble Lord should see to it that this thing is tackled as a whole with a thought-out scheme, and that people should be appointed adequately equipped to provide the necessary defence. I am perfectly certain it can be provided in the delaying sense, which is really all my noble friend is asking for, until a highly equipped mobile force can get there, without interfering with the first-line Army. There is no doubt that it can be, but there is no plan at present in operation and, so far as I can see, there is no plan devised to provide what is necessary. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Croft, will turn his mind and energies to it, he will render an immense
742
national service by putting this matter on a better footing, and there is no time to be lost.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord who asked this question for the manner in which he put his case—very powerfully as usual—on a subject on which he feels most sincerely. The arguments he used, if it is not impertinent for me to say so, were very helpful in the consideration of this most important question. Your Lord-ships will not expect me to-day to go into the important points with regard to the training, organization, and arming of men not at present armed, raised so eloquently by Lord Mottistone and supported by Lord Addison, which go far beyond the reach of the particular question Lord Davies has raised. I can only assure your Lordships that these problems are very much in the minds of His Majesty's Government. We had a discussion on this subject recently, and it would be improper for me in my humble position to add to the remarks made on that occasion.
On the specific point raised by Lord Davies—in particular, the question of vulnerable points, and, still more in particular, waterworks—the protection of waterworks, as will be realized, is a very complex problem and it is open to very considerable variations necessitating individual inspection. Although water schemes may be limited to two main classes, and portions which are actually vulnerable confined to three or four main items, the fact remains that it is impossible to dismiss any particular case without detailed examination. All water undertakings of a substantial character were classified as vulnerable points very early on, as the noble Lord mentioned, and subsequent to this they were inspected in detail and in many cases up-graded for priority. It will be appreciated, therefore, that the importance of protecting our water supplies has not been overlooked.
The noble Lord referred to Hong Kong in reinforcing his argument. So far we have no detailed information available in the case of this island, except that certain demolitions were carried out by our Forces, but I think the waterworks were not actually destroyed. Our troops ran out of water, and it may therefore be

743
assumed that the Japanese gained control of that part of the island in which the reservoirs are situated. The noble Lord claimed that aerodromes and waterworks were of equal importance, and suggested we were now beginning to defend aerodromes. I must point out that aerodromes have always been defended, and that it is a different scheme that is now being adopted. Aerodromes are obviously of more importance than reservoirs, important though the latter are, as we rely on fighter protection as our first line of defence against either air-borne or sea-borne invasion. Aerodromes are therefore an essential part of the defence of waterworks. It has been suggested that there is no plan for the protection of waterworks, but I must point out that, so far as military protection is concerned, the protection of waterworks is the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces. Obviously I cannot give your Lordships any information in regard to the method of defence as it is not in the public interest to disclose information which might be of use to the enemy, but, as I have already indicated, several of the more important undertakings have been up-graded as vulnerable points in our plan of priorities and are also supplied with static military guards.
While only these more substantial undertakings were classified in the first instances, many exceptions and recommendations have been made by the Vulnerable Points Adviser, who is responsible for the whole scheme of supervising vulnerable points in this country, at the request of those controlling the minor undertakings. These recommendations by the Vulnerable Points Adviser include not only the numbers and type of guard, but also the execution of work in order to protect specially vital points such as those mentioned by my noble friend—dams, control towers, pumping machinery, &c. As there are hundreds of undertakings, both large and small, it would not make for efficiency to provide them with the large number of troops considered requisite, perhaps by Lord Davies, without taking them from the defence of beaches and aerodromes, without preventing these troops from carrying out the mobile training which is absolutely essential in meeting a first-class enemy, and without preventing them from becoming acquainted with the district in
744
which they have to perform their actual operational role.
My noble friend spoke about places for training, and he mentioned that the vicinity of waterworks might be useful for training troops in special kinds of work. I think he referred to Commandos. It is very dubious if reservoirs do, in fact, offer a good training ground for combined operations. The conditions under which such exercises could be carried out would paint an altogether false picture in that respect. There are very many points which will occur to your Lordships. If I might just mention two, there is the slope of the beaches compared with the level conditions at the reservoir, contrasting with the conditions in which the Commandos would have to fight, and there are also the conditions of the quiet, still waters of the reservoir compared with the sea coast and tidal waves in which operations would actually take place. If attack by air-borne troops is visualized—and it is very much in the mind of noble Lords—surely the necessity for the defence of aerodromes applies with even more force. Aerodromes surely must be given priority for such resources as we possess.
The noble Lord has made frequent representations with regard to certain types of objectives which he considers to be vulnerable, and I want to give him this assurance, that in every case he has related to me or to your Lordships' House his representations have not only received consideration but have been gone into on the spot. I may say further that not only has the Department which specially deals with vulnerability under the Vulnerable Points Adviser, a very distinguished officer, taken up the question he has raised, but Commanders-in-Chief have themselves looked into the problem from every angle. Taking into consideration the priority treatment I have mentioned, which I think your Lordships will agree is essential, we are of opinion that the preparations for local defence and reinforcement are dealt with as adequately as our resources permit. I may add that a scheme is at present under consideration whereby the protection which is afforded all vulnerable points is increased progressively when the signals of warning have been issued. But I must once again remind the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the particular vulnerable points which he has so much in mind are only part of a very much larger number of

745
vital points in the country requiring defence, and if regular static guards were supplied to all, it would make very serious inroads into our striking forces, I submit that to allow an exaggerated defensive plan to impair our offensive power-would not in the end be a contribution to victory.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord opposite for his reply. He has said exactly what I thought he probably would say. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his interest in this matter? I am sure he will have realized the difficulty that we labour under in discussing matters of this kind—namely, that we cannot allude to any specific case or any particular locality. One is glad to know that something has been don". In regard to the point my noble friend mentioned about static guards, that is precisely what I have been trying to suggest could be got over by training carried on concurrently with the responsibilities of manning the defences of a particular reservoir that is considered to be of vital importance. The noble Lord said these reservoirs have been put on the priority list and have been up-graded. I could tell him of cases where just the opposite has happened, and instead of being up-graded they have been degraded. I venture to suggest he should look into those particular cases.
With regard to the training on reservoirs, I suggested that it might be a preliminary training. I know some of these reservoirs, and I can assure the noble Lord that in a gale I have wished I was out of the boat. At the same time it is quite true that this kind of training is not the same as training on the beaches; yet it does offer a preliminary training. If it were adopted it would mean killing two birds with one stone, because you would be protecting the reservoir and at the same time giving the-men an opportunity of indulging in a wider form of training than troops have in some localities now. I do not want to go over the ground again, but I would appeal once more to the Government to recognize the vital importance of our water supply and our reservoirs. As to their relative importance to aerodromes, the noble Lord is probably right in saying that aerodromes, on the whole, are more important. And there again, in the case of aerodromes, I imagine some are far more important than others, and the protection
746
afforded to these would be far greater than is afforded to some of the less important ones. I hope the noble Lord will appeal to his Department to reconsider the whole question and see if something cannot be done to ensure the protection of the major key water supplies, so that if an invasion should come we may be able to put up a good show and our war effort will not be crippled as a consequence of any disasters which may happen to our water supplies.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn, I think this House of Parliament is entitled to an answer to a simple question which I have ventured to put in support of my noble friend on this question of protecting vital points. Do the Government advise the citizens of this country and order them to behave as the citizens of Russia have been ordered to behave, or do they advise them to behave as the citizens of Denmark were ordered to behave? In the one case only a small number of organized people were told to defend vital points, and as a consequence, as we know, the whole State collapsed. In the case of Russia, however, every citizen was told to attack the enemy wherever he was found. As I say, this House of Parliament is entitled to an answer. If my noble friend cannot give that answer now—and I hope he may—I will put down a Motion at the first possible opportunity to clear up the position.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will only say this in reply to the noble Lord. I regret that it is not possible for me to go beyond the statement of the Prime Minister which I referred to in the debate last week. I have no doubt my noble friend's remarks will be noted, but clearly it is not competent for me to issue any new statement beyond that made by the Prime Minister.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—FIREWATCHING—HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
The Clerk of the Parliaments explained to the Committee the arrangements made for firewatching

747
at the Houses of Parliament and payments in connexion therewith, which received the approval of the Committee.
2.—HOUSE ALLOWANCES.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that the sub-committee appointed to consider a house allowance for the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod have approved a grant as from the date on which his official residence was rendered unserviceable. The report of the sub-committee was agreed to.
The Committee agreed to a payment to Mr. F. C. Meech, Resident Superintendent, for expenses incurred between the date of his appointment and the date when his official residence was ready for occupation.
3.—COLUMN PRINTER NEWS MACHINE.
The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod informed the Committee that the firm responsible for the column printer news machine had found it necessary to raise the annual payment from £50 to £100. The Committee agreed to the increased payment.
4.—ESTIMATES.
The Estimate for the House of Lords Offices for 1942 was laid before the Committee.
5.—TEMPORARY HOUSEMAIDS.
The Committee agreed to the temporary appointment of two extra housemaids owing to the difficulty of filling vacancies on the porters' staff.
6.—CIVIL SERVICE WAR BONUS.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Circular No. 12/41 for the payment of war bonus to the staff of the House of Lords to whom it applies.
7.—SUB-COMMITTEES .
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was re-appointed as follows:—The Earl of Lucan, the Lord Hare (E. Listowel), the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Atkin, the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Library Sub-Committee was re-appointed as follows:—The Marquess of Crewe, the Earl of Ilchester, the Earl of Onslow, the Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Atkin, the Lord Macmillan, the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and agreed to. I do not think I have anything to tell your Lordships in regard to the Report which deals entirely with routine matters. If there are any questions which your Lordships wish to put, I shall be glad to answer them.
Moved, That the Report be now considered and agreed to.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WAR ORPHANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a.
INDIA (FEDERAL COURT JUDGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

RAILWAY COMPANIES (THOMAS COOK & SON LIMITED GUARANTEE).
Petition of the Great Western Railway Company, the London and North-Eastern Railway Company, the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, and the Southern Railway Company, under their respective Common Seals, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to empower the said companies to give guarantees and to make financial and other arrangements in connexion with, or arising out of, the acquisition by Hay's Wharf Cartage Company, Limited, of the share capital of Thomas Cook & Son, Limited, and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto:
Read, and referred to the Examiners.

PRINCESS ELIZABETH OF YORK HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN AND QUEEN'S HOSPITAL FOR CHIL DREN (AMALGAMATION, ETC.).
Petition of the President, Vice-President and Governors of Princess Elizabeth of York Hospital for Children and the Queen's Hospital for Children, under their Common Seal, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to amalgamate the Princess Elizabeth of York Hospital for Children (formerly known as the East London Hospital for Children and Dispensary for Women) at Shadwell, in the County of London, and the Queen's Hospital for Children at Bethnal Green, in the County of London; to make provision with respect to the property and funds of the said hospitals; to incorporate the governing body of the amalgamated hospitals; and for other purposes; togemer with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto:
Read, and referred to the Examiners.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Urban District of Chepstow;
Urban District of Urmston;
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.