Lords Sitting of 3 February 1943

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting, and that Government business have precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932: BOROUGH OF WREXHAM ORDER.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, I beg to move that the Order standing in his name be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
888
".—(1) This section shall apply to every woman who at the time of her marriage to an alien, whether before or after the passing of this Act, was a British subject and who, by reason of her marriage, has acquired the nationality of her husband.
(2) Any woman to whom this section applies (whether her marriage is still continuing or not) may, at any time within twelve months after the passing of this Act (in the case of a woman married to an alien before the passing of this Act), or within twelve months after the date of her marriage (in the case of a woman married to an alien after the passing of this Act), or in either case at such later time as the Secretary of State may in special circumstances allow, make a declaration in the prescribed form and manner that she desires to retain while in the United Kingdom the rights of a British subject, and thereupon she shall, within the United Kingdom, be entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges, and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the insertion of this new clause I do not feel that I need offer any apologies to your Lordships for returning once again to a matter which I have endeavoured to present to your Lordships on two previous stages of this Bill. I would only remind your Lordships that I have two objects in view. The first object, which is of paramount importance to-day, is the more effectual prosecution of the war. Your Lordships do not need to be reminded that this is the moment at which the strain on the nation's man-power is going to be greatest. Every one of the participants in this war is putting forth at the moment his major effort, and anything we can do to add, in however small a degree, to the man- and woman-power of this country must be of assistance to the war effort: anything which hinders that maximum labour force being applied to the war effort is a thing which we ought to do away with.
In addition, this clause, if it can be agreed to in this form or whatever form may be legally correct, will help to remove a cause of a great deal of hardship to British-born women who have married foreigners. The hardship which I am endeavouring to relieve is to those women who are married to foreigners other than enemy aliens. That is the circumstance which gives rise to the efforts which I am making to rectify this injustice, because in 1914 an Act was passed whereby a British-born woman married to an alien who becomes an enemy has the right,

889
subject to certain precautions, to the restoration of British nationality. It seems to me hard that that right should be denied to women married, not to enemy aliens but to friendly or neutral aliens. I would only remind your Lordships that this step in the direction of allowing a woman to recover her British nationality is in line with the general declaration of policy which the British Government made as long ago as 1931 to the League of Nations on the subject of nationality, which I believe remains the general policy of the Government to-day. There was a Hague Convention, I think, on nationality in 1933. I speak entirely subject to correction, but I believe that the main achievement of that Convention was that the participating Governments agreed to do what they could to remedy the condition of Statelessness, which is a very distressing one to people who get into that position. I believe that the agreement did not go very much beyond that and that questions of nationality have proved to be so complicated that international agreement has not been secured. Even agreement between the British Government and the Governments of the Dominions has not been secured on the question affecting nationality of women.
I have once again to admit to your Lordships that in saying that the Dominion of New Zealand had gone a step further in the direction of allowing women to recover their nationality I was misled. This, therefore, is to-day not a question of altering nationality. But I found that I had been misled, possibly not without some excuse. The position appears to be that the Dominion of New Zealand were very anxious that a British-born woman, such as a New Zealand woman, married to an alien, should have the right of recovering her nationality, but there was an understanding or agreement with the Home Government that the particular step should not be taken until all could take it in unison. But so anxious were the Dominion of New Zealand to give effect to the substance of that, that they have apparently evolved the very ingenious formula embodied in the Amendment. That avoids carefully making a reference to nationality, but does say that the woman may
"make a declaration in the prescribed form and manner that she desires to retain while in the United Kingdom"—
890
it is "New Zealand" in the New Zealand formula—
"the rights of a British subject, and thereupon she shall, within the United Kingdom, be entitled to all political and other rights, powers, and privileges, and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject."
The layman, of course, at first reading of that sees no distinction between that and full nationality. You have got all the rights and all the liabilities of British nationality and British citizenship. You are, in effect, a British citizen, though not in law. That was where some misunderstanding, rather intelligibly I think, arose. If the Dominion of New Zealand could do that, it occurred to me that that might be a proper course for the Government of the United Kingdom to follow as far as citizens in the United Kingdom were concerned, and that led me to put down the Amendment which is before your Lordships.
There may be some objections; I have no doubt, if so, the Lord Chancellor will tell us what they are. At all events, the first objection that this does not deal with nationality and therefore should not be in a Nationality Bill, would not, I think, be a formidable one, This clause does appear in a Nationality Bill in New Zealand, and it touches so near to the question of nationality that I think in a hotch-potch like the Bill before your Lordships to-clay it might very fairly find a place. Then again, the uniformity argument which the noble and learned Viscount urged on the House on the previous occasion does not apply now as an objection because, firstly, this does not touch nationality and, secondly, the principle of uniformity is equally observed by putting it in, because Australia and New Zealand have already done it.
I conceive there might be an objection on the score that these women who have married foreigners are very numerous, and that consequently a great deal of work for the Home Office would be involved. I hope the Lord Chancellor will tell us, in the course of his reply, what numbers of women are involved, because I do not know. The Lord Chancellor told us that under the provision whereby a woman married to an enemy alien can have her nationality restored no fewer than 2,000 have had their nationality restored—I think he said during the war. That is a

891
considerable number. I should imagine that the wives of friendly aliens who may wish to take advantage of this provision would be greater. If so, all the larger is the potential accretion to the labour force of this country, a large proportion of which is being prevented from pulling its weight in the present war effort. On the subject of work for the Home Office I should imagine that in the long run it may save work, because it would avoid the necessity of these women having to register with the police and generally be subject to police supervision. That might save work on a considerable scale.
Finally, I have no doubt that the wording of the Amendment itself, which I have only had from the day before yesterday until to-day to prepare without the help of legal advice, may be open to objection. If that is the case, I hope the Lord Chancellor will do his best to help us by explaining how it can be improved, and if the general principle meets with approval the necessary alterations could be made in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, I rise merely for the purpose of asking whether, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, there is any possibility of complications arising in connexion with the matter of divorce by reason of the amplitude of the terms at the end of the proposed clause. It has been held by your Lordships' House that the domicile of the husband is the domicile of the wife, and that she cannot acquire separate domicile. If she has all the rights of a British subject complications might arise by reason of that fact, and I should like the noble and learned Viscount to indicate what in his opinion would be the effect of this language.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, not especially on the merits of this particular Amendment, but because it is a step towards the assertion of the general principle for which he was arguing when the Bill was before the Committee. I greatly regret that a political engagement in a Committee elsewhere made it impossible for me to attend
892
on that occasion and to support the noble Lord. I have for many years been strongly in favour of the principle he is now defending. Indeed, when I was at the Home Office the Government of that day made a declaration of principle at the League of Nations at Geneva which has been quoted in these debates, and which really bound the Government of that day and has never been definitely repudiated by their successors—the principle of equality between men and women in the matter of nationality. It is wrong that a woman's nationality should be, in a sense, a by-product of marriage. It ought to be a thing standing on its own basis and within her own option.
It took very many years of bitter controversy before married women were given the right to the ownership of their own property, and it was after long debates in Parliament and great discussion in the country that the principle was at last recognized that the property belonging to a woman who married should not thereby pass to her husband and under his control. But a woman's citizenship is even more important than her property. It seems to me wholly wrong that, by virtue of her marriage, she may lose her citizenship and may be placed in the dilemma either of giving up the man to whom she is attached and wishes to marry or giving up her citizenship. Under the present law she is not allowed, in many cases, to retain both. Difficulty has undoubtedly arisen from the important principle that British citizenship should, as far as possible, be uniform throughout the Empire. That is a principle of great importance which ought not to be departed from if it can be avoided; but there is not complete uniformity now, because Australia and New Zealand have, as has been mentioned, to some extent infringed that principle.
In spite of what was said by the noble Viscount on the Woolsack, they do make a distinction in this matter of married women within their own areas. They are not behind us in this matter, but ahead of us. What is the position in Canada and South Africa I am not sure. I believe it has varied from time to time, but I am convinced that every effort should be made to persuade the Dominions to accept the principle of uniformity on different lines from that established in the present Act. We should all follow, in effect, the principle which

893
has now been adopted in Australia and New Zealand. It is not these two who are holding us back, it is we who are holding them back. I sincerely hope, if the Government hold that it is impossible in this Bill to achieve these purposes, that the matter will be carefully borne in mind, and that an early opportunity will be taken after the war to apply the principle embodied in the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, that women and men are to be on the same footing in these matters; that a woman is not merely an adjective, and a man the only substantive, but that a woman is also a substantive in herself and entitled to the control of her own nationality.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I must make a few observations because the Government cannot accept this Amendment. In view of the more general remarks made by my noble friend Lord Samuel, I may be permitted to say that my personal convictions, and I think I may claim my public: actions, have been most definitely associated with the movement towards the more equal treatment of women to which he refers—indeed almost at some stages when my noble friend took a slightly different view.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: No, no.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not on woman suffrage? I was including woman suffrage. I thought it was quite right that women should have the vote and as far as I could I helped to establish that principle. But we are not on personal records, or on political principles—we are on this Bill. I, too, regret that my noble friend Lord Samuel—for good reasons—was not able to be here on the Second Reading and on the Committee stage, because if he had been he would have fully heard the argument, which I do not expect he has had an opportunity of studying in any detail in the Official Report.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I have read it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall repeat it in ease it should have escaped his memory. In the first place, the proposal now being made is not that British women who marry aliens should remain British subjects. That proposal was made, discussed, and withdrawn. Indeed it was made by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, as he candidly said to-day, under some slight
894
misapprehension—any of us may suffer from that—because at the time he was under the impression that that was the law in New Zealand and Australia. I have pointed out already to the House that that is not the law in Australia and New Zealand, and that that was a mistake. The provision that is made in Australia and New Zealand—it is not made in Canada or in South Africa or, as far as I know, elsewhere in the Empire—is that for certain purposes a woman, albeit she has married an alien and therefore is an alien, has the rights and obligations locally of a British subject such as she originally was. I do not agree at all that it would be right for this country, because this has been done in two of the Dominions, to follow suit. On the contrary, this country inevitably has got to play in this matter a most important part. My noble friend Lord Samuel referred just now to the fact that in the year 1930, a time when he and I were colleagues, he at the Home Office was specially responsible for the declaration that was made at Geneva.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: 1931.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so, and it bound the whole Government.
LORD STRABOLGI: It was a respectable Government in 1930.
A NOBLE LORD: Not at all, a terrible one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government of 1931 made this declaration at Geneva, but I am informed that that declaration is fulfilled under Section 10 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1933. This is quite a different question. This is a question of whether in this island we should institute what has never hitherto been instituted—a third sort of individual between women who are British subjects and women who are aliens. The suggestion is that we should carve out between these two simple and opposed conceptions some middle stage. In the first place, I do not think it desirable that we should do anything of the kind. All sorts of difficulties will certainly present themselves if we do so. My noble friend Lord Balfour urged that one of the reasons for the Amendment was that British women who had married aliens and were in this country, were, as aliens,

895
debarred from employment in a civil capacity where the test was "Are you a British subject?" Let me relieve my noble friend's mind on that point. He has not read all the Defence Regulations and I should think no one has, but Defence Regulation 60D, subsection (2), provides as follows:
"(2) A woman who, having been a British subject, has by, or in consequence of, her marriage, become an alien, may, during the continuance in force of this Regulation, be treated for the purpose of temporary employment in a civil capacity under the Crown as if she had not ceased to be a British subject."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? It says "may be treated"; it does not say "shall be treated". I gave the House examples on the Second Reading of numerous women who were being debarred from war work.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think we can do more here than discuss the legislation proposed and the Regulations made. Nobody could say by Statute "shall be employed". The point is to provide that, notwithstanding that a British lady is married to an alien, she is to be in the same position as a British subject for the purpose of civil employment. To make a provision which would imply a great deal more than that is really a thing to which the Government could not consent to-day. The difficulty which many of us have—which I myself have—is that a general forward movement on the subject is not suitable under the terms of this particular Bill because it has nothing to do with the Bill, which is brought forward for a very specific object. Those of us who have been Members of the House of Commons have only to look at the title to know that this particular Amendment is not within the scope of the Bill. It quite plainly is not. This Bill is for a strictly limited purpose. This Bill is, firstly, to fulfil a pledge made on behalf of the country by the Prime Minister, and secondly, to make certain adjustments especially of a mechanical or administrative kind, such, for example, as may be required in connexion with the position of those who come here from the British Colony in South America and want to join the Forces. This Bill is not intended to alter the general law of the land about nationality. I will ask the
896
House to observe that distinction. Wherever our sympathies may lie on this subject, it really is not right to use a Bill of this perfectly limited character, passed in time of war for strictly limited purposes, as though it were a fit vehicle for making a fundamental change in the law relating to married women and their national responsibilities.
All sorts of difficulties will arise. I was asked a question by my noble friend Lord Bennett in regard to divorce. I say nothing about the drafting of this Amendment. However drafted, it is probably going to produce quite a number of conundrums of various kinds which have not in the least been thought out, but as regards the particular question which my noble friend put, I would say this. The point was with regard to jurisdiction in divorce. Speaking quite offhand, I should not have thought that these particular proposals would have created a new complication, for this reason. The jurisdiction to pronounce a decree in divorce depends upon the matrimonial domicile, and does not depend upon the nationality. If an Italian marries a Russian in accordance with an English ceremony in this country and if the home of the parties is British—that is to say the domicile—I apprehend that the right to entertain a suit of divorce would be unaffected by this Amendment and by the nationality of the parties. I do not wish in any way to mislead the House about that, of course; it is a natural question to put, but what I am clear about—and here I am speaking with the special knowledge of Home Office officials who have made a special study of this matter, and I say it on behalf of the Home Office—is that if we were to make an Amendment of this sort we should be bringing in a quite different department of law from anything which is in this Nationality Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour that we should not in fact alter any one's nationality; we should really be making provisions which are not properly speaking part of nationality law at all, but something quite different.
I further respectfully but most firmly have to inform your Lordships that the authorities responsible are most seriously concerned at the idea that these complications should be raised which cannot very well be dealt with during the war, when the whole object of this measure is to create in detail cut-and-dried changes of moderate scope, every one of which has

897
been agreed to with the Dominions. This new proposal is not the law of Canada; it is not the law of South Africa; it has never been the subject, as far as I know, of any consultation between the Dominions and ourselves. Our whole principle in this Bill has been to try as far as we can to see that the general principle of the existing law of nationality is safeguarded. I fully admit that the provisions made in New Zealand, as in Australia, give to the British woman who is married a foreigner inside those Dominions, certain rights which attach ordinarily to a British subject. She can vote, for example; but is it really intended that in this Bill by the vote of the House of Lords we are going to increase the qualifications for the vote for members of the Commons? I do not think, with great respect to your Lordships, the House of Lords is primarily concerned with defining new categories of voters. The Amendment which has been moved is one which says in effect that a woman who could not at the last election vote because she was not a British subject shall now he able to do so. It is a proposal which has nothing to do with nationality.
I cannot reply to the noble Lord's question, how many such women there are, but what I do know is that the Government, under the Defence Regulations, are already taking advantage of the services of single-minded and devoted ladies who remain wholly British in sympathy notwithstanding the fact that they have married aliens. We have already provided for the case of a woman who is married to an enemy alien. This question is solely concerned with those married to aliens who are not enemies, and it is much too large a question to be dealt with on the Third Reading of this Bill in the House of Lords. Therefore, with great regret, because with much of what has been said I am in sympathy, I must ask your Lordships to be good enough to see that the Bill is preserved in its present state.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I must admit that I am greatly disappointed at the reception my efforts have had at the hands of the noble and learned Viscount. I will not detain you more than a few minutes before withdrawing the Amendment, but I want to say that I was astonished to hear the
898
extracts read from the Defence Regulations because there are numerous examples—I will not take up time by repeating them, but there is one case from the Foreign Office and one from the Royal Institute of International Affairs—of women who are being prevented from doing war work because they are aliens and for no other reason. That seems flatly in contradiction of the Regulation read by the Lord Chancellor. There is one other point to which I must refer. I am not sure if I heard correctly what the noble and learned Viscount said, but I understood him to say that the declaration about nationality made by the Government at the League of Nations in 1931 had been given effect to in the nationality law of 1933.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I read the exact terms handed to me from the Foreign Office? Section 10 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, as amended in 1933, is exactly in accord with the Convention of 1930. I think it may be that I was confusing this with what was said at the League of Nations in 1931.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am very glad to have that misunderstanding cleared up because the Declaration of 1931 is a very different matter. The Declaration says that
"the British Government considers that it is right that all disabilities of married women in matters of nationality should be removed, and that in so far as nationality is concerned a married woman should be in the same position as a man—married or unmarried—or any single woman."
I am very glad that matter is cleared up because I am sure the noble and learned Viscount would not claim that that is given effect to in the Convention. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINISTER OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CROWN LANDS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PRODUCER GAS.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE rose to ask His Majesty's Government, whether they can now state what progress has been made in regard to developing producer gas propulsion for motor vehicles; and to move for Papers. The noble Duke said: My Lords, when I addressed your Lordships in July I did not anticipate that I should have to ask you to hear me again on the subject of producer gas, but I raise the question now because I do not think we have had any authoritative statement from the Minister of War Transport in this House since July telling us what progress has actually been made in the development of the producer-gas system. I think it was in April that the Minister of War Transport told us that he had decided to adopt the producer-gas system in some measure for transport purposes. In July he told us he had completed designs and had actually placed orders for 2,500 vehicles, and that in the course of a very short time he hoped to have deliveries made of further vehicles at the rate of 400 per week.
I do not know what progress has actually been made, but I think the kind of information your Lordships would like to have is the number of vehicles running today on producer gas, how many miles those vehicles have actually run, whether their performance has actually saved oil, and whether the Minister himself is really satisfied with this idea of substituting producer gas for oil propulsion. As I say, I have no idea of the progress that has been made, but I have heard rumours that the programme is behindhand. For instance,
900
I understand that my noble friend produced a scheme whereby operators owning a certain number of vehicles in a fleet, should be requested to convert 10 per cent. of their vehicles. On that basis of 10 per cent. the Corporation of the City of Glasgow should have had an allotment of material or plant to convert forty-seven omnibuses, but I was informed only the other day that the Corporation has actually received allocation for twelve omnibuses only. I understand that thirty-five municipalities and corporations have been asked to convert vehicles on that 10 per cent. basis. If their position is the same as that of the City of Glasgow, the programme must be very seriously behindhand. If that is so—I do not know whether it is—I think your Lordships would like to know the reason and what chance there is of making up the programme, because it is a very important matter.
When I spoke in July I did think we had got the better of the U-boats, and that it would be easier, as time went on, to ship oil to this country. But we all know that the menace of the U-boats is still very grave, and that the shipping shortage is still very serious and is likely to become more so in the near future when the great offensive begins, for there is bound to be a call for more shipping then. I am sure that any policy which gives a promise of conserving oil in this country now, for the use of our Services, is a policy of the utmost importance. So we should like to make sure that this scheme to convert vehicles to producer gas is making real progress. I have a feeling that the Minister of War Transport is not really making sufficient use of the capacity and experience of private firms to back him up. I have seen a letter from the Ministry of War Transport saying that they were prepared to allot steel on the basis of 351 units among six firms for a period of six months. That is only 2½ units for each per week. Surely, no private firm could hope to keep in existence on a basis of 2½ units per week. That is simply slow murder of private industry. I am quite sure that very few firms will be able to remain in existence on such a basis. I do hope that the Minister will be able to see his way to give further support to private firms, for after all they have the benefit of a great deal of experience and capability in the manufacture of producer-gas plants.
Noble Lords will remember that when we were discussing this in April I was very rude to the Minister. I called his plant an "engineering haggis," and I understand that he was very angry with me for that. My noble friend went to a private firm Messrs. Tilling to pull him out of the mess. Now he has gone from the Mark III to the Mark VI plant mainly and almost entirely through the skill of the firm of Messrs. Tilling. The Highland Bus Company were pioneers in showing how to fit producer-gas plants internally in closed-in vehicles. As a private firm, they have also pioneered various filtering devices. Now the Glasgow Corporation are pioneering a system of applying producer gas to Diesel-engined vehicles. Hitherto we have principally thought of the producer-gas vehicle as a conversion from the petrol engine type. But now the Glasgow Corporation are showing how to do it with Diesel engines. This is a very important matter for when they run their omnibuses as ordinary Diesel-engined omnibuses they manage to get about nine miles to a gallon of oil. But when they run them with the Diesel principle coupled with producer gas they manage to get 25 to 30 miles to a gallon of oil. What does that mean? It means that if the application of producer gas to Diesel-engined vehicles is carried out generally there will be a saving of 2,500,000 gallons of oil in six months or 5,000,000 gallons in a year. Surely, that is a matter of sufficient importance when you think of the shipping space that would be saved.
These things of which I have spoken were done by private firms. Therefore I say that having regard to the work which independent manufacturers have done, utilizing their experience and skill, I would like to see the Minister of Transport more expansive in his attitude towards them, and calling them in to back him up so as to get rapid development of his scheme. There is one other point upon which I wish to ask my noble friend a question. I have seen a circular letter from his Ministry in which it is said that operators have the right to choose what kind of producer they like. We know that the Government have the Government emergency producer, and I should like to know whether the freedom of choice applies to Government Departments as well as to private operators.
902
Have they the same right in this matter as the private operators?
THE MINISTER OF WAR TRANSPORT (LORD LEATHERS): Yes, that is right.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I am very glad to hear the Minister say that, for I had heard rumours that some Government Departments were having undue pressure brought upon them to use the Government producer. I accept the noble Lord's statement with pleasure. Then we turn to the matter of fuel. It is quite obvious that the results obtained from gas producers in vehicles are very largely dependent on the fuel. We need a good fuel if we are to get good results. The Minister told us that Welsh anthracite of a certain kind was the only fuel really practicable for present consideration. But it is not the best fuel. What I would like to know is whether, if this movement expands, there is enough Welsh anthracite to meet all possible expansion even up to 50,000 vehicles. If there is not enough, what steps is the Minister taking to provide more fuel? I did bring to his notice a factory which was lying closed in July. I thought it a very great mistake that this place should be allowed to remain closed. I felt that it should be opened up, for if that factory was running at full pressure it would be capable of taking care of the fuel supply for about 3,000 or more vehicles. That would be a very important contribution towards the solution of the fuel problem. I understand that the activation of ordinary gas coke has been ruled out because of the cost of the plant needed to activate it. What other sorts of fuel have we?
The only other one I can think of at the moment is charcoal, which is an excellent fuel. I would like to know whether the Minister has been in touch with any groups of people who are concerned with the manufacture of charcoal. I know we did not use much of it before the war; and we imported most of what we used from Belgium and Holland. But there is now in existence a Charcoal Manufacturers' Association in this country which embraces some 14 to 16 of the best charcoal makers. I know that the Minister of Supply and his Department are pressing very hard to induce all landowners to cut trees to meet our timber requirements within the next few months. That means that large amounts of timber will be avail-

903
able, especially in Scotland. To bring Welsh anthracite to Scotland means a long journey, and if charcoal could be produced to take care of Scottish requirements it would be of very great assistance. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that he will actively pursue, or is pursuing, the development of the use of charcoal as an alternative fuel. We shall be very grateful for a statement from him, and I beg to move for Papers.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, I am sure that many of your Lordships are very grateful to the noble Duke for having once again brought this interesting matter before the House. It has fallen to my lot to take an interest in producer gas from a purely technical standpoint, and, in view of that experience, I ask your Lordships' permission to say a few words. It is some months, as the noble Duke said, since the matter was last discussed, and in the interval the Government have taken the most remarkable and very useful step of publishing their plans in complete detail. Drawings of the equipment have been circulated to the Press, the names of the contractors have been announced, and details of the arrangements for selecting the vehicles and for servicing and maintaining them have been given. There is no longer any mystery, therefore, as to what the intentions of the Government are.
There are two things which I should like to say about this scheme, but before doing so I wish to say a word about producer-gas traction in general, and about the scale of any future scheme. Although it has such a distinguished sponsor in your Lordships' House, producer-gas traction is of very humble origin, and is a very poor relation indeed of petrol traction. It involves a loss of power of some 40 per cent. at the best, and often more, compared with petrol traction. In France it is simply called gaz pauvre. So that it is only during a war, or in exceptional circumstances such as might follow on a war, that the use of producer-gas traction can be justified. At the same time, it is the only large-scale and practical alternative to oil traction. The question of the balance of advantage and the question of what emphasis should be placed on producer-gas traction in our total transport economy must be very difficult, therefore, to decide. The question of the fuel to be
904
used has been mentioned, and on the fuel available depends to some extent what use can be made of producer gas. It is very desirable that the range of fuels which can be burnt in a producer should be extended, and research on this subject is continuing. On the other hand, there is a general shortage of fuel. I feel that it is really outside the scope of this debate to say to what extent coal can be spared for traction as apart from other purposes.
If I am not detaining your Lordships too long, I should like to add a few words about the scheme for 10,000 producers. First of all with regard to the design of the producers, it is, of course, much too late now to alter the design, but I do feel some sympathy, as no doubt many of your Lordships do, with the views and criticisms of the Government design which the noble Duke has expressed to-day and on former occasions. Your Lordships may, perhaps, take the view that the difference between one producer and another is a matter of opinion, just as one man will prefer an Austin and another a Morris, but it is not really quite the same thing. No one has yet evolved a really satisfactory producer; you have only to ask even the most enthusiastic omnibus driver to learn that. No doubt it is in course of development, but I think that the Government have been inclined to be rather arbitrary in fixing their design, if I may say so very respectfully. They have clung to their original design too long, and they have only recently begun to make sufficient use of the great experience which exists among the private firms in this country. One firm has been mentioned, but it is not the only one. I speak without full knowledge, but I believe that that criticism is a fair one, I think it is true to say that the Government were optimistic in choosing their first design. They have now brought out a second design, and it remains to be seen how these producers will work when they come on the road.
With regard to the operating side, it was absolutely necessary for the success even of this relatively small experiment that there should be a sufficient and nation-wide organization behind any scheme brought forward. The education of operators and drivers, the provision of materials for maintenance and the provision of fuel had all to be attended to. If I may say so, I think that the Government proposals on these points are very

905
practical, and I have no complaint to make on this score. Full use has been made of the big motor firms and their agents, and suitable sheet metal works have been chosen. The built-in producer, in my opinion very wisely, has been preferred for goods vehicles to the trailer. There is only one omission, and that is in regard to oil vehicles; and I understand that this is being studied. Although this is still to a great extent only a paper scheme and an experiment, I think that on the side of organization the difficulties have been well anticipated, and, although I have made some criticism in regard to design, your Lordships will want to wish all those connected with the scheme the very best of luck, because I am certain that they will need it.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, fresh as he is and sunburnt as a result of his important Mission in North-West Africa, I should like to ask one or two questions which perhaps he will be good enough to answer. First of all I should like to congratulate him on the very agreeable chief whom he has obtained for the department dealing with mobile gas-producers, Sir Alfred Faulkner, with whom I have been in contact in regard to these matters. He was good enough to give me some information, but he stated that the noble Lord in his reply to-day would be giving information on the main points regarding which we have been in correspondence. There is one point about which the noble Lord may be able to inform your Lordships. I understand that anthracite is to be the primary fuel used with these 10,000 units, but that an experimental quantity of high-temperature coke—not low-temperature coke—will be available also. I should like to ask whether that coke fuel is to be activated or not.
With regard to the technical questions which have been raised by the noble Duke, whom I am proud to support again on this Motion, and by my noble friend who has just spoken, the noble Lord, the Minister of War Transport, is obviously well aware of these questions, because when he addressed your Lordships in April of last year he had then determined that the 10,000 units were to be of one type, but as a result of further experiments in July he determined on two types of improved emergency producers, and he quoted certain figures as to the numbers of each type. I would
906
like to ask the noble Lord whether those figures still stand the same as to the numbers of each type that are to be made, whether he proposes to introduce any further type, arid whether he proposes ordering additional numbers beyond the 10,000 units programme which he informed your Lordships he had visualized some months ago
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, the noble Duke has asked if I would state what progress has been made in the development of producer-gas propulsion for motor vehicles. I am very happy to be able to say that substantial progress has been made since the subject was debated in the House last, on the 22nd July, and I hope when he hears my full statement that he will regard it as satisfactory. We have completed our production plans for the two standard types of producer in numbers approximate to what I indicated when I last addressed the House, and we have taken steps for all the necessary spare parts. By the middle of January some 530 of the omnibus type of producer had been distributed throughout the country and the staffs of all those companies are now getting the experience of the use of producer gas. Further-producers of this type will now be delivered at the rate of 300 to 400 a month, and production will be completed substantially by the end of July. A good deal more work was necessary when we came to deal with the producers for goods vehicles, and it became clear, when we took into account all the things that had to be brought into construction, that we had to give the greater part of the contract to one firm skilled in the process of quantity production. A good deal of time was entailed in tooling up, but I expect to get nearly 400 in March, rising to nearly 1,300 in May, so that by that process manufacture should be completed by August. We would have preferred a more rapid rate of progress, but it must be remembered that it is very hard indeed to start up a new manufacturing process at this stage of the war. We could have secured greater speed only at the expense of sacrificing other work of even greater value in the war effort. Furthermore, there would have been no point in accelerating the rate of manufacture since the present rate will give us as many producers as we can see our way to fit, bearing in mind that the staffs at the garages are already seriously depleted and great

907
difficulties are being experienced in maintaining the road vehicles in an efficient state of repair.
Noble Lords are already aware that five of the leading manufacturers of goods vehicles are co-operating with each other and with us in the arrangements for fitting the producers to goods vehicles. The actual work of fitting will be done by dealers and agents selected by these manufacturers, who are also setting up schools to train mechanics in the fitting of the producer-gas units and are making arrangements for the teaching of drivers. I must record my gratitude to these firms for the great advantages we have derived from their practical experience and ready co-operation. On the passenger side the undertakings are handling their own conversions and training their own personnel, and it is only right that I should express our thanks to Messrs. Tilling and the London Passenger Transport Board who have made facilities available to us at their depots for the education of the staffs of other operators.
The difficulties of making fuel available have now been satisfactorily overcome, and arrangements have been made for suitable stocks throughout the country. Fuel, however, remains a limiting factor. Noble Lords will be aware that certain special fuels are required in sufficient quantities, and we know that we can only secure these sufficient quantities by taking the selected range of anthracite fuels. I am satisfied that it would not be possible to go beyond the 10,000 vehicles, so long as we must confine ourselves to this special fuel. For this reason great importance attaches to the experiments which are now proceeding in an attempt to run producers efficiently on the ordinary high-temperature coke. That high-temperature coke, I think, would have to be activated, but I do not want to anticipate what will be the result of the tests, or give indications of what precisely is the nature of the coke that is now being the subject of those tests. I should say a word about charcoal. I had left it out of my statement, because on a previous occasion this was examined and found to be of so little value—in respect of the quantity available, not in respect of the fuel itself—that I had to disregard it. I anticipate, however, that in the cutting down of timber more will be available for use in the production of
908
charcoal. But we must not look for any big development of producer gas arising out of the use of charcoal during the war period.
Since the Government decided to embark on the producer-gas scheme the whole war situation, as it affects road transport, has undergone considerable change. A year ago our primary concern was to effect the utmost economy in our consumption of imported fuel and the producer-gas scheme is one, but only one, of the means we adopted. In addition, all motor vehicles are under a rationing control which has been made progressively stricter. We have cut down all unessential services; we have gone far towards rationalizing wholesale and retail distribution. The loss of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies has made it even more important to save rubber than it is to save oil, and the recently announced scheme for long-distance road haulage is designed to concentrate in the fewest possible vehicles all traffic which has to go by road. In this way we expect to save some 25 per cent. of fuel and rubber in carrying the long-distance road traffic. The present use of road haulage in this country must be limited to the carriage of goods which cannot be carried by alternative means, such as the railways and coastal shipping. It is fair to point out that producer gas not only will not help us in saving rubber but may actually lead to wastage in that the reduced power of the engine when running on producer gas must mean smaller loads, and the pay load is also reduced by the weight of the producer itself.
This is the background against which we have to look at the producer gas scheme. When it is in full operation we can look for an appreciable saving in imported fuel, but the really big saving in fuel and rubber will come from the other measures of economy we have taken. The particular value of the producer gas scheme is that it will spread practical knowledge of producer gas operation very widely among road transport operators and will establish a nucleus of mechanics and of trained drivers with knowledge of the fitting, maintenance and operation of gas producers. This gives us a valuable insurance against the possibility that war circumstances might compel us to turn over to producer gas on a considerable scale.

909
From what I have said noble Lords will understand why I cannot in present circumstances expand the scheme beyond the original 10,000 vehicles. I have already mentioned the limitation due to the quantity of fuel available. There is also the general fact that road transport as a whole must be restricted to bare essentials, and that the use of producer gas involves a definite loss of efficiency. I am very glad to have had that contribution from the noble Lord behind me, who really seems to know what producer gas means to us. I am very happy to say that operators have responded extremely well to the scheme. We have been promised the co-operation of all the organizations representing road transport, and they have already rendered us much help. The reactions of the technical Press have been most encouraging.
In this brief review I have not attempted to disguise the fact that producer gas is far from an ideal motive power. It is dirty and inconvenient, and involves a loss of operating efficiency both in maintenance and in power output. It however, the most promising alternative to liquid fuel for general use in road transport. It is true that at present, out of a total of 11,615 road vehicles operating on alternative fuels, only 1,504 are running on producer gas. The largest section, consisting of some 6,412 vehicles, runs on electricity, but this form of power is only suitable for short runs. There are also over 1,200 vehicles running on coal gas, and over 1,400 on creosote. The present design of producer-gas apparatus is far from being final, and extensive research is being pursued both to improve the performance of the unit and to widen the range of possible fuel. I hope that one result of putting these 10,000 units into operation will be to secure many improvements from the experience of the hauliers concerned. As I have said to your Lordships previously, I am quite open-minded about future types, and I have recently reached agreement with the proprietary manufacturers in an endeavour to keep them in existence, if possible. The number which the noble Duke mentioned—some 300—was precisely the number that these manufacturers sough to receive from us in order that they might be kept going.
I know that the outline of progress which I have given will not satisfy the enthusiasts for producer gas, but I am
910
certain that the Government have been right in refusing to rush into a grandiose scheme of development. Our policy has, throughout, been severely practical. We have sought to provide for emergencies and to give producer gas its due place in our war economy. I claim that our policy has secured the best practical balance between the maximum use of producer gas and the minimum disturbance to the general war effort.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am afraid I must be one of those enthusiasts for producer gas whom the noble Lord feared he would not be able to satisfy by what he has told us to-day, but I should like to express my appreciation, which I am sure is shared by the House, of the frankness of the noble Lord in coming down and taking us into his confidence in this matter. I would associate myself with the satisfaction which has been expressed at seeing him back again in his place after his recent extensive travels. The subject now being debated may appear to occupy a time which is out of all proportion to its importance, but there are many other subjects which have been repeatedly discussed in this House in the last two or three years, all covering much the same ground and all brought forward by enthusiasts who have urged them in the conviction that they were bringing forward something of importance to the conduct of the war. We must remember that this subject has been brought forward by the noble Duke and others, like my noble friend Lord Sempill, because they are convinced that here is a chance to economize in shipping in the matter of the imports of liquid fuel. This was urged before the war, and it has been urged since.
With that reminder which I have presumed to mention, I would return to the speech of the noble Lord in answering the points raised by the noble Duke. I must admire the persistence of the noble Duke in sticking to a subject on which he holds such strong convictions. The House will admire it. By way of illustration, I may say that the country might have gained by similar frequent reiteration in other matters such as the welding of tanks in the early days of the war. I feel it would now be admitted that those protagonists who, in the early days of the war, maintained that tanks should be welded and not riveted, just as in the early days there were those who

911
held that ships should be welded rather than riveted, have now proved to have been right. My noble friend Lord Beaverbrook is present, and as he does not contradict me I hope I may assume that that deduction which I have made as to the superseding of riveting by welding is justified. This demand which the noble Duke has reiterated has been based on the conviction that it will result in a saving of shipping and also that it represents foresight in providing against later possible emergencies. It is for that reason that I would express some regret that the noble Lord, in spite of the dangers of the import situation owing to U-boat activities, has not been able to revise the decision which he told us on the last occasion had been taken.
The point to which I wish to address myself is that of fuel. The noble Lord emphasized that we must confine ourselves to anthracite fuel. Lord Sempill asked many other questions to which the Minister could hardly be expected to reply to-day, but I hope my noble friend will be able to secure replies in the future and that publicity will be given to them. Incidentally, I appreciate Lord Leathers's assurance regarding the co-operation of the haulage history as a whole and the technical Press in particular. I understood Lord Pentland to say that, in his opinion, no satisfactory filter or producer has yet been made available, and he regretted that the Government should have clung so persistently and so long to the present design. If anthracite is the only fuel we can hope to get service from, then clearly there is no appreciable future for producer-gas road haulage vehicles as an alleviation of the problem of imported fuel. These 10,000 vehicles which it is the intention of the Government to put on the market cannot be more than just a test. In these circumstances the Government would be justified in abandoning this as an effort to relieve an intense situation because the experiment can lead to no practical purpose in war-time. That is why I cannot help repeating my regret, as I said on the last occasion on which I spoke on this subject, that the Government should not have frankly said: "There is nothing to be done in this matter of producer gas during the war." Still, they were warned of that before
912
the war, and were urged to take steps in advance.
It is for that reason that I venture to appeal to the noble Lord to consider, in these critical days with regard to imports, the importance of making provision for the production of a supplementary alternative fuel. That of course will involve steel for the construction of the plant, and I can understand that the Government will be loath to embark upon any programme involving the substantial use of steel at this stage of the war. It has been said that Hitler is depending upon his Navy to win the war. That is an idea to which we have not been habituated during the last eighteen months, when we have thought chiefly of vast land Armies. Coming back to the reason why I urge the use of activating coke, I think it is necessary to have something upon which we can fall back at a period when the war may, be at a more difficult stage. Lord Beaverbrook was sagacious enough to remind us the other day that we may yet be faced with severe bombing that might change entirely our present ideas of what course events will take, and it may be that we shall be placed in a difficult position if we are faced with a shortage of tonnage for the importation of liquid fuel. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, may revise his decision, and consider the construction of a number of plants, properly sited in different parts of the country, which would produce this supplementary fuel. There is an adequate supply of material in the country to produce that supplementary fuel, though it may at the moment have been diverted to other purposes. The supply of anthracite is limited, and it involves carriage from South Wales to various parts of the country and even to Scotland, which is a great disadvantage in view of the shortage of transport. I hope I have said enough to convince my noble friend Lord Leathers that there is justification for considering the supply of an alternative fuel.
The other point I wish to make is with regard to the number of the types of these vehicles. There has been only a limited provision of them due to the difficulty of getting the materials required for their production. The noble Duke said that there had been only 351 units between all the manufacturers for six months. What I wish to know is how many of this limited production of vehicles are now actually

913
on the roads. I remember that in the early day of the war emphasis was laid on what the Government were buying, and it was said that the important thing was not to know what the Government were buying but what was being delivered. It was much more important to know what was being delivered than what was being bought. Lord Leathers speaks about what we are producing, but what I want to know is what is the actual number on the roads. I have been told, and perhaps the noble Lord would like to correct this statement if he thinks it is incorrect, that there are only twenty-eight passenger omnibuses actually in operation under the new plan of the Government, and no trade trucks or vehicles. The total number said to be running in the whole of the country on producer gas is 1,500. No doubt that includes vehicles of different types which were operating before this Government scheme was adopted.
In conclusion I would urge the noble Lord to endeavour to increase the provision for the greater use of electricity for road transportation within the areas of boroughs. Electricity, I contend, ought to be much more widely used for this purpose. I say that while fully realizing there is great pressure on the production of electricity for other purposes. We know well that if the right kind of fuel is delivered to the right pumps at the right places, use will be made of it, and that an additional amount of electricity could be produced if fuel was made available for that purpose. I hope the noble Lord will consider sympathetically the points that I have put before him.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister of War Transport, for tae very interesting and full report he gave of the progress that has been made in these matters. If it is a real disappointment that the progress has been slow, still I quite understand why that is so. The noble Lord must have been faced by great difficulties, and I am sure he is now fully anxious to push on with all speed. I am convinced that once these omnibuses and lorries get going on producer gas, and once we have as good brains working on the producer-gas system as have worked upon oil fuel for transport, we shall have a very efficient system of transport and one that will continue when the war is
914
over into times of peace. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

COPO, LTD
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE had given Notice that he would call attention, in view of the gravity of the national food position, to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture to questions asked on October 1, 1942, regarding the apple-growing business called Copo, Limited, of Cockayne, Hatley, Bedfordshire; and move for Papers. The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Motion concerns a company called Copo, Ltd., and it is a long cry from producer gas to this subject. Nevertheless, this is a subject, I submit, which deserves some consideration. First of all I should explain what the meaning of the word "Copo" is. It has to do with orchards producing certain apples. I am not going to trouble your Lordships about how I came to be connected with it, but I should like to explain that the undertaking was first started in about the year 1933 with the idea of providing work for ex-Service men on a co-operative basis. But that part of the scheme seems to have faded out, and it is now a purely commercial apple-growing business, managed on somewhat unusual lines. I say unusual lines because the trees in the orchards are owned and are the property, I believe, of several thousands of tree owners. The trees are planted on land which is owned by a trust company, and the trees are managed by a private commercial firm called Copo, Ltd. There are, therefore, three parties concerned with the same trees.
Some of the thousands of tree holders approached me to give them information upon certain matters, and I thought the best thing to do was to ask a question of my noble friend the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. I was very disappointed with his reply. I asked him eight questions last October, and I got an answer to one and a half, leaving six and a half questions quite unanswered. What I wanted to know was how many tree holders there are in Copo. I have heard various figures given, from 4,000 to 15,000. There are 2,000,000 trees in the orchards, so that it is a fairly large con-

915
cern. I was anxious to know what was the tonnage of the produce from these 2,000,000 trees. I was anxious to know what was the money received for all the apples. The noble Duke told me he was unable to inform me. Subsequently, I gather, the Land Commissioner for the Ministry of Agriculture went down and inspected the orchards and was more or less satisfied with the land and probably with the trees too. The tree owners are anxious because, being interested in something like 1,200 acres of orchard, they want to comply with the appeal of the Minister of Agriculture that every acre of land shall be put to the most productive use possible. They want to know whether those 1,200 acres and those 2,000,000 apple trees are being managed so as to produce all the fruit possible for the people in these days.
I asked the noble Duke whether the agricultural executive committees of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire had inspected the orchards. I understand they have, but I am informed by the noble Duke that the reports of the county committees are confidential. The tree owners, on their part, obtained an order from the Court and two orchardists went down to the estate. Their report was anything but favourable. Their report was that the whole lay-out of the orchard was wrong; that the trees had been grafted on to the wrong stock, No. 9 stock, a very poor stock indeed; that the orchards were diseased with red spider and caterpillar; that the state of the grass round the trees was shocking, and that owing to perennial weeds and twitch grass, more than half the crop would be lost. I went myself to see the orchards and I was amazed at the number of trees I found lying on the ground. How could the agricultural executive committees report satisfactorily on orchards in that state? There must be something wrong somewhere. We should like to know what is the true state of these orchards because the tree owners who own these 2,000,000 trees are most anxious to respond to the appeal of the Minister of Agriculture that every acre of land in which they are interested shall be cultivated in such a way as to produce the maximum amount of food.
I would like to suggest that a conference should be held between the Land Commissioner at the Ministry, representa-
916
tives of the agricultural executive committees, the expert orchardists who visited the orchards and some experienced agriculturists representing the tree owners; that this conference should be held at the Ministry of Agriculture, and the whole question thrashed out as to whether these orchards are being properly managed If they are not, then the wrong should be righted. I believe that one-third of the land, 400 acres, is absolutely lying to waste. The proper course would be for the agricultural executive committees to order the land to be grubbed up, to be ploughed and harrowed and a proper tilth obtained, and the land sown with a cleaning crop such as potatoes or cereals. That should be done now. The season is getting on and land should be cultivated without a moment's delay if a crop is to be obtained this year. From these 400 acres you could get over 3,000 tons of potatoes, or over 2,000 tons of wheat. What the tree owners wish is to comply with the Minister's appeal and have the land properly cultivated. I beg to move for Papers.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, the noble Duke has raised this Motion consequent on the answers which I gave to his questions last October. I must make it quite clear that of the eight questions which he put to roe six were quite definitely concerned with the domestic side of a private company which had nothing whatsoever to do with my Department. It was for that reason I was unable to give him the answers he wished. I should also like to make it clear at the outset of the few remarks I have to make, that I can only deal with the agricultural side of this matter. The land belonging to Copo is situated partly in Hertfordshire and partly in Bedfordshire. The trees in these orchards are all Cox's orange pippins except for a few cordon and pyramid trees which are planted purely for pollination. This is a very large orchard and a very large commercial enterprise. These shapes of trees were planted because a very large number of them may be planted to the acre. The form and the shape of planting is one which is not popular with commercial undertakings, though it is popular in private gardens. It is true to say that the layout of these orchards is unusual for this type of undertaking and is not found

917
in other parts of this country. Further, it is doubtful whether many people would select the county of Bedfordshire for the planting of orchards.
However, since the noble Duke raised this question in October I have had further inquiries made, and I would tell him that half the area in Hertfordshire is now under trees, that the orchards are being run with the minimum amount of labour, and that most of that labour is provided by women. The yield of fruit last year was considered by the Hertfordshire agricultural committee to be reasonably satisfactory, though in certain small areas there was room for improvement and certain orders for grubbing up have been given. The committee have no serious ground for any criticism of the condition of the open land, but they are serving such directions for the cultivation of the open land as they consider necessary. As regards the orchards in Bedfordshire, the greater portion are fairly well managed. A certain proportion of the trees have died, however, and certain of the land is still insufficiently drained. I am confident that the various steps necessary to make for further production will be taken by the two county committees. The land has been sampled and though there is some shortage of potash and phosphate there is no serious deficiency. The noble Duke has also asked whether the horticultural experts who were sent down to make this report were competent to carry out this job. I have no hesitation in saying that they are perfectly competent to carry out the jobs which are entrusted to them by the Ministry. I have made inquiries as to the farm manager. He has been there, as far as I can make out, just over one year and he is a man particularly well qualified for this job. Taking the land as a whole we have, at my Department, no serious criticisms to make, and the committees in the two counties will keep a close eye on the further cropping of the open land and the management of the trees.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Duke for the information that he has given on the subject of Copo. I am sure he will appreciate the view which is taken by the public all over the country. At the instance of agricultural executive committees poor farmers, small farmers, who have had their homes on their farms
918
for years and years, are being asked to leave on the ground that they have managed their places inefficiently. Now Copo is a company which is said to have a capital of something like £750,000 or so, and people ask why it is that a poor farmer who has lived on his place for years is told to remove while a wealthy corporation like this is allowed to stay on and carry on with the land in this way. I am quite sure that people are expecting wealthy farmers, whether companies or individuals, to deal with their land efficiently and as well as they can so as to set an example to their poorer and humbler neighbours.
I thank the noble Duke for the report which he has given, but I have been long enough in this House—getting on for nineteen years—to have seen successive Ministers and Under-Secretaries dealing with agricultural scandals. There was the mushroom scandal at one time; that was exposed in your Lordships' House. There was the asparagus scandal and that, too, was exposed in your Lordships' House. Now we have come to the matter of apples. I am sure that we can look to the noble Duke to deal with anything that may be wrong. Of course I am not saying that there is anything wrong; I am only asking for information. But if there is anything wrong, we hope the Minister of Agriculture will deal with it with the same courage and ability that have been displayed in dealing with scandals in the past. In the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PAY OF JUNIOR OFFICERS OF R.N. AND W.R.N.S.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name:
[The question was as follows:
To ask his Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that no hardship is caused to junior officers of the Royal Navy and the W.R.N.S., serving in the London area, by the high cost of living at the present time and whether they consider that the lodging allowance of £60 to £80 per annum and the provision allowance of 3s. to 3s. 9d. per diem granted to such officers is ade-

919
quate; what is the difference, in principle, between the above allowances and the headquarters allowance granted to officers serving in the Admiralty.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bruntisfield is unfortunately absent owing to illness, and I have been asked to reply to this question in his stead. The Admiralty are aware of the difficulties, by no means confined to the officers referred to in this statement, with which high cost of living and high taxation are confronting a great part of the community. Junior officers of the Navy and W.R.N.S. have received some alleviation recently in the form, of increased pay. The Admiralty view is that London cannot be isolated as a place with a relatively higher cost of living. Costs in many provincial centres are not less than those in London, particularly in some centres which have suffered extensive air-raid damage, or have had an influx of evacuees, or have become centres of war-time activity. The headquarters allowance granted to officers serving in the Admiralty is a responsibility allowance and is not designed to take account of cost of living.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, arising out of that very disappointing answer—for which, however, I thank the noble Lord—may I ask him if he is aware that whereas a junior officer, and often a by no means young officer, is unable to obtain accommodation either in London or the suburbs excepting at rates of from £3 5s. to £4 10s. a week, the allowances given to some are only £2 4s. to £2 10s. a week?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I have no doubt that the statement made by my noble friend is accurate, but I cannot give him any further answer at this moment. I promise that I will bring his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.

SHOPPING FACILITIES FOR WOMEN WORKERS.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY asked His Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to deal with the problem of shopping for women workers in industry; and moved for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of the Motion which I
920
have put on the Order Paper is to draw attention to the disabilities of hundreds of thousands of women in industry in regard to the provision of time to carry out their shopping. We know that in the coming months many thousands more are going to be affected by the same problem under the new Ministry of Labour and National Service additional powers which come into force on February 22. If we analyse the lives of the women in industry we see that this is the sort of day before them. They get up at half-past five or a quarter to six in the morning. They have to get breakfast, and clean up their houses. Then they have to get to the factories by from 7 to 7.30 a.m., which is long before the shops open. They leave their work at anything from 6 to 6.30 p.m., when the shops have closed. The result is that they have no time at all to do the shopping for their households and families. What, in fact, do they do? Very often, they give up their dinner hour and slip along to the shops after five minutes spent biting at a sandwich. Then they go back to their workshops with their bags laden with butter, margarine, bread and all the rest of their ration allowances, and their bags have to stand under the bench for the remaining five or six hours of the afternoon's work. In that time, very likely, the contents of the bags are unpleasantly affected by the addition of such things as brass filings, iron filings, oil and dirt, while the heat of the factory also has its effect. That is what often happens to the food which these women buy before they can take it home and attempt to cook it.
The Ministry of Food, which has to-day staged in a Committee Room of the House of Commons, a display designed to show how to cook food, including extra potatoes, are wasting their time if the women who do the cooking in the homes of the people have no chance of adequately spending their money in buying food. I am going to suggest that this rushing in the dinner hour to buy food, instead of eating dinner and digesting it, is definitely affecting the health of the women workers in industry. They are tired by the time they start their afternoon's work. Moreover, the morale of the workers is affected because they feel that there is an injustice inherent in this working in factories which is not felt by those who are not so working. I believe that it is affect-

921
ing production because the women are tired through having inadequate food in the middle of the day and from the effort of rushing to do their shopping and carrying heavy parcels back to the workshop. I believe that it is affecting the man-power problem, because women are not willingly going to enter industry unless the conditions under which they work are more carefully considered.
I am not suggesting that the Government have done nothing in this matter. In September, 1941, the Government issued a Command Paper, No. 6310, called "Welfare work outside the factory," and they mentioned this problem of shopping. They say that Women who have taken up war work have in many cases found difficulty in buying goods. They say that that applies especially to unrationed fool supplies of certain kinds, since stocks can be bought up by women who have time to go from shop to shop during the day and to stand in queues, and they refer to methods for dealing with that problem. The question was again dealt with by the Government in November, 1941, in a reply to a Report by the Select Committee on National Expenditure. In that reply they discuss a number of plans for dealing with this very real problem. They quote Birmingham, where a number of factories make special arrangements for women to have time off once a week to do their shopping. I am inclined to think that that may be one of the best solutions. The experiment was also tried of some shops keeping open for longer hours in the evening, but that was not found very satisfactory, because sometimes women working locally did not know about it, with the result that very few people used that facility. Then they tried the plan of giving cards to women workers, giving them the right to go to the head of a queue, but that was very much resented by other women and was not a success. Finally, the Government said that the difficulties could best be overcome locally, with the help of vigorous action by all the interests concerned, under the joint initiative of the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Labour and National Service.
That is why I have put down this Motion, because I think that the Government might publish a Paper giving the results of their initiative in the matter. The Government again referred to the
922
matter in the Report on "Welfare work outside the factory" in August, 1942, but that is a mere re-hash of the previous Report. The Third Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, issued only in December of last year, says that in many areas "shopping is still an acute problem for most women workers." The Government have had this problem in front of them for two years. They have talked about it, but it does not seem that much has been done, and I question whether the problem is really being taken seriously enough. It is all very well to say that the local authorities ought to solve the problem, but we know from the last Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure that there was a quarrel between the Ministry of Labour and other Ministries with regard to the solution, and the result was that the local authorities were not pressed hard enough to find a solution.
Only last week, the Minister of Labour said that stress was being laid on the importance of planning the hours of work of individuals with some regard to their personal circumstances. I want to know whether these "personal circumstances" include the provision of shopping facilities. We are going to have women of 31 to 40 years of age directed into industry, and I want their personal circumstances considered. The Minister promised to tighten up the control of conditions before giving directions to these new women workers. I wonder whether the Essential Work Order firms have really reached a satisfactory standard in the provision of shopping facilities, and whether non-Essential Work Order firms will be induced to do so. In an article in The Times a few days ago the question is asked:
"Before the Minister exercises his powers of direction, will he make an order safeguarding the conditions of employment of the persons so directed?"
We want So know whether the provision of shopping facilities is going to be included in this Order. I venture to suggest that what we want now is a comprehensive publication saying what has been tried, where it has been successful, and where and why it has failed. I think we want flexibility. We want to examine the question of priority cards, the question of shops staying open later, and also, perhaps, the question of a special transferable ration book so that

923
women in industry need not be compelled to do their rationed shopping at a given place. It may be a nuisance to provide that, but the war is a nuisance, and if we are going to solve the problem of war production we must take trouble.
Probably the best solution is, as I have suggested, for all firms to give shopping time off where other methods fail; but what is wanted is vigorous and immediate action. It is wanted in the interests of the war effort, because it will lead to greater production. It is wanted in the interests of health, because it will diminish absenteeism. It is wanted in the interests of the greatest single problem which we are facing at the moment, the problem of man-power. And, above all, we want the women in industry to feel that they are having a fair deal and that they are being treated with justice. I think that these women are absolute heroines in the way that they are working. It is amazing to see the new tasks to which they have put their hands, making shells and fuses and electrical and mechanical gear of all kinds, and working 50 to 55 hours a week. I do not think that there is too much that we can do to ease their job and to facilitate their work. I hope therefore that the Government will act and will tell the nation exactly what they are doing in this matter and so aid these women. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marley has introduced a question which is of very great importance, and which affects the convenience, the health and the comfort of many women who are giving essential service to the State. Let me say at once that careful consideration is being given to ways in which the problem can be met; but this is not one of those problems which can be settled by a central order, because no uniform solution is possible. The need varies very widely in different districts, and it has been found expedient to adopt local measures to deal with the conditions which exist in particular localities. Welfare officers have been advised to take action, whenever such action can be helpful, along the following lines. First, they should call a conference of representatives of the interests concerned, such as the retailers, the shop assistants, factory managers, trade unions and other
924
bodies that may be concerned in this matter. Secondly, the divisional food officers should co-operate with the welfare officers in arranging the meetings. The measures which have to be adopted depend entirely upon local conditions, but wherever it is practicable it is found that time off for women to make purchases is likely to yield the most satisfactory results. My noble friend Lord Marley rather approved of that method if it can be carried out widely and made effective. Welfare officers have been instructed to urge this as the most satisfactory solution.
LORD MARLEY: Suppose there are no welfare officers. There are only a few firms where there are welfare officers.
LORD SNELL: Well, wherever the welfare officers reach they have instructions to do what I have said. It may be that further welfare officers are required, and that suggestion shall be made to the appropriate Ministry. The managements which have adopted this method of time off report that it has been, even from their point of view, a satisfactory contribution to the solution of the problem. For instance, there has been a notable reduction in absenteeism, which is of considerable importance. It has also helped to improve the women's morale at their work and—perhaps most important of all —despite the reduction in working hours which such time off involves, firms report that there has been no loss in production as a consequence of affording those facilities. Among other schemes which have been widely adopted when time off cannot be arranged those most successful have been the special certificate scheme and the order and collection of parcels scheme. The certificate scheme provides employees with identity cards or discs which traders accept, and which give the holders priority. The parcels scheme is one under which traders agree to allot to married women workers, in addition to the rationed goods for which they are registered, their proportion of all released and scarce commodities which may be available. The certificate scheme has had notable success in certain districts, such as Hammersmith, where priority cards were given to 2,000 workers, and the parcels scheme in districts such as Enfield.
The late opening of shops, as the noble Lord suggested, has not been successful. In a number of towns one night a week shops were kept open late, and the experi-

925
ment was judged to be a failure. I might also say that the food control committees are helping to reduce shopping problems by granting applications from women workers who wish to transfer their registrations to more convenient retailers. The Ministry of Food also feel that the extension of rationing and the develpment of the points system have done a good deal to alleviate the difficulties of war workers, although that is not of course their primary object. These, then, are only a few of the arrangements which are made to meet the problem which the noble Lord has mentioned. The subject is constantly under review, and I will take care that the noble Lord's suggestion that a special Paper be published is conveyed to the Ministry. There is the fullest intention to do everything possible to meet the needs of these women war workers, who must not be placed at a disadvantage, because of the much-appreciated service that they are giving to the nation.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Marley, replies I trust your Lordships will forgive me for intervening, because we are brought into very close touch with this problem in our National Savings work. In our efforts to make the National Savings movement nation-wide, we go to all the factories and hear about all these things, and we therefore know of this very great grievance—for such it is—of women war workers who cannot get time off for shopping. Whether it is avoidable or unavoidable does not matter for this purpose. I would venture to suggest, from such information as I have for the moment, that the practical step we can certainly take, and which can be ordered from the centre, is to see that more welfare officers are appointed because, as the noble Lord said, wherever there is a welfare officer it has been found possible to arrange for time off for shopping, not only without interfering with the work, but, as we, are told by the welfare officers, actually increasing production. That seems to be the line of country, if I may use the expression, to pursue, and if I may enforce the plea of Lord Marley I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Snell, to see whether he cannot arrange that the different firms throughout the country as well as Government Departments, should appoint, even at considerable expense—for comparatively it would be a bagatelle
926
—a great many more welfare officers to cover pretty nearly the whole of industry.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am very much obliged for that intervention, because welfare officers in the bigger firms are able to ascertain the collective desires of the women workers in industry; but of course most of the firms in this country are smaller firms and they do not have welfare officers. We might even expand the suggestion of Lord Mottistone and have travelling local welfare officers to go and visit the smaller firms and ascertain the collective desires of the women workers. The needs of the masses of these women have not yet been met, despite the efforts of the Government. I suggested a White Paper because if it were published, instead of having to refer to ten or a dozen documents to find out what the Government are doing, we should have a comprehensive Paper which would aid the firms concerned. It would tell them that they are going to gain in production, and they would then all be for time off. It would tell the workers concerned, so that they may know what to demand from the local authorities to guide them in their local action. If we published some Paper of this kind it would help everybody in finding a solution. Could not the noble Lord give an assurance that such a Paper will be published? After all, he has influence; he represents the Ministry concerned in this House. The importance of the problem has been admitted, the fact that a solution has not yet been found is admitted. Would it not be possible to say that a Paper will be published which could be circulated to all the interests concerned to help us to find a solution?
LORD SNELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House I can only say that the Minister must make the necessary decisions in this matter. All that I can do is to convey to the Minister what the noble Lord has suggested, supplemented by the suggestion made by Lord Mottistone.
LORD MARLEY: I am sure the persuasiveness of the noble Lord would have an effect if there were any adamantine objection to this suggestion. I thank the noble Lord for his answer, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW PARISHES MEASURE, 1943.
VISCOUNT SANKEY VISCOUNT SANKEY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the New Parishes Measure, 1943, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper. The object of the Measure is to consolidate, with minor Amendments, those provisions of the Church Buildings Acts, 1818 to 1884, and the New Parishes Acts, 1843 to 1884, which can still be regarded as useful. These Acts deal with the creation of new ecclesiastical districts. In the early and middle years of the last century, owing to the increase of population and the concentration of industries at various centres, there was a considerable amount of church-building. The situation, perhaps wisely, but certainly unfortunately, was dealt with in two different ways. The earlier code, the Church Building Acts, proceeds upon the basis of first providing a church and then assigning a district to it. The later code, the New Parishes Act, reverses the order by creating a district which ripens into a parish when a church is provided. Altogether there are over twenty of these Acts of Parliament, some of them of very great length, and it is acknowledged by everybody that the Church Building Acts constitute one of the most contused and complicated branches of the Statute Law. Enactment has been piled upon enactment and amendment upon amendment.
The latest textbook of authority—Cripps on Church and Clergy, 1937—says:
"The condition of the Statute Law in this context is so confused as almost to justify the description of chaotic."
There are eight different kinds of ecclesiastical districts and much of the legislation is out of date. The Statute Law Committee, the Ecclesiastical Committee, certainly every conveyancing lawyer, and everybody who has had to deal with the troublesome Acts have desired a measure of consolidation. I should like to tell your Lordships that this has now been accomplished by the generosity of a great lawyer, whose name will be familiar to you, Sir Frederick Liddell, who has gratuitously undertaken the arduous work of drafting. Your Lordships will remem-
928
ber that he was for many years First Parliamentary Counsel, and it is an extraordinary achievement that he has been able to reduce 226 pages of the Revised Statutes, many of them obsolete, to the 28 pages of this Measure. Your Lordships may imagine what happened in the Church Assembly. The Measure received general approval in 1939. It was delayed owing to the war, but it received final approval in the Autumn Session last year. At no stage has it been regarded as controversial. I have to inform the House that His Majesty has graciously expressed his consent to this Measure in so far as his interests are concerned.
It has been very carefully examined by the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Houses of Parliament, and in their Report they say this:
"The Measure is expedient and the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects do not appear to be adversely affected.
"It appears from the Comments and Explanations that the Measure, though fundamentally a consolidation Measure, will effect a large simplification of the law, and is welcomed by the Statute Law Committee as purging the Statute Book of one of the most tangled congeries of ill-digested enactments which disfigure it."
The Measure passed through all its stages in the Church Assembly without a Division. It has been carefully scrutinized by the Ecclesiastical Committee, who have examined every section. It has already passed through another House, and in these circumstances I really do not think I should detain your Lordships with prolonged examination of the sections, which are very complicated in character.
There is power to constitute new parishes, provisions applicable to districts, censer of other powers of constituting new parishes and districts, power to make agreements as to patronage, patronage of new districts and parishes. The Assembly itself decided that the power to assign patronage in consideration of contribution to endowment was inconsistent with modern ideas, and ought not to be reproduced. Then you have to make provision for churchwardens in the divided parishes. All this is dealt with in Part I of the Bill. Part II deals with general provisions applicable to all ecclesiastical districts, power of Ecclesiastical Commissioners to acquire land for churches, exemption from Stamp Duty, instruments required to be sealed by Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and so on. Then you have

929
to make arrangements for burial grounds and for miscellaneous powers. Altogether the whole of this has been brought from 226 pages into 28. I do not think I should be justified in asking your Lordships' further attention, but if any member of the House wishes to ask any particular question I shall endeavour to answer. Meanwhile I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the New Parishes Measure, 1943, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(Viscount Sankey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIRCRAFT AND TANKS FOR RUSSIA.
LORD BEAVERBROOK LORD BEAVERBROOK had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether aircraft and tank shipments to Russia (as reported in the London newspapers) can be swiftly increased during the next several month; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name is not a criticism of the Government. I have no desire to do other than praise the Government for all they have accomplished on behalf of Russia in the past. My purpose is to get a much greater measure of assistance for Russia in the future, a much bigger appropriation of supplies. The Daily Telegraph, a reliable and accurate paper, published on January 21 a statement from Mr. Stettinius, the Lease-lend co-ordinator at Washington. He told us that the united Governments of Britain and U.S.A. have sent to Russia up to December 31, 1942, 5,800 tanks and 4,630 aeroplanes. Of these shipments, the Daily Telegraph reported, Great Britain's share was 2,600 tanks and 2,000 aircraft. It is in no sense a complaint of what has gone on in the past if I press for a great deal more in the future, coming to your Lordships' House with the intention of trying to get encouragement from your Lordships and response from the Government. If I succeed in your Lordships' House I shall have done well. If not, then I must still press for more supplies for Russia.
Since the present offensive began—the offensive of the Russians against the Germans—I would point out that the
930
Russians have captured 7,000 German tanks and 4,000 German aircraft. In other words, in two and a half months, the Russians have taken from the Germans more than they have got from Great Britain and U.S.A. in the last twenty months. Again, no complaint; merely an illustration to show the obvious importance of giving more supplies of aircraft and tanks to Russia in future. More help is indeed needed. That is pretty obvious. Swift deliveries are essential. There is no time to be lost. The Prime Minister last July said that 2,000 tanks had been sent to Russia up to July 1. Mr. Stettinius says that up to the end of the year Great Britain sent 2,600 tanks, so that you will see 600 tanks are the total British shipments of tanks to Russia in the last six months, if these figures are accurate. It may be that Britain has sent more than 2,600 tanks. Figures from Washington are usually accurate, but not always. Possibly more aircraft have been sent. But in any case shipments are too slow and improvement is necessary.
I come now to the question why you should send more supplies to Russia. I am not prepared to make any reference to the quantity of production of aircraft in Great Britain, but I would point out that America in 1942 produced 50,000 aircraft and in the month of December 5,500 aircraft. In the last twenty months Britain has sent to Russia only the amount of two weeks of American production in the form of aircraft supplies. That illustration will show at once that there is a pressing need for sending more aeroplanes forthwith. There is no complaint on my part about what has been done in the past, there is only an earnest desire that we should succeed in getting more aircraft there in the future, and the need is greater now than ever before.
Your Lordships will have seen a speech of Goering made last Saturday, a very remarkable speech, which requires careful reading and cannot be easily interpreted. In that speech Goering says by inference that the Russians have no coal and no iron and that they cannot make steel. Certainly we know that the Russians have lost vast coalfields, and that ironworks at Stalingrad have been destroyed. Furthermore, Goering says in that speech that when the sun stands high again there will be German troops attacking again just as there were last year. So far as I can

931
understand the intention of the German High Command, it is to attack Russia again in the spring. Therefore we must now send a swarm of aeroplanes, it seems to me, in order that Russia may be prepared to resist that impending attack and perhaps launch, in the summer-time rather than wait for the winter, yet another offensive. But we must send a swarm of aeroplanes now, there is no use sending it in the spring or in the summer or autumn of next year; it must go now. There is an old proverb, well known to many of your Lordships, I am sure, that
"A swarm of bees in May
Is worth a load of hay.
A swarm of bees in June
Is worth a silver spoon.
A swarm of bees in July
Is not worth a butterfly."
I do not know whether that is from the folklore of England or whether it is from that of Canada; but a swarm of aeroplanes now will mean a very great deal. A swarm of aeroplanes shortly will no doubt do much to resist the offensive that the Germans are threatening in the spring, but a swarm of aeroplanes in July may not be worth a butterfly.
Many of us believe that the war in Europe may be won by the Russians. That belief is very widely held. Usually it is put in this way: "The Russians may pull it off." It is not only false but very foolish to say that such a Russian victory would be dangerous to the British Empire. Far from it. If Russia should win the war in Europe, if Russia "should pull it off," every sensible person in the British Empire will rejoice, and rejoice greatly. We cannot imagine a victory that will give us more happiness, greater joy or more complete comfort than the complete triumph of Russia in Europe at the earliest possible moment. There can be no obstacle at all to good relations between the Russians and ourselves. For my part, I welcome the growing influence and the expanding power of Russia. I look upon it as the event in Europe that gives us a guarantee that we have not had for a long time. I am sure that all of us, all Britain here and all Britain abroad, are determined to remain friends with the Russians after the war is over. The Russians have captured Generals and they have captured Armies. We are told on reliable authority that there are as many as a million dead and incapacitated Germans; but we must not
932
forget that in the spring the Germans had an intake of 500,000, so that in weighing up the Russian question and the present necessity for sending more supplies to the Russians we must beware of over-optimism, for over-optimism would stand in the way of our fulfilling a plain duty and a necessary task.
There is a great deal to be said from the German point of view. In the first place the German line is practically the same as it was a year ago—practically the same as it was on January 1, 1942—for the bridgeheads held by the Germans at that time are still in their possession with the exception of two in the north, and these losses are countered to some extent by one additional bridgehead held in the south. We have heard about the relief of Leningrad, but that relief has not succeeded in re-establishing the railway line from Leningrad to Moscow. The railway line from Leningrad to Moscow is still in the hands of the enemy. It is true, fortunately, that there is another way round about by rail, but it is not the direct line to Moscow and you cannot regard Leningrad as relieved until that direct line has been recovered by the Russians. Then again, the Germans may be shortening their line, and if your Lordships will look at the map you will not require the assistance of professional strategists to tell you that the shortening of the line will greatly relieve the numbers that the Germans will find it necessary to keep in Russia during the coming summer if no offensive action is undertaken.
Going back to Goering's speech for a moment, let me say that twice Goering has said the Russians have nearly defeated the Germans, once in 1941–2 and again in 1942–3, and he has also said that all of the available German troops were mobilized on the Russian Front. He said that in his speech the other day. What an opportunity we lost a little time ago when there were not any German troops in France, according to the statement of Goering! But to return to my argument, the Germans may be intending to shorten the line. Then, again, remember that the Russians have lost the Donetz and the Donetz basin is where the great steel industry is centred. It was the centre of the aircraft industry and for the manufacture of aircraft engines. It may be that these areas will all be recovered. They are being recovered, but your Lordships

933
can see that the steel industry and the aircraft engine industry will have been completely obliterated before the Russians are back there again. We have, therefore, to face a Russia considerably damaged by events and seriously handicapped. That is yet another reason for taking a decision to give more and more supplies to the Russian Army forthwith.
Compare the Russian defensive and offensive with the position in France. France had 300 miles to hold against 3,000 miles in Russia. It is said that 30,000 Frenchmen were killed in 1940 when the Germans struck. Of late 7,000 Russians have been killed every day. Yet think of the assistance that we sent out to France with the limited scale on which the war was then conducted compared with the very parsimonious way in which we have dealt with the Russians. Not that I make any criticism of parsimonious methods. I merely make my point in order to get more help for the Russians in future. That is Inv sole purpose. The Germans are losing 10,000 dead in Russia every day, but I am not myself greatly a believer in the final conclusion of the war on tae basis of casualties. I believe the war will be fought entirely in the final phase on engine-power, engines for aeroplanes, engines for tanks, engines for motor vehicles. That is my belief, but I do not want to put it up against others except in a deferential way.
Then I come to almost my last point. What can we do to help the Russians? There is one thing perhaps we can do and that would be to send them some of the bombing power that we are now expending upon Germany, for surely it is worth while to hit the enemy when he has difficulties. The enemy is in difficulties in Russia, not in Berlin. That is the danger point for the enemy now. That would be one possibility. There is a great deal of talk about attacking Germany in the "soft belly," as I think it is called. Surely the soft belly of Germany is somewhere on the Russian Front. That is lie best soft belly to penetrate, rather than to think too much about Italy. Some of you have doubts and hesitations because of the political complexion of the Russian Government. There are not many, but there are some persons—not in the Government, not at all, but some persons in the country who need reassurance about the political complexion of the Russian Government. It is a sub-
934
ject you have to face. There is anxiety on that account which ought not to exist. It is in very few quarters, certainly not in Government circles. I know fun well that Stalin has been a figure in our public life of which we have not always approved, but it will not be long before he will be spoken of as Stalin the Great. He will go down in the long list of Russian heroes as Stalin the Great. Be sure of that. Again, in soma respects he does not differ in his ideology from many sensible people in this country. Stalin wrote a book on organization. It is a very interesting book. You can buy it for 6d. if you want to read it. It is a good book to read. He deals with crimes, and the crimes are lack of individual responsibility and lack of personal responsibility.
LORD STRABOLGI: Does he deal with committees?
LORD BEAVERBROOK: Yes, he lays down fourteen points for the guidance of those who produce and those who organize, and the eighth point deals with collegium management. In Russia that means committee rule. I must say he has my support on more than one point and certainly on the eighth point. In his twelfth point he says there must be removed from Government posts all the window-dressers and the windbags, who are to be replaced by business people. I am no Communist. I am essentially individualist and I believe in private enterprise and the profit motive. I have believed in it all my life and I believe in it sincerely, but I must say I am tremendously impressed by the Stalin philosophy. I am not going to follow that portion of the philosophy that does not agree with the fundamentals of my political faith, but in other respects I am immensely impressed by it.
I have a story from Stalin, taken from his book on organization, which is an excellent account of things as they are in Britain to-day. It is a story of Stalin's conversation with a Commissar. In the book Stalin writes in the first person and uses "I", but I will change the "I" to "Stalin." The story reads like this:
STALIN: How are you getting on with the sowing?
COMMISSAR: With the sowing, Comrade Stalin? We have mobilized ourselves.
STALIN: Well, and what then?
COMMISSAR: We have put the question squarely.

935
STALIN: And what next?
COMMISSAR: There is a turn, Comrade Stalin; soon there will be a turn.
STALIN: But Still?
COMMISSAR: We can say that there is an indication of some progress.
STALIN: But for all that, how are you getting on with the sowing?
COMMISSAR: So far, Comrade Stalin, we have not begun to sow.
In my twenty months of office I talked with that Commissar many a time. We should try, each one of us, to emulate the example of Stalin, to emulate Stalin's drive, his impatience with the talkers who do not get things done. We should determine to be equal to the Russians in sacrifice and fervour. Remember the ordinary citizens of Moscow, how those citizens of every type, every class and every age went out into the forests, how women—actresses, typists, all of them—went to the forests and gathered in timber for firewood in the hour of Moscow's terrible peril.
We must recognize, finally, that the future of Europe, in war and peace, depends upon Britain and Russia; it depends upon our relations with the Soviet Union more than upon any other single factor. Without good relations with the Soviet Union, for my part I believe there will be no peace. In days past some hoped that the balance of power in Europe would keep the peace. That hope has been proved idle. It is a hope that can never be revived. The fall of France brought that to an end. The balance of Europe lies in ruins, not only because of the collapse of France, but because of the resolve of the United Nations to strip Germany of the capacity for making war. That leaves Britain and Russia the two dominant Powers in Europe, Britain and Russia only. Peace will be impossible unless a firm, absolute and secure friendship is established between these two nations. Nor can that friendship be taken too much for granted. It must be assured. A Treaty for twenty years has been entered into, and that is something. But it is not enough. It would be idle for any speaker to deny that distrust and suspicion still remain, and an effort more drastic and more earnest than anything yet attempted must be made. We must sweep aside the old misunderstandings between the two countries which were really responsible for Hitler's war on the world.
936
How, then, can our objective be secured? An objective which I would describe as the greatest objective of British statesmenship in coming years. Speeches are not enough. Letters of mutual congratulation are not enough. Treaties are not enough. The true foundations can only be laid in battle. By the exertions which we display in sending supplies in prodigal plenty to the Russian Front, by the support we give to the Red Armies in daring offensives of our own, and by the absolute assurance that we give the Russians that we will match their sacrifices and share their burdens—by these means, and these means alone, can we bring the war to a speedy conclusion and lay the real basis for the future peace of Europe. I do not say that it is easy to establish such an alliance between two nations with such different traditions. But by the determination with which we set out to achieve it, by our readiness to overcome all obstacles and to abandon all prejudices, this generation of British citizens, and most of all our statesmen, will be judged in the pages of history. For upon this comradeship between two nations will largely depend the hopes of civilization, the hopes of Europe and the destiny of our own children. I beg to move.
THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING (LORD PORTAL): My Lords, no one realizes better than I do the great work that my noble friend Lord Beaver-brook achieved when he was Minister of Supply, and when I had the honour of serving under him in that Department, in both initiating and carrying through with his great energy the forwarding of supplies to our Russian Allies. We are all at one when I say that we are watching with the greatest admiration the great and far-reaching successes which the Russians are achieving in their present offensive.
Before I discuss the Motion of the noble Lord I would like to say that there is one point upon which I do not quite agree with him. That was in his use of the word "parsimonious" in relation to our efforts to send supplies to Russia. That was not quite what I should have said in the light of what we have tried to do and what we have; in fact, effected. In the Motion which stands on the Paper my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook asks whether "aircraft and tank shipments to Russia (as reported in the London newspapers) can be swiftly

937
increased during the next several months." I presume that the reference—indeed he has already said so in his speech—to reports in the London newspapers relates to the figures issued by Mr. Stettinius on January 20, which were published in the British newspapers on the following day. In addition to the figures for United States shipments of tanks and aircraft to Russia the following passage occurs relating to United Kingdom supplies:
"The U.K. have also supplied the Soviet Union with quantities of military equipment produced in Great Britain. The U.K. have shipped to Russia over 2,600 tanks and over 2,000 aeroplane. These arms are being supplied to Russia by the U.K. on a lease-lend basis."
Comparative figures for U.S. supplies are quoted. The number of tanks is given as 3,200 and aircraft as almost 2,600.
It is only fair, I think, to say that our actual figures for the United Kingdom up to December 31, 1942, were: tanks 2,974, aircraft 2,480 based on our agreement with the U.S.S.R. while aircraft sent by us outside our agreement brought the total up to over 3,000. This is rather an important point. Perhaps some noble Lords may not have fully realized it before, but my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook knows it better than anyone. Then we have given promises to our Russian Allies to supply them with aeroplanes, tanks, equipment and other commodities at the various centres of production, and we regard it as a moral commitment to get them to Russia. This obligation His Majesty's Government, in close consultation with the Government of the U.S.A., intend to carry out to the full extent of their power.
Your Lordships will have noticed the announcements which have recently appeared in the Press on the safe arrival in North Russian ports of substantial convoys of British and American cargo ships escorted by the Royal Navy. No one knows better than my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, the hazards of these Arctic voyages which have now to be undertaken in almost complete darkness and in the face of most determined attacks by enemy forces based on North Norway, not only by surface snips and submarines but by torpedo-carrying aircraft, and we are showing to the world the determination of both the Americans and ourselves to render effective assistance to our Russian Allies. We have no intention of discontinuing the
938
flow of supplies, but, on the contrary, we will do our utmost to maintain the flow by every means and every route. It is as well perhaps to point out now, with regard to the help we have actually given and the promises we have made, that the geographical position of Russia creates difficulties. Russia is so situated as to make it difficult for us to get supplies through. That, I think, is a point which should be made. My noble friend says, quite rightly, that in the recent offensive our Russian Allies have taken 7,000 tanks. I would point out that those tanks were a good deal nearer to the Russians than the tanks we have to send to them from this country.
It would of course be readily understood that during the initial operations in North Africa the concentration of our resources on that task necessarily limited for a period the volume of supplies which we were able to dispatch to Russia. This position has, of course, been fully explained to the Soviet Government and is fully understood by them. His Majesty's Government have always been conscious of the colossal strain which was thrown on our Soviet Allies as the result of the German invasion of Russia in the summer of 1941. Forced, as they were, in the early stages of the campaign, to yield considerable territory in which were situated industries and raw materials for industry vital to the prosecution of the war, our Allies carried out one of the most remarkable achievements of all time in evacuating both swiftly and methodically to the interior, far from the threat of the invader, whole plants and industry devoted to, or which could be transformed for, the production of the sinews of war. These evacuated plants and industries, together with those which the foresight of the Soviet Government had previously established beyond the Urals, have produced, and are now producing, tanks, aircraft and other weapons of war in such quantities-as to enable the Soviet Armies, first of all to resist the tide of the German advance and then to throw it back in the offensives which our Allies are now undertaking with such brilliant success on so many fronts.
We have to remember that the Soviet Armies are well equipped in tanks and aircraft. Yet, as the noble Lord suggests, British and American tanks and aircraft in addition have been and are required to assist our Russian Allies in their

939
immense task, and the substantial contribution of these weapons which we and the United States of America have made is much appreciated by the Soviet Government. That is the point which I was trying to make at the beginning of my speech; I use the word "substantial," and my noble friend said "parsimonious."
As the noble Lord well knows, upon the German invasion of the Soviet Union, His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States promptly offered to assist the Soviet Government with supplies of raw and war materials of all kinds, and the first agreement between them was most successfully concluded by the noble Lord himself on his visit to Moscow in the autumn of 1941. His Majesty's Government have faithfully fulfilled their obligations under this agreement in respect of tanks and aircraft, and indeed of all categories of supplies. In the spirit of that agreement, His Majesty's Government have provided in addition the bulk of the merchant shipping necessary to deliver the supplies which we have made available, while the Royal Navy undertook the perilous task of escorting the ships by the hazardous route to the North Russian ports. In addition to the supplies which His Majesty's Government agreed to make available under the terms of this agreement, we have endeavoured to meet to the best of our ability numerous supplementary requests received from our Soviet Ally.
A second agreement between the three Governments, again covering not only tanks and aircraft but an immense variety of other supplies, was concluded on the expiration of the first. That second agreement is still in force, and it is the firm intention of His Majesty's Government to fulfil their obligations thereunder as strictly as they did in the case of the previous agreement. His Majesty's Government are fully impressed with the necessity for rendering all possible assistance to Russia, not only in their admiration for the magnificent achievement which the Red Army and Red Air Force have accomplished during the past weeks of successful operations, but as a direct contribution which they can make to the destruction of the aggressive hordes which the enemy have launched against the free peoples of Europe.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: My Lords, my noble friend rides off on what the Government have done, instead of dealing with what the Government are going to do. I call what the Government have done in the past parsimonious. I do not deny in the very least that bargains entered into have been discharged—I accept the noble Lord's assurance to that effect—but I do complain that the present flow of supplies is entirely inadequate, and I would confide to my noble friend the information that those aircraft figures include spares. The spares are always totalled up nowadays as aircraft. In the days when I was a Minister, we counted only aircraft, but some ingenious person discovered the method of classing spares as aircraft also. I think that the method was invented in America, but it has now been imported across the Atlantic. I recommend my noble friend to examine the food situation and to look into it very carefully, because the food going to Russia does not constitute a very big flow of supplies.
Something much greater must be done, not for the glory of Great Britain but for the benefit of Russia, so that Russia may win battles. We must get supplies there. It is no use saying that the convoy system is difficult, that the road is long, that the path is over the sea, and that ships are difficult to come by. The defence of Stalingrad was difficult—extremely difficult—and to their glory the Russians captured those tanks which my noble friend says were much nearer to the Russians than were ours. The Germans wished that they had been much further away from the Russians! We must give the Russians credit for the capture of those tanks. I am going to ask leave to withdraw my Motion, winch I understand is the usual method in your Lordships' House. I have not wide experience of the procedure in your Lordships' House, but I hope to have a little more, because I think that it is possible to get here some things for Russia, and I am going to try. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion, therefore, but I shall come back again if the Government do not increase supplies to Russia—again and again.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.