Lords Sitting of 7 February 1951

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY
  2.34 p.m.
  Gilbert James Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, Esquire (commonly called Lord Willoughby de Eresby), having been summoned by Writ to the House of Lords in his father's Barony of Willoughby de Eresby in the County of Lincoln—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  The Lord Glanusk—Took the Oath.

  LIVERPOOL EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL [H.L.]
  2.39 p.m.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Drogheda.)
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, may I crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments? I feel it would be most unfitting that so important a link with the Victorian era and an institution that has played a large part in the life of this country should, as it were, pass out of its present form of existence without any acknowledgment or recognition of the part that it has played and the part that one hopes it is destined to play under the proposals in the Bill of which the noble Earl has just moved the Second Reading. By a curious turn of events, it so happens that almost to this very day the first Crystal Palace was opened in Hyde Park. This is a small extract from The Times of February 4, 1851:
  206
  "Yesterday was the last day of public admission to the Crystal Palace previous to its preparation for the Exhibition. In consequence an immense concourse of visitors set in upon it from an early hour and a train of carriages was in attendance such as would have done honour to a Jenny Lind night at the Opera."
  So history is repeating itself to-day. We also are making preparations in almost similar circumstances, after a time of war when we are endeavouring to get back to normal conditions. As they were planning one hundred years ago, so we are planning our Festival and putting our wares before the world.
  It is important that this institution, which, in the words of The Times, has held a high place in the esteem of the capital, should receive some attention when we are considering the Bill which is now before us. The Crystal Palace has gone through four phases. The first was when it was built in Hyde Park. Later it was removed under the energy and influence of the Prince Consort to the heights of Sydenham and opened on October 5, 1854, by the Prince Consort, who was accompanied by Her Majesty Queen Victoria. There, I think, was shown a greater imagination and spirit of adventure than we seem to be showing in the launching of our Festival on this occasion. The Crystal Palace has played a large part in the history and in the interest of your Lordships' House. Many distinguished members have been directors of the organisation, and I suppose that in the memories of the elder members in this House and in another place the Crystal Palace ranks highly, because in earlier days there was no rival such as Olympia and Earls Court, and it was the only large place where people could assemble. Great conceits were held under the direction of Augustus Manns, and famous Handel Festivals took place there in which Madame Albani and Sir Charles Santley were leading artistes. That was the first phase, and it continued until the great fire of December, 1936, when the Crystal Palace was burned down.
  It was during this earlier period that financial difficulties were encountered and the Crystal Palace fell into the hands of the Receivers. In 1914 the Government felt that something should be done to save it and it became national property, under the control and direction of a Board of Trustees. I said just now that many

  207
  eminent members of your Lordships' House had played a part in its history. Perhaps the largest part was played by the late Lord Plymouth. He put down a cheque for £230,000 in order to meet the claims of the first debenture holders, and later, after the then Lord Mayor had made a national appeal which fell £30,000 short of the target, he contributed that amount in order to clear the claims. Among other trustees were the late Sir Richard Burbidge, who also contributed £30,000, and the late Lord Hailsham who died quite recently and who, from the time he was Lord Chancellor until a short while before his death, remained one of the trustees. Lord Luke is another, and the Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair is the only survivor of the original trustees who were appointed in 1914. So your Lordships' House has a very great and lively interest in this matter. One might also mention Lord Rochester, and others of your Lordships' House who are trustees to this day. There have been four chairmen of trustees, three of whom have been Lord Mayors of London, and I happen to have been the fourth and, possibly, the last chairman.
  That brings me to the fourth and last stage, and I must say that it is with very mixed feelings that I bring before your Lordships, without reservation, the joint proposals of the Crystal Palace Trustees and the London County Council. I do so with feelings of regret, for I feel that the Government have missed a tremendous opportunity in not staging the Festival of Britain at the Crystal Palace, where there are 200 acres of ground which is already cleared and provided with all the requisite services. The site is easy of access, and the terrible traffic problem would have been reduced to a minimum because there is ample parking space there, to say nothing of an unrivalled panorama of the whole of London from Crystal Palace Parade. However, that opportunity has gone. I pressed it as much as I could, again and again, and that appeal was backed by The Times, but unfortunately we lost a great champion when Lord Keynes passed away. It is no good bemoaning the fact that our proposal was not adopted. The matter is settled and we have, as best we can, to endeavour to make a success of the Festival of Britain.
  208
  Accordingly, when the London County Council invited me first, as an individual, to discuss with them informally the possibilities of transferring the trusteeship to them, I readily agreed to do so. After discussion, and realising that it would be impossible for me to give consent or for us to proceed further on our own, I strongly recommended my fellow trustees to enter the discussions. Incidentally, the presence of my noble friend Lord Stansgate reminds me that his father was one of the original trustees of the Crystal Palace.
  That, then, is the position, and the Bill which is now brought before us has been agreed to by both sides to the contract. Care has been taken to see that the original intention when the Crystal Palace was launched shall be carried out to the full—namely, that it shall be used for the benefit of the people and for the purposes of industry, commerce and art. Recently we had an interesting conflict with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, who wished to impose upon us development charges. We fought them in the High Court and won our action with costs.
  The other point I wish to make now is that when the Crystal Palace was passed to the trustees in 1914 they inherited nothing but debts, and £230,000 had to be raised and paid over. Those debts have been cleared. Certain sums of money were contributed by local authorities, and the Bill makes provision that those monies shall be returned to those authorities. This is not some bankrupt concern that we are trying to pass on. In 1914 Sir Henry Buckland was appointed as manager, and he is manager now, and by his business genius he turned the Crystal Palace into a paying concern. I think it is to the credit of those who took over then that we are handing over something of the order of £300,000 as well as the property. Therefore it cannot be said that we are seeking to unload something which is nothing but a burden.
  The London County Council are now going to take over the Crystal Palace. So it enters upon a fourth phase in its history and, as in the past, your Lordships will have a share and a responsibility in it. I am sure your Lordships will wish that in this phase the Crystal Palace shall be of even greater glory,

  209
  greater benefit, and greater advantage to the community than it has been in the past. I think some word of appreciation should be publicly expressed to the trustees for all that they have done over all these years without fee or reward, but merely out of a sense of public duty. The trustees are handing over the Crystal Palace in good order, so far as the ravages of fire have left it (for which they have no responsibility), and furthermore are handing over the insurance money and other assets arising from it. That, then, is the discharge of our trust. I submit it to you and hope that the Bill will be accorded a speedy passage through the House.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  UTTOXETER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a, and committed.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Henderson and Lord Burden be added to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.
  Moved, That the Lord Willoughby de Eresby, the Lord Henderson, and the Lord Burden be added to the Select Committee.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  THE ENGINEERING INDUSTRY
  2.51 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to call attention to the engineering industry, with particular reference to the rearmament programme, the drive for exports and the demands of the home market; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will feel that the subject I raise to-day in the Motion that I beg
  210
  to move is a useful and vital one for your Lordships' discussion. I feel that it fits in very appropriately with the rearmament debate which your Lordships are going to have in the fairly near future, when no doubt our discussions will be concentrated upon the more direct military, air, naval and industrial aspects of rearmament. My purpose in raising this matter to-day is to ask certain questions and to seek certain information, so far as it is within the power of His Majesty's Government to give it. There is common agreement on all sides that the engineering industry provides the industrial foundation for any rearmament effort that this country may put forward over the next few years and, as we know, the cry must be for more production. But more production needs more men, more power and more materials, and it is upon those three aspects of the problem that I want briefly to touch to-day.
  First, I should like to examine the manpower position, as I see it. It is difficult to say exactly how many men are employed in armament production, but there is general agreement in authoritative sources that there are probably around half a million men now engaged on armament production. I quote the Financial Times of February 1, 1951, which in a very interesting article, said:
  "To achieve anything like the programme outlined by the Prime Minister, this half a million will have to be raised to three-quarters of a million by the spring or early summer, and it will then have to rise to not far short of a million if we are going to touch the peak of armament production within the next two years."
  I would ask your Lordships to think for a moment of the strength of the Armed Forces, which is to-day, in total, about 723,000, so far as the figures in the Statistical Digest of October, 1950, show. That figure of 723,000 will have to be raised by at least another 300,000 new men, after taking into account the reductions due to the longer call-up and the fact that Regular discharges are being suspended. That will raise the number of our Armed Forces to over 1,000,000. On the point that I make that the engineering industry will have grave difficulty in fulfilling its tasks if the numbers in our Armed Forces rise to 1,000,000, a critic may say: "Oh, but in 1947–48 the Forces numbered over 1,000,000 and industry was still able to do its job." Its job then was to supply the home

  211
  demand and the export drive; but to-day industry has three tasks, not two. Industry has to supply the home market, meet the export drive and, above all, fulfil the rearmament programme.
  The reduction in the Armed Forces from over 1,000,000 to 723,000 has, I am afraid, not appreciably benefited productive industry in this country. I do not want to weary your Lordships with many figures, but there are one or two I would ask your Lordships to allow me to put forward. Whereas during the period of 1948 to October, 1950, the Forces were reduced from over 1,000,000 to 720,000—that is by some 380,000— man-power in the vital armament trades of engineering, shipbuilding and electrical industry increased by only 26,000 in those two and a half years. The Forces have come down by 380,000; the vital industries upon which we depend for rearmament have risen by only 26,000. Where have the other men gone to? If we look, we shall see that numbers in the distributive trades in that period increased by about 150,000. In the gas, water and electricity industries employment—and we seem to have less gas and less electricity than ever before—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: We will come to that in a moment. I am going to speak about power cuts in a moment. The consumer is getting less electricity than before, but numbers employed in the gas, electricity and water industries have gone up by 35,000. In the food, drink and tobacco industries employment has risen by over 57,000. I think the conclusion to be drawn from those figures is that man-power in the non-productive industries has been going up but in the directly productive side —that is to say, in the armament, shipbuilding, engineering and electricity industries—has remained nearly the same for two and a half years. If the arms programme which the Government are setting before the country is to be achieved, no one can deny that more man-power—much more man-power—will be required in those armament trades; otherwise there will be a breakdown in the programme.
  I ask the Government whether they are satisfied that the voluntary steps that they are now taking will be adequate to
  212
  meet the position. The National Joint Advisory Council composed of the British Employers' Confederation, the T.U.C. and nationalised industries, has been meeting under the Chairmanship of the new Minister of Labour, Mr. Bevan. I take my information from The Times newspaper, which reports the last meeting. It says that as a result of that meeting, it was agreed that much of the required labour might be found by changing present employees in factories from civilian to armament work and that more might be found owing to unemployment in some industries through starvation in raw materials. The National Joint Advisory Council support the training of people for skilled trades—that is, dilution—the re-entry of women into industry, more overtime, the best use of existing labour, and the use of men over pensionable age. Of course, all these methods are helpful; but is any of them going to lessen the need to swing over labour from what I would call the sheltered or not directly productive industries to those industries directly concerned with the production of armaments?
  Further, when we talk about more overtime and the use of people over pensionable age, we are up against the position that we may soon have a tired nation. On eightpence worth of meat a week, I do not see how we can expect people over pensionable age to re-enter employment with vigour and enthusiasm, nor how we can expect consistent, indefinite long hours of overtime on such meagre subsistence rations as the workers of this country are getting at the present time. All the methods suggested by The Times are helpful, but are they going to be enough? The noble Viscount who is to reply was in the Government during the war, and he will remember that during the war there had to be certain drastic combings-out and the compulsory switchover of labour from one industry to another under the Direction of Labour and Control of Engagement Order. I am not advocating that course to-day. It is for the Government to say if and when these are necessary. Only the Government can take such a decision because only the Government have the knowledge. But I hold that I am entitled to ask: Are the Government satisfied that their present proposals will meet the needs of the hour? Only the Gov-

  213
  ernment have the knowledge, and the Government have the responsibility.
  I do not want to say anything more on man-power and should like to come to the question of the actual amount of generated power required for industry. I think the noble Viscount and noble Lords on all sides of the Bouse will agree that it is no good getting more man-power, more machine tools and more shadow factories in operation, if we have not enough power to run the existing industries full out when they are required. Serious damage is being done to industry to-day through the lack of industrial power. I have in front of me an interesting Report of the Aims of Industry, Limited, a non-Party educational organisation which has wide industrial contacts. This Report shows that there is no doubt at all about the serious effects on industry, first, of the power cuts, and secondly, of the reduction of voltage which is often imposed on factories owing to the shortage of power at peak periods.
  The Aims of Industry Survey covers the period of November and December, 1950, and the first week of January, 1951. It is a striking fact that the worst hit areas are the areas most vital for our rearmament programme. The former distressed area of the North East Coast is hardest hit by the power cuts. Sheffield seems to have had the greatest number of individual cuts. A steel firm in Sheffield suffered forty-four individual cuts, resulting in a loss of forty-three hours of mill work, and a shortage of fuel resulted in another fifteen hours' stoppage. A firm on Tyneside, to quote another example, reported a loss in production and money totalling 21,178 man-hours, costing over £4,000 in wages and a very large loss to the management. No one denies that it is a serious matter when power cuts are inflicted on areas which are most vital to our rearmament programme. The future does not seem to give hope of a change for the better, judging by the present announcements of the British Electricity Authority. The Economist of January 27 put the position of the British Electricity Authority very clearly. It said:
  "Unlike the National Coal Board, which according to Lord Hyndley has the problem of a man running up a downward escalator, the B.E.A. is involved in an apparently interminable chase, hoping but never quite managing to narrow the lead held by its quarry."
  214
  Up until quite recently, it has been difficult to understand why the British Electricity Authority have been encouraging the greater use of domestic electricity. While regretting the power cuts imposed upon industry, as Lord Citrine has regretted them, there have been an extension of hire purchase for electricity appliances, advertisements advocating the greater use of electricity for domestic purposes, and a retention of the two-part tariff which encourages every domestic consumer to use a certain minimum amount of electricity if he is to get back the charges he has paid to the electricity authority.
  As to the future, Lord Citrine paints a gloomy picture. As regards the prospect of the armament industries obtaining the electric power they need while at the same time the consumer is not cut to an intolerable degree, Lord Citrine has said that the demands for electricity were not likely to be met fully for some years, that supply cuts might be necessary until 1957–58, and that tariffs would rise. He proceeded to say that the Authority realise and regret the dislocation these power cuts cause to industry, and added:
  "Unless the annual programmes of new generating plant can be speedily increased … it will be many years, on the present expectations of the growth of demand, before full supplies can be given at all times."
  The industrial life of this country, whether producing for home, export or rearmament, depends on a proper and adequate supply of power. Yet we have been exporting generating plant until quite recently. It seems to me that we can buy our dollars at too high a price. The exporting of generating plant in order to get dollars to help close the dollar deficit is an admirable policy taken up to a certain point, but taken beyond that certain point it is a false economy. It reminds me of the man sitting on the branch of a tree who cuts pieces off the branch that supports him in order to get enough wood to light his fire for making tea. When the branch cracks, his tea is not going to taste so good! We have been chipping away and chipping away part of our industrial strength by exporting generating plant in order to obtain dollars, and we have been—I will not exaggerate by saying, risking the whole, but certainty damaging the ability of industry to cope with present and future demands.

  215
  I should like to ask the Government this: Do the Government foresee that all the necessary power supplies for the rearmament programme can be met without an intolerable further cut being made upon the domestic consumers? The second question I should like to ask is this: Have the Government stopped all export of generating plant, both to hard currency and soft currency areas? Thirdly, will the Government speed up the generating plant and power station construction to a greater degree than hitherto? Finally, could the Government confound, by comforting words, the gloomy forecast put forward by Lord Citrine as to the electricity position for several years to come, both industrially and domestically?
  I have touched briefly on man-power and generating power, and now I propose to deal equally briefly with the question of raw materials. It is common knowledge that there is a world shortage of raw materials, and that rearmament is going to call for two things: first, an international allocation; and secondly, a domestic allocation based on a system of priorities such as we had during the war. As regards the international allocation, I feel sure that I shall be echoing the feelings of noble Lords on all sides of the House if I say that we wish well to Lord Knollys in the onerous task he is undertaking in representing British interests in Washington. With regard to the domestic situation, as I have said, there will have to be priority allocations, and there are going to be severe shocks to industry. Will the Government carry industry with them all the way, by letting them know of any difficulties, so far as they can, and when they are likely to arise? Recently we read in the Press a declaration by the Ministry of Supply that there was to be a heavy cut in nonferrous metals, which would affect Birmingham industry severely. The Birmingham traders protested, and the Minister of Supply postponed the cut. That seems to me to be all wrong. Either that cut was necessary, in which case, in the national interest, the Minister should have stood by his declaration; or it was not necessary and could be postponed, and in that case he ought not to have made the announcement. The Minister cannot have it both ways. I
  216
  appeal to the Government to take industry into their confidence to a greater degree than they have done in the past in this matter of the supplies of raw material.
  In conclusion, I would say that it is not for us to put forward proposals—we have not access to the necessary information. I have tried to put my questions to the Minister this afternoon fairly and reasonably. It is our duty, however, to point out the difficulties and dangers as we see them, and to ask the Government for information—which we very rarely get. We have seen a dollar crisis, two coal crises, a permanent electricity crisis, a potato crisis, a newsprint crisis, and now we have a meat crisis. I wonder if some of your Lordships remember the book written by the late Mr. George Orwell called 1980, in which there was a mental process developed by the year 1980 called "double think." It seems to me that with all these crises being dealt with nobly and efficiently after they have occurred, this Government suffer from a disease called "afterthink"—they always seem to be wise after the event. That view is justified by what Sir Stafford Cripps said when he was talking of the post-war period. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, was a colleague of his in the Cabinet and must have known what was going on. Sir Stafford Cripps said:
  "… we have been trying to deal with it ever since by a series of temporary expedients which have led to a series of crises as each expedient became exhausted."
  Because of the disease of "after-think," the frank admission by Sir Stafford Cripps, and our past experience, I have grave doubts, which I have thought it necessary to express to-day, whether His Majesty's Government are able to organise, manage and direct the policy of our rearmament programme. I have asked these questions in the hope of obtaining some reassurance on the intentions of the Government in respect of man-power, materials and generating power. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.16 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I feel that I ought to explain why I have withdrawn the Motion which I had on the Order Paper for some time. Since I put down the Motion, the situation had become of such importance that I felt it was a subject that, if possible, should be moved

  217
  from the Front Bench. My noble friend's Motion, like mine, is concentrated to a great extent on the engineering industry. We are faced with a gigantic task, and I for one do not believe we can carry it out under the present system. I support my noble friend's admirable and instructive speech, and I hope that we shall receive a comprehensive and helpful answer from the noble Viscount. Many of us in this House are connected with business, and come to know a good deal about the industrial situation; and by our influence and our work in various walks of life, we are able to help. We have a difficult task before us. A year ago industry was confined to two tasks— namely, export and home market. Now we have also to supply the urgent requirements of a huge and complex rearmament programme. I put that first. I put second the home market—and I will tell your Lordships why. If we do not do everything we can to supply the requirements of the home market, we shall have a serious rise in prices, which means a tendency to—I cannot say inflation, because we know that we now have inflation to a certain degree, but more inflation. I put as my third point the drive for exports, which is of the greatest possible importance in earning dollars.
  I hope that I shall not be accused of being gloomy—I generally am. As I was coming into the Chamber the noble Viscount the Leader of the House tapped me on the shoulder and said: "I hope we are not going to have a lot of gloom." I try to face up to realities. The other night—I do not know whether any of your Lordships was listening—there was a Labour Party dance at Forest Hill, and a more gloomy statement was given there by the Prime Minister than I have ever embarked upon. I assure your Lordships that I was nearly moved to tears. But I shall try not to get into that state of mind to-day.
  I propose to face this problem from an angle different from that of my noble friend. I wish to spend a little time in discussing the question of coal. I put coal as the No. 1 priority of the whole programme. It is vital to the engineering trade. I ask His Majesty's Government whether they have considered employing foreign miners to help us to produce more and cheaper coal. I rang up the Foreign Office the other day and asked them if they could give me any figures of the
  218
  number of unemployed in our zone in Germany. I was told that, roughly speaking, there were a million unemployed in our zone in Germany— skilled, semiskilled and unskilled labour, and a good many of them miners. I should like this country to go "all out" to produce as much coal as we possibly can, because I am certain that if we could accomplish that, we should be a long way towards solving our difficulties. I have discussed the question of the use of foreign labour with some of my trade union friends, and find there are doubts about this in the. minds of a great many of the workers, I am told there would be agreement on this question provided there was no naturalisation, that their employment would be only temporary, that trade union conditions and wages were observed, and that there was protection against unemployment in this way: that immediately unemployment showed its ugly head, the term of employment of these foreign workers would be terminated. I know the difficulty. To-day we have fewer than 700,000 of our own miners working in the mines. The trouble is, where are we going to house these miners when we import them? I suggest that the discarded military camps I have seen in many places could be organised to provide reasonable habitation for foreign labour, without a very large expenditure. I urge the Government to consider seriously this question of the use of foreign labour.
  Let me consider for a moment what adequate supplies of coal mean. They mean more power—my noble friend has referred to that—adequate electrical power, no cuts and no waste. I should like to ask the noble Viscount if he would try to get the right Department to do everything they can to step cuts being made without warning. I have been told that a cut without warning is often dangerous to workers. And there are marry commodities which, when there is a sudden cut, or a cut at all, have to be abandoned at the stage they were passing through when the power was cut. The result, of course, is a terrible waste. Then, if there were an adequate supply of coal, we should get more gas. We ought to be exporting coal instead of importing it, and that would be an enormous benefit to us. In my view coal is the key to solving this problem. One can hardly

  219
  visualise having all the coal we want because we have been so restricted for so long. The coal is there for the taking and would meet all our needs, if we could produce it; and I believe that with a bold effort we can do it. Greater production would undoubtedly mean cheaper coal, and that would mean cheaper steel and steel products, cheaper production of machinery and lower prices of exports. I am sorry to hammer away at this coal question, but I believe it is of first importance. With regard to coal imports, we need more shipping. I am told from various sources that the ships now occupied in bringing coal here could be occupied in bringing iron ore into the country if we produced enough coal for our needs. That would enable us to make better use of our shipping.
  I want to say a word about machine capacity. My noble friend has touched upon it lightly. I am told by many of my friends who are men of standing in the engineering trade that to-day machines are working at not more than half capacity, and probably a good deal less than that in many works. The reason is a shortage of suitable labour and raw materials. If the shortage of suitable labour and raw materials continues, then we are sunk. But I believe that it is not permanent. It is a temporary question, and I beg the Government to think seriously before continuing too far with bulk buying. If you are going to have bulk buying, there is bound to be bulk selling, and what is the result?—hoarding. Let me give a concrete case. If noble Lords opposite come to me, as the seller, to buy a certain commodity of which I have plenty, knowing that they are the only buyers I say: "Well, yes, I can let you have a little, but not too much, although I have a great deal more." They go away disgruntled, and I say: "Come back later and have another talk about it." In due course back they come, and I say: "Yes, I can let you have a little more, but I'm afraid the price has gone up." That is bound to happen with bulk buying, and I hope that the Government will see whether they can do something about it.
  My recollection is that we did not have a shortage of power either before or during the war. Now we are attempting to do almost the biggest job we have ever
  220
  tackled, and certainly the biggest job we have ever attempted to do in peace time. I return to the question of raw materials for a moment. I know, and your Lordships know, that there are many firms who, through having connection with suppliers of raw material in all parts of the world, find that occasionally they have an opportunity of buying. Well, they cannot do it. They have to go through the usual channel of the Ministry of Supply, and while haggling is going on over the price somebody else "nips in" and buys the commodity. I know of two recent cases where that happened to very big firms in this country. If only they could have said, "Yes, I will have it," they would have got it; but another country has "nipped in" and taken it off the market. Therefore, I hope that the Government will see whether they can do anything about that matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, I am always glad to have information about things of this sort. Whilst I know of attempts to get black-market prices for certain parcels of raw materials, I do not know of the instances to which the noble Lord refers. If he has any particular case he would like investigated, I shall be glad to inquire into it. It would not be right for us to have a free market and to subsidise it, in order to bring the price down to the price of raw materials in this country.
  LORD TEVIOT: I do not think the noble Viscount is quite following me. Suppose I hear from an agent from whom I used to buy raw materials that he has, we will say, a parcel of tin—as in the last case about which I heard—and I wanted that tin. I am not suggesting any-think like black-market. In the meantime, while argument is going on with regard to the price, the tin goes somewhere else.
  LORD WINSTER: In the two specific cases which the noble Lord has mentioned, of a buyer coming in and buying what was being offered to our own Government, did the buyer buy at the same price at which the goods were being offered to our Government, or at a higher price?
  LORD TEVIOT: I could verify that point, but I imagine that the price at which this particular commodity was

  221
  offered to this firm would have suited the firm; but somebody else "nipped in" and bought it at that price.
  Now I want to say a word about controls. I am by no means suggesting that we can do away with controls. I know that that is quite impossible. But is it not possible to-day, in the light of all the experience we have had in the last few years with regard to controls and restrictions, to think out some way in which they might be modified? While those in industry are just as keen as everybody else to retain controls, it seems to be the general opinion that the whole question should now be re-examined to see whether the controls and restrictions could not be modified. As a result. I believe that more raw materials would become available. I do not say that in some cases it might not be necessary to stiffen up a control— it depends upon the various circumstances. Before I go any further, I must deal for a moment with iron and steel nationalisation. I think it is perfectly outrageous that at this moment this disturbance is to be forced upon what is the most vital industry in the country to-day. I believe that if the immediate implementation of iron and steel nationalisation is not stopped, a most chaotic situation will arise.
  My noble friend referred to the re-entry of women into industry. I do not know whether I am correct—the noble Lord will tell me if I am not—but I am told that the number of women in industry to-day is nearly equal to its peak number during the War.
  LORD HALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I make it clear that what I was quoting was the re-entry of women into industry as one of the measures recommended by the National Joint Advisory Council?
  LORD TEVIOT: I realise that, and I thank the noble Lord for his interruption. However, I am told that at the moment there is no reserve which would amount to anything. There are many women who, if they could, would like to stay at home and look after their homes, but, owing to the austere life we have to lead they are more or less forced to go out and work. I do not think that all we have talked about this afternoon can be done by the Government alone. I believe it must be done by those wicked people— whom some of the members of the Party opposite refer to as "those greedy
  222
  people"—who make profits, which is an outrageous thing to do. Among them must be included the employees who like to make as high wages as possible. Now, those are the people who can carry out this programme, because they know about business; they know the hard facts about business, for they have been practising it for many years in various trades and callings.
  What the nation wants, in my view, is clear and intelligent marching orders and not "mark time" orders. Marking time always seems to me to sap energy and get you nowhere. I beg the Government to come right out into the open and tell the people everything and I believe that, as always in the past, the nation will respond and that, given a lead by the Government, we shall get through our difficulties. We can then give a lead to the world. I end on that note: that I am not despondent if this situation is dealt with courageously and boldly by the Government. In the war the common soldier was told what he had to do when he went over the top; and I hope that the people will now be told the whole story by the Government, so that they may know what they really have to do. I believe that if that is done we shall come through with flying colours. I beg to support my noble friend.
  3.42 p.m.
  LORD CROOK: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this debate in order that something may be said from a rather different point of view from those which have been dealt with by the noble Lords who moved and seconded this Motion. I regret deeply having to speak at all on a Motion which deals with rearmament in this country. As one who, in the Socialist movement, for the last quarter of a century has devoted a considerable amount of time to the cause of peace, I should much rather I were speaking in opposition to a Motion for our re-armament and not in favour of it. But I cannot forbear giving, as all my colleagues on these Benches give, whole-hearted support to the Government for the rearmament proposed at this moment, for it is not a rearmament for aggrandisement or one which is sought by the citizens of this country. It was my privilege to be one of the team of representatives of the United Kingdom who spent some months in the deliberations of the United Nations at Lake

  223
  Success; and I am deeply conscious of the way in which this country has done its best to secure the peace of the world and to take every possible step towards that end. But what we are discussing this afternoon is part of the programme for the re-equipping of this country for the essential defence of itself—a step which has been forced upon us.
  Without doubt, the engineering industry, which is the subject of the Motion this afternoon, must be the industry most affected by the rearmament programme. During the next few years the country is to spend £4,700,000,000 on the programme of rearmament. The major part of that expenditure will be related to the industry which is the subject of this Motion. The experience of the last war shows, I think, that the problem of man-power plays a very significant part in this field; and my excuse for intervention must be that I was called upon to play some part in the matter of man-power during the last war and saw something of the problem, both from the Civil Service administrative angle and also from the point of view of the internal organisation of the trade union movement. After listening to the speeches of noble Lords this afternoon I admit to a temptation to digress. I am certainly bound to offer a couple of observations on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. One is that, having been gloomy throughout his speech, he told us at the end that he was not despondent. I am sure we are all relieved. I am not going to follow him into some of the themes he raised, though they were very tempting to me. For instance, the noble Lord called for a bold effort in respect of coal; I am tempted to ask him where was the bold effort that should have been made in the years between the wars—but perhaps I will leave that for another occasion. Similarly, I feel very tempted to take up the cudgels with regard to what the noble Lord said on the subject of bulk buying. If the noble Lord has not read a document which came before us in the United Nations, in which a tribute was paid to the way in which this country had been helped in the matter of costs by means of the project of bulk buying, I shall be glad to lend him a copy.
  The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, spoke of the coal problem, and
  224
  was very critical. But the noble Lord's criticisms are always softened by his approach and by his smile when making them. I must therefore acquit him of any desire to make us gloomy. He, too, offered me a number of temptations, one of which was to enter upon a debate concerning exports; but I am not at present prepared to do that. It seems to me that the logical conclusion of what the noble Lord said would be that we ought not to export anything at all, but just go on taking in one another's washing. But perhaps the noble Lord did not mean that.
  Clearly, the manning of the engineering industry is going to be one of the great problems which both the Government and the industry will have to take into account. In opening the debate, the noble Lord referred to the figure of 500,000 persons employed in the industry, and mentioned a suggestion in the Financial Times of a possible increase to 1,000,000. I believe the total figure of man-power employed in the engineering industry, as distinct from the figure for armaments alone, is probably nearly 2,750,000. And when looking at the engineering industry and its potential, we have to look at the sum total, since the armament section can find its labour only from the other portion of the industry. I think the noble Lord is right in saying that about 2,000,000 persons are employed on the distributive side. I thought I observed a spasm of pain on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, when Lord Balfour mentioned so high a figure in that sphere. I do not know whether that was because of his memories of the General Election programme of the Party opposite which he represents, when it desired to "Set the people free" and have as many people serving goods and making goods, uncontrolled, as might be.
  If my memory of the facts is correct, those 2,750,000 persons in the engineering industry are located as to about 25 per cent. in the London area, somewhere about 20 per cent. in the Birmingham area and about 20 per cent. in the Manchester engineering area. For that reason, I found it a little difficult, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, to follow his suggestion that the power cuts, in hitting the North East, were hitting the most vital part of the engineering industry areas. I would not argue with him either in favour of power cuts or about the importance of the North-Eastern area, but

  225
  I think we must bear this fact in mind: that at the present time 25 per cent. of the industry is in the London area and approximately 20 per cent. in each of the other two areas to which I have referred. I do not criticise the noble Lord in his regret at power cuts. I feel the greatest regret both for the power cuts and for the constant use of additional electrical equipment in households. I join with the noble Lord in criticising the continued sale of those additional electrical facilities and their constant advertisement. But I am bound to tell him that I was upset this last week at seeing free enterprise firms advertising their wares in the evening papers each day, despite Government appeals—great firms in the West End of London urging the purchase of this and that kind of electrical appliance. I do not think the Government can be held responsible for the free enterprise which makes things of that kind available.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? When I raised the point about the sale of electrical appliances, I had in mind the growth of hire purchase through the British Electricity Authority, which has fostered more advantageous terms than free enterprise can offer. Surely the Government could issue a directive to stop that sort of thing.
  LORD CROOK: I will leave that point to be dealt with by the noble Viscount who is to reply. In that respect, I do not think it is for the Government to start issuing directives to the nationalised industries. That is a major problem that can be debated between the two sides of this House, but it will be for the noble Viscount who replies for the Government to deal with that point. Incidentally, since I am referring to power cuts and since there was a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, may I try to answer that query without waiting for my noble friend to reply, and assure Lord Teviot that there were no power cuts before the last war, for the reason that industry was in such a bad state as regards unemployment that the power could not be used? That is the answer to that query.
  LORD TEVIOT: Is the noble Lord referring to the time when the Labour Government were in office, with the highest unemployment figures ever known in the country?
  LORD CROOK: I am referring to the long period of time during which the Party represented by noble Lords opposite had such great opportunities for doing so much for this country, which could have used the power that was then available so freely. I have a figure in that connection. It is that the total of production of the engineering industry in 1949, as reported in 1950, was, I believe, 170 per cent. compared with the figure in 1938; and in 1938 the Party of the noble Lords opposite were already engaged upon the inflation of employment figures and production on a rearmament programme of a major size. The truth is that that increase in the productivity of engineering concerns has been the result of the successful work and the initiative and drive of many of the great firms and leaders of industry in the engineering trade, and of the cooperation of their workers.
  Having said that, may I go on to say that there are still a number of firms who, in my submission—I am sure the noble Viscount who replies for the Government will be able to confirm this—have not played their part at all? The truth is that increased productivity is still the surest way of increasing effective man-power. It was calculated that an increase of 1 per cent. of productivity on the whole range of engineering products over a year is equivalent to a man-power force of 250,000 persons. Clearly, the productivity drive can produce the same results, but those results must be supplemented by other efforts inside industry. Government direction may be inevitable but I want to say to noble Lords that I am opposed to that. I think it can be avoided. If the two sides in industry, in co-operation with the Government, can secure good results, then that is the best way to do it. That kind of method secured results during; the war, as most of us well know. The constant contact which this Government have built up in various ways with industry has been of tremendous value and, when we have finished all our criticisms and little grumbles about the way in which here and there sporadic unauthorised strikes occur, we are bound to realise that the country as a whole has in recent years suffered little in loss of man-power hours through strikes.

  227
  The record of the last few years is unparalleled. That is due to the growth of the machinery of consultation. The machine in respect of the engineering industry is to be found in the National Joint Advisory Council to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has referred, where rearmament and man-power have already been the subject of conversation; and, in the Ministry of Supply, the Engineering Advisory Council and its sectional councils, which have also already been active. I think we should realise what are the stages in the engineering problem. The present problem is not that of increasing machine capacity by more machines; it is, first, to secure a supply of raw materials; secondly, to find where the labour is used, and thirdly, to find how labour is used. For the most part, we shall have to rely upon existing factories and plant and, at first, the existing labour force. The Prime Minister, in the statement which he made on the general programme, has said that inevitably rearmament must be made at the expense of other things. Those other things, I suppose, can be summarised as these: hard-won export markets, which we shall all regret losing; a decline in the reequipment of our own home industry and the reduction of some of the goods for the home market. I mention the latter quite deliberately—not that it is a political point at all, but it is of supreme importance to the public at large that they should understand that, if one embarks upon an expenditure of this kind, using the national wealth of this country, disturbances cannot be avoided. There must be some loss to them. The most that we can do is to try to keep the disturbances down to a minimum and to give the public as little trouble as possible.
  The first problem inside the engineering industry, it seems to me, will be the reallocation of the manpower within the industry from the general to the particular in respect of the rearmament programme to which the noble Lord refers. That will mean the completion of existing commitments and then, of course, a decision on priorities between the home market and rearmament. We may have to have a re-allocation of man-power within industry. I refer to this deliberately because your Lordships' House can
  228
  be made a sounding board for the nation to understand something of the gigantic task which faces the industry. As I understand it, the industry has over 20,000 major establishments employed on main engineering production. They, for their part, must see to it that the larger contracts received are extended as widely as possible to sub-contractors, to spread the effective employment of man-power. I believe the Ministry of Supply Engineering Advisory Council has already given advice to the industry in that way.
  Then there will be the disposable labour force that will become available when the change in production takes place. In that regard I should like to make the suggestion that co-operation on the part of the employers and workers in notifying employment exchanges can have the dual effect, not only of making the mobility and fluidity of labour better, but also of avoiding some of the risks of direction of labour being reintroduced. If employers, as soon as they know that they have workpeople who will be redundant, will see that the men while still employed register at the employment exchange, and so permit the people at the employment exchange to try to fit them into existing or potential vacancies, they will be doing much to help themselves.
  The third stage, as in war, will be the upgrading and training of new people. If I understand the labour force position inside the engineering industry to-day, it is not that there is a shortage of labour generally but rather a shortage of skilled labour. I understand that there are shortages of draughtsmen, turners, millers, capstan setters, highly skilled fitters and the like. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount who will reply for the Government will be able to confirm, not only that those shortages exist, but that the industry is co-operating with the Ministry in training schemes jointly agreed by the two sides. Then there is to be the introduction of women and other additional workers, to which reference has been made. In that connection the noble Lord made some comments about meat rationing which, if I may say so, did not strike me as very relevant—and may I tell him why I did not think they were relevant? He thought that we should become a very tired and difficult race of people because of the shortage of meat. I would only

  229
  say to the noble Lord that temporary shortage of meat or no shortage of meat, the standard of feeding of the people to-day is much better than it was between the wars, and better than it was during the war. The noble Lord shakes his head. I am talking only of the people who do the work. I am talking about them because they get the value of canteen meals, and I should have thought that an attraction about going into industry would be to get a meat ration multiplied by the number of times it is multiplied under the existing arrangements for those engaged upon that kind of labour.
  My Lords, I have been on my feet probably too long, and I have allowed myself on two or three occasions to be diverted. There is one other diversion upon which I think I, as a trade union representative here, ought to say something, and it relates to the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, to the employment of foreign labour. I should like to say this about the employment of foreign labour in general. I doubt very much whether Governments who have their own defence programme and their own economy to safeguard are ready to release their workers to come to this country. From all the experience we have had, I am bound to say that there is not a great deal of value, in any case, in the employment of foreign workers, or in attempting to employ them.
  Three years ago the trade unions and the employers in the foundry industry agreed to take Italian foundry workers. A joint committee of the two sides went out to North Italy to recruit the workers, but at that stage, on second thoughts, and having examined their own position, the Italian Government intervened and terminated the agreement with this country. Therefore, after that much vaunted attempt to employ foreign workers, I understand that last week, after a period of three years, there were in employment in this country only 190 Italian foundry workers. It is true that at the end of last year 270 additional tin platers came from Italy, not under any official scheme but under the individual scheme where permits arc issued by the Ministry of Labour to employers who satisfy the Ministry as to wage rates and suitable alternative labour not being available here. But on behalf of the trade union
  230
  movement—I am not speaking for the Government or the employers—I can say that if the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. knows of any skilled. foreign workers whose Governments are prepared to allow them to take work here, I am quite sure that my colleagues in the trade union movement will find no difficulty in exercising the problem with a view to helping, as they always like to help, to solve the problems of this country.
  My Lords, that is perhaps an appropriate point on which to conclude my speech, and I end by assuring your Lordships, as one who is connected with the trade union movement in this country, of their great desire to help those who will have to deal with the problems of increased production inside the engineering industry and indeed all industry, and of their co-operation with the Government and with the country. They are first and foremost citizens of the country, and as citizens they know that the rearmament programme upon which this country has embarked is not one which has been sought by this country, bur. is one which we, in the defence of our heritage and our democratic traditions, have had forced upon us.
  4.8 p.m.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I rise to speak on the Motion which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has moved to-day, first, because I think it is one of the utmost importance. My other reason for doing so is that I have upon the Order Paper a Motion of my own which I shall not now move, on the serious position of the electrical supply industry in this country. As my noble friend has talked of that matter, I should like for a few moments to reinforce what he said. In the drive which we must have to carry out the rearmament programme and also to have a reasonable standard of living in this country we must get more productivity for the home market; otherwise something will have to go by the board. Undoubtedly, a certain amount from home industry will have to go by the board, but we want to maintain a fair standard of living in this country and at the same time carry out the rearmament programme with the maximum speed.
  As Lord Teviot rightly said, coal is the foundation of everything, and it may be somewhat academic if I try to speak

  231
  for a moment on how we should try to increase the electricity supply of this country when we have not the coal to put into the generators. The whole question, however, is tied up with that of getting more productivity, and even with that of more mechanisation in the mines, to get more coal out. The Minister of Fuel and Power, in his speech in the debate in another place last week, said that one of the urgent problems in the mines is to get more power conveyors into the mines, so that when the coal is cut at the face by mechanisation, it is conveyed to the bottom of the pit and then raised. To do that more power is needed, and the country is extremely short of power at the moment. I am not going to say that we have not more power than we had before the war. Of course we have. We have about 3,000,000 kilowatts more than we had in 1941. Provision for 2,000,000 of those kilowatts has been made since the war, and for 1,000,000 of them was made during the war. Nevertheless, we are extremely short of power and power cuts throughout the country have been much worse this winter than at any other time.
  Therefore, I should like to look for a moment at His Majesty's Government's ten-year plan for coal. The plan for coal states that at the present moment there are available about 942,250 kilowatts, but by 1955 the industry will want at least 347,500 extra kilowatts if the mines are to get the extra coal. That would then bring the demand up to 1,289,750 kilowatts, which is a very large amount. The annual amount that is being produced now, is about 1,000,000 kilowatts per annum, and about two-thirds of that goes into industries. Coal must get the first claim; otherwise we shall not be able to keep the rest of industry going. May I quote for a moment from the report of the productivity team of the electrical industry which recently went out to America? Their report states:
  "Throughout the tour, productivity was kept to the forefront of our minds."
  That is on page 3 of the report. Paragraph 57, on page 11 of the report, states:
  "It is appropriate to recall that, in America. the industrial worker uses about three times as much electricity as in Britain, the relative figures at the end of 1948 being six units per man hour, as against two in Britain."
  232
  Lord Balfour of Inchrye divided his Motion into three parts: more man-power, more materials, and more power. I do not think we can get much more man-power in the country; I think we have to depend upon greater productivity of that man-power. Probably there will have to be a certain switch, but if there is too big a switch we shall not get the reasonable comforts at home, or the exports that we so much desire. I think they can be obtained, but they can be obtained only in this way: by our trying at once not to export so much of vital materials, such as generating plant, which are needed at home. In this country we have the finest electrical engineers in the world. I, who spent ten happy years in that industry, am not going to be one to run down the industry or its technicians in any way. We have some of the finest engineers in the world. I have been privileged to see some of the work which has been done in the post-war power stations. But it is much too slow compared with what is done in America. Before the war we finished a power station in three years; to-day it is taking about five years. If one looks more closely at the programme, one sees from the figures prepared by the Central Electricity Board that it was intended in the years 1944 to 1947 inclusive to produce 5,440,000 more kilowatts. Up to the end of last year plant for only about 3,469,000 kilowatts was actually brought into commission: therefore the industry was about 1,971,000 kilowatts behind in the programme.
  What are the reasons for being so much behind in the programme? One of the reasons is the lack of boiler equipment. I know that boilers are needed all over the world, and boiler tubes and valves are the difficulty. I understand that the British Electricity Authority scoured Europe to try to get more of these commodities because the productivity in this country, with the very high rate of export which is going on or which has been going on up to now, is not sufficient to meet the demand. They have succeeded in getting a certain number of boiler tubes from Germany and a certain number of valves from Italy. They were not successful, I understand, in persuading the Treasury to let them have two boilers for a new station in the Midlands; the Treasury said they could not spare the dollars which would have

  233
  speeded up rearmament there. We cannot have it both ways. If we are going to speed up productivity, we must look at our programme again. I suggest to His Majesty's Government that they should look at the export programme for these very vital bottlenecks. I believe it is seriously thought in the industry to-day that we could perhaps use more diesel generating sets in some of the smaller power stations of the British Electricity Authority, because, if more were available, they could come into operation at peak periods and these sudden cuts, at any rate in some areas, could be stopped. I think I am right in saying that it is not possible to give advanced warning of these imminent power cuts because it all has to be done very quickly. All that can be done is to instal cycle meters. If the cycles and the voltage drop, then a power cut is probably imminent. I have little else to say except that I hope His Majesty's Government will give this matter serious consideration. If we do not get this extra power we shall not get the extra productivity; and I agree with Lord Crook that that is one of the problems which must be solved to-day if this country is to survive, as I am sure it will do.
  4.17 p.m.
  VISCOUNT PORTMAN: My Lords, I should like to refer for a few minutes to a side of the rearmament programme which I feel has not had the stress that it should have been given. I refer to a subject which has been lightly referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, this afternoon—that is, trades disputes and strikes. Unfortunately, at the time when the Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Forces made his tour of Europe, and at the time when a notice has appeared in the Press that the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade has delayed his visit to Australia in order to speed up the distribution of orders for rearmament, there are signs that all is not well within the labour movement, especially from the subversive point of view. I refer now to the evident fact that we are close to another devastating dock strike, if sufficient steps are not taken by His Majesty's Government.
  I am sorry to say that I cannot feel, from the reports we have heard from another place, that the Minister of
  234
  Labour, popular as he is supposed to be; with the Labour movement of this country, is taking the necessary steps at this critical hour to suppress any illegal and unauthorised activities which trade unions are supposed to control. We have power cuts; we have fuel shortages; and we poor civilians have to put up with shortages of all sorts. Yet we have been informed by the Press that definite orders have been given from abroad that every single means is to be used to disrupt our rearmament. As soon as the news appears, the first thing that happens is the start of a devastating dock strike. and, then, disputes over wages arise in the electrical engineering trades. After all, a good many of us are being taxed to the limit. Your Lordships will have noticed that the Supreme Commander has given permission for the American Press to report that the need of Europe will be for American goods and materials, not soldiers. America has given us help of the greatest order in the past few years. Now, when we are about to face the greatest peril of our lives, we have evidence that the Government are unable to control their supporters.
  It is distressing to have to say this in your Lordships' House this afternoon, but this trouble is something which can disrupt the rearmament programme for good and all. There are enemies, of our country out to do that, and the unfortunate fact is that they have more power in the Labour movement than have the unions. I have reasons for saying this. I have lately been in the Midlands, and I assure your Lordships that labour unrest is most serious in the Manchester area. It is distressing to find that further steps are not being taken by the Government to put this down. I should like an assurance from the Government that the utmost steps are being taken to stop any illegal and unauthorised unrest at a time when the fate of the nation, and of millions of people outside the Labour movement, is in the balance.
  4.22 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, there may be disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, upon matters; of detail in the speech with which he moved his Motion, but I am sure we all agree that that speech goes to the very heart of the problems which must be

  235
  solved if we are to make a success of our rearmament programme. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that they will be solved, because in the long run we always manage somehow or other to make a success of the things to which we set our hands. I am sure that will be found to be so in this case. I was not certain about some of the figures quoted by the noble Lord, but at the present moment there is such a mass of figures floating about that it is difficult to be certain that one has them right. I understand it was calculated that 450,000 men will have to be transferred to the engineering industries, which have to bear the brunt of rearmament. I have seen that figure subsequently put up to 500,000, and now the noble Lord, quoting from the Financial Times, says that the figure is more likely to be 1,000,000.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The Financial Times said 500,000 by the spring, and possibly up to 1,000,000 in two years, when we reach the peak of production.
  LORD WINSTER: That is my recollection. But I hope that that figure of 1,000,000 is an overestimate. I think the noble Lord gave a figure for the Armed Forces of 1,000,000. Again, my recollection is that we are aiming to expand the Armed Forces to 800,000.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Let us get this right. I said that the Armed Forces in 1947–48 numbered 1,100,000, and they have now come down to 723,000. It is true that the Prime Minister said that they are to be increased to something over 800,000, but that is only the start of the military requirements. Assuming that we are to have ten divisions in Western Europe eventually, I calculate that the Forces will require 300,000 additional new men, allowing for retentions and the suspensions of Regular discharges.
  LORD WINSTER: There is really no difference between us. We are told that the burden of the rearmament programme has to fall upon the engineering industries, which, therefore, must to a great extent be taken off work for exports. Consequently, a heavy burden will be thrown upon the other industries in order to make good those exports which will no longer be coming from the
  236
  engineering industries. The point I wish to make on these figures is that while these other industries have to face this increased task in the export trade, they will be losing a large number of men— call it 450,000 or 700,000—to the engineering industries. They will also be losing men to the Armed Forces, because the Armed Forces are to be expanded, and annually they will suffer a disruption by the call-up of some reservists for a period of fifteen days. In addition to the other difficulties that these industries will be called upon to face, there are these real difficulties of the depletion of man-power which they will suffer.
  I could not follow the noble Lord when he said that the consumer was getting less gas and electricity than ever. I agree that he is not getting all he wants. The output of gas and electricity is higher than it used to be, but because the demand is far greater, the consumer, whether industrial or private, is not geting all he would like to have. I noted what the noble Lord said about industries being short of man-power. It is the case—and regrettably so—that for some considerable time the essential industries have been starved of, or if that is too strong a word, have been hard put to it, for man-power, while non-essential industries have been getting all they wanted. For some years such industries as cotton, textiles and agriculture have been very short of man-power, while football pools and greyhound racing have had all they wanted. I do not begrudge the people their amusements, but it remains a fact that essential industries for a considerable number of years have not had the man-power they required.
  I should like to say a word of two more about the industries which have to fill the gap in our export trade which will be left by the concentration of the engineering industries on the work of rearmament. I have dealt with the depletion of man-power that they will suffer. Apparently they are expected to do more with less man-power. At the same time, the industries which make plant and equipment for industry will also be diverted to the work of rearmament. Therefore, these industries may be called upon to do more, while suffering losses in man-power, and possibly while not being able to get the plant and equipment which they require to keep themselves

  237
  fully up to date and able to take a heavy burden of work. There is the further point that they will be expected to increase exports in face of these difficulties and of the fact that imports of their raw materials are likely to diminish, while the prices of raw materials which they do get will increase. Yet, in spite of the rise in prices, they must try to keep their costs of production down so that we may be able to sell the exports which they produce. It is perfectly clear that those industries will have a. tremendous task put upon them, and I think the hope of their achieving it depends upon the task being approached in the spirit in which the Lord President of the Council spoke in his recent week-end speech in Scotland —the spirit of help, encouragement and co-operation with the industries undertaking this task, and not in the spirit of other speeches I have read which breathe the spirit of enmity to the very people on whom we have to rely for success in this great task.
  Something was said about the sale of electrical appliances. That has been forbidden now I think that the companies have been offering far too attractive hire purchase terms to purchasers of this equipment. Having recently returned from America, where I saw some of the more unfortunate results of the drive over there for people to buy on the instalment system, I hope we are not going to follow that example in any way at all. I should like to ask one question about electricity. Are any steps being taken to see what can be done to persuade sections of industry to switch over to oil fuel? I am afraid I am asking that question at short notice, but I have often felt that possibly a great deal could be done to help if certain industries turned over to fuel oil or increased their use of it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has vaccinated himself against his own gloom. His speech occasionally breathed a slightly pessimistic spirit, but in spite of if he remains completely undaunted; and that is why I say he must have vaccinated himself against his own gloom. The noble Lord devoted a great deal of his speech to the important question of coal. He said that we must solve our difficulties about coal or we are done. I think I am right in saying that he put forward only two suggestions as to how we should overcome the difficulties in that industry.
  238
  One was the employment of foreign labour. To the best of my knowledge there is some foreign labour employed in the mines at the present moment, and the trade union leaders in the Trades Union Congress recently went on record that they would do all in their power to influence their members to accept the idea of foreign labour. The other suggestion the noble Lord made was about improving housing for miners. Admittedly that is a very important matter, and there again, I believe, proposals are on foot for increasing the number of houses for miners by some 10,000. I think I am right in quoting that lumber. The noble Lord said that there are camps which might be used for housing miners. I did not notice, however, if he said that all the camps he had in mind were close to the mines. If they were not, a very considerable transport problem would be involved.
  LORD TEVIOT: The housing question is of the greatest importance if we are to increase the number of employees in the mines, but there are questions of transport, as the noble Lord has said. We are sending school children quite a long way from home to their schools, and I see no reason why in a crisis like this we should not do the same in regard to miners.
  LORD WINSTER: I fear that quite a formidable transport problem might be involved in the use of these camps. I agree that the need to import coal is very unfortunate indeed. It has sent shipping freights soaring high. They have gone haywire. Trans-shipment adds much to the expense and the latest figures I have seen of dollar expenditure involved are certainly formidable. The noble Lord truly says that shipping is short. That is due to the war in Korea. Before the demands of the Korean war came upon us, those connected with shipping matters were afraid that we should be faced with a surplus of shipping. Looking ahead, on pre-Korea reckoning, there was considerable concern lest we should be confronted with a surplus of shipping which would lead to depressing conditions for officers and men in the mercantile marine. Those gloomy forecasts were entirely upset by Korea. As the noble Lord has said, now we are very short.
  The noble Lord also referred to the question of man-power. What are the remedies? In spite of what has been said

  239
  by my noble friend Lord Crook, I still feel there is room for more mechanisation in industry, particularly in the docks. The turn round of ships is very bad at the present moment. Shipowners who built ships for more speed at vast expense are finding this nullified by the slow turn round, and some ships are spending less time at sea than ever. There is room for more mechanisation. We want to put more horse-power at the back of individual workers. I believe that the reason for the great difference between the man-hour output in this country and in America is that the American worker has more horse-power at his back than has the British worker, as figures show clearly.
  There is one point I cannot refrain from mentioning. If we could only do away with some of the restrictive practices on both sides of industry—the fault is not entirely on one side or on the other—we could, even with smaller man-power, get the same, if not a larger, output. I believe that a Committee is sitting on this question of restrictive practices. It is in my recollection that they have been sitting for over a year now and at this important juncture in our affairs I believe it would be a very good thing if we could have an interim report from that Committee. I regret having spoken perhaps at too great length on matters which have been so fully dealt with by previous speakers, but with the Government's announcements about rearmament and their clear and obvious intention to put it through effectively and as rapidly as they can, I am sure that a great deal of the success will depend upon diagnosing some of the difficulties that we encounter in the industrial world at the present moment.
  Something has been said about unofficial strikes, and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Portman, pitched his note very high indeed. While these unofficial strikes are most deplorable, I think the answer is that we have the satisfaction of knowing that the trade union leaders have set their faces most determinedly against them and are doing everything they can. In the dock strike we see the result of the exhortations, the pressure and the influence brought to bear by the trade union leaders, and so far it has had a great effect in preventing the strike from spreading to the disastrous proportions "which the noble Viscount, Lord Portman,
  240
  fears. I would venture to say that the events we have witnessed in the Docks over the past twelve months show that there is something wrong. It is no good raising the cry of "Communism" every time. It is all too easy, every time something goes wrong in industry, to ascribe the blame to Communism. My own view is that while Communists will always exacerbate any trouble, they have nothing like the power to create trouble that some people seem to think they have. If trouble breaks out, they are there to foment it. I believe that the strikes which have broken out in the Docks point to some deep-seated grievance among the dock workers. I feel that the Government would be well advised, at this juncture, to make a thorough examination of the position in the Docks and among the dock workers, and try to discover what this bug is which periodically sets the dockers by the ears.
  May I say again how indebted we are to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for bringing us face to face with these problems so swiftly after the Statement on Defence? These problems must be solved, and I know that the noble Lord joins with me in having full confidence that they will be solved.
  4.42 p.m
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to say at the outset that we have not the slightest objection to discussing the basic matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has referred this afternoon. Especially is that the case as I agree with him that the engineering industry, to a very considerable extent, is the foundation of the efforts we have to make to maintain our export trade and, at the same time, to tackle this unwanted but essential task of rearmament. I listened to the noble Lord with great interest whilst he put to me, cogently and fairly, a number of questions. But at the end he seemed to become a little political. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, who spoke very well this afternoon, has endeavoured to deal with those political points, and I do not think it is necessary to exacerbate feelings by following him very far in the direction of the crises about which he spoke.
  Like the noble Lord and his Leader, I have been in Parliamentary life for a good many years, and I would say that

  241
  the result of the experience of the last six years is that we are in a far better industrial condition to tackle the joint situation of export trade and rearmament— not forge ting the maintenance of the home position—than this country was in 1936 to 1940.. I think that reference to the industrial organisation, the numbers employed in industry, the output of the nation and the extent to which the export trade to-day plays a fundamental part in our balance of payments, clearly proves the case that we are in a far better position than we were prewar, with the one and outstanding exception that, as a result of war expenditure which we still have to meet, we are not nearly so well of!' financially as we were at that period.
  I should like to direct my remarks in the main to the questions which the noble Lord addressed to me. First, he wanted to know what we really thought about the man-power position, and whether we were satisfied that such plans as are being put into operation now, and plans for the future, are going to bring about a satisfactory conclusion. In support of his question, the noble Lord referred to figures which have been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, of the existing man-power in the Forces, in industry in general and in the engineering trade in particular. Subject to any unforeseen circumstances. I should say that the plans which have been formulated, and which have been followed by the Government, are going to be adequate to meet the situation which may arise. It is, of course, natural that outside comment (all of which, like the comment which was quoted from the Financial Times, is welcome and stimulative) is inclined at times to emphasise the danger of the reinforcement of labour for the armament industry. The men who are planning the Government's rearmament programme have to remember that every one of the main Powers in the alliance against aggression must maintain their economic position, as well as go on with the rearmament programme. Taking those two factors into account, I should say that the Government's plans give us every reason for believing that they will be successful in achieving the triennial plan of rearmament which has been put before Parliament.
  242
  The main burden of the noble Lord's speech was, of course, with regard to the engineering industry. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, has correctly said that the actual number employed in that industry, covering 20,000 firms with ten employees and above, is round about 2,750,000. That figure supports what I have said about the superior position in which we are to-day because of what has been done in the last six years to meet the situation. The increase in the labour force in the industry—taking engineering, metals, vehicles and shipbuilding together— between the middle of 1939 and the middle of 1948 was 734,000; that is to say, our engineering labour force in 1948 was 734,000 above what it was in 1939. Since 1948 we have added another 151,000, so that to-day our engineering labour force in actual employment is 900,000 higher than it was in mid-1939. That is a very important factor in the situation.
  One point which the noble Lord made —and I have no objection to it, because it gives me the opportunity of answering it—was that in present circumstances we are allowing employment to progress too much in non-essential industries rather than in those which have to cater for either rearmament or export. He instanced the consumer industries. I wonder how far that is justified at the. present time. The noble Lord knows that, like the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, I have some experience of the distributive trade. It is the fact that to-day we have 400,000 fewer people employed in the distributive trades than in 1939, although at that time we were in the middle of a rearmament programme and were going to be at war within three or four months. And with 400,000 fewer, the distributive trades have to handle a greater volume of consumer goods than in 1939. As the result of full employment there is more spending power in the ranks of the workers, and there is also a larger population. I think the noble Lord will agree that I have given him a reasonable and fair answer to that point.
  Reference was made to the recent discussions between the Minister of Labour and the Joint Industrial Council. At that consultation a forecast was made of the redundancy of labour which may arise in some sections and trades which can still operate in the export market. But in

  243
  regard to the actual Armed Forces, I cannot think that when the noble Lord who introduced the Motion made his contrast between the figures of the Armed Forces and of workers required in industry, he wanted us to interfere with the expansion of the Armed Forces. He referred to what was done in the war. It was certainly not done before the war in the course of the preparations made by the Chamberlain Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount must not put all the blame on the Conservative Government. His own Party voted steadily against every measure for rearmament proposed during that period.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I do not think the noble Marquess should get angry. We on this side take our knocks, and the noble Marquess must not mind if we hit back.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount will not mind, then, if I make a retort.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I do not mind at all. I was only saying that in the preparations in 1939 this particular position was not being specially considered. I have no wish to make any Party capital out of it. I wanted only to contrast the position then with the position existing to-day.
  The point I wish to mention is the compulsory direction of labour. I do not think it would be right for me to go further than what was said, by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour in another place in the course of a recent debate. The Minister of Labour has clearly indicated that if and when special measures are required to ensure that labour is employed in the right place for the purpose for which it is required, there will be no hesitation in bringing in the measures necessary. The Minister of Labour was quite right in saying that in considering this problem we should have to bear in mind the need of bringing to a successful conclusion all the contracts undertaken by firms engaged in export. We have to bring together as early as possible all the proper elements for defence production before we can begin to see how the actual problem will present
  244
  itself. There must be adequate consultation in advance, if we are to avoid redundancies and waste of time. We have to see how we can fill any gap that may arise.
  I was obliged to my noble friend Lord Crook for his reference to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that we might soon become a tired nation because the workers have only an 8d. meat ration. It is a question whether that is sufficient to make and keep them fully fit. All of us would like to see a larger meat ration—but, of course, the 8d. ration of fresh meat is supplemented by other meat, by canteen meals and the like. There is certainly a need to keep the meat part of our diet as big as possible; but we have to deal with the facts as they are to-day and not as we would desire them to be. At the same time, it is true generally speaking that, compared with their experience between the wars, the great majority of our workers to-day are better fed than they were in that period, though, because of shortages, there may not be the varieties which many people would like to see. During the last few months I have been fortunate in being in New Zealand and Australia, where I have seen how different the food position is. But I am satisfied that to-day the health of the workers generally is good and that their physical fitness is superior to what if was before the war.
  When this debate began, I did not think that we were to have a long and detailed inquiry about electrical power. It would be more convenient, perhaps, if the condition of the electrical industry were discussed in a debate on the general work of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. However, it is only fair to take up the point made by the noble Lord who introduced the debate, that the consumer is getting less gas and electricity now than before the War. I think the noble Lord was putting the matter from the wrong angle.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I meant in relation to demand. I apologise if I did not make myself clear.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: If we compare 1939 and 1949, we find that the sale of electrical units doubled—in ten years. We must have regard also to the fact that during

  245
  the war we had perforce to abandon much of what normally would have been earmarked for capital investment in the electrical industry, and that the demand was maintained all the time. It has been a difficult matter to keep pace with both the growth of domestic demand since the war and the extraordinary growth of the demand in industry, owing to industry having been fully employed.
  LORD CHERWELL: I wonder whether the noble Viscount would explain why, in those circumstances, the nationalised electricity industry endeavours to persuade domestic consumers to go in for electrical heating appliances. Electricity is notoriously the most inefficient form of heating from the point of view of consumpt on of fuel.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: That point had better be drawn to the attention of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I need not comment upon it, except to say that I know that the sale of some electrical appliances by the Board has been given up. They are not selling fires.
  LORD CHERWELL: Since when?
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Not for some time. In the case of advertising, there is no longer what I might call "promotional advertising" by the Board. But, of course, there is no forbidding of the sale of electric fires and other appliances which are required. The noble Lord opposite would be the first to protest, and protest vigorously, if the new housing programme, expanding at the rate of about 200,000 houses a year, were not adequately supported by giving the tenant the opportunity of having electric fires and appliances, if he so desired.
  LORD CHERWELL: I certainly did not suggest, and I do not think anyone on this side would suggest, that people should be forbidden to have electric fires. But it does seem curious that the Electricity Authority should go out of their way to advertise and press the sale of electric fires for domestic space heating. They may have stopped it during the last few weeks, but they were doing it a few months ago.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am perfectly sure that
  246
  whatever is necessary to be done in this respect will be done, and that is the main assurance that the noble Lord wants. If there is a tendency by any Department to continue to press something which is against the general national interest in keeping our programmes going, then noble Lords may rest assured that whatever is needed will be done.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, made a speech which interested me very much. One or two words in reply are due to him. Having regard to what I said about the suspension of the provision of electrical plant and stations during the war, it must be remembered that industry has had great difficulty in coping with the rising demands. However, I have here some figures of the rate of progress. I am sure that the noble Lord who introduced this Motion and the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, know this as well as anybody: that in producing electrical generating plant and the like, a lengthy production time has to be reckoned before they come into operation. I have found out from my Departmental advisers that in 1945 the new plant installed was equal to 183 megawatts— megawatts, not kilowatts. In 1946, it was 307; in 1947, 340; in 1943, 566; in 1949, 703; and in 1950, 965. So that year by year there is a continuous takeup and improvement in the extent of the new capital provision for generating power which is available. We cannot go very much more quickly in the direction of getting capital and machine plant without having a building plan to go with them. I beg the noble Lord to remember that the whole of this improvement will depend largely upon the extent to which we can cut into another part of the capital investment programme in order to make it work. Without further notice, I do not think I am able to discuss that point at any length this afternoon.
  LORD WOLVERTON: That is perfectly correct, but it is growing in momentum every year and it still is not coming up to the planned production. The serious thing is that in the last three months of last year the rate of consumption went up very much higher than the production of the new plant coming into operation, so the gap was getting wider instead of narrower. In many cases the

  247
  buildings are ready but the plant, especially the boiler plant, is not there to match it up.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: The noble Lord was good enough to give notice of one or two of the special points he desired to raise upon that matter. The firms who are producing capital equipment still have considerable difficulties, not the least as regards the two points raised by the noble Lord—namely, boiler tubes and valves. I am told that in 1949 steps were taken to ensure a better supply of tubes to firms holding boiler contracts with the Electricity Authority, but that there were one or two bottlenecks that had to be surmounted. The import of tubes from Germany was arranged and these have improved the position, and a great deal of that trouble is now passing.
  The other item referred to by the noble Lord was valves. Again, I am glad to say, if the noble Lord does not already know it—he knows so much about the industry, he may already know it—that, taking two of the principal producers for the Electricity Authority, Glenfield and Kennedy and Dewrance and Company have increased their production capacity. The first have rebuilt their works and increased their capacity by 30 per cent, since 1938. The other firm are adding to their present accommodation a Government factory at Hillingdon and their capacity will be increased by 25 per cent, to 30 per cent. I am happy to say that we are well on the way to a solution of the difficulty of valves. In the case of valves, as in the case of tubes, we have also been able to support the situation with the help of some imports from abroad, particularly from Italy.
  The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, raised another point, which should be answered and which has been mentioned elsewhere in the debate to-day. The noble Lord hoped that we should not continue to export generating plant for the electrical industry whilst we needed it to recover more rapidly our complete balance between demand and supply at home. It should be remembered that at the beginning of the period of six years I have taken, contracts were made, largely within the Commonwealth,
  248
  on a basis with which it would be exceedingly difficult to interfere, and which, in some cases, are in connection with the overseas development which we wish to have continue quite uninterruptedly, in the general interest both of our economy and of our defence and rearmament programme. Noble Lords can rest assured that, over the long-term programme, all that can possibly be done in capital investment to speed up this matter will be done, within the limits of what we can afford as a nation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, referred to the comments of my noble friend Lord Citrine. I have not the slightest complaint to make about the references that Lord Citrine made to the situation, and I am quite sure that the way in which the long cycle is now beginning to mature into actual delivery of plant means that we shall be in a much better position, closing the gap year by year, not as between the general supply on any particular day throughout the year, but until that reserve capacity has arrived which will deal with the peak demand at times when we get extra severe winter weather. All that is in hand and we are making the best possible progress.
  Then the noble Lord referred to the world shortage of raw materials, a point that was taken up by both Lord Teviot and Lord Winster. Lord Winster referred to the difficulties that would come upon industry having to face this triple task to-day. I would only say, for his encouragement and comfort, that whilst the situation is certainly difficult and serious (and more serious in respect of some commodities than of others), nevertheless I do not think we are going to be any more unfavourably placed than any other country in the world in regard to price. So far as price enters into the competitive value of our products, I do not think it will be the main factor.
  I am much more concerned about the great shortages which begin to arise in some respects, and especially at a time of stockpiling for the rearmament of the free world. Nonferrous metals, partly controlled and partly not controlled, are one of the great difficulties. The shortages in the case of those controlled, although larger in figures, are not in ratio greater than the shortages in the large number of non-ferrous metals which are on the free

  249
  market and open to anybody. There is not the slightest real difference in the general shortage which has to be met. In fact, instead of it leading, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, would probably desire, to a release of controls, all the indications would appear to be that if we are gradually to fulfil our rearmament and export programme it will be necessary to move to further control. I was very interested in what he said about people being put off because too much time was wasted in referring to Government departments. I think that whoever supplied him with the instance of tin must be referring back more than eighteen months, because for about the last eighteen months tin has been on a perfectly free world market. You can buy whatever tin you like and you do not have to work in dollars. It is a sterling area product and most of it comes from sterling countries. Therefore I cannot understand the actual reference that he made. But if he has any particular case which is fundamental and which can be inquired into, and will let me have the details, I will send it to the department concerned and have it looked into.
  A case was raised by Lord Balfour about the cutting off of supplies after notice, and he quoted a Birmingham instance which led to the Minister of Supply reversing the decision of the Ministry and postponing the date of the cut in the supply of ferrous metals to a certain firm or group of firms. It is perfectly true that a month's notice of the proposed cut was given. That is not exactly short. They thought that it was going to be exceedingly difficult for them to do it in the month, and a deputation which presented itself was at once received. After reconsideration of the matter, a further month's extension of the period during which the cut need not be applied was granted. I do not see that there is anything much to grumble at in that Certainly I can remember, as can the noble Lord, that during the war we had to be much more rapid and more brutal than that, and I think we have not met industry too badly in that particular respect.
  For the rest, I think I can confine myself largely to two points. The first is the plea which was raised by Lord Teviot with regard to the Coal Industry, and the second is one that was raised by Lord Portman with regard to the general
  250
  morale in the labour force to-day. I beg Lord Teviot to remember that the demands for coal to-day are such that, in spite of the great efforts which have been made by the reduced personnel in the mines, there is grave anxiety when we have to meet a heavy winter period such as we have had during the last few months. We are all anxious to improve that position. I would agree with him entirely that coal is at the base; it is the foundation for all the other power, whether electricity or gas, that we generate for industry. The Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power quoted some figures, comparing 1950 with 1939, which show that we now have to meet a demand for industrial and domestic consumption combined of something like 46,000,000 tons more per annum. Our total production in 1938 was 224,000,000 tons. In 1950, with opencast added, we produced about 217,000,000 tons. I have not the exact figure, but that is not a great number of tons down. But we have had to meet this increase of something like 46,000,000 tons a years compared with 1938. Consequently, we have had to cut very severely the volume of coal for export, and in the present difficult circumstances have not hesitated to make some imports of coal to meet the existing situation.
  Now as to the generation of power and the use of a greater amount of machinery by dock labour as well as in the mining industry, I may say that those matters are well in hand and are progressing all the time. It is not always so in regard to the volume of labour in the mines, because of the necessity for adequate cleaning of the coal. In this House we have had many debates on dirty coal. Progress is being made in that direction and I am certain that it will continue to be made. I do not want the noble Lord to feel that he has left us with what in another place used to be called by a great leader "inspissated gloom." I am not quite sure, after a long experience, that I recall any period in peace time when the Government, Parliament and the nation as a whole were making greater efforts to prevent war by being properly armed than they are at the present time; and whatever we can do still further in that way, I am sure will be done. The noble Viscount, Lord Portman, referred to the strikes which have taken place. It is exceedingly regrettable that strikes, often, I

  251
  agree, engendered on the spot by a disaffected person, should take place. I do not object to the term that he used; that is, that their aims are often subversive. It is a fact. But I am not quite clear what line of action he would be prepared to recommend the nation and Parliament to adopt. Because I certainly would not recommend Parliament and the nation here to do what is being proposed in Australia: that is, to pass an Act of Parliament outlawing a political Party.
  VISCOUNT PORTMAN: My Lords, the lack of action I referred to is the failure of His Majesty's Government to take the workers fully into their confidence soon enough about the necessity of a rearmament scheme. I suppose that if some action had been taken after the Berlin air-lift, the Government would not have found themselves in the position in which they are to-day.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Among all the things that have been done in the last two years, we have continuously drawn attention, not only in Government statements but in actual Party literature, to what is facing the country at large and the workers in particular with regard to our rearmament programme.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is one point, and it is really on a point of Order. The noble Viscount, in the course of his remarks, made some reflection upon the actions of the Government of another country of the Commonwealth. I am sure it was not his intention. We do not do that in this House nor, indeed, in another place. I know it was in the course of debate.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I have had so many good friendships in New Zealand and Australia with all Parties that I certainly would not dream of saying anything which was likely to cause offence. I do not think it would be different if one referred to legislation passed in any other country. It is rather fundamental with us in this country that we would not wish to take measures which would restrict unduly the liberty of the subject. However, we can be well assured of this—I am speaking for myself, but I am sure I speak for my Leader also—that if we were actually at war we should not hesitate to take all
  252
  the necessary steps that were taken between 1939 and 1945 to see that subversive action did not operate to the worsening of the conditions and the frustration of the aspirations of the people in this country.
  VISCOUNT PORTMAN: May I, for a moment, refer the noble Viscount opposite to action taken in any country east of the Iron Curtain? Although they are not at war, certain actions have been taken with regard to the liberty of the subject which might well be a warning to His Majesty's Government of the sort of people with whom they have to deal and the serious steps which might have to be taken before war was declared.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I have seen some of the things going on over there. I would never recommend my fellow countrymen to take similar measures here.
  VISCOUNT PORTMAN: I am trying only to warn the noble Viscount of the people he has to deal with.
  LORD TEVIOT: Looking back in the light of present day experience, would not the noble Viscount be rather glad if we had the Trade Disputes Act in operation at the present day?
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: No, not at all. I look back to my experience between 1918 and 1939, and the extraordinary thing is that, in spite of all the difficulties in domestic arrangements that we have had to face; in spite of all the things that we have asked our people to hold off from, and in spite of the hardships to which noble Lords opposite are continuously drawing the public's attention, only 5 per cent. of the time has been lost in strikes and breakdowns. That is an amazing result, and looking back, as the noble Lord asks that I should, I do not think I could possibly accept his suggestion.
  In a debate like this it is always possible that there is a small point here or another point there which the reply may have overlooked. If there is a point which has been missed, and any noble Lord wants me to go further into it, I shall be only too glad to do so. But I want the House to rest assured that there is no one in this country who will use more effort than the Government to see that our triple task is maintained. Home

  253
  supplies arc bound to suffer if we are going to keep up a reasonable export trade in relation to our rearmament programme; but the task of providing home supplies, of export maintenance and of implementing the rearmament programme will be carried through successfully. It will require co-operation from both employers and employees; it will require toleration from the consumer; it will require a real devotion to the ultimate national interests from every citizen in the country who is capable of helping. If at any time noble Lords have any fundamental suggestions to make to us which are worthy of debate, then I personally—and I am sure my colleagues also—will always be perfectly willing to consider them and do what can be done to further them.
  5.26 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and particularly grateful to the Minister who has replied in a speech with the spirit of which I am in complete agreement. I thank him also for the information and for the assurances he gave on the various questions I asked. I will not pretend that I am entirely satisfied; my gratitude does not necessarily carry with it my agreement with all his contentions. Nevertheless, we share his delight at the political and industrial unity over rearmament news which is almost universal throughout the country. As regards the need to pursue this rearmament effort, I, too, am glad that industrial relations in this respect are so good. As the noble Viscount has said, we have the cut and thrust of debate, and I think he used the word "knocks." I do not think there have been any "knocks" in this debate, although there has been a "tap" here and there. The noble Viscount remarked that in 1936 conditions were not so good as regards industrial relations in the industry. But the Government then were not so fortunate as the Government are to-day in having the support of a loyal Opposition, who put national interests first and who, though disagreeing with the Government on many domestic issues, have giver their support on issues of prime national importance.
  254
  I should like to refer in a few words to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, which, if he will allow me to say so, I thought was full of great sincerity. He regretted the need for rearmament, but nevertheless supported it in the interests of peace for the free men in the world. That is a sentiment that has appeal for many of all political Parties. The noble Lord also pledged in unreserved terms the support of the trade unions for the measures necessary for re-armament. He took me a little to task in regard to my remarks about the danger of relying too much on overtime and on people over pensionable age so long as the meat ration is only 8d. He thought that one of the attractions of going into industry was the canteen meal. It is a new doctrine to me that, in order to attract man-power into industry, you say: "Come to the canteens, and you can contract out of the Minister of Food's failure"
  The noble Lord, Lord Winster, postulated in much better terms than I did the problems I was trying to put, and made what I thought was a very useful contribution to the debate. The noble Viscount has said that the Government are going to tackle the problem of man-power in a determined manner, come what may, and will not be afraid to meet any of the needs of the situation. Provided the promises which the noble Viscount has made and the assurances he has given are carried out, we can have no complaint that this debate has not carried out a useful purpose. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  ISLAND OF ARRAN PIERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read la; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
  House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before six o'clock.