Sitting of 6 December 1939

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Somerset (Wells Division), in the room of Lieut.-Colonel Anthony John Muirhead, M.C., deceased.—[Captain Dugdale.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION (ADMINISTRATION, FINANCE, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Aberdeen Corporation (Administration, Finance, etc.)," presented by Mr. Colville; read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 14th December, and to be printed. [Bill 6.]
  DUMBARTON BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Dumbarton Burgh," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]
SELECTION.
Sir Irving Albery, Mr. Boulton, Major Sir George Davies, Sir Charles Edwards, Colonel Gretton, Sir Arnold Gridley, Mr. Lambert, Colonel Sir Charles Mac-Andrew, Mr. Paling, Mr. Parkinson, and Mr. Wilfrid Roberts nominated Members of the Committee of Selection.—[Captain Dugdale.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND JAPAN.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the recent conversations between the British Ambassador in Tokyo and the Foreign Minister of Japan?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The recent conversations, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, were between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Japanese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs. An informal exchange of views on the issues arising out of the position at Tientsin and other outstanding questions took place.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Japanese Minister raised the question of the silver reserves at Tientsin, and whether His Majesty's Government adhere to the principles which they have previously enunciated?
  Mr. Butler: The question of silver, I presume, arose with various other questions when the position at Tientsin was discussed. His Majesty's Government adhere to the principles they have previously enunciated.

  CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information concerning recent events in CzechoSlovakia?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend's direct sources of information on this subject are restricted, but he has no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of reports which appeared recently in the Press regarding the brutal measures of repression undertaken by the German authorities at Prague. It will be remembered that these reports stated that the ringleaders among the students were shot and the University at Prague and Czech high schools have been shut down. Some of these measures were, in fact, confirmed by the German wireless.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Have the Foreign Office been able to form any provisional estimate of the number of Czechs who have been shot in recent weeks and the number now in concentration camps?
  Mr. Butler: We have no exacť figures on which we can frame a reliable estimate.

  GERMAN SHIPS "WINDHUK" AND "ADOLF WOERMANN."
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with reference to the escape of two German armed vessels from the territory of our ally Portugal at Lobito?
  Mr. Butler: According to the information in the possession of His Majesty's Government neither of the two German ships, the "Windhuk" and the "Adolf Woermann," which left Lobito Bay on r5th November, and to which the hon. Member presumably refers, was armed. The latter vessel, which had 162 passengers on board, scuttled herself when intercepted by one of His Majesty's Ships, while the "Windhuk" is known to have been searched ať one time by the Portuguese authorities while she was in port. It is no part of the duties of a neutral Power to prevent the departure of the unarmed merchant vessels of belligerents from their harbours, and His Majesťy's Government gratefully recognise that the Portuguese Government have scrupulously observed their obligations throughout the course of the present hostilities.

  ARMED FORCES (DECORATIONS).
  Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Air whether there are any set principles upon which decorations for gallantry are awarded to officers and other ranks in the Royal Air Force; and which of these decorations carry financial rewards?
  The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Conditions governing the award of decorations for gallantry to officers and other ranks of the Royal Air Force are set out in various Statutes and Royal Warrants, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a summary of these in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with particulars of the financial benefits, that are associated with the awards in certain cases.
  Mr. Garro Jones: In view of the widespread ignorance as to the way these awards are granted and the various
  620
  grounds for complaint which, rightly or wrongly, arise, can the right hon. Gentleman say what authority decides how these awards are to be given between the Services, between various units in the Services and between various ranks in each unit?
  Sir K. Wood: I think the hon. Member had better put that question on the Order Paper.
  Following is the summary of conditions:
  VICTORIA CRoss.—Awardable to all ranks for most conspicuous bravery or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or sell sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy.
  DISTINGUISHED SERVICE ORDER.—Award-able to officers who have been mentioned in despatches for distinguished services under fire or under conditions equivalent to services in actual combat with the enemy.
  MILITARY CRoss.—Awardable to officers not above the rank of flight lieutenant and warrant officers, for gallant and distinguished services in action on the ground.
  MILITARY MEDAL.—Awardable to airmen for individual or associated acts of bravery in action on the ground.
  DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS AND DISTINGUISHED FLYING MEDAL. —The Distinguished Flying Cross is awardable to officers and warrant officers and the Distinguished Flying Medal to non-commissioned officers and aircraftmen, for exceptional valour, courage or devotion to duty whilst flying in active operations against the enemy.
  AIR FORCE CROSS AND AIR FORCE MEDAL.—The Air Force Cross is awardable to officers and warrant officers and the Air Force Medal to non-commissioned officers and aircraftmen, for exceptional valour, courage or devotion to duty whilst flying, though not on active operations against the enemy.
  EMPIRE GALLANTRY MEDAL (MEDAL OF THE ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE FOR GALLANTRY).—Awardable to all ranks for acts of gallantry. (Normally awarded for acts performed on the ground, not in the presence of the enemy.)
  FINANCIAL BENEFITS.
  VICTORIA CRoss.—Officers—no entitlement, but may receive annuity not exceeding £75 a year if unable to earn a livelihood owing to age or infirmity.
  Men-special pension of £10 a year, and £5 for each bar, payable from date of act of bravery. Pension may be increased under the same conditions and to the same extent as provided for officers. If discharged with service pension or disability pension, additional pension of 6d. a day payable (plus the special £10, pension). Only one additional pension payable per man. If the man was commissioned when awarded the Victoria Cross no additional pension is payable
  MILITARY CROSS AND DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS. —Officers—nil.
  Warrant officers— £20 gratuity, and £20 for each bar, payable on transfer to reserve or appointment to commission or discharge without pension. If discharged with service or disability pension, additional pension of 6d. a day payable in lieu of above gratuity. Only one additional pension payable per man. If the man was commissioned when awarded the Military Cross or Distinguished Flying Cross, no additional pension is payable.
  DISTINGUISHED FLYING MEDAL.—AS for warrant officers granted the Military Cross or Distinguished Flying Cross.
  EMPIRE GALLANTRY MEDAL, MILITARY MEDAL, AIR FORCE CROSS AND AIR FORCE MEDAL. —Nil.
  Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that tile medal of the Order of the British Empire is regarded as an appropriate reward for the merits of shorthand typists, and ethers engaged on duties of clerical importance; and whether the same medal in the military division is also regarded as an appropriate reward for gallantry in action?
  Sir K. Wood: The medal of the Order of the British Empire, for meritorious service, is not granted to shorthand typists or to clerical workers, nor is it usually awarded for gallantry when in action with the enemy. The medal of the Order of the British Empire, for gallantry, is awarded without regard to rank or occupation. This medal also is not usually granted for gallantry in action with the enemy.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. G2ritIman recognise that this medal has, in fact, frequently been awarded for services of a clerical character? By that, I do not necessarily mean a low class of clerical service. May I further ask why, in the case of a non-commissioned officer, a pilot, who displayed great gallantry in the air when his machine had been shot down he was given the medal of the Order of the British Empire in preference to the Order of the Distinguished Flying Cross?
  Sir K. Wood: I cannot reply to that question unless the hon. Member informs me of the case he has in mind, and if he does so I will look into it. As far as tie granting of awards is concerned, I am informed that it is done as stated in the reply to the question. If the hon. Member has any further particulars to give me, I will examine the matter further.
  Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Prime Minister whether there are any coordinated principles governing the award of decorations for valour and merit in the different fighting Services, and in particular governing the award of those decorations, such as the Victoria Cross, which carry financial benefits; and whether he will take steps to ensure that these awards are made on considered principles of consistency and fairness as between the various Services, and between all ranks within those Services?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): A co-ordinating committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals in time of war was set up early in September. The scale of awards will be reviewed, and recommendations made, periodically by this body, which does not, of course, adjudicate on specific cases, selection for recommendation for the award of such decorations as the Victoria Cross being a matter for the Department concerned. I am not aware of any instance in which the principles of consistency and fairness as between the various Services and between all ranks within those Services are not observed, having regard to the differences in conditions. It is open to a Department to raise any question of this kind for investigation by the committee.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Is the Prime Minister aware that, however little he may have heard about it, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the Service principals concerned, as between the various Services; and may I ask him whether the principles upon which this co-ordinating committee will operate will be published, in order to remove the impression of reticence which is characteristic of the Government's method of dealing with this matter?
  The Prime Minister: That will be considered.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    MATTRESS CONTRACT.
    Mr. Leachasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the firm of William Rhodes, Limited, Carlton Cross Mills, Leeds, is not observing trade union standard conditions in the making of hair mattresses for his Department; and will he take steps to deal with the matter?
    Sir K. Wood: The attention of the Air Ministry was drawn to this matter in September last by the General Union of Bedding Trade Workers. In reply, it was suggested to the union that the customary machinery for joint discussion with the National Bedding Federation should be invoked. As no further communication has been received, it is assumed that the matter is progressing satisfactorily.
    Mr. Leach: Is the Air Ministry content to go on placing orders with a non-fair firm?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I understand the matter is being discussed in the way I have indicated.
    Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman suspend the contract in the meantime?
    Sir K. Wood: I think that will be a matter of discussion.

    AERIAL NAVIGATION (PERSONAL TRAINING).
    Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueterasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the appointment of a director of aerial navigation with suitable staff to supervise the training of personnel in navigation for the different types of aircraft now being used under war conditions?
    Sir K. Wood: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his suggestion, but I have no reason to suppose that the present staff organisation both at the Air Ministry and at the Training Command does not provide adequately for the supervision of the training of personnel in aerial navigation.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the serious increase in road accidents, he will include in his statistical report not only the number killed but also the number injured and the class of vehicle involved; whether he is aware of complaints respecting the high speed of public vehicles during the black-out; why commercial vehicles are now freed from general speed limits outside built-up areas; and whether he will reconsider the provision of an all-red period at pedestrian crossings?
    The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): The preparation of the detailed information asked for in this question would entail the diversion of staff, both in the police forces and in the Ministry of Transport, from more urgent work, to an extent which I should not feel justified in accepting in present circumstances. I am aware that there have been complaints in regard to the speed of public service vehicles, and I have taken steps to assure myself that operators are not working to speeds which are unsafe under black-out conditions. If, however, the hon. Member has in mind any particular case where it is alleged that these conditions are not being observed, I shall be glad to make inquiries if he will send me the necessary particulars. With regard to commercial good vehicles, there has been no modification of the statutory speed limits except in the case of vehicles used by the armed Forces. In reply to the last part of the question, it is the present policy that an all-red period for pedestrians at traffic lights should be provided where the volume of pedestrian traffic justifies it and where it is practicable to hold up traffic simultaneously on all the roads forming the intersection.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that certain users of commercial vehicles assume that outside certain limits there is no restriction applied to them, and in view of the very grave increase in casualties on the roads does he not think that a somewhat fuller analysis might be of some use?
    Captain Wallace: I am afraid that I cannot agree to that, for the reasons I have stated. If people assume that the law is different from what it is, they are liable to be prosecuted.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that there is as much danger of people getting influenza and pneumonia and dying through travelling too slow instead of too fast?
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that in the event of commercial vehicles exceeding the limit they will come under the same law with regard to the 30-mile limit which is still a fixture because there has been no change in it?
    Captain Wallace: Precisely. That is the sense of my answer.

    ROAD HAULIERS (PETROL SUPPLIES).
    Mr. de Rothschildasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the great dissatisfaction of hauliers as a result of the restriction of petrol supplies, which renders it impossible for them to continue their business; and what steps he intends to take to alleviate these hardships?
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction in the motor haulage section of road transport by reason of the harsh petrol restriction applied to the industry; and whether he will take steps to modify the present restrictions for fear that a number of important haulage transport concerns, unless the petrol restrictions are modified in respect of them, may be compelled to close down?
    Captain Wallace: It is impossible to allocate to hauliers more fuel than is available for road haulage under the petrol rationing scheme necessitated by the war. I regret that this restriction of supplies must inevitably result in some inconvenience, and even hardship and loss, to hauliers and others. I am doing all I can to alleviate hardship, and the regional transport commissioners are distributing the available supplies in an equitable manner, with due regard to the essential transport needs of the community. This is one of the chief aims of the emergency scheme for commercial transport administered by my Department.
    Mr. de Rothschild: Is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that road transport is being supplanted by the railways, and will he arrange matters in such a way that the railways only handle rail transport goods, and that road transport goods, at present carried by the railways, are handed back ťo the road hauliers?
    Captain Wallace: I cannot accept that proposition offhand, but I will look into into it.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the Minister agree ťhat the railways are now carrying 33⅓ per cent. more goods than they carried prior to the war, with the result that goods are held up in transit while road transport is unemployed?
    Captain Wallace: That may be true, but it does not give us any more petrol.
    626
    We are trying to make the best use of the transport resources available.
    Mr. de Rothschild: Will the Minister of Transporť allocate the petrol which is now given to the railways to the road hauliers?
    Captain Wallace: I must distribute it among the various road hauliers, which include the railway companies.
    Mr. Lyons: Has the road haulier a right of access to the Petrol Control Board, or is the whole thing done by correspondence, some of which never seems to get to the responsible party at all?
    Captain Wallace: The road haulier has access to the regional commissioner through his group organiser, and, if necessary, to the Commissioner direct.
    Mr. de Rothschildasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction of agriculturists in the Isle of Ely on accounť of the restrictions placed upon road hauliers on whom these agriculturists rely for the carriage of their produce; whether he will satisfy himself that the railways in the area offer an adequate and satisfactory alternative means of transport for such a large volume of traffic; and whether, in case of the railways not providing adequate facilities, he will take steps to augment the petrol allowances of hauliers in the region?
    Captain Wallace: A resolution from the Isle of Ely branch of the National Farmers' Union was received on 30th October suggesting that railway facilities were inadequate. This complaint was at once investigated, and as a result I am advised that in general the railways offer adequate and suitable means of transport for the traffic to which the hon. Member refers. Where they do not, applications can be made for supplementary fuel rations for any necessary transport by road. If the hon. Member has in mind any recent case where it is alleged thať adequate transport has not been available and will send me the necessary particulars, I will gladly have the matter looked into.
    Captain Strickland: A former answer of the Minister of Transport indicated that there was no available fuel to hand out. How does the present answer fit in with that?
    Captain Wallace: It is a question of making the best use of the fuel we have.
    Mr. de Rothschild: Will the right hon. and gallant Member consider a proposal to give to these hauliers a basic ration which will enable them to register their vehicles?
    Mr. de Rothschildasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that hauliers, while receiving a petrol ration only sufficient to enable them to use a small number of their motor lorries, are yet obliged to keep all their vehicles taxed and insured on pain of having their ration still further decreased; and what steps he proposes to take in order to remedy this anomaly?
    Captain Wallace: An operator is entitled to receive a basic fuel ration for every one of his vehicles which is licensed and available for use, but the hon. Member will appreciate that it would be impossible to issue basic rations for vehicles which cannot legally be operated. It is always open to an operator to apply for supplementary rations of fuel if they are required to enable essential road transport work to be done.
    Mr. de Rothschild: Is the Minister aware that the petrol ration given to each vehicle will not carry them very far? Would it not be better to give a basic ration to the company in place of the ration now given in order to enable the company to use fewer motors? Is the Minister aware that the cost of running these vehicles is about £190 a year, and is he going to do anything to remedy the grievance?
    Captain Wallace: The hon. Member's suggestion would involve a complete recasting of the rationing scheme. The whole point of the rationing scheme is that there is a basic ration for every vehicle licensed. The object of the scheme is that as many people as possible should run vehicles and as many people as possible be kept in work.

    ELECTRICALLY-PROPELLED VEHICLES.
    Mr. Levyasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been directed to the development of electric-battery vehicles, especially for delivery work in towns, not only as a means of saving petrol, but as an important contribution to the greater quietude, com-
    628
    fort and health of the streets; whether he will take steps to stimulate such development; and, in particular, give all possible encouragement to any industrial initiative in this direction?
    Captain Wallace: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him yesterday by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has a further question to-day on this subject.

    OMNIBUS SERVICES, WALES.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Transport what improvements, have been made in the public motor omnibus services in Wales following the representations recently made to him?
    Captain Wallace: The hon. Member will not expect me to give a detailed account of the many alterations and improvements in services which have recently been effected in Wales; but the Regional Transport Commissioner has assured me that he has taken steps to remedy as far as possible all legitimate grievances. I should be glad to ascertain for the hon. Member what action has been taken in any specific case.

    OMNIBUS SERVICES, LONDON.
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Minister of Transport how many omnibus route services in London have been restored and how many withdrawn since the beginning of November?
    Captain Wallace: As the reply is necessarily both long and detailed, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the considerable dissatisfaction that exists as to the inadequacy of the present services?
    Captain Wallace: I hope that when the hon. Member has read my answer he will see that improvements have been made, and he will realise that we are doing our best in the circumstances.
    Following is the answer:
    I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that none of the withdrawn omnibus routes has so far been reinstated, but 350 omnibuses have been restored to service since the beginning of November. Altogether more than 600

    629
    additional omnibuses are now in service compared with the number running at the time when rationing of petrol and fuel oil was first introduced.

    Omnibus Routes wholly Withdrawn.

    No.

    Pre-war Route.

    Remarks.

    21A.

    Wood Green—Brockley Rise

    …

    Covered by omnibus route 21, tram route 74 and trolleybus route 641.

    77.

    King's Cross—Tooting—Wallington

    …

    With the exception of Nightingale Road, Hack-bridge, this route is covered by routes 39 and 77A. Arrangements are being made to restore this route shortly.

    111.

    Finsbury Park—London Bridge

    …

    With the exception of Liverpool Road, Islington, and Drayton Park Road, this service is covered by omnibus routes 4 and 43.

    WAGONS (COLLIERIES).
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Transport what response has been made to his appeal to merchants to unload wagons more expeditiously; and whether the supply of wagons to collieries is now adequate to prevent short-time working due to shortage of wagons?
    The board have supplied the following information as regards omnibus routes or sections of routes which have been withdrawn since the beginning of November:
    Captain Wallace: I regret that the appeal of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself has not resulted in any reduction in the time during which wagons are being detained for the purpose of loading and unloading and I propose to make new Regulations in regard to demurrage which

    631
    will come into force on the 15th December. Broadly speaking, the effect will be to reduce to 24 hours the "free time" allowed for loading or unloading and to double the demurrage charges payable for detention beyond the free time. As a special concession registered coal merchants will be allowed for unloading wagons 48 instead of 24 hours until 31st March, 1940, by which time they will be expected to have made such arrangements as will enable them to comply with the general requirements that wagons shall be released after 24 hours. Demurrage will not be charged on wagons of shipment coal in areas where there is a controlling body, representing railway and coal interests operating an agreed scheme for ordering wagons forward to the ports of shipment and generally for securing the most economic user of wagons. Steps are being taken to constitute such bodies in shipment areas where they do not already exist. I should like to assure the House that the Regulations will be administered with due regard to any genuine difficulties which traders and agriculturalists may have in giving strict compliance provided they can show that by the institution of a proper control of their forwarding arrangements and, where practicable and necessary, the re-organisation of their unloading and storage arrangements, they have taken all reasonable steps to adjust themselves to the needs of the situation. There have been temporary shortages of wagons in some colliery districts due in many cases to the excessive number of wagons standing under load. I hope that the quicker release of wagons which the proposed Regulations are designed to secure will be effective in enabling the railway companies to keep collieries supplied with sufficient wagons.
    Mr. Griffiths: While welcoming the answer of the Minister of Transport, may I ask whether active steps are being taken to increase the supply of wagons?
    Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Member will realise that it is not a thing which we can do in a few weeks.
    Mr. Paling: Will not the qualifications and loopholes in this scheme enable people to keep wagons longer than they should?
    Captain Wallace: No, Sir, these Regulations are fairly drastic, and because they
    632
    are drastic it will be wise to administer them in a sensible way. We do not wish to penalise anyone who through no fault of his own is physically unable to comply with the requirements.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: May I ask whether labour will be represented on the committee which the Minister proposes to set up, as they are the people who handle trucks and have the best knowledge of the most expeditious way of dealing with them?
    Colonel Baldwin-Webb: Will the Minister bear in mind that in the sugar beet industry trucks are sometimes held up because of a change in Government policy?
    Captain Wallace: All these matters will be borne in mind.

    GARAGE PROPRIETORS.
    Mr. R. Morganasked the Minister of Transport whether he will investigate the economic position of garage proprietors, automobile engineers and road hauliers with the object of ascertaining whether any steps can be taken to alleviate their difficult position?
    Captain Wallace: An investigation is already being made into this matter by the Departmental advisers mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, in his reply to my hon. Friend on 2nd November, 1939. These advisers include a senior officer of my own Department.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

    NEWS AND PROPAGANDA (EMPIRE AND FOREIGN PRESS).
    Mr. Jaggerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information what arrangements are made at the present time for sending news and propaganda material to foreign, Dominion and Colonial papers; to what extent this material is sent direct to the papers, or through their London correspondents: and what steps in particular are taken to keep the London correspondents in touch with what is being done so as to ensure no unnecessary overlapping?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Sir Edward Grigg): As the House is aware, the responsibility for the issue of news rests

    633
    now not on the Ministry of Information, but on the Government Department concerned. The transmission of news to papers in foreign and Empire countries is effected by newspaper correspondents in London, by news agency messages, or by British official wireless, not by the Ministry. The information for which the Ministry is responsible, including comment on news, is sent by the Ministry to Press Attachés at His Majesty's Embassies or Legations in foreign countries, and placed by them at the disposal of the local Press. In the case of Empire countries, a great deal of material is sent to Government information officers in Colonial territories and in India and Burma, for transmission to the newspapers of those countries, few of which have London correspondents and many of which do not subscribe to a news agency. On a smaller scale, material is also transmitted to Dominion Ministries of Information or their equivalent, for similar use at their discretion. I need scarcely add that the Ministry keeps closely in touch with the London correspondents of foreign and Empire newspapers. With regard to the third part of the question, the danger of overlapping is not great, since the Ministry of Information does not itself transmit news.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Do the Colonial Office and the Dominions Office keep members of their Press departments in the building of the Ministry of Information, as is done by the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, and some other Departments?
    Sir E. Grigg: Yes, Sir, they do.

    STAFF RESIGNATIONS.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information whether he will give details of recent resignations from his staff, and the respective reasons assigned?
    Sir E. Grigg: Apart from clerical, typing and minor grades, seven officers have tendered their resignations from the Ministry since 25th October. Of these, two left to join His Majesty's Forces; one as a result of re-organisation; one to return to Australia; one in response to a request from his former employers and two for private reasons.
    Mr. Lyons: Did any of the private reasons expressed to the hon. Gentleman include the fact that there was no work for them to do to justify their receiving their salaries?
    Sir E. Grigg: No, Sir; the private reasons were, of course, private.
    Mr. Lyons: While appreciating that privacy must be maintained, can my hon. Friend say how many of these officers have resigned because of the fact given by them that there was no work to justify their receiving their salaries?
    Sir E. Grigg: I have already said that the reasons given were private, and I have no reason to believe they were of the kind the hon. Member suggests.

    BROADCASTS.
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information whether he will consider the desirability of broadcasting to neutral countries, Germany, and the places held in subjection by her, a selection of the best and most simply and clearly expressed views, as delivered by leaders of world opinion in all peace-loving countries, concerning the causes of the war, the aims and methods of Great Britain and France as opposed to those of Germany, and especially the necessity for the preservation of human rights; and whether, in order to ensure the maximum effect, certain of these broadcasts could be specially adapted and varied to influence by constant and even daily repetition in every country all sections of opinion calculated to strengthen the cause of the Allies?
    Sir E. Grigg: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that such views as he refers to are constantly quoted by the B.B.C. in all its foreign broadcasts. The value of the repeated presentation of our cause in all its aspects is fully appreciated, and every effort is being made to broadcast it with the maximum effect.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my hon. Friend aware of a certain tendency to rate enemy propaganda higher than our own, and will he pay particular attention to the efficacy of repetition?
    Sir E. Grigg: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the importance of repetition is fully realised.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Ministry using all its authority to secure the maximum possible facilities for wireless services to foreign countries?
    Sir E. Grigg: Yes, Sir.

  RECONSTRUCTION (ANGLOFRENCH COLLABORATION).
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of giving consideration to the possibility of making permanent the present association of Greať Britain and France as the beginning of an international structure open, in due course, to other nations?
  The Prime Minister: The suggestion of the hon. Member would appear in present circumstances to be at least premature, but I am confident that Anglo-French collaboration will be as close and cordial in the work of reconstruction as it is in the conduct of the war.
  Mr. Mander: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the closer and more permanent the association between this country and France, the more will the people of this country be pleased?
  The Prime Minister: I do not need to be reminded of that.

  FREE WIRELESS LICENCE.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the decreased expenditure of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the larger financial balance available, he will consider utilising all or part of that balance for the purpose of granting free licences to certain necessitous cases, including old age pensioners, either with or without recommendations from local pensions committees or similar authorities; and whether he will issue free licences at least to old age pensioners not living with relatives or friends?
  The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): I do not consider that the possibility that there might for a time be a larger surplus of wireless licence revenue would justify a departure from the policy recommended by the Ullswater Committee of restricting the concession of free wireless licences to blind persons covered by the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons Facilities) Act of 1926. If the hon. Member's suggestion were adopted there would be other classes of the community for whom an equal claim could be made.
  Mr. Sorensen: Could not the other classes be considered on their merits?
  636
  Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate the fact that all users of wireless apparatus would appreciate this concession to a very hard-pressed and needy section of the community?
  Major Tryon: I think the wording of the hon. Member's question goes to show that he appreciates the difficulty there would be in administering this concession.
  Major Sir William Colfox: When there is a surplus arising out of the licence fees, is it not a legitimate way of using it to hand it over to the Treasury?

  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (PARCELS AND LETTERS).
  Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that despite the recent reduction in charges, the comparative costs of sending parcels to soldiers at home and with the British Expeditionary Force, respectively, are, up to three pounds, 6d. and 9d.; up to seven pounds, 10d. and 1s. 6d; and up to 11 pounds, 1s. and 2s.; that in practice it costs twice as much to send an average parcel to a soldier in France as it does to a soldier at home; and whether, in view of the unfairness thus shown to relatives of men in France, he will consider reducing the charges so that the cost of parcels will be the same for soldiers at home and with the British Expeditionary Force?
  Major Tryon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 8th November to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin).
  Mr. Stewart: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend prepared to reconsider his decision in view of the sense of unfairness felt throughout the country?
  Major Tryon: The postage rates on parcels to members of His Majesty's Forces serving overseas apply to men serving in any part of the world. The rates are based on an estimate of the average cost of carrying them, without allowing for any profit, and the charge of 9d. for 3 lbs. compares with a charge of 1s. in the last war.
  Mr. Viant(by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether all letters addressed to the members of the British Expeditionary Force in France

  637
  are sent by him to Liverpool before being handed over to the Army Post Office, and whether similarly letters from them are being sent to Liverpool before being delivered?
  Major Tryon: No, Sir. A statement to this effect which appeared in a British newspaper is absolutely untrue. The statement, like many other foolish rumours, was said to have originated from the German wireless.
  Mr. Viant: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in a position to inform the House of the paper in which this information appeared?
  Major Tryon: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the good fortune that he noticed this article and raised the matter. The newspaper in question, in a leading article, charged the Post Office with sending all letters between our soldiers in France and their homes via Liverpool. It also stated that this had been announced on the German wireless. If it be true that this was announced on the German wireless, the object must have been to cause discontent among the troops in France and their families at home. It is, in any case, unfortunate that the paper in question should have given widespread publicity to a statement which was mischievous and untrue.
  Mr. Viant: Could not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House of the name of the paper?
  Major Tryon: I believe it is not usual at Question Time but I am not anxious to protect the paper. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for me to name the paper?
  Mr. Speaker
  Major Tryon: It was the "Daily Mail."
  Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that a prosecution is made of the paper, as a newsvendor was sent to prison for three months for giving false information?
  Major Tryon: It is not for me to deal with the question of prosecution, but I have indicated to the House what I think of this incident.
  Mr. Maxton: Is it not for the Minister to put the problem up to the Attorney-General?
  Mr. George Griffiths: Had the princess anything to do with this?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    HUTMENT ACCOMMODATION.
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the huts it is proposed to erect to accommodate evacuated civil servants will be erected on plans and in locations which will admit of their being utilised as holiday camps, or for other peaceful purposes, after the war, so that the expenditure incurred may become a national asset?
    The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ramsbotham): Wherever possible, the considerations mentioned will be taken into account, but the predominating factors must necessarily be availability of communications and of billets, supply of materials, speed of construction, etc.

    AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
    Mr. R. Morganasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing among the staff of many local inspectors' and collectors' offices of the Board of Inland Revenue, in view of the failure of his Department to provide blast-and splinter-proof accommodation for these staffs who are doing work of national importance; and whether he will take steps to see that work in connection with the provision of such shelters is carried out without undue delay, so as to ensure that all Government offices are provided with the same standard of protection as that provided by private employers?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: No, Sir. So far from there having been undue delay, the work is well forward in all Crown buildings and in those buildings accommodating more than 50 staff which are the responsibility of my Department. In those buildings where the landlord is responsible under the Civil Defence Act there are still some schemes to complete and I am endeavouring to expedite matters. In addition, there are a number of smaller offices where no action is necessary under the Act, but where some measure of air raid protection is in hand or is being prepared.

    REQUISITIONED HOTELS.
    Mr. R. Morganasked the First Commissioner of Works how many more hotels have been commandeered in each of the last five weeks; and why, in the case of a Southern resort, another hotel

    639
    has been commandeered within the last few days despite the fact that there were three empty houses immediately adjoining it?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: Apart from one hotel which was requisitioned for the Department of Health, Scotland, on 6th November last for an emergency hospital, no other hotel has been requisitioned by my Department during the last five weeks. I have no knowledge of the hotel to which my hon. Friend refers.

    MINISTRY OF FOOD.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representatives of wholesalers, auctioneers, retailers and other middlemen in Scotland and England, respectively, are employed on the staff of the Ministry of Food; and whether producers of food in either country are also represented?
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): No one is employed on the staff of the Ministry of Food as a representative of any of the classes indicated, but directing staff in the commodity controls was drawn from trade circles, and there are also advisory bodies of a representative character. For information as to the previous business interests of certain senior officers in commodity controls, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 1st and 14th November to questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) and The Wrekin (Colonel Baldwin-Webb). With regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I would explain that my Department is not responsible for agricultural production.
    Mr. Stewart: As my right hon. Friend admits that various interests in the trade are represented on his staff, will he not agree that someone representing the producers should also, in the interests of the country, be there?
    Mr. Morrison: The interests of the producers are represented by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland, with whose Departments mine works in close collaboration.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARIES (LIGHTING).
  Mr. G. Straussasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will restore the normal lighting arrangements in the Libraries of the House of Commons?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: As the hon. Member will have observed, normal lighting has now been restored in the Libraries.
  Mr. R. Morgan: Could not some improvement be made in the lighting in the Central Lobby?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: That is another question.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrenceasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will have the position of the enunciators in the Library and elsewhere adjusted so that they can be read during the blackout?
  Mr. Saltasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will arrange for the enunciators in the Libraries to be made visible during black-outs?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: Alterations have been made to the blinds and curtains so that the annunciators can now be read during the black-out.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "ARK ROYAL."
    Mr. Naylorasked the First Lord of the Admiralty wheťher it was with his authority that the details of the enemy attack on the "Ark Royal" were recently published; and were these details communicated to the First Lord by the commanding officer?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): An account of the enemy air attack on ships of the Home Fleet, including His Majesty's Ship "Ark Royal," was given in reply to a question by the righť hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) on 27th September. No other statement has been authorised.

    DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
    Sir Arnold Gridleyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is funcťioning at the present time a body similar to that of the Admiralty Inventions Board in the last war; and whether

    641
    he can state the duties of that board, and give the names of ťhe principal personnel engaged?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The Department of Scientific Research at the Admiralty now performs the functions carried out by the Board of Invention and Research in the last war. Its duties include co-operaťion in the general direction and organisation of research work and the consideration, in conjunction with the technical departments concerned, of proposals from outside invenťors. The names of the senior staff will be found in the usual works of reference. In addition the advice of outside scientists and engineers is freely and frequently obtained on particular problems.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that the House of Commons votes very little for research unless there is a war on, and that the Admiralty have been greatly hampered by not having enough money during the last 10 years?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I know of no case where they have been hampered by a lack of funds.

    MAGNETIC MINES.
    Sir M. Sueter asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the details of the apparaťus that makes the detonators of ťhe magnetic mines active, can now be disclosed?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I think it would be better not to make public at the present time the technical details of our knowledge of these mines.
    Mr. Thorne: Is it not the job of the Admiralty to find out how the mines get there?

  BRITISH ARMY (DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. T. Smithasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the administration of service family and dependants' allowances to be transferred from the War Office to the Ministry of Labour?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think such a transfer in present circumstances is either necessary or desirable.
  Mr. Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman does not think this transfer desirable, will he do something to speed up the War
  642
  Office in dealing with the many outstanding cases; and is he aware that in the country there is a great deal of dissatisfaction about the way in which cases are dealt with by the War Office?
  The Prime Minister: Questions on that subject should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.
  Mr. Buchanan: But is the right hon. Gentleman, as the head of the Government, aware that the general administration of allowances by the War Office is proving very unsatisfactory, and will he not, as head of the Government, inquire into the matter and see whether he cannot transfer this work to another Department, or see that the administration by the War Office is improved?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member has any particular cases to bring to notice—
  Hon. Members: We all have them.
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware that there is general dissatisfaction, but if the hon. Member will give me illustrations of delay or of other objections to the present administration which have been brought to his notice, I will have them examined.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    HERRING.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that, although herring are caught in large quantities around our coasts at most periods of the year, in many districts they are unobtainable and in others the price is prohibitive; and whether he will consult with the Herring Industry Board with a view to securing a wider and more efficiently organised distribution of herring of all kinds, at cheaper prices, amongst the civil population of this country?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am not aware of herring being unobtainable except in localities at long distances from the landing ports, where the demand is small and costs of transport exceptionally high. Prices are already subject to a Maximum Prices Order, and I have received few complaints that the maximum prices fixed are too high. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the existing channels of distribution are adequate to the needs of the

    643
    trade, but if my hon. Friend has any suggestions for their improvement, I shall be glad to consider them in consultation with the other Departments concerned.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken to prepare in advance an efficient system of marketing to ensure that the herring caught during the winter fishing season on the Firth of Forth shall be disposed of at adequate prices to the fishermen and for the benefit of consumers in this country?
    Mr. Morrison: From inquiries which I have had made and after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, it appears that the ordinary channels of distribution are expected to be adequate to deal with such herring as are landed.

    RATIONING.
    Mr. Dunnasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will give an assurance that, in any rationing of food scheme afterwards to be fixed, he will have regard to the needs of sick and invalid people; and whether, under doctor's orders, essential foodstuffs can be substituted for non-essential foods within the scheme and increased or decreased accordingly?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. George Hall) on 30th November.
    Sir Percy Harrisasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether it is proposed under the rationing scheme to allow wholesale suppliers of bacon and ham to allot to their retail customers a weight of meat in excess of the permitted quantity to allow for bones, drafts and natural shrinkage?
    Mr. Morrison: The weight of bacon and ham allotted to wholesalers, and through them delivered to retailers, will be sufficient to give every registered consumer the full ration weight of bacon and ham free of bone. All shrinkages, natural and otherwise, will be allowed for in the price schedules.
    Mr. Paling: What is being done to give retailers equality of supplies?
    Mr. Morrison: As I have stated in the House before, I hope, by using the information that can be produced from the registration, to improve the allocation of supplies.
    Mr. Paling: Is it not a fact that lots of shops can get no bacon at all, while others can get almost as much as they like?
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyteasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether those who do not eat bacon for religious reasons, such as Jews, are permitted to draw an increased butter ration; and whether this privilege can be extended to others who for reasons of health and taste are unable to eat it?
    Mr. Morrison: I have carefully considered the position under the scheme for rationing bacon and butter of the special classes referred to, but I do not feel, having regard to the supplies of alternative foods available, that there is sufficient justification for exceptional treatment at present. With regard to invalids, I would refer to the reply which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. George Hall) on 30th November.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Does the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me three weeks ago still hold good, in view of the fact that a diabetic must have not less than two ounces of butter per day?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that answer holds good, but the question of dealing with invalids is under consideration at the moment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Am I to understand that the whole question is under consideration and that further concessions may be given?
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements he is making for relaxation of strict rationing to meet cases of isolated cottagers throughout Scotland, liable to be storm-bound and unable at such times to draw their rations?
    Mr. Morrison: I have at present under consideration the necessary arrangements to meet such cases as the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether,

    645
    pending the coming into force of rationing, retailers will receive supplies of bacon, ham, and butter, in proportion to their pre-war ratio, or in proportion to the number of ration books now deposited with them?
    Mr. Morrison: The allocations will be adjusted as rapidly as possible in accordance with the recent registration returns.
    Mr. Paling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is not much satisfaction to the people who are getting no bacon at all, that customers of the Doncaster Co-operative Society a fortnight ago got half a pound for three adults, and that last week most of them got none at all?
    Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of the facts to which the hon. Member refers, but, as I said earlier, where the registration returns show that bacon is being allotted in quantities less than are required, every effort will be made as speedily as possible to make up the shortage.

    IMPORTED MEAT (DISTRIBUTION).
    Mr. Ammonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his attention has been called to the breakdown of the Food Ministry supply depots for imported meat which has led to the establishment of unofficial sources of supply, and has resulted in the small retailer being squeezed out by the large multiple firms and consequent profiteering; whether he is aware that the London wholesale distributors admit their impotence in dealing with the situation; and what action does he intend to take to deal with the situation?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have received some complaints in regard to inequitable distribution arising out of the decentralisation of Smithfield and the reduced supplies available of imported meat, but I have not received from any quarter the suggestion that the present arrangements have broken down. All complaints brought to my notice have been investigated and I anticipate that the present difficulties will be largely removed with the introduction of full control early in the New Year.
    Mr. Ammon: Has the right hon. Gentleman not seen for himself a statement from the Society of Meat Retailers to the effect that the whole thing has broken down; and is he aware that although
    646
    Smithfield Market is closed multiple firms have opened shops in Charterhouse Street and are competing with his own depôts in the supply of meat?
    Mr. Morrison: I have never received any suggestion that the scheme has broken down. I have received complaints such as I have indicated. With regard to the complaint in the question about the preferential treatment of multiple stores, I have inquired into that, and I may say that I have received, if not an equal number, at least a certain number of complaints from multiple stores to the effect that smaller firms are getting more meat than the multiple stores.
    Mr. Ammon: Where does the right hon. Gentleman get his information? Let him take a walk down Charterhouse Street and see for himself.
    Mr. Morrison: I have many sources of information.

    BARLEY (BREWING INDUSTRY'S REQUIREMENTS).
    Mr. John Morganasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the estimated annual amount of barley required by the brewing industry; whether the brewing industry will be expected to purchase its requirements from home sources in war-time; and whether rationing of barley for brewing and distilling uses is to be enforced?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The annual amount of barley used by the brewing industry increased from 533,000 tons in 1933–34 to 625,000 tons in 1937–38. At present no barley is being imported for malting purposes and brewers are purchasing their supplies entirely from the home crop. The question of regulating the quantity of barley and other grain used for brewing and distilling is under consideration.
    Mr. Morgan: May I ask whether that consideration is to be with a view to making some of this barley accessible to people who are producing human food such as pigs?
    Mr. Morrison: That is one of the factors to which consideration is being given.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking note of the excessive increase in the prices charged by the farmers to the brewers during this war

    647
    time shortage; and will he intimate to that section of the community that the reaction may be very adverse to their own interests when peace time comes?
    Mr. Morrison: The question of whether prices are excessive or not, is always a matter of opinion.
    Sir Ernest Shepperson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the beer brewed from home-grown barley is just as good as, if not better than, beer made from foreign barley?

    FEEDING-STUFFS.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government will take steps to include the so-called balanced rations for cattle under the Maximum Prices Order?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: These rations are covered by Section 2 (b) of the Feeding Stuffs (Maximum Prices) Order.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these compound mixtures are not so successful as raw materials; and does he not realise that if they are not balanced and not economic, it would be better to do away with them altogether?
    Mr. Morrison: That is another question.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will have some inquiry made regarding the allocation of supplies of grain at Bristol?
    Mr. Morrison: I have already made inquiries regarding the system of allocating supplies of feeding grain at Bristol and other ports, and I understand that the plan introduced about four weeks ago, whereby supplies are allocated by port committees to c.i.f. importers on the basis of their pre-war imports, is working satisfactorily at Bristol.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Evesham is an important agricultural centre and that farmers there are unable to get distribution of feeding-stuffs; and will he kindly look into the matter?
    Dr. Littleasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, seeing that a large quota of cattle and pigs are shipped from Northern Ireland to Great
    648
    Britain, and that this shipment may be seriously diminished through the prevailing shortage of food for cattle and pigs, he will make provision for a larger quantity of feeding-stuff to be assigned to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Morrison: Since the beginning of the war Northern Ireland has received as large a percentage of its normal requirements of imported feeding-stuffs as other parts of the United Kingdom, and every effort will be made to ensure the continuance of this policy.

    MARKET, SPILSBY.
    Mr. Haslamasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in regard to the proposed change of Spilsby market day to one which clashes with that of a neighbouring market town, he has considered representations from the Spilsby and District Tradesmen's Association, the Butchers' Association, the National Farmers' Union of Spilsby and the local authority, protesting against the change on the ground that it would ruin the town as a trading centre, Spilsby being dependent on its market day; and, in view of the general consternation in the town and that several meetings of protest have taken place, will he reconsider the proposal of altering the day for the collection, grading and selling of fat stock?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The proposal to change the market day at Spilsby arose out of the necessity to ensure an even flow of stock to the slaughterhouse at which stock from Spilsby is to be slaughtered when full control of meat and livestock is introduced. I have considered the representations to which my hon. Friend refers and I am glad to be able to inform him that arrangements have now been made which will obviate any change in the market day at Spilsby.

    LIVESTOCK (PRICES).
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) when the prices to be fixed for hill ewes will be announced;
    (2) what steps he is taking to secure reasonable prices for producers of high-quality cattle?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 30th November to a question asked by the

    649
    hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in the course of which I announced the withdrawal of the Maximum Prices Order for fat stock pending the introduction of the full plan of control. The question of the prices for high-quality cattle and hill ewes will receive consideration in connection with the preparation of the final arrangements for the introduction of the scheme for the purchase of fat stock by my Department.
    Mr. Boothby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to be in a position to announce ťhe details of the full system of control?
    Mr. Morrison: I hope very shortly.
    Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the prices which are being charged for livestock this week as compared with lasť week?
    Mr. Morrison: I could give the House a general indication but the period under review is too short a time in which to found stable conclusions. As I anticipated, there has been an increase in ťhe prices of the best quality of cattle, but there has been no more than the usual seasonal increase in other respects.
    Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Genťleman aware of the 25 per cent. increase in the price of beef?

    PIGS.
    Colonel Baldwin-Webbasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the uncertainty over the grant of permission to coťtagers to keep pigs for home or neighbours' consumption is seriously prejudicing this branch of the food supply of the country; and whether he can make any statement now as to Government policy on the matter and what are the reasons for the delay in reaching a decision?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on 22nd November to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd). The measures of control ťo which I then referred are under active consideraťion.
    Colonel Baldwin-Webb: Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing at least one pig, per cottager without restriction?
    Mr. Morrison: There is no reason, if any cottager should desire to keep a pig for consumption, why he should not do so.

    BACON PRODUCTION.
    Mr. Jacksonasked ťhe Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the amount of bacon throughput in the registered bacon factories for the months of October, 1938 and 1939?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The quantity of bacon produced by registered bacon curers in Great Britain in October, 1938, was 231,996 cwt. and in October, 1939, 170,871 cwt.
    Mr. Leonardasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that of the 20 bacon curers in Edinburgh and district not one now qualifies for a licence to produce bacon; that these bacon curers are now receiving circulars from large English curing firms offering to supply them with bacon; and whether he is satisfied that the saving on throughput by the large curers is equal to the cost of transport of pigs from Edinburgh to the large curer and their return as bacon to the curers who are refused the right to cure?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Member will be aware from the answer which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs), I now propose to extend the issue of licences to permit the production of bacon on premises licensed under the Bacon Industries Act where the average weekly output of bacon in 1938 was 5 cwt. or more and where the conditions which will be embodied in the licence can be complied with.
    Mr. Manderasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will now consider the advisability of continuing to issue licences in respect of small bacon curers to produce bacon, in view of the great hardships which will otherwise be involved, and the fact that in Wolverhampton, in particular, all the small curers have been obtaining their supplies from the Wolverhampton abattoir, and there is no reason, from the point of view of economy or administration, why this practice could not be advantageously continued?
    Mr. Morrison: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer yesterday to my

    651
    hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs). It is now proposed to issue licences permitting the production of bacon on premises where the average weekly output of bacon in 1938 was 5 cwt. or more. I am informed that as a result of this decision there are six small bacon curers in Wolverhampton who will now qualify for a bacon production licence, provided they comply with the appropriate conditions as to the type of bacon to be produced.
    Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the small bacon curers who were prevented from curing from last Friday and will now on Wednesday be permitted to produce can have any guarantee that to-morrow there will not be another order changing the situation again?
    Mr. Morrison: There never has been any prohibition of curing by small producers.

    BUTTER DISTRIBUTION, NOTTINGHAM.
    Mr. Markhamasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that in the Nottingham area butter wholesalers are allowed to distribute only 50 per cent. of normal July supplies to retailers, and that in consequence, since July is a holiday month, Nottingham is being unfairly treated for supplies in comparison with coastal towns; and will he remedy this immediately?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: Under the temporary distribution scheme butter has been distributed to first-hand suppliers on the basis of 50 per cent. of their sales in the June-July period of 1939. In subsequent distribution through trade channels every effort is made to secure the most equitable distribution possible, taking account of all the circumstances. Distribution in the Nottingham area on the reduced allocation has been in line with that applied to the country as a whole, and supplementary allocations have also been made in that area.
    Mr. Markham: Can the Minister say when the supplementary allocation was given and what was the percentage?
    Mr. Morrison: I could, with notice, give my hon. Friend the date in question, and the quantities.
    Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that butter is being distributed on the basis of registered customers in each area?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. We are commencing now to correct the allocations with the information that has been derived from the registration of customers, and from to-day there will be, I hope, an improvement in the position.

    MARGARINE (VITAMIN CONTENT).
    Dr. Edith Summerskillasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make it clear to the public that only certain margarines on the market contain added vitamins which make them equivalent in vitamin content to butter?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am informed that in the case of vitaminised margarine the fact is clearly stated on the wrapper. The public is thus able to judge for itself in this matter.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon Gentleman associate himself with the statement which was issued from his Department and published in the "Times," on 17th November to the effect that the vitamin content of margarine is equivalent to that of butter, and does he think that that is in the public interest? Is it not misleading?
    Mr. Morrison: I had better have a look at the statement to which the hon. Lady refers. I am not aware of it. If she will refer me to it, I will look at it.
    Mr. J. Morgan: What objection is there to making all margarines vitaminised?

    MEAT (PRICES).
    Mr. J. Morganasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the abandonment of meat control prices means that before full control comes into effect negotiations will be opened up for a fresh range of producer prices; and will those negotiations be based on the price levels reached under open market conditions now prevailing, and which will include the Christmas trade?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 30th November, before full control is introduced consideration will be given in consultation with producers' organisations to the question of appropriate adjustments in the

    653
    schedule of initial prices to be paid for fat stock as published on 11th November, in the light of seasonal trends and other relevant factors. It will be open to the producers' organisations to call attention to any factors which they consider relevant, although I should hardly regard the exceptional prices which are frequently paid during the Christmas trade for specially prepared animals of high quality as falling in this category.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister take into account the way in which pigs are rushing up in price? I take it he would not regard that as a normal factor?
    Mr. Morrison: I would not regard an unusual phenomenon of that character as a factor.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

    JUTE (PRICE).
    Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the increase in the price of jute is having a serious effect upon the carpet trade in this country; and what steps he is taking to enable firms in that industry to obtain the necessary raw materials at reasonable prices?
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): I am aware of the increase in the price of jute. It is, of course, a world price applying to all users, and does not so far appear to have affected consumption by the carpet industry in this country. The situation is, however, being carefully watched.

    WOOL CONTROL.
    Mr. Dunnasked the Minister of Supply what steps he has taken to control and to fix prices for the sale of wool; is he aware that the voluntary organisations who are engaged upon providing comforts, mainly involving knitting, for men serving in all branches of His Majesty's forces are finding great difficulty in purchasing wool, and that the prices charged are nearly prohibitive; and what is he doing to remedy this?
    Mr. Burgin: The sale of wool is regulated by a number of Orders made under the Defence Regulations, 1939, which specify maximum prices for wool and certain derivatives up to but not including yarn. Wool acquired by His Majesty's Government is supplied to the industry
    654
    by the wool control at fixed prices. Demands for yarn by voluntary organisations and others engaged in knitting comforts for the fighting Forces have been very heavy, but arrangements have been made for special allotments of wool to spinners engaged in the supply of wool for such organisations. If the hon. Member has any evidence of unfair prices being charged for knitting yarns, I would suggest that it be brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the retail price of wool has, since the commencement of the war, risen by 3s. a pound, making the purchase of wool practically prohibitive for voluntary organisations?
    Mr. Burgin: No, I am not aware of that, but if there is any suggestion that that price is unfair it ought to be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Sir Archibald Sinclair: Why is there difficulty in getting wool for the market when Scottish crofters and farmers cannot get anyone to take their wool?
    Mr. Burgin: All Scottish wool has been taken over by me at a fixed price.
    Mr. Leachasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the number of cases of textile manufacturers and exporters who, while anxious to observe all reasonable restrictions laid down by the Wool Control, have their trading problems considered and decided by persons with little or no knowledge of the trade; and whether he will do anything to prevent such happenings?
    Mr. Burgin: The staff of the Wool Control has been recruited from the trade, and I have no reason to doubt that they possess the knowledge to deal with the problems coming before them.
    Mr. Leach: Has not the Minister received complaints from manufacturers of the kind that I mention in the question?
    Mr. Burgin: None that has been justified.

    AREA OFFICER, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. Leonardasked the Minister of Supply whether he will indicate the status

    655
    enjoyed by his representative in Glasgow; whether his duties are confined to post-contract matters; and, if so, the reason for this restriction?
    Mr. Burgin: I have interpreted the hon. Member's question as relating to the Ministry's area officer for Scotland, whose headquarters are in Glasgow. His duties are not confined to post-contract matters. They embrace also such matters as finding new capacity for the manufacture of munitions and reporting thereon, and acting as liaison officer with area representatives of other Government Departments; with the raw materials controls; with representatives of such bodies as the Federation of British Industries and employers' federations; and with responsible representatives of labour.
    Mr. Leonard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gentleman who holds this position has told a number of contractors in Scotland that on the instructions of officials in London he has to confine himself to post-contract matters only, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to rectify that?
    Mr. Burgin: If we are referring to the same gentleman, Major Jackson Millar, he is a qualified engineer whose business in private life is in Glasgow, he is well known and well fitted for the duties of his office. I have never heard anything to the contrary.
    Mr. Leonard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been four gentlemen in this office and it is difficult to keep track with them?
    Mr. Burgin: This is the gentleman whom I appointed on 21st September.

    PLYWOOD.
    Mr. Leonardasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that timber merchants are refusing to supply certain grades of plywood in quantities of more than £15 at a time, irrespective of the amount they have in stock, so as to be able to charge the extra 20 per cent. allowed by the Timber Order (No. 1) for quantities of less than that amount and what he is doing to prevent this?
    Mr. Burgin: I am not aware of any general abuse of the provision of the Control of Timber (No. 1) Order referred to by the hon. Member. As I stated in
    656
    my reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) on 15th November, I shall be glad to receive particulars of any case of suggested evasion of this provision.
    Mr. Leonard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases affecting furniture manufacturers who are performing Government contracts which involve large purchases, but are not able to take delivery unless in lots of £15 and under in order that the 20 per cent. increase shall be collected?
    Mr. Burgin: I am not so aware, but if the hon. Gentleman has any case of that kind I shall be particularly glad to receive the details and look into them.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. Dobbie: I desire to express my regret to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for an incident which arose yesterday during Question Time, in which I undoubtedly transgressed the Rules of the House. I had just returned from my constituency, where it had been represented to me by many of my constituents that much hardship was being caused by the inadequate allowances made to dependants of men serving with the Forces and the delay in dealing with grievances. This impressed me so much that I showed more temper than I really intended, and I trust that you, Sir, and the House will accept my apology.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That no Notices of Amendments on going into Committee of Supply be given until the second Thursday after the Adjournment of the House for Christmas." —[The Prime Minister.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
In pursuance of Standing Order No. 80 (4), Mr. SPEAKER has nominated

Major Sir Cyril Fullard Entwistle, K. C., M.C.,

William Leonard, Esquire,

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Charles Glen MacAndrew,

Gordon Macdonald, Esquire,

Major James Milner, M.C.,

657

Colonel Charles Edward Ponsonby,

Sir Robert Smith, J.P.,

Colonel Sir Albert Lambert Ward, Baronet, C.V.O., D.S.O.,

Commander Charles Williams, and

Sir Robert Young, O.B.E.,

to be the Chairmen's Panel during this Session.

THE WAR AT SEA.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
3.51 p.m.
The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill): I dare say the House will find it convenient if I review the course of the naval war during the first three months of its course and try to give some outline of the present position.
The main attack of the enemy has been concentrated upon the Royal Navy and the sea-borne commerce upon which the British Islands and British Empire depend. We have always, as I reminded the House the other day, considerably more than 2,000 ships at sea, and between too and 150 ships move every day in and out of our harbours in the United Kingdom alone. This immense traffic has to be maintained in the teeth of a constant U-boat attack, which never hesitates to break the conventions of civilised warfare to which Germany has so recently subscribed. We have also been frequently attacked from the air. Mining on a large scale has been practised against us; and latterly magnetic mines have been dropped from aeroplanes or laid by submarines on the approaches to our harbours, with the intention of destroying British, and still more, apparently, neutral commerce. These mines have been laid contrary to the accepted rules of sea-warfare and of specific German engagements in regard to them. Besides this, two of the so-called "pocket" battleships, and certainly one other cruiser, have been loose for many weeks past in the North and South Atlantic, or near Madagascar in the Indian Ocean.
The Admiralty task has been to bring in our immense world-wide traffic in spite of this opposition. Besides this, we have to cleanse the seas of all German commerce, and to arrest every German vessel and every scrap of cargo in which Germany is interested. Broadly speaking, as I shall presently show, these considerable duties have, up to the present, been successfully discharged. The destruction of the U-boats is proceeding normally, and in accordance with the estimate I gave to the House of between two and four a week, that is to say, at a rate superior to what we believe to be the German power of replac-
690
ing the competently trained U-boat captains and crews. When I see statements, as I have done lately, that the Germans during 1940 will have as many as 400 U-boats in commission, and that they are producing these vessels by what is called "the chainbelt system," I wonder if they are producing the U-boat captains and crews by a similar method. If so, it seems likely that our rate of destruction might well undergo a similar expansion.
Enterprise and daring have been shown by U-boat commanders, who seek to emulate the exploit of Scapa Flow by penetrating into our defended harbours, and several graves of U-boats lie upon their approaches. The rate of destruction varies, of course, with the numbers of U-boats which are actively hunting. This fluctuates from time to time, and we have noticed three periods of maximum activity, interspersed with periods of minimum activity, when, presumably, the bulk of the raiders return home for rest and refreshment. In the last week they have been active, and we are inclined to think that five certainly have met their fate, either from our flotillas or from the ardent, skilful and invaluable cooperation of the Royal Air Force and particularly of the Coastal Command. These figures are, of course, independent of any results achieved by the French Navy.
Nevertheless, this struggle proceeds upon a margin which, though adequate, is not extravagant, and when we consider the possibility, as we always must, of some unexpected development of numbers by the enemy, it is a comfort to feel that very great reinforcements to our hunting-craft in home waters, which have already been tripled since the beginning of the war, will come into service during 194o. I must again repeat the warning which I gave to the House in September, that a steady flow of losses must be expected, that occasional disasters will occur, and that any failure upon our part to act up to the level of circumstances would immediately be attended by grave dangers. It is, however, my sure belief that we are getting the better of this menace to our life. We are buffeted by the waves, but the ocean tides flow steady and strong in our favour.
In the course of this war the U-boats have tended to turn from using the gun

691
to using the torpedo, and from summoning ships on the surface to sinking them at sight without warning or provision for the crews. This carries them into a form of warfare at once more ruthless and at the same time far less effective. The under-water attack by torpedo can only be delivered at a quarter of the speed that it is possible for a U-boat to move on the surface, and the chances of their intercepting ships or convoys are, therefore, greatly reduced. In addition to our armed merchant cruisers we have armed already more than 1,000 merchant ships for self-defensive purposes, and this process is continuing with all possible speed. It will not be long before we shall have 2,000 vessels so armed. These merchant ships, in accordance with the oldest rights of the sea, fire back when they are attacked. The merchant captains and seamen show a resolute disposition to defend themselves, and many duels are fought in which the U-boat, fearing to be damaged, and thus to be unable to dive, gives up the attack and is beaten off. The efficacy of the asdic method of detection is increasingly proved, and as our margin in hunting craft increases, as it has done and will do rapidly, the ordeal to which the U-boat is subjected will become ever more severe.
The convoy system is now in full operation. Very few ships have been attacked in convoy; less than one in 750 has been sunk. Nevertheless we must remember that convoy involves a certain definite loss of carrying power, since the ships have to wait during the assembly of the convoy, and the convoy must travel at the speed of the slowest ship. This loss is being steadily reduced by the institution of slow and fast convoys, and by other appropriate measures; but a certain delay must always remain, a certain diminution, that is to say, in the actual fertility of our convoys.
In consequence of our defence and the defence of our merchant ships, the U-boats have found it easier to attack neutral shipping than to attack the vessels of Britain and France. They prefer increasingly to attack the ships of countries with whom they are at peace, rather than those of the countries with whom they are at war. The figures are remarkable. The losses of British merchant ships in
692
October were half what they were in September, and in November they were only two-thirds of what they were in October. There has been a strong and steady diminution of loss among all ships obeying Admiralty directions or joining our convoys. Quite the contrary has been the case with the neutrals. They lost half as much again in the second month as they did in the first, and double as much in the third month of the war as they did in the second. It is indeed, as the Prime Minister said the other day, a strange war—it is a strange kind of warfare for the German Navy to engage in, when, driven off the shipping of their declared enemy, they console themselves by running amok among the shipping of neutral nations. This fact ought to encourage neutrals to charter their ships to Great Britain for the duration of the war, when they can be sure of making larger profits than they have ever made in peace, and have a complete guarantee against loss. The Ministry of Shipping have already arranged the charter of several millions of tonnage, and it seems probable that this healthy process will continue to mutual and even to general advantage.
In the last few weeks the German U-boats, having largely abandoned the gun for the torpedo, have descended from the torpedo to the mine. This is about the lowest form of warfare that can be imagined. It is the warfare of the I.R.A., leaving the bomb in the parcels office at the railway station. The magnetic mine, deposited secretly by the U-boat under the cloak of darkness in the approaches to our harbours, or dropped by parachutes from aircraft, may perhaps be Herr Hitler s much vaunted secret weapon. It is certainly a characteristic weapon, and one that will no doubt be for ever associated with his name. More than half our losses in the last month have been due to the magnetic mine, but two-thirds of the total losses from the use of this mine have fallen not upon belligerents but upon neutrals. In fact, in the third month of the war, neutral losses by mine have been twice as great as British losses, and neutral losses of all kinds have been one-third greater than belligerent losses. These losses have fallen upon Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Belgian, Finnish, Yugoslav, Dutch, Greek, Italian and Japanese

693
vessels, who have had to pay a heavy toll for remaining in friendly relations with. Germany. So far as the sea war is concerned, German friendship has proved far more poisonous than German enmity.
The magnetic mine is neither new nor mysterious. As the Prime Minister announced in his broadcast, its secrets are known to us. Indeed the preparation of counter-measures was already far advanced before the first magnetic mine was laid in British waters. I do not wish, however, in any way to underrate the magnitude or intensity of the effort which will be required and is now forthcoming to cope with this latest manifestation of Nazi culture. Many variants are being developed and applied, and as an interim measure, before the full scientific treatment can be given to this procedure, we have found it necessary to call upon a large number of trawlers to assist in the dredging of our harbours. The service of mine-sweeping is one of peculiar danger and one calculated to try the strongest nerves because of the silence and constant uncertainty of destruction in which those who engage in it must dwell. The fact of this serious danger was sufficient to bring forward an overwhelming response from the fishermen, the trawler crews, when called upon to come to their country's assistance, though I imagine in this case for only a comparatively short time. Offices when they opened on the Saturday night at some of the fishing ports were crowded and thronged and had to be kept open all night and on the Sunday, and in a very short time a full complement was made up of these fisher folk, eager to serve their country in a manner which they felt would be really effective.
I do not say more about this at the moment. Events must tell their tale, and at the Admiralty we shall be content to be judged by the results of our exertions. Perhaps when we come together after Christmas, I shall be able to give more information upon the subject.
The recklessness of this latest attack upon neutrals, and the breach of international agreements which it involves, have led us to place a retaliatory embargo upon the export of all goods of German ownership or origin. This measure was taken in the late war, when it worked with surprising smoothness and efficiency.
694
German oversea exporting power was rapidly destroyed, and with it perished all power of building up new credits abroad. No serious inconvenience need be caused to neutrals. They have only to avoid carrying tainted goods in their ships, and they can easily obtain a certificate from the British Consular officers in neutral countries, which will enable them to proceed upon their outward voyages without interference or delay from us. It is satisfactory to learn that goods for export are already piling up on the German quays and in their warehouses to such an extent that, we are told, they hamper the handling of incoming merchandise. This latter congestion will, however, be relieved as our blockade tightens through the growing strength of our patrolling and blockading squadrons.
A strident effort has been made by German propaganda to persuade the world that we have laid these magnetic mines ourselves in the fairways of our own harbours, in order, apparently, to starve ourselves out. When this inanity expired amid general derision, the alternative claim was made that the sinking of the neutrals by mine was another triumph of German science and seamanship, and should convince all nations that the German mastery of the seas was complete. This claim may be tested by a general survey of the results of the first three months of war. We began the war with 21 million tons of merchant shipping. This figure, of course, includes ships on the Great Lakes of North America, and a number of very small coastal vessels. Out of this total we have lost during the three months in which we have been subject to severe and concentrated attack by all kinds of methods, fair and foul, by U-boat, by mine, by surface raider, and by the hazards of the sea, about 340,000 tons. Against this we have gained by transfer from foreign flags, independent of the large chartering operations to which I have referred, by prizes taken from the enemy, and by the new vessels we are building on a very large scale, about 280,000 tons, leaving a nett loss of about 60,000 tons.
We should have to go back to the Hundred Years War in order to provide sufficient time and scope for inroads of this degree to make any serious impression upon the scale of our mercantile

695
marine. For every 1,000 tons of British shipping sunk 110,000 tons have entered or left the ports of this threatened island, which we are told, upon the enemy's authority, is beleaguered and beset on all sides, in the first three months of war. In the month of November, nearly a quarter of a million tons of our shipping entered or cleared from our harbours for every 1,000 tons lost, a proportion of 250 to one. When from day to day we read in the papers of the losses, which are always advertised and often placarded, and one notices "another ship sunk," "four ships reported sunk" and items like that, it is necessary to correct our passing impressions by reference to the broad, underlying facts which govern the situation.
If the House feels that these facts are reassuring and worthy of acknowledgment, their debt is due to the officers and men of the Royal Navy and of the Merchant Service, and also, in increasing measure, to their comrades of the Royal Air Force, as well as to our Allies, the French, about whom I spoke on the last occasion, and to the small though highly efficient Polish flotillas which have lent us their aid.
The losses which have fallen upon the protecting warships of the Royal Navy are necessarily heavier in proportion than those which affect the Mercantile Marine. His Majesty's warships run greater risks as, unlike merchant ships, they have to seek the enemy wherever he may be. The Navy has never been so many days at sea each month as in this war plying in the most dangerous waters. The price for sea control must be paid. It is often heavy. We make a rule to publish all losses of British warships by enemy action, at the earliest moment when it is possible to inform the relatives of the survivors. There has, been no exception to this rule. We do not publish damage to His Majesty's ships unless this becomes widely known, or is certainly known to the enemy. These ships can be repaired very often within a few weeks, and there is not the slightest reason why we should be at pains to inform the enemy of matters which he cannot find out for himself, but greatly desires to know. We have lost, in these three months of war, two great ships, the "Courageous" and the "Royal Oak," two destroyers, and the submarine which
696
was blown up by accident, in all, about 50,000 tons. We have at present building, much of it in an advanced stage, nearly 1,000,000 tons of warships of all classes. We have also lost one of our 50 armed merchant cruisers, the "Rawalpindi," whose glorious fight against overwhelming odds deserves the respect and honour of the House and of the nation.
However, our losses in warships during the first three months of war of 1914 were more than double those we have now suffered. Of course, war is full of ugly and unpleasant surprises. No one must indulge in easy habits of mind, or relax for one moment the vigilant attention to the fortunes of the State, and that fearless desire to measure the real facts and understand them and master them which are incumbent upon all citizens, and still more upon their Parliamentary representatives. If I have given this afternoon facts and figures of reassurance, it is only because the House and the nation have a right to know them, and because the House and the nation can alike be trusted to use these good tidings only as a stimulus and fortification to the much greater efforts which will be certainly required from us as this fierce and obstinate conflict rises to its full height. We have the means, and we have the opportunity, of marshalling the whole vast strength of the British Empire, and of the Mother Country, and directing these steadfastly and unswervingly to the fulfilment of our purpose, and the vindication of our cause, and for each and for all, as for the Royal Navy, the watchword should be "Carry on, and dread nought."
4.20 p.m.
Mr. A. V. Alexander: I am sure that the whole House will have been exceedingly interested in the statement of the First Lord, which I might describe as cautious and confident, and in which, as on previous occasions, we have been helped by his sense of humour in his typical references to the enemy. I should like presently to join with him in a tribute to the officers and men of the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine, but we are disappointed with one aspect of his statement. The matter about which we are most concerned is that we have not yet caught up with the menace of the heavily armed raider. We have been concerned also about that very gallant fight, against heavy odds, to which the

697
First Lord referred in appropriate terms, by the officers and men of the auxiliary cruiser "Rawalpindi." People with more technical knowledge of naval matters than I possess have come to me, and they have also been concerned about the exact situation in which that auxiliary cruiser found herself.
I shall say nothing in speaking of these matters which would comfort the enemy, but I hope profoundly that vessels of that kind will have, if not immediate close protection of light craft, at least such touch with other naval vessels that there will be an opportunity of reinforcements if they are meeting with overwhelming odds, and perhaps in a smaller space of time than was possible in the difficult, stormy and arctic conditions in which that conflict took place. I am concerned also about the fact that while the enemy have been peculiarly economical in their sinkings of our craft, either in the Southern Indian Ocean or in the Southern Atlantic, other raiders are at large. While one appreciates to the full some of the words which fell to-day, and have fallen upon previous occasions, from the First Lord about the extent of the seas which have to be covered and combed, if you are to round up such menaces as these, there are grave anxieties in the minds of many people as to the danger of those ships, and they hope certainly that in the addition to our cruiser strength of the number of auxiliaries mentioned by the First Lord to-day there may be a means of dealing more quickly with the menace than has yet appeared.
I do not propose to add anything to what I have said except that we cannot speak too highly, after this period of three months in which the main brunt of the war has fallen on the officers and men of the Royal Navy, of the way in which these officers and men have behaved, and the way in which they have maintained the highest and best traditions of the great Service which they represent. I have no doubt that the Board of Admiralty and the First Lord have already communicated to the relatives of the officers and men who lost their lives in the conflict of the battle cruiser the sympathy which that Service deserves. I am sure that the House would wish to place on record in regard to such a major conflict as that was, its sympathy with
698
the families of the men who lost their lives.
Perhaps, when it falls to the lot of a historian—it may be to the First Lord himself, as he has been able to produce such picturesque histories of past conflicts—to speak of that conflict in the early months of this war, I doubt whether there will be any more encouraging feature to comment upon than the magnificent spirit which was revealed in face of the new methods of the magnetic mine. When the First Lord asked for volunteers, he found that, within a few hours, he had 1,500 men at his disposal, and others on the waiting list. When I recollect the discussions that have taken place in this House during the last two years upon legislation relating to the conditions of the men in our fishing fleet, and the fight conducted in this House by hon. Members of all parties—let us be quite fair about it—and representing fishing ports, on behalf of that service, we might well take it to heart and say that those who follow this hazardous occupation should receive not merely our tributes of praise, glorying in their spirit and their work in war time, but the knowledge that their hazardous occupation will be always properly rewarded, because it is so fundamental a basis for the training of our marine services in time of war.
The First Lord has given us good news about the measures being taken to deal with the mines, but we ought to say a word about what is always more difficult to achieve than even the rush of courage in the face of an immediate menace, and that is the cool and calculating courage of those who came to the help of the research departments to attack the problem of the magnetic mine before they knew exactly what it contained, and had ascertained what was the real menace behind it. That is the kind of courage to which we should also pay a tribute. If the First Lord can, within the next few weeks, provide us with some information as to how, with our growing strength of surface ships of the Royal Navy and its auxiliaries, we can deal with the surface raider, so that that menace will not be allowed to grow, we shall feel confident that this great arm of Britain's defences is able so to deal with the menace against us that we shall win the first and the fundamental step to the victory for freedom and liberty which we have set our hand to achieve.
4.29 p.m.
Sir Archibald Sinclair: In the first place, I would associate myself with the tributes which the First Lord and the spokesman of the Opposition have paid to the officers and men of the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine who are ensuring the free flow into our ports and harbours of foodstuffs for our people and of raw material to our industries. I would particularly like to associate myself with the tribute paid to the fishermen by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition. It was a remarkable response that they made, at a time when the menace of the magnetic mine loomed most mysteriously. They came forward before the assurances were received that the secrets of the mine were known and that methods of dealing with it had been discovered. They came forward at once with their ships to face those unknown perils. I hope with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) that those of us who in the past have urged with persistence the case of the fishermen will be more successful after the war in obtaining a hearing than we have been in the past.
Let me also echo the tribute which the First Lord paid to the work of our gallant French and Polish Allies, and express the hope that co-operation will become ever closer. I am sure the House was particularly struck by the figures which the First Lord gave of the relative losses of neutral and Allied shipping. It is a very remarkable fact that the weight of the German attack has been flung so strongly against neutral shipping, and it is to be hoped that the neutrals will learn the lesson which the First Lord's review suggested, namely, that it would be wise for them to accept the hospitality and protection of the British convoy system.
I would like to say a word about the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough about the depredations of the commerce raiders. I am sure that he represented one very strong body of opinion when he spoke of the anxiety that was felt with regard to the success of the raiders so far in eluding the ships which are searching for them and the measure of success they have had in sinking the "Rawalpindi" with its gallant crew. On the other hand, I myself have felt, and I know a number of other people who are
700
more qualified to speak than I have also felt, that our patrols have not been unsuccessful in protecting British shipping, and it is remarkable that one commerce raider should have been at large in the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean for many weeks and only get some three or four ships in that time; that is a great tribute to the efficiency of our patrol. Nevertheless, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a real menace and one which has to be faced.
I would like to raise one point in particular with the First Lord. I have been disturbed from day to day during the past few weeks on opening my morning paper to read that this ship and that ship have escaped from neutral harbours—German ships which have been interned and lying in neutral harbours, and which have eluded the control of the country in whose harbours they were interned. Indeed, according to newspaper reports some of these ships have actually had guns in their holds and have been turned into commerce raiders. The First Lord shakes his head, and I am glad to have that reassurance. I take it that none of them has been turned into a commerce raider?
Mr. Churchill: Not to my knowledge.
Sir A. Sinclair: I am glad to have that assurance. There can be little doubt, however, that some of them have been used as tender ships to some of these larger commerce raiders of which the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking. There have been several ships in particular which have escaped from the harbours of our Ally Portugal in Portuguese East Africa, including at least two very large ones which have escaped from those harbours, and I read in this morning's paper that the German ship "Columbus" at Vera Cruz is taking in food and water, and that oil is being brought to it from Tampico by another German ship. Is it not possible to ensure that a stricter watch is kept on those interned ships by those neutral countries which have interned them? I remember that even before the war the United States of America made a very thorough search of the "Bremen" when she was sheltering in New York to make certain that in crossing the Atlantic towards Germany she would not be able to engage in any unneutral action. I would ask the

701
Government to see what they can do about these interned ships.
The next point I wish to make is about the announcement of casualties. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough suggested that we wanted information about how we were dealing with these commerce raiders, although I would not press the First Lord to tell us immediately if and when he is successful in sinking one of those raiders, because I believe it would be information which would be useful to the enemy and which might govern the movements of other enemy ships. Therefore, it occurs to me that the First Lord is justified in keeping that information from us for some time. There may be a very strong case on naval grounds for delay in the announcement of losses from time to time, like the loss of the "Oxley," the damage to the "Belfast" and the loss of the "Rawalpindi." I would, however, suggest this point to the First Lord. He referred just now to the impression which is made upon public opinion when people see a number of sinkings reported in the papers. That impression is deepened if there has been delay in their announcement, and if the public has heard in the first place from the German wireless.
Mr. Churchill: There never has been any delay in announcing the losses due to enemy action. It has always been announced the moment we have been able to let the relatives of survivors know. It causes needless suffering if it is simply stated that His Majesty's ship "So-and-So" has been lost, because anyone who has a relative on board goes through 24 hours of agony until the names are published. Apart from that, the information is published as soon as possible, and my right hon. Friend will remember that the Germans first learned of the disaster to the "Royal Oak" only through publication to the public here. As far as damage is concerned, we must judge of that having regard to the military situation. In many cases the damage is easily and swiftly repaired, and there is no reason why the enemy should know the state of any of our ships at any moment.
Sir A. Sinclair: I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman for the delay in publication of any of these statements. But he says he has always announced the losses by enemy action, and there was a
702
delay in regard to the "Oxley." I know it was not damaged by enemy action, but it was heard of in this country first from Australia. Then there was the damage to the "Belfast," and that was heard of first from the German wireless. I am not criticising the First Lord's statement. I am merely saying that it was first of all heard over the German wireless, and, if there is delay in announcing losses or damage which may be defensible on naval grounds, and for which it would be quite wrong to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, and I am not criticising him—
Mr. Churchill: In the case of the "Belfast" it laid close to our own dockyard, and was brought in and immediately attended to. Why should we advertise the success of that enterprise and inform the enemy that one of our cruisers was temporarily out of action? Of course, as the story was conveyed through various channels to other countries—and there are many channels—there had to be a statement, but I do not propose to publish information about damage unless it becomes widely known, or unless I have reason to believe that it is known to the enemy.
Sir A. Sinclair: I do not wish to press the First Lord, and I am grateful to him for the explanation which he has given. I am sure that naval considerations should rule. I make no complaint of what has been done in the past, but I wanted to make the point that delay in announcing losses and damage strengthens the impression which bad news makes on the public mind.
The last point I wish to make is about the safety of our bases. There has been a good deal of anxiety, certainly in Scotland, and I think in other parts of the country, about the number of times that German reconnaissance machines have been over the Orkneys and Shetlands without suffering any great losses. Moreover, the First Lord did not mention Scapa Flow to-day. I hope we can assume that the hole in Scapa Flow through which the submarine entered has now been blocked and that the base is now absolutely secure, certainly secure from submarine attack, and as far as possible from air attack, too, and amply provided with anti-aircraft defences.
We have had three statements from the First Lord of the Admiralty. They have

703
been robust and stimulating statements, and we are grateful for them. Nothing that I say must be interpreted as meaning that we do not want to have more; we do, and we are always ready to hear the First Lord of the Admiralty. We have also had two statements from the Secretary of State for War, but only one from the Secretary of State for Air. There is a good deal of fighting going on in the air and we know of action in which the Air Force has been engaged, not only reconnaissance action but the recent action against the ships at Heligoland. I would ask whether it would not be possible for the Secretary of State for Air before the House adjourns next week to give us some statement about the war in the air?
4.43 p.m.
Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I desire to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the statement he has made this afternoon. He made omissions some of which were tantalising and some of which were perhaps disquieting. As an instance of one which is tantalising, the Press has recently been full of photographs and accounts of the landing of an almost complete crew from a German submarine, and the House, and perhaps people outside this House, were hoping that this afternoon they might have heard from the right hon. Gentleman some details of the capture of that German submarine and crew. As an example of an omission which, I think, is somewhat disquieting, all reference to Scapa Flow was omitted from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Scapa Flow is the premier naval base, and the loss of the "Royal Oak" did undoubtedly fill the minds of many people with disquiet. It may be thought that at the present time this premier naval base may not be in such a state as to enable the Fleet to use it. The frequent reconnaissance which the German planes are able to make over the Orkneys and the Shetlands is something which causes very great misgiving, not only in England but certainly in Scotland itself.
In the Debate on the Address last week I did venture to raise the question of the reconnaissance and bombing raids which were repeatedly made over the Orkneys and Shetlands and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not then upon the
704
Front Bench in order that he might, perhaps, have taken the opportunity of making some statement upon the matter. To-day would have been an admirable occasion on which my right hon. Friend could have reassured this House and the country on that particular point. It does seem as though the fact that reconnaissance can take place almost with impunity argues either lack of artillery defence or, what seems more likely, lack of aerial defence, which I hope is in course of being put right. The question of Scapa Flow is inevitably linked up with the action in which the "Rawalpindi" was destroyed, since that base was nearer to the spot where the action took place than any base in any other part of Scotland. In connection with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the convoy system, I should like to ask whether it is open to neutral vessels to sail in our convoys if they wish, or whether there is any technical international reason why they should not.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) raised the question of the embargo in reply to the German magnetic mines campaign. Could the First Lord tell the House whether during the last war, when similar steps were taken by this country on the question of an embargo, Japan associated herself with us in those steps or not? It is of particular importance, I think, that the public should know whether on that occasion Japan associated herself with our particularly stringent embargo provisions or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough referred to the surface raiders. I need not remind my right hon. Friend of the experience of the last war, when insufficient naval forces were given a task beyond their power. These surface vessels are very large and powerfully armed, and we have very few ships able to deal with them. The House would appreciate, in the near future if possible, some information as to the steps which it has been found possible to take to locate and destroy these heavy German vessels. The right hon. Gentleman knows that these vessels are at present at large, and that the general public are somewhat alarmed at their continued existence.
Mr. Churchill: It is hardly the moment for me to describe the steps that it is open to us to take.
Sir A. Southby: My right hon. Friend misunderstood me. I did not suggest that this was the moment. I said, "in the near future." Day by day acts of gallantry are being performed by officers and men of His Majesty's Navy of which the public know nothing. About many of those acts it is impossible to publish information, because it would give information to the enemy, but there are other acts of heroism and gallantry of which the public are entitled to know, and the publication of which would give immense satisfaction to the Fleet as a whole. We hear very little of what is going on beyond the broad general outline of naval operations. Unfortunately, we do not get details of some of the things which are being done by men of the Royal Navy and the merchant fleet. I would beg my right hon. Friend, if he would, to go into the question, and see whether it would not be possible to make public more of the instances of good service which are being performed by officers and men. The case of the magnetic mines is an instance, I think, where extraordinary work must have been done. I do not know what steps were actually taken with regard to these mines, but if any were washed up or found the officers and men who had the task of examining them took their lives in their hands. If such work was done I think it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, to make public the names of those officers and men. From any investigation which has been made of captured mines will come the measures which are to be taken to end the menace. The figures that the right hon. Gentleman has given about the sinking of U-boats are undoubtedly most satisfactory. The war against the U-boats is going steadily, and not only the right hon. Gentleman but the Department over which he presides is to be congratulated on the results.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. Boothby: May I say one word, before we pass on to the next business, about the fishermen? Those of us who have been fighting very hard for many years in this House on behalf of the fishermen were told by the Admiralty, before my right hon. Friend took office, that they would have no use for the fishermen or the drifters if war broke out. Some of us never believed that that would be the case, and it has proved not to be
706
the case. The response of the fishermen has been very great, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not forget it.
Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  KING'S SPEECH.

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
    [FIFTH DAY.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [5th December] to Question [28th November]:
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Captain Marsden.]
    Which Amendment was, at the end of the Question, to add:
    "But regret the absence of any proposals for organising to the full our human and material resources in the national interest for the effective prosecution of the war, for the provision and maintenance of an adequate standard of life for all, and for the solution on the basis of social justice of the problems which will arise on the return to peace."—[Mr. Arthur Greenwood.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
    4.52 p.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: I want to call attention to that part of the Amendment that calls for
    "organising to the full our human and material resources in the national interest."
    I am particularly concerned about organising and planning an intelligent food policy for this country. All of us who remember the last war and the ending of it realise the important part that was played by malnutrition in bringing the German Government to sue for peace. I had much closer experience of what widespread malnutrition in war-time meant when I was working at times in Spain. There is no doubt that the sudden collapse of Barcelona was largely due to the appalling amount of malnutrition. The speech of the First Lord to which we have just

    707
    listened makes it comfortingly clear that the people of this country are not likely to be brought to straits like that, and, so far as bulk food, if I may so call it, is concerned, the British Navy and Air Force are protecting our people. But it seems to me to be of importance that the Government should have an intelligent food policy, particularly for children and the underpaid and under-privileged section in our country.
    In the last war we were only just beginning to have any knowledge of protective foods and vitamins. The very first paper on the subject by Professor Gowland Hopkins was published at the end of 1912. From —he examination that was made into the causes of that fearful epidemic of influenza at the end of the war the authorities gave it as their considered expert view that ťhe malnutrition in certain areas and the general lack of protective foods in the last years of the war had reduced considerably the resistances of the poorer parts of the populaťion, and once an epidemic like that gets going germs are no respecters of persons. Before we get anywhere near that position, the Government should, at a time when planning is sťill possible, give some attention to ensuring that the children, the low-paid workers and the unemployed shall get sufficient supplies of protective foods. I suggest that a long view is needed. It would be quiťe easy to reply to this by quoting the statistics that the Minister of Health gave to this House a few days ago, when he said that the recenť health figures were good. But more people are getting wages now with which to buy food. There is an extra pressure on the food available, apart from the demands of the Army, and what food is being sunk. We are faced with a raťioning scheme for the chief protective food, butter, but butťer is already effectively rationed, so far as the low-paid workers and unemployed are concerned, by considerations of price.
    I had a good deal to do with ťhe Co-operative movement in the last war. I found that the Co-operative movement—which, after all deals with the besť-paid workers—had more butter than it needed because people had not the money to buy it. And not only can the betťer-paid people get butter more easily than the poorer people, but they can easily make up for the lack of protective elemenťs in
    708
    butter by other means. I have here a small box of synthetic vitamins, with the assistance of which it would be possible to live on almosť any kind of starchy food. I am not advertising these things—I am carefully keeping the name hidden; but anyone who took them with starchy foods would have a fully-balanced diet. But these cost 2s. 6d. for 25, and ťhey cannot be bought on a working man's wage, let alone the income of an unemployed person or a soldier's wife with a number of children. This question of vitamins and protective foods is not a crank or a fad. It is not a case of somebody geťting up and advocating vegetarianism or some other "ism"; it is a well tested theory.
    It is possible to submit ordinary margarine to a process which produces ergosterol and to have vitaminised margarine. It will have practically the same vitamin content as summer-fed butter, and an even better vitamin content than winter fed butter. I do not know whether the Minister of Food is intentionally misleading people, or whether he is having one of his muddles. He is muddle-prone, just as some people are accident-prone. He constantly gets into muddles, and he seems to have got into a muddle now about margarine. It was perfectly clear, from his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) to-day, that he was under the impression that all margarine was vitaminised. It would have been possible for the Ministry of Food, when it first set up its scheme for pool margarine, to have said that all margarine should be subject to this process. Instead of which, the very fact that the higher priced margarine was processed in this way was used by the manufacturers to get margarine de-pooled—to use one of those horrible war words—and so to enable the better-off people to use margarine. I suggest to whatever Minister is to reply that it would not be very much trouble for the Minister to make illegal the sale of margarine that was not subject to this vitamin process, and so protect the lower-paid workers.
    People say that devitaminised margarine is cheaper, but the margarine companies are making enormous profits, and as soon as rationing begins their profits will be even greater. If the Government desire it, they can make vitaminised margarine the only legal form of margarine, and fix

    709
    prices so that its cost will not be excessive. Ample profits are being made by the existing margarine firms, for that to be done without any increase in price, and they could quite well sacrifice patriotically a little of their profit. In any case it will not make much difference, because if it costs more to process the margarine, they will have to pay less in Excess Profits Tax. I suggest that the Minister should make a small order to bring about this quite simple thing that would mean some protection for the children of the soldier and the lower-paid worker.
    I want to refer to the question of milk, which is the ace of protective foods. The League of Nations report on nutrition says that milk contains all the essentials for the growth and maintenance of life in a form that is readily assimilable by the body. We have had before the House, owing to the enthusiasm of the present Minister of Health, who gives a good deal of thought to this subject, the results of experiments on children who had milk, and those who had not. A good many of these children, unfortunately, are not getting that milk now. It is to be hoped that the country air will to some extent be helpful to them, though I doubt it in the course of a severe English winter when they may have to go to school in bad weather. In any case, the principal sufferers are the children of the towns where the schools are closed and the milk service is temporarily closed down.
    There is a certain complacency in the Government on the assumption that, on the whole, we are doing rather better than anybody else. But on this question of milk, this ace of protective foods, we are doing really rather badly. I have the international report containing the latest pre-war figures with regard to the consumption of milk. I take three countries —a neutral country, an enemy country and our own country. The consumption per head in Sweden is 420 pints a year, and the price is, roughly, 1½d. a pint. In Germany it is 216 pints per head. This is in Germany which we are always told is starving or on the brink of starvation. The controlled price there is 2.6 pence, which roughly works out at 2½d. or 2¾d. per pint according to which part of the country it happens to be in. Great Britain does not reach the 216 pints per head annually of Germany, but only 150 pints per head at the pre-war price, when these
    710
    figures were taken, of 3¼d. per pint. This is the point I want to emphasise, because we cannot allow nutrition to be entirely settled by income level during the course of the war. The figures show, even on this low consumption of milk, that a good middle-class household consumes 3.8 pints per person per week, and the poor working-class home only 1.1 pint per person per week.
    I took out some figures realting to the north-eastern area, with which I am mainly concerned, of a business centre, a lower middle-class centre and a depressed centre. Eight per cent. of the household are milkless in the business centre, and 17 per cent. in the lower middle-class centre, but in the distressed area 25 per cent. of the families have no milk whatever. The price of milk has already been increased by the Milk Marketing Board, which represents the producer and has no consuming interest upon it. That has been done irrespective of the fact that there is nearly a 1s. margin for distribution, even after all sorts of costs have been met. These figures are taken on the basis of the farm that produces milk with the least efficiency. If you take one in three as the margin where the unit of production is more efficient, the Minister of Health would say that it is due to the fact that there are so many distributors. Is it the intention of the Government to try and keep every little vested interest going irrespective of the effect upon the country? It is really more important that we should have a sane food policy, properly planned, in order to provide to the greatest extent that the under-privileged section of our community and the children should get their full share of this protective food. It is not enough to say that nobody need starve in Britain. That is not by any means accurate. Even so, it is not so much a question of actual starvation as always just filling your stomach with the stuff that is cheapest, if it means you do not get these protective foods to make it possible to face the winter and to go through it without having a lower vitality and a lower morale.
    If we are to talk about morale, it is not sufficient for the Government to say that they are bringing in so much food. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that we are losing relatively very little, and actually we have got all the food in the

    711
    country that is necessary. That is all right and we are glad to hear it, but it is important that that food should be properly distributed. It is wrong to leave it to be distributed purely according to what people can afford to pay. It is really not sufficient for any conscientious Member of Parliament who to-day goes into his constituency and talks to the soldiers' wives, faced as they are with the high cost of rent, even when they have a grant made towards it—most of them are not getting that yet—faced with club payments to be kept going because the savings of years cannot be let go, and faced with keeping up some kind of hire purchase payments. The amount they have left to spend on food is dangerously low.
    I would ask the Minister to bring that matter before the Cabinet, because the danger about the present situation is that it is the protective foods that are increasing most rapidly in price. I took up by chance quite recently, when in the Library, a book on economics, in which I read a startling beginning of a chapter. It said that the most important thing in which to create a monopoly was in articles of the most common use, because even a slight increase in price formed the largest amount of profit. A very small increase in the price of any of these protective foods brings enormous profits, but it does all the time mean a lowering in the standards of our people. We have to think of what is to come afterwards. We have to think of the children who will have to carry on. We all of us know the effect in Germany of those years of under-feeding and undernourishment, and we know the effect in our own country, where adults to-day are suffering from the bad feeding of those years. That was 21 years ago. We have surely learnt something, and I appeal to the Government that we should have in this country, while there is time and before we are too driven, a sane food policy that gives the protective foods and supplies of them to these vitally important sections of our population.
    5.11 p.m.
    Sir George Schuster: The hon. lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has carried us rather far from the warlike atmosphere in which we passed the earlier part of the afternoon, and I do not propose to follow her in detail over the
    712
    ground which she has trod. But I should like to say that nobody could agree more strongly with her on the importance of distributing proper supplies of protective foodstuffs to the country than I do. Perhaps as this subject of nutrition has been raised it is not quite inappropriate that we have the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs here to-day, because he must spend much of his time with my friend the High Commissioner for Australia, who has been the great protagonist of the theory of marrying nutrition and agriculture as one of the most fruitful sources for looking for an improvement in general world conditions. That is a subject which is, indeed, of very great importance.
    This has been a remarkable Debate which has ranged for many days now upon the Address. I myself made a calculation which showed me that the length of the King's Speech was 170 words and that by the time the Debate on the Address concludes to-morrow evening something between 250,000 and 300,000 words will have been spoken in this House—covering a very wide range of subjects. I have no doubt a great percentage of them has been of great value. The only thing that I think is important is that this wide and varied discussion should not obscure the fine simplicity of the issue which brought us all in together to support this war. It is also very important that we should not forget that our paramount purpose to-day is to win the war. We are in cold reality fighting for our existence. There is no room for complacency or for diverting attention from the main effort. Nevertheless, I do not myself at all deny—in fact I feel very strongly—the importance of being clear as to the aims for which we are fighting. That is important not only to satisfy our own consciences and strengthen the people of this country to endure the trials of a long war, but it is also of great importance for securing sympathy from the neutral countries.
    Therefore, I have greatly welcomed the progressive definition of our purposes which we have had in statements from the Prime Minister and from the Foreign Secretary. I even find myself in sympathy with the sentiment that lies behind the wording of this Amendment which I would interpret—putting the most favourable construction upon it—

    713
    as saying, "Let this fight for our existence be waged with the maximum efficiency and under the inspiration of the determination to use that existence for higher purposes." Where I do not agree with the Movers of the Amendment is in the implication that the King's Speech is to be criticised because the methods for achieving these things are not now specified in meticulous detail.
    As to the problems that will face us after the war, the Prime Minister has very wisely reminded us that if we wish to see a new world it will not be for us alone to settle that; we shall have to settle it in co-operation with other nations. We must also remember that even if we confine our desires to seeing a new England—
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Britain.
    Sir G. Schuster: —I apologise—to seeing a new Britain, we cannot achieve that without co-operation from other nations. We cannot obtain it independently of the conditions in the rest of the world. Therefore, if we are looking to our post-war aims we shall be wiser if, instead of trying to lay down purposes which we intend to fulfil for the whole world, we concentrate on considering how we shall be the most able to play our part in the discussions that will have to take place with other countries. If we concentrate on the matter in that spirit we shall not only be keeping our eyes on the future, but we shall be making ourselves more effective in the immediate effort.
    I want to put to the House an idea which I have been putting to myself as to what is the sort of England we want to see playing its part when the day comes that the problems of the future can be considered. In the first place, we want to see an England which is efficient. The war with all its evils is a great opportunity. The war urge can serve as a flux for smelting out valuable results from very refractory problems. It is of vital importance that this opportunity should not be wasted. It is not a question simply of removing inefficiency where inefficiency is found. Some of us have felt it to be our duty to call attention in recent Debates to parts of the Government business where we thought there was inefficiency, not because we exaggerated the importance of these particular instances, but because we felt it to be of such vital
    714
    importance that the Government should be working up its efficiency at every point. There is another side of efficiency—efficiency of organisation. It is again of vital importance that we should develop efficiently a co-ordinated economic effort in this war. We want to have not merely a Ministry of Economic Warfare, but some central direction of warfare economics. That is a point on which I may say something later, but I will leave it now.
    My second point is that we want to see an England in which there is scope for individuality, not an England governed by a rigid, over-controlling, centralised bureaucracy. I want to emphasise this point to the Government—the importance of making every possible use of the voluntary agencies for cooperation which exist. I was very much impressed in yesterday's Debate by the speech of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), who dealt with the organisation of the Ministry of Supply and compared the way in which that very much centralised organisation was working in this war with the way in which central direction and co-ordinated purpose grew up in the last war.
    We start this war with many advantages, but there is one point to remember, and that is that those controls which became necessary in the course of the last war were imposed gradually on a developing need, and as they came to be imposed they fitted fairly well to the figure which they had to clothe. In this war we have started in a sense with ready-made suits of control fashioned independently of the bodies which they must fit. They do not always fit very well. I am not suggesting for a moment that controls are unnecessary or that they can be removed. Some of the worst mistakes we could make would be to say that because certain controls have worked badly they should therefore all be abandoned. I see some danger of the Government taking that line in certain cases. What we have to do is to adapt the control to what is necessary and, above all, to make use of every possible sort of voluntary co-operation that we can evoke, and so not only avoid over-centralisation, but also—a point which is of very great importance for maintaining the morale of the country—bring in as many people as possible and make them feel that they are taking a part in the national effort.

    715
    The hon. Member for Broxtowe was dealing with the Ministry of Supply, and I should like by way of illustration to quote a point in my own experience, not because I regard it as of very great importance, but because I think it is an interesting illustration. What the hon. Member said was apposite to the organisation of the Ministry of Supply concerned with the production of munitions, but there is another great group of expenditure and that is expenditure for stores and equipment. I represent a constituency where there are a number of small miscellaneous industries, and I have been particularly interested to see how they were being fitted into the war effort. When you are dealing with these small miscellaneous industries which are not united together in any great trade organisation, it is difficult to get into contact with them as a whole, and it is here that local chambers of commerce can be extremely useful. I was fortunate in being able to see the Controller in the case of Votes 7 and 8 which cover Stores and Equipment—Lord Woolton. I found him extremely sympathetic to my point of view. With great courtesy he arranged to see the secretary of my local Chamber of Commerce and the secretary of another local Chamber of Commerce with whom we had decided that it was desirable that we should work together, and he also brought up his two progress officers from the districts concerned. Here I should like to pay a tribute to the progress officers of the Ministry of Supply, because whenever I have met them I have found them extremely able and keen men. We had a small meeting and arrived at certain points where it appeared to Lord Woolton that we could be of very great use to him in that he could farm out some of his problems to us. For instance, there might be difficulty in finding out whether some particular things—such as hobnails, toes and heels for boots, buttons, etc.—could be supplied. We might find the means of doing that. Or, again, on some other occasion when he wanted certain articles the raw materials for which were not readily available, local ingenuity could be called in to provide substitutes. That indicates possibilities of useful cooperation. But it is more than that. From that meeting there went back four people thoroughly pleased with their reception and feeling that they could do something
    716
    useful. And when you have even four people going out to different parts of the country filled with confidence and in good heart, and operating as local "cells" to spread that feeling, the results must be worth having. If such a process can be spread over the whole country I believe it will be of very great importance in carrying us through this war.
    Turning to my third point, I should say that we want to see an England at the end of the war which is an England of social justice. I recognise the very great difficulties of making progress with social services at times like the present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer put the essence of the situation before us very clearly when he told us that what will be required from us is that one-half of our national production should be devoted to purposes of the war. That is the same thing as saying that half the national income is to go to the war. The remaining half is the limit that is available for the purposes of consumption by the ordinary civil population, except to the extent that you supplement receipts by realising foreign securities, or raising foreign loans—and the latter is a source that is hardly open to us now. That being so, if we have to live on half of our national production and if this is going to be a long war—and we have no right to assume that it is not—then there will have to be cutting down of standards of consumption in a great many directions.
    The point I want to make is that even if that be the case, it is no alibi relieving the Government from responsibility for going ahead in securing a fairer distribution of the limited quantities that are available. I hope that the question of the improvement of old age pensions will be tackled on that basis. But we have to recognise that if we want to go ahead on these lines it means sacrifices, not only from the wealthier classes—the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed very clearly the limits of what can be raised in taxation of the wealthier classes—but from the classes of population which hon. Members opposite claim to represent. We have to face these facts. Not due justice has been given to the proposals of Mr. Keynes. I am not advocating his particular proposal for forced loans because that may be inappropriate at this stage, but he has given us a diagnosis of the situation which brings us

    717
    into touch with reality. But there must be equality of sacrifice, and a fair distribution of what is available for consumption. And that bring me to another point that I wish to make in this connection which is that I wonder very much whether the Government are starting soon enough to tackle the control of the available supplies of materials which will be necessary if we are to get successfully through a long war. It is very encouraging to have optimistic statements from the First Lord of the Admiralty, but he has frequently also warned us against undue complacency, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would feel that it is important we should be building up reserves against the possible days when things may not go quite so well with us. At present it seems to me that we are eating and consuming things as though there were no war and no need for restricting consumption ahead of us. I should like to see the Government start to face more definitely the problem of controlling consumption, and I believe that the country, if told the facts, would readily submit to any restrictions which are necessary. Let me give one example by way of illustration. Fats are most important to the life of any nation, and yet we are going on making soap with the full peace-time percentage of fat, although in Germany they have come down to a soap which contains practically no fats at all. People can do with a soap of slightly less good quality than they get in peace time. These questions should be tackled. It is only by tackling these things and securing equality of sacrifice that we shall be able to make the people feel that we are even in war time still trying to make England a country of greater social justice as the years go by.
    The next thing which we want to see is a united England. I think we shall have that if we fulfil all the purposes upon which I have touched.
    I turn to my fifth point—one of considerable importance. We want to see an England standing for international freedom, and by that I mean standing as a country which, while resisting aggression, is not seeking to retain for itself any benefits of what may be called past aggressions. That touches a very important question. We want to make it clear that we are continuing in our processes of making this Empire of ours a commonwealth of free nations. In the course of
    718
    the next months, or certainly during the course of the war, we shall have an important test case in connection with India. I agree with what has been said on the importance of that question by hon. Members opposite, but where I do not agree with them is in their distrust of the present Government's motives in dealing with that problem. I believe that the Government are making an honest attempt to deal with it, and all I would say now is—let them have great courage and go ahead under the guidance of high principles, because a proper solution of the Indian problem in the course of the war will have the most immense psychological effect.
    Lastly, I want to see an England which believes in international trade on natural lines, and which has kept her place open for this. That goes deep into the problems we shall have to face during the war and after the war. We are fighting to protect the world from the aggression of "Power States" so that those States who believe in the development of welfare for individuals can work for that end without the perpetual menace of aggression. But, if we look back over the past years and ask ourselves why it is that we have not been able to progress more to our satisfaction in the development of welfare, we shall find, if we face the facts truly, that the impediments have not only been the threats from aggressor States, the constant overhanging menace of war, but also too narrow nationalistic economic policies throughout the world, and too little international economic co-operation. It may be said that this is a matter which cannot be dealt with in war-time, but I believe there are circumstances conected with this war that make it of vital importance that we should take heed of these realities. We are hearing now a great deal about the Ministry of Economic Warfare; a great deal is being written in the Press about it, some of it very wise and true. We have had recently a new phrase—the doctrine of "pre-emption," that we should go into the markets of Germany and buy up the goods which Germany used to buy and sell our exports there instead. That in itself is a very desirable thing, but we must remember that there are limits to what we can do. We cannot buy everywhere, and it is important that we should keep open our ordinary and natural channels of trade. One of the worst things

    719
    that could happen is that at the end of the war we should find all the natural connections atrophied and all the natural channels of trade silted up. There will be a strong urge for that sort of thing to happen, but it is of great importance that we should do everything possible to avoid it.
    The essence of what we have to do is to fill the gap created by Germany dropping out of trade in those markets which she cannot reach. And there is another side to that. We have not only to do that but we ought to take the opportunity to offer to certain neutral countries an escape from that German trade domination which she has been gradually establishing over the last few years; because we must remember that Germany has been practising economic warfare for the last five years. The ideal would be that we and the neutral countries with whom we can trade should work out together the best means of filling the gap, created by Germany dropping out, without undue distortion of normal healthy channels of trade. The ideal would further be to hold that gap, so as to leave open the possibility of Germany coming back again, if we are hoping, as the Foreign Secretary suggested in his speech the other night, to live to see a world in which Germany will play her part as a peaceful collaborator in a new Europe. The point I want to put is that it is of vital importance that we should get into touch with neutral countries and discuss our economic plans on the lines I have sketched, and more particularly that we should get into touch with the United States on this matter. It is possible that if we say to the United States that if we buy from these countries we shall not be able to buy from them they may say, "Well, it will suit us better if you continue to buy from us and we will see if we can do something for those countries which you are trying to attract from German trade." The idea is, I recognise, full of difficulties, but I want to put the point that the time is ripe for staff discussions with the United States and other neutral countries on that matter, and if we can get round a table together and discuss the matter as countries seeking each other's mutual advantage, and striving for economic collaboration, that will be a more effective form of propaganda and a more effective way of making them sym-
    720
    pathetic with our purpose than any amount of words over the radio can possibly be.
    I want to add one word on economic organisation. I think that the Government ought to take heed of the strong demand which is being expressed everywhere that there should be some clear, authoritative and co-ordinated direction of the economic policy of the Government. I know the difficulties there are in developing machinery which will not only look effective on paper but which will fit in with the working conditions of the departmental system. Nevertheless this is a point to which the Government should devote increasing attention, because it is one of the things which are vital to our success. Let me make one small suggestion in connection with that point. Private Members of Parliament, who are trying in their small way to render such service as they can in this emergency, find themselves in considerable difficulty in dealing with these economic questions. We do not want to make embarrassing criticisms, and there are many points which should be raised but which it is not desirable should be raised in public Debate. On the other hand many points are brought to our notice. We think there is something in them but it is extremely difficult to marshal all the evidence and see them in their proper proportions. It would be a good thing if there was some method by which those of us who are in touch with these matters could put before the Government the sort of things which are in our minds. Parliamentary Debate is not a suitable way of doing that—and as to that let me say how much I appreciate the difficulty of Ministers in these times, and what a terrible tax it upon them, to attend Parliamentary Debates when they have to be at work 12 and 14 hours a day in their own rooms. The suggestion I want to make is that it should be possible for certain Members selected from each party, who have special interests or connections with these economic matters, to be given an opportunity to meet from time to time some representative of the Government to whom they could put their points. A meeting periodically, once a fortnight, say with Lord Stamp by selected Members of the House might be extremely valuable. I recognise the limitations. I should not expect Lord Stamp to come down to such a

    721
    meeting and tell those who attended what was the policy of the Government on all matters, because it is not for him to settle such things; but he could listen to the points we want to make and see that they receive due consideration. On occasions he might be able to tell us that they are in fact being considered, on others he could point out that our points are part of a much wider issue and help us to see them in true perspective. I believe the genera1 result of such meetings would be not only an increase of confidence in the House but would also save Ministers a great deal of time and might lead to practical measures of advantage to the country.
    Before I leave this question of economic policy, as the Secretary of State for the Dominions is present, I should like to say that I have always been a great admirer of the way in which Australia has tackled her economic problems. The way in which she tackled the last major economic crisis—and she was the first country to be hit by it—was an example to us all. To-day the Prime Minister of Australia has set up an economic cabinet which as he says:
    "Will deal with the economics of the war effort—the effect of the war on the national economy"
    with the aim of ensuring
    "the discharge of the Commonwealth's immense war-time tasks with maximum efficiency, and the fullest possible attempt to reconcile the normal needs of commercial life with the paramount need of winning the war."
    The Australians are a realistic people, I do not think they can be accused of being "theoretical economic planners." I submit that we may take a lesson from one of the younger members of the British Commonwealth in this matter.
    In conclusion, if I might sum up what I have been trying to say, we want to see a Britain which is efficient; not muscle-bound with centralised bureaucracy; working for social welfare; united; a pioneer in the idea of converting Empire into a Commonwealth of free nations; a promoter of international economic co-operation. If we can find ourselves like that at the end of the war we shall be well fitted to play our part with other nations in shaping a new world. What part shall be play? It seems to me that there is some danger
    722
    when we are talking about war aims of the country becoming divided into so-called Utopian idealists and so-called hardheaded realists. It would be very unfortunate if that sort of division were to arise. I believe myself that we want to be idealistic realists, and that is really what is truly characteristic of the British nation. There has been some talk in this Debate of two recent broadcast addresses, one from the Prime Minister and the other from the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). One hon. Member opposite quoted an old lady who derived inspiration from the latter, but not from the former. I do not mind confessing that I derived inspiration from them both, and it we look at the future policy of this country as being directed by a man who, bearing the full sense of responsibility which a Prime Minister must, spoke in the words that he did as to our future purposes, and influenced from the other side by one of the leaders of the Opposition who, speaking with none of the restrictions of responsibility, spoke as the right hon. Member for South Hackney did—if we combine those two expressions and regard England as a country which is to be guided by these twin influences, then I for one am very confident of the future of England and the way in which she will treat her post-war problems.
    5.47 p.m.
    Dr. Haden Guest: When the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) began his speech, I thought the Opposition were in for a bad time, for the hon. Member began by being very critical of the terms of the Amendment; but I think that he went on to make an admirable speech of a kind which could have been made only on that Amendment, which deals with the numerous post-war difficulties that will have to be faced and deals with present circumstances in view of those future difficulties. I should like to follow the hon. Member's remarks, but if I did so, I should either detain the House too long or not be able to make the speech which I rose to make. There is only one thing I want to say with regard to the hon. Member's speech, and it has reference to his remarks about economy. Restriction is not the only method of economy, because besides that there is good organisation, and particularly sharing. I say that particularly with regard to food supplies.

    723
    For instance, one could make a very great economy in the feeding of children by distributing milk through the schools to all children and by having communal mid-day meals for all children as a matter of routine. This would effect a very considerable economy, and from the nutritional point of view, it would probably have a very great advantage, for the contents of such meals could be very much better controlled than they can be in ordinary homes.
    There is one other remark I want to make to the hon. Member, because I think his word might carry weight with those who make soap. He suggested that it might be desirable to limit the amount of fat in soap so as to give soap of an inferior quality. How far that could be done technically without interfering with the cleansing nature of soap, I do not pretend to judge; but I beg the hon. Member not to advocate any step that would lead to a deterioration of any kind in soap, for there is no doubt that it was not only bad nutrition in the last war that led to diseases, but that the dirt and filth in large portions of Europe allowed the germs to grow and eventually to pounce from their lairs on to the general population. Cleanliness is one of the essentials of health, and it is essential that we should have good soap.
    I want particularly to deal with that part of the Amendment which refers to human and material resources. Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal dealt with the question of man-power. He spoke of the 1,250,000 men who are under arms, the 1,750,000 men and women in the air-raid precautions services, and the 1,500,000 people who are unemployed. Last Monday night I listened to a broadcast speech of the Minister of Labour, in which he spoke of the calling up of classes of young men in groups of 250,000, and said that there would be more and more classes to come. I confess that I found the Minister of Labour's explanations as to why there were 1,500,000 men unemployed not very reassuring, but we on this side of the House are accustomed to not being reassured by the Minister of Labour. I believe that of all the problems that will confront us not only in the war but in
    724
    the post-war era, the problem of manpower is the chief one. After all, human material is the stuff out of which our civilisation is made. Are we using it in the right way? Are we using our human material in the Army and in other services, and in civilian life, as carefully, economically, and scientifically as we can at the present time? In his speech yesterday, the Lord Privy Seal referred to manpower in the last war. Those of us who served in the last war saw many misfits, but are there no misfits in this war? Already I have come across a case of a young man having scientific qualifications who was occupying his mind that was trained in abstract chemistry in cutting bread rations. That is not a very serious thing for a short time, but one hopes that that sort of misfit will not continue. No doubt there are very many other misfits.
    There is, however, a still wider problem which I want the House to consider. Are we using our man-power and our womanpower—for women are in this war now and I venture to think they will be more and more in the war before it is over—with due regard to the human conditions and the conditions of family life that will arise after the war? To me, the worst feature of war, of this war and of other wars, is the using up of the young generation. I am sure that all those who served in the last war will agree with my point of view when they remember the tragedy of seeing so many young men marching away, never to come back to this country, or to come back seriously injured. When one thinks now, under our present system of conscription, of one group after another of a quarter of a million young men putting on uniforms and marching away, it is a very grim picture. Of course, this is partly inevitable, for it is the essence of war to destroy youth, but are we not using the young people too much? I know that men from 35 to 50 are being called up for various purposes, but could we not still further make use of the older men and spare the younger men to a larger extent than at present? In his broadcast speech the other night, the Minister of Labour suggested the calling up of men group by group, those of 21 years of age, those of 22, those of 23, simply going on from one year to the next. Why have the calling up in that way? Why not alternate it, and, if you must call up those of 22 years, why not

    725
    then go to a higher age limit? [Interruption.] An hon. Member behind me suggests those of 62 years.
    Mr. George Griffiths: I should be in it then.
    Dr. Guest: My hon. Friend says that then he would be in it, and that I am sure would be a most popular move, by which I mean not that the hon. Member would leave us, but that we should go with him. Unfortunately, there are certain military objections to the employment of men of 62, at any rate in frontline service; but I seriously suggest that it stead of taking the young men one year after another, consideration should be given to the possibility of jumping a period of years and taking a class of older men. I am seriously concerned by the prospect of a whole large age group of, say, 10 years being subjected to war strain, a large number of them certainly being killed, a larger number certainly being wounded, and all of them being subjected to that war strain which produces in many people effects that are not obvious during the war, but which become obvious as time goes on.
    When we are forced to do so, we pay considerable attention to medical and human science. Yesterday, the Lord Privy Seal said that the last war produced industrial welfare and the Ministry of Health, and he asked us to look at the present and see what lessons we can learn from the evacuation. It strikes me that this is a very expensive method of education, and I hope that we can do better than that. Could we not intelligently anticipate some of our future' experiences and build on the experience of past wars by a scientific review of the military and civilian use of man-power with a view to the human future? Hon. Members know that the Napoleonic wars injured the people of France physically for generations. The last war has left us not only with a great toll of death, but a greater toll of injured bodies and disoriented minds. How far can we avoid such things? Quite fankly, I do not know. It is a matter for scientific inquiry; but one very important thing that we have to remember is that the men whom we are sending into the war now are the men who should be the fathers, and their women mates the mothers, of the next generation. I want to see that we do not lose too great a proportion of the younger men, and that
    726
    we scientifically consider whether it is not possible, by all kinds of economies, to make use of the older men. Already, the Secretary of State for War, under a certain amount of pressure from this side of the House, has conceded something in this direction. He has agreed that certain classes of young soldiers shall not be sent overseas when they are under the age of 20. That is not quite the same thing as I am arguing for now, but it goes in the same direction; that principle might be extended.
    In replying to the Debate yesterday, the Minister of Health made a fascinating survey of the great health progress of the past. He mentioned that in the near fuťure there would be a greater concentration of medical effort on the school children than ever before. That is an admirable thing. He mentioned also the gift of Lord Nuffield for the purpose of organising the proper relationship of the voluntary hospiťals to the municipal hospitals and the co-ordination of the hospital system as a whole. That is an admirable thing to do, but it would be a still more valuable work if we could, by careful thought and scienťific study, spread the burden of the actual fighting services of the war more evenly over the older as well as the younger generations. Let us remember that those who have to do ťhe work of rebuilding after the war will have one of the greatest tasks in world history. They should be people with straight bodies and well-balanced minds.
    I think it would not be too much to say thať part of the tragedy, as I will call it, of the appalling political developments on the Continent of Europe and particularly in Germany in recent years has been due to the dreadful sufferings which that country, and especially iťs youth went through, so that their minds were twisted out of the normal shape. Let us be sure that those who have to do the work of reconstruction in this nation in the future, represent, as far as possible, all the age groups. I believe we suffered very much at the end of the last war by the loss of the younger men who ought to have come forward to do the active work. I hope, therefore, thať at the end of this war we shall have available a large proportion of all the groups, and an even representation of the population as a whole. I believe that we can arrive at an estimate of the means of doing this by a carefully-

    727
    planned scienťific inquiry, and if we have a representation of those of all ages who have not been subjected to the terrible strain of war, we shall be in a better condition to face the problem of rebuilding after the war than we were in the years which followed 1918.
    6.3 p.m.
    Sir Arthur Harbord: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the serious effect of the war upon towns on the East Coast, and, in particular, the borough of Great Yarmouth which I have the honour to represent. In considering this question it is necessary to point out that Great Yarmouth is almost entirely dependent for its livelihood upon summer visitors and the herring fishery. There are very few industrial undertakings in the town. The House will be aware of the regrettable decline in recent years of the herring fishery. This has had a very serious effect in the borough, as it has entirely deprived hundreds of seafaring families and shore workers of their only income and the town has become almost entirely dependent upon its summer trade. The loss of the income from the fishing industry has created an increasing financial burden in relief of distress and an abnormal amount of unemployment during the winter months. The effect upon the town has shown itself in increasing rates. These have now reached a limit beyond which it will be impossible for the majority of the ratepayers to meet their obligations in that respect.
    When war came upon us in September the visiting season was at its height and the immediate effect was an exodus of visitors. Many people who had sent on their luggage in advance and had booked rooms, had to cancel their bookings. Practically all visitors had gone in a few days with the result that the proprietors of hotels, shops and boarding houses were faced with a financial crisis. I understand this situation because I was mayor of the borough for two years during the last war. Our experience during that war was that we had 2,000 shops and dwelling-houses closed, and that we lost 10,000 people by migration. The town then went through a period of distress comparable to that experienced in the distressed areas whose condition has so often engaged the serious and sympathetic attention of the House. It is because I know
    728
    that this House is never deaf to appeals on behalf of distress where the reality of that distress is proved, that I am now asking the Government to turn a sympathetic ear to this plea on behalf of Great Yarmouth and to give some financial consideration to this town as well as to other towns which are similarly affected. I ask that what has been done with such marked success in the distressed areas should be done in this case also, and that we should be favoured by having a commissioner who could come down there and by careful inquiry ascertain whether the case which I am now advancing is not justified by the facts, and whether in his opinion it is not up to the country to do something to meet this situation.
    Further, I suggest that something should be done in towns like Great Yarmouth on the lines of what has been done in the distressed areas by the establishment of works or factories in order to provide employment. It should not be a hard task even now at such a crisis as that through which we are passing, to achieve something of that kind once the Government are satisfied that distress really exists in the marked degree which I am describing. I would also ask the Government to do what was done before and to enable the town to suspend sinking fund contributions during the period of the war and extend the period of the repayment of loans. The council has done its best to meet the difficulty, but even this will not be sufficient, and it is compelled to ask the Government for immediate financial assistance. I am aware that what I have said applies to other towns and I should like to support the appeal which was so eloquently made by my colleague who represents the adjoining constituency of Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). I would remind the House that Great Yarmouth has supplied a number of those who man our drifters, minesweepers and mine-layers. A tribute has been paid to them this afternoon, and I consider that that constitutes a further claim on the attention of this House.
    I would again point out that at 1he end of August and the beginning of September many of our shops were closed, with the result that staffs had to be reduced or discharged. Shopkeepers were left with their goods unsold. They were not able to reap the normal season's profits and were faced with serious difficulties and liabilities. I know the conditions which

    729
    exist there, and I repeat that, while everything possible has been done locally, it is urgently necessary that something more should be done to alleviate the distress existing in this and other towns on the East and North-East Coasts. I am sure that this appeal will not be received unsympathetically by the Government. In the last war they helped the town to tide over a long and difficult period. We had help from the Canadian Fund, the Prince of Wales Fund and grants from the Treasury in aid of local rates. I hope that on this occasion no less financial assistance will be afforded to Great Yarmouth and other towns similarly situated to help them to tide over these years of war and enable them to maintain an existence which otherwise will be seriously threatened.
    6.10 p.m.
    Mr. Davidson: I am grateful for this opportunity of taking part in the Debate, and I suggest that the first thing to keep in mind is that this Amendment to the Address has been placed on the Order Paper by the party in this House which has been most consistent since its inception in defending the rights of the democratic peoples. I should have thought that an Amendment submitted by the official Opposition under war conditions, which call for a certain amount of understanding and co-operation between the Opposition and the Government, would have received greater consideration than this Amendment apparently has received from Members of the Government or the party opposite—represented at the moment mainly by empty spaces on those benches. As a Scottish Member I propose to deal particularly with Scotland. I have recently addressed a number of meetings in Scotland, both in my own and other constituencies. I have never, at any of those meetings, departed from the Labour party's stand on behalf of firmness against aggressor nations, but it should be realised by hon. Members opposite that in Scotland there is a deep-seated suspicion of this Government. A state of mind exists there that will have to be reassured by the Government, if they want to use the nation's capacity to the fullest extent.
    When the people of the country enter into a war, led by the Government, on behalf of peoples in other countries; when the Government promise to stand by the
    730
    rights and liberties of certain nations; when they declare that those rights and liberties are essential, and when, at the same time, they turn down practically every demand made from this side about the conditions of our own people, there is bound to be deep-seated suspicion. It is being said by a great number of people in Scotland that the Prime Minister, who for so long objected to making a stand against aggression and who allowed nation after nation to be attacked by German Fascism is not and cannot be the man to lead the country in a war against Fascist aggression. That is being said with a measnure of support that would surprise many hon. Members. When a Prime Minister or any leading Cabinet Minister has embarked upon a certain policy and maintained that policy in the face of the severest criticism, and then within one week because of certain happenings has completely reversed his policy, it has always been the custom in the past, as far as I know, for that Minister to resign and make way for those who had accepted the policy desired by the nation. At the meetings which I have attended in Scotland—I am giving the House a fair account of what happened—there have been those who have supported the Government, but the majority of the people showed that they place no trust in the Prime Minister as the person to carry on a war against Fascist aggression. Because of his actions in the past, because of his continuous policy, they believe he is the wrong man to lead the nation at this time. They start off, therefore, with a deep-seated suspicion of the intentions of the present Prime Minister, and they have asked at many of these meetings that Scottish Members of the Labour party at least should make it clear that if the Prime Minister resigned, many of them would accept that as an indication that the Government were sincerely in earnest in opposing German Fascism.
    I have little to say to-night—I may have a better opportunity in the future—with regard to the defences of Scotland. I recognise that that is a question that ought not to receive publicity such as would hurt the nation's interest, and I realise that it is a question that may he used by those who would attack our liberties, but there are one or two points to which I think I can address myself with complete freedom and with

    731
    the knowledge that in mentioning them they will not bring upon us any attack or any stronger effort from the other side. I can remember when the Chief Patronage Secretary stood up there and said, "We have made great progress with the defences of Scotland," when we had about two anti-aircraft units. Therefore, I demanded an adequate balloon barrage service for the second city of the Empire, a city that has the greatest seaports and the greatest docks in the country, a city that, placed in the centre of the nation, was bound to be important from the point of view of supplies, with its lines of communications running north and south, with its great shipbuilding industry, with its miles and miles of dockyards, with its heavy iron and steel industry within a comparatively small radius.
    I want now to come to the question of air raid precautions in Scotland. I have placed many questions on the Order Paper with regard to the City of Glasgow in order to try and obtain information, because of the conflicting newspaper reports, reports which have conflicted completely with replies from the Home Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal, and I think it is time a stop was made to the people of that city being hoodwinked. We have a very difficult problem in Glasgow, and I fully realise that since questions have been put in this House, and since the Government's officers have been assisting the emergency committee in Glasgow, marked improvement has taken place, but I want to ask the Scottish Secretary to take every possible step to put a stop to these misleading, specious arguments that would indicate to the people of Glasgow that, so far as their air raid precautions are concerned, they have no need to worry and that they are now completely adequate, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is far from the truth. As marked improvement has been made since this matter was given publicity, I hope that in the early future we shall be able to say that in Glasgow this problem has been almost solved, but to carry on with the starting of so many schemes and having an inspection of one or two engineering works, and then to place paragraphs in the Press stating that the Home Office is thoroughly satisfied, but informing Members of the House by letter that they are thoroughly dissatisfied, is hoodwinking the people of
    732
    the country and is certainly not an asset in the defence of any city. Therefore, it ought to be made clear that the first thing to do is to let the people know what is required. If they know the real state of affairs, they can put their backs into the job instead of lying back and taking things easy because of a false sense of security.
    I should also like to raise one or two questions with regard to Scottish contractors employed on Government work. I have had many approaches made to me by firms in Scotland who have had the workers' organisation and the plant to undertake many jobs on behalf of the Government. We have found very great difficulty in obtaining anything of the kind. I deprecate any attempt at separating the interests of the English people from those of the Scottish or the Welsh people, but if I do interrupt an hon. Member when he keeps on saying, "England this" and "England that," when he really means Britain, it is not from a false sense of Scottish nationalism, but merely from a sense of the rights of things, particularly when, as in this war, Scotland is receiving what I think is a very heavy share of the effects of the war. We do not ask for Scottish firms and businesses more than their share, but they do ask that the policy that many of the Departments have applied in the past, of selecting one or two big English firms, big London firms, and giving them, without asking for estimates in Scotland, contracts that could be efficiently done by men or businesses on the spot, that have proved themselves to the Government by past contracts to be capable, is a policy that ought to be departed from. Where possible—and I address myself on this question particularly to the Minister of Supply—the policy of handing over work in Scotland to huge English firms when it could be given to Scottish firms ought to be stopped immediately.
    I can quote Abbotsinch, where some of the firms, the Minister of Labour may be interested to know, have a pay roll of £7,000, with a practically complete Scottish staff on the spot, firms that have done work for the Admiralty and for the War Office, and that have done quite a number of housing schemes in Scotland. Those firms desire to be allowed to participate in contracting for this type of work, but the representatives of a huge English concern, Mowlems, who did not send in a

    733
    tender, were handed a contract for Abbotsinch on a time-and-material basis, which means that, no matter what happened to the contractors, their profits were assured. Now, with regard to this contract, we know what has happened; we know that the ground is absolutely useless, that piles have been driven into the mud to try and make it a practicable scheme, and that money has been sunk completely and lost sight of, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said, because of this failure and this handing over of a contract. If a Scottish contractor had been asked to tender and had been given a fair opportunity, being on the spot and knowing the conditions, he would have been able to advise and guide the Government with regard to such a contract.
    I think the Scottish Secretary knows full well the truth of my statements with regard to that contract, and this has been happening all over Scotland. We have found, particularly with regard to the Bishopton ordnance factory, that Scottish business men have had to come down to London to plead with and even threaten some of the Government Departments in order to try and obtain work for the workers of Scotland. I know that to be the case, and I would ask the Government to note that in Scotland there are Scottish firms and businesses, the majority of whose employés pay rates there and stay in the locality, who ought to be given at least a fair opportunity of undertaking this work of national importance.
    Finally, I want to ask the Government to take quicker steps or, I should say, longer steps towards settling the problem of children who have been returned from the evacuated areas in Scotland. I have had considerable contact with the Scottish Secretary on this question, and he knows my deep desire that mothers should realise that it is their duty to give their children the greatest protection that the Government offers. A large number of children have returned to Glasgow, where the evacuation scheme can be called a complete failure. Thousands of children are now running about the streets, some of them receiving only one hour's education a day in private houses and paying 3d. a month towards lighting and heating. Some of them are receiving education in churches. I ask that far more vigorous efforts should be made to establish the educational system again for these children and to take them off the streets.
    734
    I have raised these various points in the hope that the Government will view them seriously. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty, when he was referring to the heroism of the men who had undertaken the noble work of keeping the seas clear of magnetic mines, to remember these men in future. We have pleaded the question of old age pensioners, of soldiers' dependants and of the unemployed since the war began. We have raised the question of the evils of the social system as it is to-day. I say that unless the Government are prepared to make great concessions and to consider the pleadings of the Opposition, they will create a state of affairs in this country which they so fondly desire for Germany. We have been told that the German workers may revolt against their Government. I warn the Government of the feelings of distrust and suspicion against them which I have seen indicated at public meetings and at regular party meetings. If they do not undertake on the home front to give the people the decent things that they require, they will bring about a state of mind that will effectively keep them from carrying on the prosecution of the war in a successful manner. The Labour movement stands not only against aggression in foreign lands, but for the rights and privileges and the good conditions of the people of this country. The Government must do the same or they will fall. They will fall because they failed to realise that the people of this country and the British Empire deserve the conditions which they so idealistically advocate in their opposition to Fascist countries.
    6.35 p.m.
    Dr. Little: I have admired the spirit in which this Debate has been conducted on both sides of the House. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) has struck such a bad patch. If he is not afraid of the submarines and will cross the Channel with me for a week-end, I will entertain him and take him through my constituency, the second largest, I understand, in the United Kingdom, where there are a great many people of Scottish extraction. Among those people there is deep-seated loyalty to the Government and the Prime Minister. They believe that the Prime Minister is the man whose hand should be on the

    735
    helm now, and they are prepared to follow him. There is no one there who will stand up to them and say otherwise. I am proud to say that in the House of Commons, and if the hon. Member will cross to Ulster I will show him loyalty as deep-seated as the disloyalty which he finds in Glasgow, especially among those of Scottish extraction.
    This is not a time for factious criticism. It is a time for co-operation. I may not look at matters along the lines of some hon. Friends even on this side of the House, and I want to put my own viewpoint before the House. The patriarch Job was once snowed under with advice. The Government have been snowed under with advice during the past week. In Job's case Elihu intervened and said, "I have yet to speak on God's behalf." [Laughter.] It is not to be laughed at. We are helpless without God to-day. I want hon. Members on the other side and the Mover of the Amendment—whom I admire, and whose stand during these troublous days has been the admiration of all—to understand that on this side we are, just as much as they are, determined to use all our human and material resources to the full. More than that, we are just as determined to see that everyone, irrespective of class, receives an adequate share of the good things that God has provided. You do not find on the other side of the House alone those who are interested in the old age pensioners. We are just as much interested in them as any Member on the other side. Among old age pensioners I find many that are the very salt of God's earth and people who have spent themselves on behalf of God and their country. Many of them have worked for small wages, and I am convinced that they will not be left out and that the Government may even yet offer them a handsome Christmas box. Nothing will have my support more than that, for they deserve it.
    It is in the interests of all that every effort should be put forth to win the war. There should be no pulling of some one way and of others another way. In this campaign the people of Northern Ireland under the Governor and the Prime Minister are heart and soul with the British Government. The ladies are no less heart and soul with them, led by the Duchess of
    736
    Abercorn and Viscountess Craigavon, and they are working for the comfort, wellbeing and happiness of the men who are standing between us and the enemy. There is no other part of the United Kingdom which would have given such a response without conscription to the call of King and country as Northern Ireland has done. We kicked against the Government refusing us conscription, but it has not in any way damped the ardour of our young men. They have rushed to the Colours and more are coming than can be taken in. I thank God for that. We are never wanting in the day of battle and never have been. The winning of the war will require the complete organisation of our resources, both human and material, by men of vision, wisdom and ability. We cannot afford to leave anything to chance, for that would mean the prolongation of the war and bitter disappointment to our people.
    Surely it was not necessary to set forth in the King's Speech that the Government meant to carry on the war with all the resources at their command, because they are doing it. Members on the opposite side forget that the King's Speech is a war-time speech. We are no less determined to see that social reforms and all the other necessary things should get their proper place, but the outstanding need to-day is that we must stand up to the enemy and win the war. I am a believer in putting first things first. Let us remember that the Prime Minister and the Members of the Government do not set themselves up to be infallible. I have no faith in infallible people, either here or elsewhere. Over a wide-range war such as this mistakes may have occurred. I make mistakes myself and I have learned a lesson from them. Mistakes have occurred and will occur, but w e hope that the Government will profit by them and will work along the lines of keeping open minds and understanding hearts, and will rise to the occasion with prudence, discretion and understanding. Was it not Lord Tennyson who said:
    "That men may rise on stepping-stones Of their dead selves to higher things."
    Even the Opposition can profit by that. Beyond question this House must see that a proper standard of life is maintained for the purpose of attaining a speedy victory over the enemy. Both at home and on the battle front there must be a feeling that the best is being done

    737
    for the well-being and comfort of all, and that the nation is determined to see this war through with as little inconvenience as possible to combatant and non-combatant alike. We must keep steadily before us that above and beyond everything else we should bend all our energies to the bringing of the war to a successful termination at the earliest possible moment. I believe that it will end sooner than some people expect, but I will not press that on the House. Towards attaining that desirable result our nation must bend all its energies to the utilisation of all its resources. It seems to me that at toe moment no purpose is being served by Eying kites as to peace and reconstructon. No human being has the slightest idea of the conditions that will prevail at the end of the war. Every day that passes unfolds to us a more and more complex situation, and what the conditions will be at the end of the war God alone knows. No human being does.
    Therefore, let us bravely and valiantly do the job that lies to our hand and trust God to make clear to us how to unravel the tangled skein when peace broods again over our distracted world. When a family man takes it into his mind to erect a house, the first thing he does is to seek a good foundation. The second thing he does is to provide for the erection of the building. While iť is being erected he gives practically no thought to the furnishing of it, because he knows that when all is completed he must consult his wife and other members of the family. He is a wise man to do that. That is a lesson which we should learn. Let us make sure that the work in which we are engaged will issue in a glorious peace. Then, not by ourselves, but in co-operation with our allies and other nations, we shall set ourselves to find a settlement that will prove beneficial to all, irrespective of creed, class or nationality, based on the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ regarding peace, brotherhood and good will.
    It is because we have losť sight of that teaching that we are in the predicament in which we find ourselves to-day. We want to get back to that teaching. Then, and not ťill then, shall our social problems be solved along the lines laid down by our great Master, and the people inhabitating the Continent of Europe, and I hope the world, become one concordant family in Christian brotherhood and love one for
    738
    another. We have made a wonderful efforť in rearmament by providing the weapons of war, but I regret to say that religious and moral rearmament has not at all kept pace with this material rearmament. We are confronted to-day wiťh a state of affairs on the Continent before which we stand, as it were, dumbfounded. The wisest and best statesmen are well nigh at ťheir wits' end. In a word, we are as a nation thrust back upon God absolutely. I want this nation and the Allies to do what that people did of old when they came to their wits' end. It tells us in the good Book:
    "They cried unto the Lord in their trouble and he delivered them out of their distresses."
    I say on the Floor of this House, because I am convinced of it, that Britain is unbeatable, not because of our Army, our Navy or our Air Force by themselves—they all have their places—but because, I am convinced, God has work for this nation in the days to come which no other people on the face of the earth can accomplish. About a couple of weeks ago I sat down in the dining-room of this House and a young Member in khaki entered. I was proud to see him; I am sorry that I am too old for khaki myself. We began to talk and I said that it was wonderful to see the patience of God with nations like Germany. His reply was that it was wonderful to see the patience of God with Britain. The patience of God with Britain is wonderful, and you may depend upon it that God's patience is not yet exhausted. Therefore, let us trust in God and be not afraid as to the issue. As I look out upon Germany and Russia practising their deception, cunning and villainy with, as the patriarch Jacob said, "the instruments of cruelty in their habitations," and when I look upon ourselves and our Allies standing, as we believe before God, for truth, righteousness, justice and brotherhood upon the earth, those words from God's Book come home to me with a deep and present meaning:
    "Fear not … I will help thee saith the Lord. … Thou shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry them any, and the whirlwind shall scatter them, and thou shalt rejoice in the Lord, and shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel."
    Nothing would please me better, and nothing would please millions of people in this United Kingdom better, than to see the first hour of the opening meeting of this House in the New Year turned into a great prayer meeting with you, Sir,

    739
    in the chair and with your chaplain leading the House to God's mercy seat in earnest, believing prayer. I believe that from that moment we should count the hours to victory, and not only to victory but to a new world of brotherly love, sympathy and good-fellowship. The fruits of such a victory would be enduring peace and a blessing to all, in which we in this House should be sharers.
    6.49 p.m.
    Mr. Dunn: I do not propose to attempt to follow the hon. Member for Down (Dr. Little), because, in the first place, I am afraid that I should not prove nearly so eloquent as he has been. I am certain that in his heart of hearts he believes in the contribution that he has rendered to the Debate in this House, and I profoundly respect the expressions to which he has given utterance. I come to this House very much in the same spirit as the hon. Member, and I do not for a moment under-estimate his earnestness nor would I say a single word derogatory of the religious convictions which he holds. My purpose in coming into this Debate is neither to follow the line laid down by the hon. Member nor the line laid down by quite a number of hon. Members who have taken part in it, but merely to restate, at the risk of being charged with repetition, the claim which we on this side of the House make. In the first place I ask the Government to consider one or two of the irritating things which are disturbing the British people, because it is profoundly important, if we are to achieve the maximum of our war effort, to maintain the best spirit possible among our people. I think every Member of the House will agree that since this war broke out he has received double the number of letters he did before, and in my own case the number of letters I have received has risen by 300 per cent. The letters one receives from the people represent a point of view which should be put. The purpose of this House is to see that the views of the people are stated, so that Ministers of the Crown may know what the country is thinking.
    Analysing the letters which come to me I find that they are chiefly occupied with the difficulties of the men who have gone into the Army. The complaint is not that they have been recruited, because many
    740
    have voluntarily joined the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, but the complaints are largely with respect to food, with respect to clothing, and with respect to pay. I say to the Minister in charge that it is an irritating thing that lads who have spent the whole of their working life apprenticed to a trade and who have voluntarily joined the Army or the Air Force should be kept four or five weeks on end without receiving any pay. That is one of the most disturbing matters which I have come across. One lad who has never earned a penny in his life, because his parents put him to a trade, voluntarily went into the Air Force, and at the end of four weeks had to write home in order to get a penny of spending money. Such irritations ought to be cleared out of the way as quickly as possible.
    It was my unfortunate experience a week ago to-night to have to write a letter from this House to the first widow in my own district whose son had been killed. He lost his life in an accident while with the British Expeditionary Force in France. There is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction with the pay and allowances granted to people whose husbands and sons are in the Army. This was the case of a widow whose husband was killed in a coal mining accident two years ago. This boy was 23 years of age and was the main support of a widowed mother. The dissatisfaction to which I have referred exists because people do not understand, first, what is the rate of pension they will receive, and, secondly, do not understand how to proceed in order to get it. The Government ought to state clearly what the rates of pension will be, and the allowances should be adequate to maintain dependants in a state of decency.
    Further, one still receives letters from old age pensioners. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he had answered this point a week ago when he said that early in the New Year it was hoped that the report of the inquiry on the subject would be received. I know that he made certain veiled suggestions, but I could not help thinking that from what he said in that speech the Chancellor might well be described as the "Artful Dodger," so far as pensions and allowances are concerned. I put it frankly and fearlessly and make no apologies for doing so. The old age pensioners are expecting that even while the war is going

    741
    on their rates of pension will be increased, and that it will be done as quickly as possible. Further, if we are going to keep the industrial masses of the people quiet, secure the maximum war effort and win through in this war, rates of compensation must be increased, and that as quickly as possible. It is vital in the interests of winning this war and in the interests of unity in the nation that the needs of the people on the home front should be considered along the lines which have been laid down from time to time in this House.
    6.59 p.m.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: The Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) deals with three aspects of the matter under debate. One is the desirability of organising to the full our human and material resources. The second is the provision and maintenance of an adequate standard of life for all. The third is the solution, on the basis of social justice, of the problems which will arise on the return to peace. These three considerations really hang together, and a mistake is made when they are separated the one from the other. As a matter of fact, the aspect of the provision of an adequate standard of life for all and the solution of the social problems which will arise on the conclusion of peace cannot be tackled unless the first aspect of the opposition Amendment is dealt with, namely:
    "proposals for organising to the full our human and material resources."
    It is clear that unless there is proper organisation of the material and human resources of the nation, social reform, public expenditure upon maintaining the proper life of the people and social justice are impossible.
    The Minister of Health, in making the concluding speech of the Debate yesterday, gave a recital, as he was entitled to do, of the very substantial improvements in the social condition of the British people and in their housing conditions since the last war. He gave the facts as cheerfully as he could, but I am not disposed to quarrel with the essential facts which he gave to the House. It is the case that the standards of life of the masses of the people of our country have materially improved during the last 50 years, and that such social provision as the feeding and medical inspection of
    742
    school-children, maternity and child welfare—one of the cheapest and possibly most effective social services that have been developed since the last war—housing and slum clearance, which have moved at considerable pace in recent years, has greatly improved.
    The Labour party has no cause to dispute or deny that, for we believe, rightly or wrongly, that our activities and efforts in local government and elsewhere, and our educational propaganda, are probably the greatest single cause of those social improvements. We shall not dispute that improvements have been made, but, great and beneficial as they have been, we are halted by the indisputable fact that, at a time when the mastery of man over material things and his scientific genius, inventive skill and organising capacity, are greater than they ever were before, and when our mastery and control of nature are more intensive than before, it is wrong and indefensible that there should be, among the masses of the people of our own country and other countries, great poverty, great insecurity and great social unhappiness. It is not bad, if there is a necessary shortage, for us to suffer and to share it. It is right that that should be so; but it is annoying and irritating when it is the case that we are suffering not a natural shortage in normal times, but shortage and poverty precisely because there is bounteous production in this country and in other countries. It is indefensible that agricultural people in our own land and other lands should experience hunger precisely because too much food has been produced. Those are facts which cannot be disputed, and they are not a credit to us as a nation, or to other nations as nations. We are asking the Government and the House of Commons to look into those elementary facts and to consider their bearings upon the war, upon the social condition of our people and upon the social future of our country and of the world.
    The Minister of Health said with pride that evacuation has been a great social experiment and that largely it had been a success because people, particularly those in the reception areas, had responded to the appeal that there should be a spirit of sharing. It was strange to hear those words from a Conservative Minister of the Crown, when we have heard from such quarters that the whole doctrine of

    743
    sharing was disastrous and would bring the world to an end. Still, Conservative Ministers know how to use Socialist words when they are useful to them. They exploit them sometimes for ulterior ends. The Minister of Health, Conservative now, though he was a Fabian once, has told us that the successful evacuation owes much to the spirit of sharing in the reception areas.
    What is the basic fact, in relation to the war effort, of the years which have passed since 1931? As regards preparation for the possibility of war, our first point is that from 1931 onwards, there was a change in foreign policy. I am not going to argue whether the change was right or wrong, but there was a move away from the collective organisation of peace, from the League of Nations and from economic co-operation among nations. I do not argue whether those things were right or wrong, but it was the fact. By 1933, 1934 and 1935, as the policy of Herr Hitler developed, it was abundantly clear that we were moving towards a dangerous situation and that there was quite a possibility that war would eventuate.
    Two foreign policies might have been pursued. One was the collective organisation of peace and the building up and the making of a tidy world, coupled with British co-operation in whatever military provision might have been required; and there was the policy of semi-isolation. I do not argue which policy was right or was wrong, but whatever military and economic preparation for the possibility of war would have been needed in a policy of collective organisation of peace, it was clear that the policy of His Majesty's Government in foreign affairs, one of semi-isolation, needed British military and economic preparation for war. The fact should have been faced. Our complaint about the Government is that they prepared neither for the organisation of peace nor for the preparation for the war which their own policy was helping to make inevitable. Neither of those things was done.
    By last year—by the year before last—it was becoming clear that unless Europe pulled together we were going, not to march into war, but to drift into one. At that point, the Government ought actively to have been preparing. The
    744
    Prime Minister ought already to have been choosing his Ministers on a basis of suitability for office in relation to this situation, but he was doing nothing of the kind. On the contrary, he was letting go some of his people, and he was putting in others who were certainly not better. I do not want to harrow the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Eden) but some were going out and others were coming in. If I were asked to say whether the choosing of the personnel of the Government in those years was based upon efficiency for peace-time work and the preparation for the possibility of war, I am bound to state that I cannot say so. How was it, for example, that Lord Stanhope was left as First Lord of the Admiralty right into the days of the war? I do not like to talk about persons because it is distasteful, but it must be done, and it is part of our duty. He has been in other offices. He may have his good points—I do not know—but if anybody on the other side of the House were to put his hand on his heart and ask himself, "Was Lord Stanhope a good man to make First Lord of the Admiralty?" the answer must be "No," and I say it was a public danger to put him into that office.
    The war came. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was brought in as First Lord of the Admiralty rather in consideration of force majeure and not from choice on the part of the Prime Minister. If it was right that the right hon. Gentleman should be First Lord when the war broke out, surely he should have been First Lord before. My opinion is that the disaster at Scapa Flow would not have happened if Lord Stanhope had been removed earlier than he was. I only wish to say that in my judgment the Prime Minister, although I do not say he is the first one who has done so, has made profound mistakes in choosing his Ministers in the critical years.
    In the course of the preparation there was no adequate consultation with great industrial leaders and organisers and trade union leaders for the purpose of considering a skeleton scheme for the wartime organisation of industry. It ought to have been done. There are brains to be found in the capitalist world; there are not as many as I would like, but they are there and the Government should have obtained them, used them and exploited them for the economic good of the country

    745
    in war as well as in peace. In the ranks of the trade union leaders there is considerable economic knowledge, because the trade union leader of to-day has a much more complex and ticklish job than he had 20 years ago. He has to be familiar with the economics of industry, otherwise he is of no use.
    When the war came there had to be quite a row on this side of the House before real efforts were made to see that trade union leaders were not treated on a long-distance basis but were brought in on the ground floor. There was some vague scheme of registration of professional and technical people at the Ministry of Labour, but it ought to have been done properly. It is not enough to put them on a register. They should have been seen and the State should have been ready to give the suitable ones war work when the war came. So was it with the organisation of labour, although I admit that a schedule of reserved occupations was prepared some weeks before the outbreak of war. The financial, economic and industrial preparation for the possibility of war should have been brought to an advanced stage so that it was ready to move with speed and precision if and when the calamity came. The trouble of the Government was—and I am a little apprehensive that it remains—that it was instinctively averse to proper economic and industrial preparation, and the whole idea of planning the economics and industry of a nation for the good of the people was foreign to the Conservative mind. As long as that is so you really cannot be efficient in the duties of government either in times of peace or of war.
    I will now come to the mobilisation of our human resources. I agree there have been big changes and efforts and considerable things have been done, but nobody with experience and nobody who meets people outside who are concerned with these things will say that we have a proper degree of organisation of these things at the present time. The Prime Minister is still making funny choices for his Ministers. Let me say this in all friendship and respect, because I have a warm regard for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Shipping. I had official relations with him when he was Home Secretary and never could he have been more courteous. There is not a Member of this House more
    746
    fully respected as a man than the right hon. Gentleman, but if you are choosing a Minister of Shipping with ships being attacked by submarines and blown up, and with the whole tricky business of the mobilisation of the Mercantile Marine, it is just elementary idiocy to make a choice of that kind. It is not only the mistake with which I am concerned but the state of mind of the Prime Minister who was capable of making that mistake. He has his qualities, but such mistakes are dangerous to the nation in time of war.
    The same mistake was made with another admirable man—quite suitable I should think as a Lord Chancellor—the Minister of Information. He is fair-minded, judicial and public-spirited. The entry of the Lord Privy Seal at this moment reminds me of another mistake. The right hon. Gentleman the present Lord Privy Seal created the structure and made the machine. Both he and the Minister of Information have fine qualities. I am not going to engage in a slanging match with the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord Privy Seal, or with his Noble Friend in another place. They have qualities but they are not the qualities for the organisation of propaganda and information. The actual organisation of that Ministry and the misuse of man-power was simply shocking. Nobody could have looked at the list which was published in the "Times" without coming to the conclusion that some of those appointments were wrong. I am not sure that some of those appointments were not worse than wrong. I hope journalists will forgive me for saying this, but on balance advertising and publicity men as such are even more entitled to consideration than journalists because the modern advertising man has to create an idea or a doctrine and "get it over." The journalist has his job to do, too, and both are vital. The advertising men were hardly used and the journalists were not adequately used.
    I would say again with regard to industrial leaders and trade union leaders that inadequate use has been made of them also, and the same applies to technicians. All sorts of people who are not: fitted for jobs want them, and we should beware of them, I agree, but there are people with technical, administrative and industrial ability who want to serve the State and who are being kept hanging about and nobody can fit them in. It is

    747
    even the case with able men who are suited for specialist service in the service departments of the armed Forces of the Crown, some of whom have given up their jobs because they expected to be called up shortly and are being kept hanging about. This is not the sort of war that you can fight as if it were the Crimean War or the Boer War. It is a modern war. It is a large-scale war, and it is essential that our Government shall maintain its efficiency at a high point in the prosecution of that war.
    Nor is it to our credit, in fact it is a reflection on our preparations, that 1,400,000 unemployed exist. The Minister of Labour broadcast the other night. I gather that there is great competition among Ministers for broadcasting facilities, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has had his share—I should be surprised if he had not, for I know that the National Liberals can look after themselves. I do not dispute the defence which the right hon. Gentleman made, so far as it goes. I quite agree that in connection with these figures there are rapid transitions from one job to another to be considered. That is a fair point. I remember that Mr. J. H. Thomas drew attention to that when he was Lord Privy Seal and was responsible for dealing with unemployment, in the Labour Government; and, if I remember rightly, the present Minister of Labour would not believe a word of it. But, after three months of war, there are 1,400,000 registered unemployed with nothing to do—and that is not all the unemployed; there are some others. The Lord Privy Seal said yesterday that it did not surprise him a bit that the figures went up by 200,000 in the first months of the war. That is all very fine, but both the Minister of Labour and the Lord Privy Seal ignore the fact that there is this figure of 1,400,000 unemployed after 1,250,000 men have been mobilised for military service and another 1,250,000 have been mobilised for Civil Defence—2,500,000 mobilised for military and Civil Defence, and there are still 1,400,000 unemployed left. It is not creditable.
    Probably the British people have the greatest aptitude of any people of a Great Power for public administration. It is not that we cannot organise, it is not that we cannot administer; we can. But, after 2,500,000
    748
    people have been mobilised for national service, it is a reflection on our capacity that there should be 1,400,000 still without work, especially when it is known that in some branches of production for military purposes production is not adequate, not what it should be. The Lord Privy Seal said that he quite agreed that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would have to get on training people so that ťhey would be fit for the various jobs for which they were needed in connection with Supply. If we are going to do it now, after three months of war, why could it not have been done before the war? Why did we not set about being ready for the possibilities? Even if the war had not come—and we should all have been delighted if it had not—it would have been a good thing for the unemployed to be trained for certain things; and I am sure it could have been settled with the trade unions, notwithstanding the apprehension that they might legitimately have had. The Lord Privy Seal said that in the new year jobs will be looking for men. I hope that that is true. I just want to place it on record that he said that; I would ask the Minister of Labour to remember it, and I would ask my hon. Friends ťo put down questions about February in order to find out whether that has happened.
    After human resources I come to material resources. Before the war we were not planning our material resources. If we had been, our people could have been better off economically; they could have been having a better standard of life, and we could have been infinitely more ready for the possibilities of a war than we are. I am not going to deny that things are better in this respect than they were in 1914; they are considerably better; but that comparison with 1914 is not good enough. To prove that since ťhe war began there has been a steady improvement in production is not good enough. When I listened yesterday to the figures that the Lord Privy Seal gave, in order to show a sťeady improvement and that things were better than in 1914, I began to wonder what would have happened if the blitzkrieg had really come at the beginning of the war—because that is what we needed to be ready for. As it happened, because of the martyrdom of Poland, combined with the politics of Herr Hitler, which may have affected his military judgment—if he has any—our

    749
    time has not yet come. But it might have happened that Germany would have given us the blitzkrieg at the time that they were attacking Poland, and I cannot see, after the confessions of the Lord Privy Seal yesterday, that our country would have been ready for the large-scale trouble that would have befallen us. Obviously, military and economic preparations ought to have been made during the last three to five years on the basis that danger might have come upon us, swift and sweeping, out of the dark. Yet at the outbreak of the war we had unused factories—many of them—unused labour—hundreds of thousands—and we have plenty still.
    We have heard the defence of the Lord Privy Seal. He compares January, 1939, with January, 1940. That is not a legitimate comparison. It shows a wrong state of mind to make this comparison between the first month of a year of European peace and the first month of a year which will open with us at war. He says that the Ministry of Supply have placed, orders for £195,000,000, but the question is how soon the deliveries of that £195,000,000's worth of supply are to be made. He started then to speak—but stopped—about aircraft production. I am not going to press him to give figures that he ought not to give; possibly we can have them next week. He said that aircraft production will end in being double the September output, though we do not know when that doubling will come about—the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps rightly, did not tell us. But is the House going to be content with doubling at some unknown date in the future our output of the beginning of the war? This is a war in which the Navy is playing a great and worthy part, suffering a great strain, and in which the Army, so far, has not suffered the heavy strain that it did in the early days of the last war. It may be that that will change, but if there is one thing more certain than anything else, it is that the one element in which, for the sake of our security, we cannot afford to run any risks is the air. It can almost be said that we cannot have too much aircraft. We may need it very badly before we are through, for defensive purposes at home and in the field, and perhaps for offensive purposes as well. I do not like the frame of mind which leads to our being told that at some
    750
    time—we do not know when—we shall double the September output of aircraft.
    I come to the aspect of economic coordination. There are many State departments concerned with economic affairs. I suppose that they may have been round about doubled since the war began. We sometimes have a habit of multiplying State departments, thinking that we shall solve things by merely setting up a State department or a Government Department under another name, but I will not argue about that. It is the case that many departments are concerned with economic affairs. I have no doubt that there is a reasonable liaison between them so that they do not overlap and fall over each other more than can be avoided, but we cannot say that the Government have an economic collective mind. We cannot say that all these economic and financial considerations are being pieced together, and I do not believe in a mere Cabinet Committee under the chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—another wrong man in the wrong place. This sort of thing is not in his line. He, again, has qualities—I will not describe them—but he is not the right type of man for the really vast and absorbing task of formulating a comprehensive British economic policy in the pursuit of the war. Lord Stamp assists him, but the House has already discussed the many counter-attractions for the activities of Lord Stamp.
    I am inclined to think—I speak for myself—that we need a new Board of Trade and one divested of all its specific functions of industrial trade regulation. That Department ought not to be concerned with the control of individual industries or the regulation of individual trades. It ought to be a Board of Trade, a real economic thinking and planning Department of the Government, adequately and properly staffed for that purpose. Do not let the House have any illusion; the Board of Trade has never been an economic planning and thinking Department. It has been a Department which has lived from day to day according to the administrative problems that have come before it. Many of the things that ought to be settled now ought to have been settled before the war began, or ought to have been thought about at any rate, or have reached a definite stage towards settlement, such as, for example, the rates of interest on loans, the method of rais-

    751
    ing loans, and whether it might be necessary or expedient to apply compulsion at some stage if necessary in the raising of loans. We have not had that.
    The Lord Privy Seal last night got into a terrible state on the Government's economic policy about two things. He said that at the beginning the doctrine was to spend wisely and save rigidly, but that now it had been altered to "Spend rigidly and save wisely." There was a conflict of advice between that given by him and that given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and both sets of advice came from the Treasury. That means that there was no clear thinking even in the early days of the war, let alone before the war broke out. I do not know now whether we ought to consume only four ounces of butter or more. We shall know in the New Year, but ought we now to be using four ounces or not? I do not know. Nobody has told us. The Government go hither and thither according to the latest dictates from Fleet Street. They are terribly afraid. They ought not to be. If they took the right action they could defy all the newspapers, but they go all over the place according to the pressure that somebody is bringing against them at the moment. There is a tendency in economic policy for them to preserve the profits of all the middlemen. If a man made x profit before the war, they have to see that he goes on making his profit. It may be that war organisation means that he ought to be wiped out altogether and that he has no real economic function in war at all. Give him something else to do; do not waste him. But the Government—and I speak from experience—seem to preserve all the profit-makers of the past on the ground of, once a profit-maker, always a profit-maker. The Conservative party cannot eliminate him and so make more simple the economic problems of the war.
    The export trade problem is also a matter of some anxiety, and on that I am not sure that the Government are clear as to where they want to go. May I make one reference to our relations with France. There has been a decision of the Supreme Council, which the Prime Minister attended, as to the economic relationship between us and France. I suggest to the Government in all seriousness that they might consider whether the economic co-operation with the
    752
    Government of France could not be made closer in the use of credits, in gold reserves and so on. There is one bigger thing that I would like the Prime Minister to consider. France and we are working very closely together in this war. Our economic relationship is close and our military arrangements are close. Is it not worth while to consider whether Customs and protective duties between these countries could be abolished for the period of the war. Is it not worth considering whether a Customs union could not be made with France? It might be the beginning of bigger and wider things for the benefit of the world. That possibility ought to be considered by His Majesty's Government and the Government of France.
    I would like the Dominions Secretary to tell us whether His Majesty's Government have definitely decided whether social reform must be postponed during the progress of the war? I am conscious of the difficulties of finance, and that has to be considered, but I would like to know whether the Government take the view that it is impossible to think about social improvement and social change; whether, for example, housing must be definitely postponed for the whole period of the war, or whether they have an open mind as to the possibility of beginning housing, if it becomes economic from the point of view of labour? Is there any hope for the old age pensioners to get an improvement in their pension? The Government ought not to turn a blank mind to all these things. With regard to certain matters for the future which are connected with the present, the Minister of Health or the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday that we cannot bother much about the future; we have our hands full for the present. I appreciate that fact. We would be unreasonable if we did not, but I beg of the Government to appreciate that the future is bound up with the present. It may be that, if their arrangements and organisation at present take account of the future, all this war organisation can be turned into a blessing at the end of the war.
    We are asking that the Government, in their current activities, will think of the future, and will try to shape their war activities in such a way that in the future we can readily transform ourselves into a condition of peace, just as we ought readily to have been able to transform

    753
    ourselves into a condition of war. What is going to happen to the war factories now being created? Are they going to be destroyed or sold after the war, as they were at the end of the last war? Are the Government considering the question of the economic organisation of the nation after the war, or will they do so as near as they can? Are they considering education, town and country planning, the distribution of industry, the organisation of local government, employment, trade and industry, and the general mastery of the nation over material things by which we can provide a good time for our people if we wisely organise these material things? It may well be the case of a choice between ordered and constructive change or violent revolution. As far as we are concerned, in the interests of our people and of the good name of the country, we prefer ordered change to violent revolution. If violent revolution is to be avoided then it is vitally important that that ordered change should be provided for and planned.
    I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to give us some concrete answers to the points that have been raised during the Debate by hon. Members on this side and in other parts of the House. I beg of him not to think that these things can be solved by pleasant and high-sounding phrases. I heard the right hon. Gentleman on the wireless early in the war, and some of the sentiments he expressed were admirable. I heard the Lord Privy Seal last night. He urged that there should be co-operation in all sorts of directions, co-operation between town and village, between class and class and the promotion of a spirit of community of interests. Those are fine words, but words are useless without action. We have to re-order things if these words are to become true.
    Another phrase that we hear much about is that of a new world. Certainly, we want a new world, and we want to know from the Government what they have clone and what they are going to do to make and to build the new world. How are they going to act? What is the prospect if we get through this war successfully, as we all believe we shall. Do not let anything that I have said or that any of my hon. Friends have said give the impression that we have any lack of confidence in the triumph of the cause
    754
    of our country and of righteousness at the end of this war. We have no lack of faith in that. But let us face the fact that when the war is over there can be no permanent peace for the world unless there is prosperity for the world. Poverty, bad trade, and the insecurity of nations have been the biggest single causes of war. Let us face the fact also that this is a much smaller world than it was before. Therefore we can do things more quickly with other nations. The possibilities of international co-operation are greater. I have had the privilege to-day of broadcasting to the British Empire. Other hon. Members have done the same. Communications are better, distances are shorter. The technique of administration is vastly improved.
    The Government was in a position when the so-called peace offer came from Hitler, to get at once into touch with the feeling of His Majesty's Dominions scattered all over the world. That means that the old world of separate 100 per cent. independent sovereign States does not correspond to the realities of modern communities and to the modern technique of administration, and we must be willing to give up some of these sovereignties in order to make the world better. The truth is that we have been living in an age of world revolution. It started in the West, with all these inventions of the motor car, the aeroplane, the radio, electricity in its various forms, modern transport, and so on. It has been a technical revolution in the knowledge of man, and it is steadily increasing the grasp of the mind of man over material things.
    The world revolution that people have talked about has been a fact throughout the century in which we are now living. The revolution, as I have said, started in the West. It got to the East, but things have gone wrong there. The East, however, has done much for collectivism and the better control of economic things. Russia, for example, has shown the possibilities of collectivism even in its backward state. The tragedy of the world revolution that got to the East was that when it went there it was accompanied by a denial of the rights of man. Is it not the purpose of all this material change that the individual should be elevated in the pro-

    755
    cess? We want the world revolution to come back to the West. We want again to be the pioneers of human progress, human development and human emancipation. I believe that our country can play an enormous part in the creation of a rational world, of a sensible world, in which we are no longer the victims of plenty but in which the mind, the wisdom, the good sense of man has made it possible for all humanity to live in security and decency.
    7.46 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Eden): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has given us a characteristic speech, and an extremely fluent one. I do not think that hon. Members on this side of the House will complain greatly of the manner in which his criticism was presented. Once or twice as I listened to him it seemed to me that he contradicted himself a little. He admitted that there has been an improvement in world conditions, and in particular in the social conditions of this country, since the late war. With becoming modesty, he took credit for that state of affairs upon himself and his colleagues in the Socialist party, for he said they had managed to drive reluctant Governments to good deeds which, but for the inspiration of the Opposition, they never would have thought of. It is just conceivable—but the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say it is highly improbable—that the historian of the future will endorse that diagnosis. If that be accurate, it was hardly fair that in the same breath he charged us with paying attention to criticisms in our actual conduct of the war. It was apparently only right to listen to suggestions or to give heed to criticisms when they came from the benches opposite. As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, I felt sure that he thought there was one easy remedy for all these ills, and that was to substitute himself and his hon. Friends on the benches opposite for those who occupy these benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I am not in the least surprised that that sentiment should be so heartily endorsed by hon. Members opposite, and they will perhaps not complain that the majority of the House for the moment do not take that view. Therefore, in consequence, our discussion
    756
    of that aspect of the matter is a somewhat barren one.
    Before I ask the House to come to the terms of the Amendment, there is one other comment that I must make. The right hon. Member devoted some of his speech to dealing with personalities and said he found it very embarrassing. I am bound to say that I never found anybody enjoy embarrassment more, but I can assure him that it would be embarrassing to me, and, therefore, I do not propose to follow him in that course. I should like to answer one further comment which the right hon. Gentleman made. He complained that the Minister of Health, speaking of the success of the evacuation scheme, said that it was an example of the spirit of sharing. I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health chose a very good phrase to describe the success of that scheme, and I think we must all of us appreciate the fact that if we are to win through successfully in the struggle in which we are engaged, that same spirit of sharing must be shown in every other aspect of our war effort. I do not suggest for a minute, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not contend, that that phrase applies to any one particular party.
    The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), when moving the Amendment yesterday, told us that the war would shake many strongly-held views. I fear that this war will do very much more than that. The war will bring about changes which may be fundamental and revolutionary in the economic and social life of this country. On that we are all agreed. In fact, every war has done so, and since the rise of industry in the modern sense of the term the upheaval has been all the greater. We saw this after the Crimea, a minor war for this nation as compared with the one that we are fighting now. It brought about a complete reform of the War Office, but, fortunately, we can do that now without a war. It brought about other changes. It brought about the beginning of our medical system and the beginning of the nursing system in this country. Again, the Boer War disclosed the poor standard of health of the recruits; it brought home to all concerned the standard of health at that time. The physical standard which was then disclosed resulted in the begin-

    757
    ning of the school medical service. So it was in the last war.
    The reason why we quote the last war is not to draw comparisons in the sense of saying that because the position is better than it was in the last war it is good enough. That is not the point. The point is to remind hon. Members of the many changes brought about in the course of war and, as a result of war, in the actual operation of government. In the course of the last war the Council of Industry was set up; there was no Ministry of Health and no Ministry of Labour. It is hard to believe that the Minister of Labour, whose genial presence is rarely absent from this bench, was then engaged on an even more contentious occupation. Nor had we a Trades Union Congress. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members opposite will not dispute that the last war brought about changes in the organisation of industry. Not a single industry before the war was organised as an industry to act as a unit. The war brought that about. I am mentioning these examples to show that changes are inevitable and that in this war, as it proceeds, changes will be brought about in our economic, national, and social structure. When we are asked to forecast exactly what these changes will be, no Government is able to do that.
    The truth is that war presents an audit of the nation; it exposes weaknesses ruthlessly and brutally, and this war is going to do that too. These weaknesses will call for changes. But there is one contrast which I think hon. Members will already have noticed, in which we can take comfort, and that is the improvement in our social services, of which the right hon. Gentleman rightly spoke. Anybody who knew the average battalion of the new armies in the last war, say K.1 and K.2, and compares the physique of the men then with the physique of the average Territorial battalion of to-day, cannot help being impressed by the change that has taken place. I have had it from an officer whom I respect very greatly, and who has had exceptional opportunities for judging, that in his view the German Army of to-day is physically, as well as in other respects, below the standard of the German Army of 1914. That may be true, but the opposite is true of our own, and I think it is an example which we can take to show that under our Parliamentary Government we
    758
    can achieve results which are better than those achieved by the dragooning methods of Germany. It is said that it is never wise to under-rate your enemy's strength. There is an old Turkish proverb which says, "If your enemy be an ant, imagine that he is an elephant." For the purposes of war, that is not a bad proverb, but at the same time we can occasionally take note of encouraging contrasts, such as this.
    The Amendment urges us to organise to the full our human and material resources. If we are to do that, there are three factors which we must call into play. We have to use the most advanced technical knowledge. For that, we are not ill-placed. We have the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Medical Research Council, but despite their help we can be quite sure that the war will set us many new technical problems and that further research and co-ordination will be necessary. The second factor is the machinery of government. However much we know, an efficient use of that knowledge is vital. There, too, will anybody doubt that the war is going to bring changes? It will make reforms necessary. We have a Civil Service which is unsurpassed and unrivalled in the world, but some of the methods which are in use to-day date from the time when the tasks of government were almost exclusively tasks of regulation and when there was little need for the flexibility and initiative that are called for to-day. There again as this war proceeds there will be a call for a new technique and new methods, as there was during the last war, and I ask the House to believe that the Government are not by any means blind to these considerations.
    The third factor which I thought the right hon. Gentleman should have stressed a little more is the rights of the individual, and here I think we need to keep on our guard. It will be true to say that by more vigorous and more ruthless methods, by entirely disregarding individual rights, you could organise the State more successfully and more rapidly and thoroughly than by our own methods, in which we try to take some account of individual rights and responsibilities. You have to choose whether it is better to dragoon or to seek co-operation. We believe in the latter. Let me give an example to the House—the way in which this country has now

    759
    accepted compulsory national service, the way in which it has accepted the heavy burdens put upon it financially, and yet at the same time has maintained, through the Opposition and through other means, an active and indeed a healthy criticism. That combination is exactly an example of how order and freedom can be reconciled. It seems to me that the problem which any self-governing people has to solve in war is how to achieve the maximum efficiency from collective service without endangering the essential rights of the individual.
    The Amendment refers to the standard of life, and the right hon. Member for South Hackney also referred to that. The Government entirely agree that to cut down standards does not make for greater efficiency, and it is neither the desire nor the intention of the Government to cut down standards. As regards social reforms, about which the right hon. Gentleman asked, there is no closed mind on these benches to that issue. But it is fair and reasonable to say that we shall have to judge, as matters develop and as hostilities develop, on the basis of the conditions in which we find ourselves.
    The hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) made a remarkable speech earlier in the evening, and I want to answer one of her questions. She asked, quite rightly, whether the Government were considering how to handle the question of nutrition, especially for the children, during the war period; our warships, she said, kept the seas clear, but were we making the best use of the products brought to us? I can tell the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland are already in communication with leading authorities—Sir John Orr and others—on the subject of nutrition, for the precise purpose of trying to see how best we can ensure good results in respect of nutrition during the war period. I can tell the hon. Lady that the Government recognise the immense importance of this subject. In all those respects we are in agreement, but where I have to part company with the hon. Lady, and with many hon. Members opposite, is in this: We cannot at a time like this—and I do not think hon. Members opposite would ask us— attempt to justify an increase of any non-essential nature, when we have to use all our
    760
    resources for victory; at a time, I would ask the House to remember, when our French Ally is undergoing very severe restrictions as a result of the war.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, in the Debate yesterday, said that the Prime Minister's view, according to his own submission only a week ago, was that we must wait until the war is over before we can even begin to think about the future. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend did not say anything of the sort. I think he would be justified in saying, like a character in one of George Eliot's books, "Don't you go a-swallering my words and bringing them up again as if they were none the worse for the process." The words were very much the worse for the process. What my right hon. Friend said was that he was not prepared at this moment to put forward detailed plans. He did not say that the Government were not thinking about the subject; he did not say that because, in fact, they are. That is the very opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield said was true. We do not say at this time that the moment may not come in the course of the war itself when we may think it right to put forward detailed plans of economic reconstruction. That may happen. What we cannot do at the outset of the war is to bind ourselves to detailed plans now and promise to lay them in the immediate future. I think the whole House will appreciate the reasonableness of that attitude. We welcome the fact that there should be discussion now of these probelms of post-war reconstruction.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster), in a speech which deserved an infinitely larger House to listen to it, put forward some very important ideas on the subject of world economic co-operation. He made one suggestion. He said that it would be very helpful to some hon. Members if they could put some of their ideas to the Government's economic advisers and to Lord Stamp, in particular. My hon. Friend said that he did not wish to argue with Lord Stamp or to ask him to state his point of view, but that if Members could so express themselves to Lord Stamp, it would be helpful. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government will gladly consider whether something of that kind can be worked out. Therefore, in the economic sphere there is not much

    761
    division between us. We have, for instance, in the Anglo-French Economic Agreement, which the right hon. Gentleman opposite rightly quoted, an example which may lead to very important results in the future. No one can tell yet—the thing is only at a beginning—but it is one example of those developments in war time which may have important results.
    May I now say a word or two about another aspect of our present war effort? Much as I agree with the suggestions which have been made in the Debate about how we are to make our post-war effort, it seems to me to be essential that we should remember that, before we can do any of these things or hope to do them, we have to win the victory, and that the task is going to be a formidable one. Hitler himself is not a phenomenon; he is a symptom; he is the Prussian spirit of military domination come up again. National-Socialism was originally conceived in militarism, and it believes only in force. From the beginning, it has organised its people for war. It is the most barren creed that was ever put before mankind. Therefore, if it is allowed to triumph, there will be no future for civilisation, no future for our debates, no future for our suggestions, and no future for the suggestions that have been made by hon. Members opposite. It is that realisation, I believe, which has brought unity to our own people, and, what is even more remarkable, has brought complete unity of effort to all the peoples of the British Commonwealth.
    In the five minutes before I close my speech, I would like to say a word or two about that effort, for even now it is not perhaps altogether understood here. You may take one of the smallest of the lands that form part of the British Empire, Newfoundland, and you will find that from there already some hundreds of men are on their way to join the Royal Navy here and to play their part as in the last war. Take another country, small in white population, Southern Rhodesia, a self-governing Colony, has already sent numbers of trained white men for military service outside the Colony, and has hundreds of others ready or in training. In addition, Southern Rhodesia has also offered us three squadrons for the Air Force, and
    762
    one of them is now in service in another part of Africa. Go from there to the greater Dominions. The Union of South Africa is making ready. We are assured of her full co-operation within the limits laid down by General Smuts, her Prime Minister. Her air patrols are helping us now on the seas round the South African coasts, and recently they were successful in intercepting a German ship.
    Turn to the naval sphere generally. Each one of the Dominions has made the whole of its naval resources available to work in co-operation with the Admiralty. For some, it has meant leaving their own home waters and being several thousands of miles away from their own countries. I know that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would be the first to pay a tribute to what that cooperation has meant. On land, we shall see very soon soldiers from Canada, Australia and New Zealand in those fields of war in which they won imperishable fame some 25 years ago. If we turn to the air, hon. Members of this House who are in the Air Force will know that a large part of our Air Force to-day consists of personnel from the Dominions. Over and above that, the new Dominions air training scheme is going to bring to our help not hundreds but thousands of Dominion pilots and air crews as the scheme develops.
    All those examples mean something which we should try to understand. What is the cause of this movement? It is not merely loyalty and sentiment. It is not even only the desire to overthrow Hitler, laudable as that is. It is based, as I believe, on a positive faith, and that positive faith is in Parliamentary government by a free community. In that spirit, which, I assure the House, I find daily in the work that I have to do now, lies our certainty of ultimately winning this conflict. In the future, it may be, the machinery of Parliament will change; it is certain that the personalities will change. But that spirit is what must live on, and it is that spirit which will ensure a better and braver world for the generations to come.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The House divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 303.

    Division No. 2.]

    AYES.

    [8.15 p.m.

    Acland, Sir R. T. D.

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Paling, W.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Parker, J.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hayday, A.

    Pearson, A.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Price, M. P.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hicks, E. G.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hollins, A.

    Ridley, G.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Horabin, T. L.

    Riley, B.

    Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Ritson, J.

    Benton, G.

    Jackson, W. F.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Bevan, A.

    Jagger, J.

    Sexton. T. M.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Shinwell, E.

    Cape, T.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Silkin, L.

    Chater, D.

    John, W.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

    Cooke, F. S.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Collindridge, F.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Daggar, G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Dalton, H.

    Lathan, G.

    Thurtle, E

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Leach, W.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dobbie, W.

    Lee, F.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Leonard, W.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Ede, J. C.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Walker, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Logan, D. G.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Lunn, W.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Westwood, J.

    Frankel, D.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    White, H. Graham

    Gardner, B. W.

    Maclean, N.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Gibbins, J.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Marshall, F.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Mathers, G.

    Wilmot, John

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Milner, Major J.

    Windsor. W. (Hull, C.)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Montague, F.

    Woodburn, A.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Griffiths. J. (Llanelly)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Muff, G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Mr. Charleton and Mr. R. J.

    Taylor.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen H. C. (Newbury)

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.

    Bull, B. B.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

    Burghley, Lord

    De la Bère, R.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Denville, Alfred

    Andereon, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Assheton, R.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Doland, G. F.

    Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

    Carver, Maior W H.

    Donner, P. W.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb'l'n)

    Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Channon, H.

    Drewe, C.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Balniel, Lord

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Duggan, H. J.

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Colfox, Major Sir W. P.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Edmondson. Major Sir J.

    Bernays, R. H

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Bird, Sir R. B.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    Emery, J. F.

    Blaker, Sir R.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Entwistle, Sir C F.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Boyee, H. Leslie

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Bracken, B.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

    Crooks hank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Capt. R. G.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    764

    765

    Gledhill, G.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Scott, Lord William

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Mabana, W. (Huddersfield)

    Selley, H. R.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    MeCorquodale, M. S.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    MacDanald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)

    Simmonds, O. E.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Grimston, R. V.

    McKie, J. H.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Magnay, T.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Hannah. I. C.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Harbord, Sir A.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Han. H. D. R.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Markham, S. F.

    Spens, W. P.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

    Hely-Hutohinson, M. R.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Medlicott, Captain F.

    Storey, S.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Bushan-

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Higgs, W. F.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd & Chisw'k)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Holmes. J. S.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

    Munro, P.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Hunter, T.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Touche, G. C.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Train, Sir J.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Jennings, R.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Joel, D. J. B.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

    Peake, O.

    Turton, R. H.

    Junes, L. (Swansea W.)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Plugge, Capt. L. F.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Kellett, Major E. O.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)

    Purbrick, R,

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Pym, L. R.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Kimball, L.

    Radford, E. A.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

    Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Rathbona, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Webbe, Sir W. Harold

    Lancaster, Lieut.-Colonel C. G.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Weston, W. G.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)

    Leigh, Sir J.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Rowlands, G.

    Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Levy, T.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Lewis, O.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Llddall, W. S.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Little, Dr. J. (Down)

    Salt. E. W

    Wragg, H.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Lloyd. G. W.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Loftus. P. C.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.-

    Colonel Kerr.

    Main Question again proposed.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary

767
Provisions) Act, 1934, the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, and the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty, being expenses which, under any of the three last-mentioned Acts, are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Imports Restrictions Act, 1934, and the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the said date, being receipts which, under either of the last-mentioned Acts, are to be paid into the Exchequer."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Captain Crookshank.]

8.28 p.m.
Mr. Lawson: The Committee will have noticed that in the Financial Resolution the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, is specifically mentioned. That, of course, was not the case in the original Financial Resolution, neither is the Special Areas Act actually in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I rise to say that we appreciate the fact that there is now an understanding that the Special Areas Act shall be included in the Bill in its Committee stage, and I understand that the Minister of Labour will probably be in a position to give a definite promise to that effect, as there was some dissatisfaction on this matter. It is not our desire to cause any debate on the subject, but rather to express satisfaction at the understanding that the Special Areas Act will be included in the Bill and will, therefore, live for another year, with a prospect of doing its proper work during the coming year.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): This Resolution shows that the way is now open for the putting down of an Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman said, to include the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, and the Government will put down such an Amendment for the Committee stage.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

POSTPONEMENT OF ENACTMENTS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
8.31 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
768
The main purpose of the Bill is to postpone the operation of certain Acts which were passed through Parliament earlier this year and which would in the ordinary course have come into operation on 1st January next. This step is being taken because of the difficulty which under present conditions would arise if we have to bring these Acts into operation on the date originally intended. The Government are fully alive to the fact that all these Acts are useful and valuable Measures, and it is with reluctance that we have to introduce this Bill. I can assure hon. Members, however, that we are anxious that there should be no further delay in bringing the Acts into operation than is warranted by the circumstances. Clause 1 provides for the postponement of the three Acts mentioned in the Schedule to a date prescribed in each case by an Order-in-Council. The first of the Acts is the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act, 1939. Sections 1 to 6 of this Act provide for the registration and supervision of adoption societies by local authorities and for the making of detailed regulations by the Secretary of State with which the registered adoption societies must comply. Section 7 requires local welfare authorities to exercise control over certain cases where a third party intervenes in the adoption of children under nine years of age; and Section 11 requires a licence to be obtained from a court before a child can be sent abroad for adoption.
The operation of these provisions would place on local authorities, welfare authorities and the central Government Departments an extra burden of work which cannot be regarded as being essential for war purposes, and in all the circumstances the Government have come to the conclusion regretfully that it would not be desirable to attempt to bring the provisions into effect before the end of the war. The Act provides for Sections 1 to 6 to be brought into operation on an appointed day to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. We feel that it would be more appropriate if the postponement of these Sections were effected by Statute rather than by the Secretary of State merely refraining from making an Order declaring the appointed day. Among the supporters of the Bill is the name of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who in a private capacity was mainly responsible

769
for the passage of this Act. She is in entire agreement that it would not be desirable, as things are at present, to put the Act into force. Section 8 of the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act and the corresponding Scottish provision are not to be postponed. These provisions amend in certain respects, as experience has shown to be desirable, the conditions to be satisfied by applicants for adoption orders in certain cases where the applicant is the mother or the putative father of the child. They are distinct from the rest of the Act and there is no reason why they should not come into operation on 1st January as it was originally intended.
The second Act in the Schedule, in which I, as Secretary of State for Scotland, am much concerned, is the Marriage (Scotland) Act, 1939. This Act was passed to abolish the form of Scottish irregular marriages of which the Gretna Green marriages are the best-known examples. In place of the irregular marriage it provides a suitable form of marriage before a Registrar. The Government consider that this reform is very desirable and that it should be made operative as soon as it can properly be made so, but we have come to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that we ought not to allow the Act to come into operation on 1st January. The reason is that the effect of the Act on Scottish social customs will be a considerable one. During the last war about 6,000 irregular marriages, on the average, were registered annually, and the figure in the last few years has been about 4,000. We feel that the ground must be adequately prepared before the introduction of the new form if misunderstanding is to be avoided, and that we require a little longer time in the present circumstances for that purpose. If the Act were brought into operation in the early months of the war there is an undoubted risk of invalid marriages being contracted in good faith by persons who have failed to appreciate the changes in the law. We are, therefore, taking a little longer time in order to prepare the ground for this important change. It is proposed that there should be a temporary postponement of the Act and the appointed day will be fixed in the light of future circumstances; but, unless the conditions make it impossible, it is my intention to fix 1st July, 1940, for the coming into operation of the Act.
770
The third Act in the Schedule is the House to House Collections Act, 1939. Under this Act any society or person proposing to make such a collection will have to obtain permission from the proper authority, which, in the case of national charities, is the Secretary of State, and, in the case of local collections, the police authority or, in Scottish burghs which are not counties of cities, the magistrates. The Act contemplates that every collector shall have a certificate of authority and shall wear a badge, and that these and other matters of detailed administration should be left to the Secretary of State to deal with in regulations. These regulations will be necessarily somewhat complicated. They have been discussed with the bodies concerned, and we will shortly be issuing them. Even so, however, a good deal of work has still to be done and the time is now too short to enable all the authorities concerned to deal with the applications and charitable organisations to make the necessary arrangements before 1st January.
We feel it desirable that the Act should he brought into operation at the earliest possible date and that there should be no delay. It will, we recognise, impose certain additional work on the authorities concerned, but the police are anxious that there should be this increased control over collections for charities, especially at a time when a number of new applications may be made for war purposes. It is, therefore, proposed that the Act shall be postponed for only three months and that an Order-in-Council shall be made bringing it into operation on 1st April next. In this connection I may perhaps mention that a proposal has been made that legislation should be introduced on the lines of the War Charities Act which was passed during the last war, and that proposal is under the consideration of the Government.
Mr. Keeling: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that subject can he say when it is proposed to lay the draft Regulations under that Act before the House?
Mr. Colville: I cannot give a date. I said they had been discussed and that they would be made available very shortly, and I really mean very soon indeed.
Mr. Keeling: Before the Adjournment?
Mr. Colville: Probably. A number of local authorities in Scotland are very anxious to get this Act into operation as quickly as possible and regret that it has had to be postponed. We have come to the view, taking all the circumstances into account, that we are not ready for it, and we have to make this postponement, but we hope to get the Regulations out as quickly as we can.
Mr. Westwood: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that these Regulations will be available before the Adjournment? I understand that we are to adjourn next Thursday.
Mr. Colville: I said that I hoped so, but I could not be quite certain. We are very near to the point of making them available, and I hope that they may be ready soon. They have been the subject of some discussion with the authorities concerned. As my hon. Friend knows I have often been urged by the Scottish local authorities to do nothing without consultation, and in this case there has been consultation, and I know that has been happening in England as well.
Coming to Clause 2, the purpose of that is to express in clear and unambiguous language the purpose of certain Amendments to the Adoption of Children Act, 1926, and the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act, 1930. It seems probable that the drafting of the Amendments has failed to express their intentions. It is a drafting change which alters in no way the intention of the Act but makes clearer some points which, I am afraid, were not clear owing to not quite correct drafting.
Turning to Clause 3, the position here is that under Section 140 of the Law of Property Act, 1922, the lords of manors and owners of land out of which manorial incidents formerly issued had the right to apply to the Minister of Agriculture for an award determining the amount of compensation to the lord for the extinguishment of these incidents. The Section provides that such application may be made during the period of five years from the 1st January, 1936, to 31st December, 1940. It further provides that where no such application has been made before the end of next year no compensation shall be payable in respect of the extinguishment of the incidents. Clause 3 of this
772
Bill provides that no application can be made from the date of the introduction of this Bill until the date of the termination of the war, but that applications may be resumed on that date and may be made at any time during the following 12 months. This substitutes a period of 12 months from the end of the war for the period of 13 months during which applications may still be made. It also provides that the date after which no compensation shall be payable shall be correspondingly extended. The reason for the postponement is simply that the work involved is of a very intricate nature. The staff of the Ministry necessary for dealing with the applications is required for work more closely associated with the present emergency, and there is the further point that it would appear to be undesirable that tenants, who are frequently quite small property owners of limited means, should be called upon to pay the compensation—which in some cases will be to them quite a substantial sum—during the present emergency. It is therefore proposed that instead of the period ending at the end of next year a period up to 12 months from the termination of the war shall be allowed for applications to be made.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Rhys Davies: It is not our intention to oppose the passing of this Bill, but I would inform the right hon. Gentleman that we regard this method of approach as a very cumbersome and complicated one, and in some ways a little unnecessary too. I was rather intrigued to hear the right hon. Gentleman blaming the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for something connected with this Bill.
Mr. Colville: Not blaming her.
Mr. Davies: He was speaking as if she was acquiescing in the postponement of this Measure. She nods assent to that; but I venture to say that if she were not a Member of the Government but were sitting on a back bench she would be standing up to oppose it, as was her custom before she became a Member of the Government. People have a habit somehow of changing their minds when they change places in this House. That is by the way. I do not propose to deal with any part of this Bill except that relating to the House to House Collections Act. There are hon.

773
Members here who know very much more about this subject than I do; they were members of the committee whose recommendations brought this Measure into being. We have yet to understand why it is to be postponed. There were inquiries for many months, if not years, into bogus charities and the committee referred to came to the unanimous conclusion that Parliament ought to deal with the problem. Parliament did deal with it and, if I may say so, in a very effective way by passing fairly early in this year, 1939, the Act now under discussion.
Frankly, if there is one reason above all for implementing the provisions of that Act at once it is the coming of the war. Those who exploit our charitably-minded folk will be more active in that ugly practice during the war than in peacetime. Therefore, while we do not intend to oppose the Bill now before us we do offer a strong protest against the postponement of that particular Act. I should like whoever replies for the Government to tell us whether, when the Act comes into operation, presumably about the 1st April, 1940, we may take it for granted that any charity which is in existence at that date will require a licence just as though it commenced operations after 1st April. Supposing a charity were started now or next January and this Act is to be put into operation at the beginning of April next, do we understand that that charity will require a licence as if it began operations after the commencement of the Act?
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake) indicated assent.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Member nods his head, and I accept that because when a Tory nods it is as good as an answer of a kind any time. I pay them that doubtful tribute in passing. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will forgive me if I give one or two illustrations of what is happening even now. These mushroom, bogus charities are already cropping up. They call themselves by the most grandiose names; and it is amazing how the public respond to some of them without any inquiry whatsoever. I hope that hon. Members who live in the country will forgive me saying one thing. It dawned upon me long ago that it is quite possible that people who send money by post from the provinces to some of these so-called
774
charitable organisations provide a livelihood for a few people in London on a higher scale than is enjoyed by those who send their sixpences and shillings. I thought we were not a gullible people. At any rate, there are no gullible Members on this side of the House. I wonder why the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health laughs at that?
Let me quote one or two illustrations to show how this thing is already becoming a menace. Here is one which is cropping up at the moment: The "Cigarettes for the Tommies Fund." I am told that this organisation was formed about a month ago; it is a purely personal venture on the part of two young men in the early twenties. There is no committee of any kind controlling the fund. These two young men formerly ran a stamp-collecting business which failed as a result of the coming of the war. They pay one-third of the total collections to the collectors and a salary for themselves, of course. Another case is submitted to me of two ladies who are running a bogus charity. It is very strange how twos go about this job; to check each other, possibly, lest they should go wrong. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Home Office that when the police make investigations into the accounts of these societies they will not be satisfied with anything less than expert auditors. There are people collecting for these funds who pay themselves a salary before they put a penny down in the accounts. A lay auditor is not sufficient for the purpose of investigating at the instance of the police and the Home Office into these transactions.
Here is another case: "Picture postcard Charity Scheme." It is a purely personal venture on the part of one man. Postcards are to be sold in packets at 6d. on the understanding that 3d. is passed on to a war charity. There is another: "War Relief Fund and Royal Charities Appeal." If you put the "war" in and "Royal" too, the money comes in. Scotland Yard will probably know more about it than both the right hon. Gentleman and myself combined. After quoting those illustrations I want to make a protest; the police authorities knew that the Act was passed, and they have not made the necessary preparations

775
for seeing that it was put into operation on 1st January, 1940, the date that Parliament decided. We are supposed in this Parliament to be master of all the police and the Home Office too. The Secretary of State for Scotland is, after all, only the servant of the House of Commons. I am sure that he will not challenge that statement.
Let me say quite seriously that we are very sorry that the Government have not made arrangements to put this very necessary Act of Parliament into force on 1st January next year. I have made a few inquiries and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there are persons collecting from door to door constantly, and that householders give them three-pences and sixpences merely to get rid of them. Some of these collectors are making a good livelihood by very doubtful means. The right hon. Gentleman has not made out a case for the postponement of this Act and I sincerely trust that what is said to-night will make it absolutely certain that if we now postpone the Act for three months there will be no excuse put forward later on to postpone it still further.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I was unwilling to interrupt the hon. Member, to whom the House always likes to listen. But a great part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman was a breach of the rule—which, I must confess, is often more honoured in the breach than in the observance—that it is out of order and improper on the Second Reading to discuss one of the Acts of Parliament included in the Schedule. Although I allowed the hon. Member to make his remarks I must warn the House that I cannot allow further debate upon the advisability or not of any particular Act being in the Schedule. That is a matter to be discussed in Committee. This Bill is in some respects similar to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which has just been read a Second time; that is a form of Bill we are well accustomed to, and it is a recognised rule that the inclusion or not of a particular Bill in the Schedule cannot be debated on Second Reading.
Mr. Radford: Will a Member who is pressing not for the postponement of all these Acts but one specific Act be able to raise his objections on the Committee stage?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly. It is purely a Committee point whether the Act should be included in the Schedule or should not be included. I do not want to press this rule too strictly, but it would be improper to have a Debate to-night on one particular Act which it is proposed to postpone. The Committee stage is the proper stage for that discussion to take place.
Mr. Rhys Davies: Might I try to purge my offence by saying that I was speaking very nearly from the same kind of brief as the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was the one reason why I allowed the hon. Gentleman to proceed with his speech. But he got a great deal more out of the brief than the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Davidson: We always do.
Mr. R. C. Morrison: In view of the fact that, wittingly or not, the right hon. Gentleman went into considerable detail as to the advisability of postponing this Act and that he went into it Clause by Clause, and in view of the fact that you allowed considerable latitude to my hon. Friend, would it not be for the convenience of the House if you took the Debate on that matter now, on the understanding that on the Committee stage the matter be allowed to go through without discussion?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is out of my power, in the position which I now occupy in this Chair, to say what should be done in the Committee stage. But that course would be a rather topsy-turvy way of doing it.
Mr. Davidson: I would ask for your guidance with regard to this question of asking for certain Acts to be postponed. Where our agitation is that of urging the Government not to postpone. or to alter the date, can we put our case why these Acts should not be postponed?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman can put down an Amendment to leave out a particular Act.
Sir Joseph Lamb: I do not want to transgress in any way the Ruling which you have given, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill whether, having heard the Opposition voiced in the House to the inclusion of the House to House Collec-

777
tion Bill, he will give favourable consideration to the question whether it should not be excluded by Amendment on the Committee stage.
Mr. Edmund Harvey: I hope that the Government will be able to meet the Opposition by advancing the date proposed for the operation of the Bill. If a dale could be fixed intermediate between the 1st April, which is the date the Government propose, and the 1st January, I believe that would substantially meet objections.
Mr. Colville: I think these are matters which would be discussed properly on the Committee stage.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, of course, is speaking with the consent of the House.
Mr. Colville: I apologise. I would be willing to consider with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the possibility of an earlier date being chosen. The reason for the postponement was, as I explained, that we were not yet ready with all the authorities to bring the thing into operation. I will consider with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, although I suggest that the proper time to discuss it is on the Committee stage.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. Westwood: With regard to the reference made by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Marriage (Scotland) Act, 1939, he mentioned the date 1st July, and it would be admitted by anyone who realises the effective and drastic change in Scottish marriage law proposed in this particular Bill that we are discussing, that adequate time would be required to be given for the knowledge to be got across to the maximum number of people in Scotland so that mistakes which might happen could be avoided. However, I do suggest that between now and the Committee stage the Secretary of State should definitely make up his mind and be able to announce to the House that the postponed date is actually 1st July, so that the Department responsible will be able to get on with the actual publicity work which will be required between this particular discussion of the Bill and the actual coming into operation of the Act as a result of making the appointed date 1st July.
Mr. Colville: In case there should be a misapprehension, I said that unless circumstances made it impossible the date would be 1st July. I had in mind that only war circumstances of a nature which we cannot foresee would prevent my making the date 1st July.
9.3 p.m.
Major Milner: The war has been an excuse for a good many things, and I am one of those who regret that the Government thought it necessary to bring in this Bill. I find little ground for it in the reason put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it—and he did not tell the House otherwise—no local authority has made representations to the Government on the subject, and it is principally the local authorities which are referred to. I take it that the Association of Municipal Corporations are willing to undertake the operation of these Acts of Parliament. That being so, it is a reflection on the Government's administration that they are apparently not ready to operate these Acts notwithstanding the many months of opportunity they have had. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the irregular marriages in Scotland, and it would be presumptuous on my part to deal with the many irregularities which we all know exist in Scotland. I will not deal with that subject further, except to say that there is no ground for what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the postponement of the Adoption of Children Act. That is entirely a matter for the local authorities and I see no reason why in the main, in regard to the extension of the existing law, it should be postponed. If a little latitude were given to local authorities I am sure they would rise to the occasion.
Then we come to the Bill to which my hon. Friend has referred in particular, the House to House Collections Act. The right hon. Gentleman was quite ineffective and put forward no good reason whatever for the inclusion of that particular Act. It was passed in July last and the regulations are practically ready. Again, a little latitude might perhaps get over the difficulty.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not forget one of the things which I said. If I may say so, what has already taken place shows

779
the advisability of that rule because this kind of debate is much more suited to Committee in which a Member can speak more than once.
Major Milner: I do not intend unduly to transgress your ruling, Sir Dennis, but I would submit that, the right hon. Gentleman having given in detail the reasons for the postponement of the operation of these particular Acts, in fairness to those in this or any other quarter of the House they should be at liberty to submit reasons why the operation of these Acts should not be postponed. The right hon. Gentleman, if anyone, is at fault in this matter. I would only say this, that there is no difficulty whatever in putting this Act into operation. I sat on the committee. The committee provided the whole of the local authorities in the country with a code as to what they should or should not do. I am not sure that they did not, indeed, provide the Government with the regulations upon which the Government have been sitting for six months. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, with his right hon. Friend, consider the matter, because I have here instances which I shall quote on the Committee stage indicating that these practices are to-day more rife than they have ever been before. In the "Evening Standard" in the last three days a case has been quoted, and although I will not go into details, it is essential that this action should be taken to-day, more essential indeed than at any previous time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider an earlier date than 1st April, and unless he is willing to do that I hope my hon. Friends and those who think with us will divide on the Committee stage with regard to this matter.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. R. C. Morrison: I hope the Government will reconsider their attitude in this matter. Charitable organisations have been springing up like mushrooms since the war started, big ones operating on a national scale, small ones locally and in addition unofficial ones collecting from door-to-door to provide Christmas presents for evacuated children, and that sort of thing. The Government are proposing postponing a Bill which chief constables in this country have urged should be put into force as soon as possible. There has been mention of postponement for three months, and there is no mention of three months in the Bill. I hope that between now and the next stage the Government will give consideration to the question as to whether that three months should not be substantially reduced.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Sir Irving Albery, Mr. Benson, Sir Edmund Brocklebank, Captain Crookshank, Mr. Culverwell, Major Sir George Davies, Mr. Jagger, Sir Haydn Jones, Mr. Lathan, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Sir Assheton Pownall, Sir Isidore Salmon, Sir George Schuster, and Sir R. W. Smith nominated Members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Nine o'clock.

  GERMAN PROPAGANDA.
  GERMAN PROPAGANDA.
  POLAND (BRITISH POLICY).
  POLAND (BRITISH POLICY).
  BRITISH COUNCIL.
  BRITISH COUNCIL.
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  CAMOUFLAGE NETS.
  CAMOUFLAGE NETS.
  TIN.
  TIN.
  MUNITIONS PRODUCTION.
  MUNITIONS PRODUCTION.
  STEEL BILLETS.
  STEEL BILLETS.
  WOOL CONTROL.
  WOOL CONTROL.
  SCRAP-IRON,
  SCRAP-IRON,
  TIMBER CONTROL.
  TIMBER CONTROL.
  OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS.
  OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS.
  BOFORS GUN MOUNTING.
  BOFORS GUN MOUNTING.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  OFFICE OF WORKS.
  OFFICE OF WORKS.
  TAXES OFFICES, ILFORD AND CROYDON (AIR RAID PROTECTION).
  TAXES OFFICES, ILFORD AND CROYDON (AIR RAID PROTECTION).
  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
  AIR MINISTRY.
  AIR MINISTRY.
  MINISTRY OF FOOD (STAFF AND SALARIES).
  MINISTRY OF FOOD (STAFF AND SALARIES).
POST OFFICE.
  SCANDINAVIAN MAILS.
  SCANDINAVIAN MAILS.
  DISCHARGED EMPLOYÉS.
  DISCHARGED EMPLOYÉS.
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES.
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EXPORT TRADE.
  EXPORT TRADE.
  POTTERY INDUSTRY.
  POTTERY INDUSTRY.
  INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION.
  INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION.
  ELECTRIC TORCH BATTERIES.
  ELECTRIC TORCH BATTERIES.
  NEWSTEAD VERSUS LONDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS.
  NEWSTEAD VERSUS LONDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ASSISTANCE.
  ASSISTANCE.
  TEMPORARY STAFF (BENEFIT).
  TEMPORARY STAFF (BENEFIT).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS' REGISTER.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS' REGISTER.
  ARMED FORCES (WIVES' FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
  ARMED FORCES (WIVES' FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
TRANSPORT.
  OMNIBUS SERVICE, GREENOCK.
  OMNIBUS SERVICE, GREENOCK.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (STATISTICS).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (STATISTICS).
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT, STRATFORD.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT, STRATFORD.
  ELECTRICALLY-PROPELLED VEHICLES.
  ELECTRICALLY-PROPELLED VEHICLES.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CHARGES (LONDON).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CHARGES (LONDON).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  CONTROL COMMITTEES.
  CONTROL COMMITTEES.
  WHOLESALE PRICES.
  WHOLESALE PRICES.
  RATIONING.
  RATIONING.
  PALESTINE AND CYPRUS ORANGES.
  PALESTINE AND CYPRUS ORANGES.
ROYAL NAVY,
  MINE SWEEPERS.
  MINE SWEEPERS.
  GOOD CONDUCT BADGES (PAY).
  GOOD CONDUCT BADGES (PAY).
  MAGNETIC MINES.
  MAGNETIC MINES.
  DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
  DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
  TOBACCO.
  TOBACCO.
  LOSSES OF UNIFORMS (ENEMY ACTION).
  LOSSES OF UNIFORMS (ENEMY ACTION).
  NAVAL PENSIONERS OVER 48.
  NAVAL PENSIONERS OVER 48.
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  ELECTRIC LAMPS AND BATTERIES.
  ELECTRIC LAMPS AND BATTERIES.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS PERSONNEL, BRADFORD.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS PERSONNEL, BRADFORD.
  REQUISITIONED HOTELS.
  REQUISITIONED HOTELS.
  ENEMY ALIENS (BRITISH WIVES).
  ENEMY ALIENS (BRITISH WIVES).
  DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS, STATISTICS).
  DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS, STATISTICS).
AGRICULTURE.
  FEEDING-STUFFS SUPPLIES.
  FEEDING-STUFFS SUPPLIES.
  GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.
  GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.
FISHING INDUSTRY.
  IMMATURE FISH.
  IMMATURE FISH.
  WHITE FISH LANDINGS, ABERDEEN.
  WHITE FISH LANDINGS, ABERDEEN.
  SEIZED CONTRABAND GOODS.
  SEIZED CONTRABAND GOODS.
  MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES.
  MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES.
  FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER, 1939.
  FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER, 1939.
  GOVERNMENT BORROWING (TREASURY BILLS).
  GOVERNMENT BORROWING (TREASURY BILLS).
  WATER SUPPLY, GRANGE-OVER-SANDS.
  WATER SUPPLY, GRANGE-OVER-SANDS.
  TRANS-CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TRANS-CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  ARMY RESERVISTS (CLOTHING).
  ARMY RESERVISTS (CLOTHING).
  PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN (OIL).
  PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN (OIL).
  JAMAICA (HURRICANE DAMAGE).
  JAMAICA (HURRICANE DAMAGE).
  MALAYA (TAXATION).
  MALAYA (TAXATION).
  MILITARY SERVICE (SPECIAL ALLOWANCES) COMMITTEE.
  MILITARY SERVICE (SPECIAL ALLOWANCES) COMMITTEE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Preamble
The House met at half past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Hawke—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PROPOSED SECRET SESSION.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether His Majesty's Government have any proposal respecting a Private Session of your Lordships' House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, His Majesty's Government are prepared, if your Lordships so desire, to hold a Secret Session of this House on the general question of the Ministry of Supply. That, I understand, has been agreed in another place, and of course, the Government would be more than ready that your Lordships should have an equal opportunity if so desired. I do not know which day would suit the House best, but suggest either Tuesday or Thursday of next week. Perhaps that can be arranged after consultation between the different Parties in your Lordships' House.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, may I be permitted to say that I do not think it will give general satisfaction in your Lordships' House if a Secret Session is held and is to be confined to questions affecting the Ministry of Supply? It is quite true that the Secret Session in another place is to be so restricted, but honourable members in another place have control over Supply and your Lordships have not. Moreover, I do not think that, since the war began, any point of importance with regard to the Ministry of Supply has been raised in your Lordships' House. The fact is that in response to an almost unanimous desire in your Lordships' House for a Secret Session, the Government are now offering something which has not been asked for and which, indeed, is not particularly wanted.
134
For my part, I say quite frankly that rather than have a Secret Session limited to questions of Supply—important though they are—I would prefer to have no Secret Session at all. I do not wish to make the slightest reflection on your Lordships' House, but in the circumstances a Secret Session confined to questions affecting the Ministry of Supply would not be a success, and the Government would make that a reason for not granting another and more important Secret Session later on. In fact, I am not at all sure that this is not a clever venture on the part of the Government to kill the idea of a Secret Session.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord could not have been here when my noble friend Lord Addison initiated a very important debate on the Ministry of Supply which drew a very important speech from the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield. The matter has been very fully discussed in your Lordships' House, and my noble friend could not have been here.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Lord may be right, but I have taken the trouble to look through the OFFICIAL REPORT, and that debate was held, I think, just before the war, and not since the war.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord, for once, is wrong. My noble friend Lord Addison, who was Minister of Munitions and has great knowledge, has raised this subject at great length and in great detail in your Lordships' House. But I have risen, by arrangement with my noble friend, to put this to the noble Earl who leads the House. The request for a Secret Session has reached us from noble Lords of very great experience in the King's service who wish to discuss matters of strategy, and we think, in view of the wealth of Service experience in your Lordships' House, we ought to be given an opportunity of discussing strategy. I may say at once that, while I occasionally speak on strategy myself, I have no intention of speaking in a Secret Session on any subject, because what I have to say might be too explosive even for a Secret Session. Would the noble Earl be prepared to make representations to the Government on our behalf that, seeing that the Ministry of Supply is being discussed in another place—and here I support Lord Arnold—and

135
your Lordships are permitted to be present to hear what transpires in another place, it would be redundant to discuss it again here? But the broad questions of strategy would be very suitable, and Supply is linked up with that. As a matter of fact, my noble friend Lord Addison, if a Secret Session were held, would speak from the point of view of bringing Supply into close relation with strategy. We hope the matter will not be so closely narrowed as has been indicated by the noble Earl, and possibly he will represent that to the Prime Minister.
3.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, if the House generally does not want a Secret Session, I hope Lord Stanhope will not force it upon us. I should like to make just this observation. If we do have this Secret Session, it is essential that the matters to be discussed should be confined to a single Department or to a group of analogous subjects. We discussed a Secret Session a week or two ago. Had the House been in Secret Session at that time, the reply to that debate would have required answers from ten different Government Departments. The debate, therefore, would have been really a farce. If we are to have a Secret Session at all, it ought to be on closely defined subjects, so that the debate shall not sprawl over the general outlook on the war.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken was the only one in the course of the debate on the question of a Secret Session, other than the spokesman of the Government, who opposed the holding of a Secret Session. He would no doubt prefer that no Secret Session should be held at all. I disagree with him as to the necessity of confining discussion to a single topic. The Ministry of Supply is a topic which does not, I believe, interest many members of your Lordships' House in such detail as to make it worth while to have a Secret Session on that subject. On that I entirely agree with the noble Lords who have spoken from this side of the House. Nor is it very necessary that there should be only one subject. It could be easily arranged, through the Whips, that the debate shall take its ordinary course on one subject, followed by another batch of
136
speeches on another subject, as is frequently the case.
I was one of the first to urge that a Private Session should be held in this House, but I never for a moment contemplated that it should be merely a Session dealing with the Ministry of Supply. The one subject of which I gave notice I should have desired to speak in a Private Session has no connection whatever with that topic. I therefore agree with Lord Arnold, who raised the subject specifically on a recent day, that it would be better to have no Secret Session at all than one limited to the Ministry of Supply. On the other hand, I consider it most desirable that there should be a Secret Session in order that the topics should be ventilated in private within these walls which were in the minds of many noble Lords who spoke in a representative and authoritative capacity in the recent debate.
3.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in the first place, let me say it is not quite as the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite seemed to indicate. It is not entirely for the Government to decide what subject is to be discussed in a private sitting; it is for the House to decide. It is true that unless the Government are prepared to take their part in the debate it might be rather a one-sided affair. That, of course, is for them to decide. I think there is some little difficulty in confining the discussion to one topic and one topic only, because I happen to know that noble Lords of great importance and influence do desire to discuss strategical considerations. There are also financial considerations which might very properly form part of a Private or Secret Session and would not be suitable altogether for public discussion. On the other hand, it is true that if we multiply these subjects it will be very difficult to get them all into the ordinary length of a sitting of your Lordships' House.
I rather gathered that the noble Viscount who has just sat down suggested there should be several private sittings. I do not think it would be a very good thing to have a succession of such sittings, because the outside public would think they were being kept in the dark altogether and that would have an unfortunate effect. Might I make a practical suggestion to my noble friend the Leader of the House, that he would allow us to

137
confer with him privately as to what topics we thought, or many of us thought, ought to be discussed? Then he would be able to decide how far he could meet your Lordships in different parts of the House. I think it would be rather difficult to confine us only to the question of Supply. There are other very important matters, and your Lordships do not like to be tied down very tightly when you have once embarked on a debate.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the difficulty raised by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, is no doubt a real one, but we frequently do have matters discussed here for which there is no specified Minister of the Department present, and I do not see why at a Private Session noble Lords should not speak what they wish to say, and that what they say should not be reported, as we so frequently are promised will be done, to the appropriate Departments. I almost feel that to have a Secret Session which does not raise matters of general importance might give a wrong impression. I think the Government in the end must decide what it is best to do, but we do ask them to consider these various reflections.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, as an old Parliamentary Whip such as Lord Crawford has been, I do not personally think there is much to be gained by an indiscriminate Secret Session in which a variety of subjects can be discussed. I think there is always a way of approaching Ministers if there is anything really to be said, and especially is that so in this House. I am quite sure that any noble Lord who has anything to impart will be listened to with courtesy and attention. But in the event of strong opinions being expressed such as have already been expressed by a certain number of noble Lords that there should be a secret debate, I suggest that the matter ought to be left in the hands of the Whips, who would consult with the Peers who desire to speak in such a Session, and the result of that confabulation between the Whips and private members can be conveyed to the Government and the Government can take the responsibility.
LORD HARMSWORTH: My Lords, on the occasion when this question was previously raised in your Lordships' House I was one of those who advocated the holding of an unreported Session, and I did so from a knowledge of such
138
Sessions in the other place during the last war. May I add my voice humbly to the voices that have been raised in favour of having a much less restricted debate than that which is proposed? I had no conception myself when I advocated the holding of an unreported or Secret Session that the topic would be confined to one issue. I would not have taken any interest in the matter if I had thought such a policy was going to be adopted, and, if I may put it so, it is really rather an innovation. I am a very new member of your Lordships' House, but so far as the prerogatives of the House are concerned I think it is rather an innovation on the part of the Government that they should seek to restrict debate on an occasion when it ought to be possible to raise any kind of matter.
As my noble friend Lord Gainford and others have pointed out, it is perfectly easy for members of the House to address the Whips and indicate to them what are the topics they wish to raise, as often happens in your Lordships' House, and then a responsible Minister representing the Department in question would no doubt be able to take his place on the Front Bench for the purpose of replying. I say again that if I had thought that this rather unpalatable device of an unreported Session was to be confined to a discussion on one Department of public business, I personally would not have taken any interest whatever in the matter.
3.45 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I confess I found myself in some difficulty in regard to this discussion until my noble friend below the Gangway, the noble Marquess, spoke, and was supported by my noble friend Lord Gainford, because I really was completely at a loss as to what I was to say to the Prime Minister. I endeavoured to indicate when we discussed this matter on a former occasion that the Government preferred not to have a Secret Session in either House of Parliament, because we are doing our utmost to keep the public informed as fully as possible of everything going on in this country as far as that is consistent with the proper conduct of the war. I indicated then that the idea that there should be a Secret Session either here or elsewhere was likely to cause the public to think things were being kept from them which they were entitled to know.

139
I also indicated then that if there was any special subject which your Lordships wished to discuss the Government would be prepared to consider the matter and say whether a Secret Session should be held.
When a request was made in another place to discuss the Ministry of Supply, the Government decided that that was a subject which they felt could be properly discussed in Secret Session, and they have agreed to it; but I think my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it quite clear that he is not prepared to consider the question of holding a Secret Session which has a roving commission over the whole question of the war. That is a very different matter from holding a debate on one particular subject. Several of your Lordships have said that you are not interested in discussing the Ministry of Supply, but I am still at a loss to know what your Lordships do wish to discuss. One noble Lord said he wished to discuss strategy, someone else wished to discuss finance, and so on. We are getting into the situation which I endeavoured to meet in the remarks I made to your Lordships' House recently, that from a Government point of view we do not think it is to the advantage of this country that there should be a Secret Session not confined to one particular subject, for the reasons I then gave. If your Lordships would discuss with the Whips of the three Parties what is the subject you wish to discuss, then I will represent that matter to the Prime Minister, but I say quite frankly to your Lordships I think it is unlikely that the Government will be prepared to accede to a request of that kind.
My noble friend the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is quite right in saying that the House can do what it pleases, but your Lordships will understand that, although you can make whatever remarks you please to His Majesty's Government, His Majesty's Government in reply can confine their remarks as they please, and therefore it is unlikely that the Government will agree to a discussion on such matters as strategy. If you do so you will get nothing that will be of any particular interest to any member of this House. That, I think, was what happened on a former occasion when a secret debate was held in this House. I understand that your Lordships, after an
140
experience of that kind, decided that secret debates were of very little avail and have never repeated the experiment. That may occur again. But when your Lordships have consulted with the respective Whips regarding the matter you wish to discuss and come to a decision about it, then, of course, I will represent it to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and I shall be able to report to your Lordships what the Government have decided in regard to the matter.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.
3.50 p.m.
LORD ALNESS LORD ALNESS rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the increased number of road accidents in recent months; to inquire their policy for the abatement of casualties on the roads under the conditions imposed by war-time restrictions; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I make neither excuse nor apology for calling the attention of your Lordships' House and His Majesty's Government to a problem which was acute in peace-time but which is more acute in war-time: I mean the problem of road safety. Road casualties under normal conditions were of such a character and magnitude that, as your Lordships know, your Lordships' House appointed a Committee to probe the problem and to make recommendations for its solution. That Committee discharged its remit and made certain recommendations, but I want to make it quite clear, if I may, in limine that I am not speaking as chairman of that Committee, and that I am expressing views which bind no one but myself. What is the situation in which we find ourselves to-day? The figures are common property. In the month of September of this year 1,130 people were killed upon the roads of this country, and in the month of October of this year 919 persons were killed upon the roads. That is an increase of 71 per cent. over the figures for the corresponding two months of 1938, which were respectively 554 and 641 in those two months.
These unvarnished figures fall to be supplemented by three observations which I venture to think are significant. The first is that more than half of the casualties to which I have referred befell adult pedestrians; the second observation is that

141
a very large proportion of these adult pedestrians were killed during the blackout period; and the third is that nowadays, as your Lordships know, we have no records of accidents which are not fatal. I fear very much that if those records had been kept the total would have been no less menacing than the totals to which I have referred. In these circumstances I think that the situation revealed by the figures and by the facts which I have recited are profoundly alarming, although I do not think that the public mind has been grievously moved by them. If you think of it in this way, you will get an impression of the real significance of these figures: it has been very well put by the National Safety First Association, that if the rate of casualties which now prevails continued, and if the war should last for three years, then the number of lives lost upon the roads would be 40,000, which is the equivalent of an entire Army Corps.
Surely, having regard to these facts and figures, one is entitled to ask His Majesty's Government what they propose to do about it. Associations of motorists, of pedestrians and of cyclists have their own views, and they have publicly expressed them, but I venture to think that it is for the Government to formulate and to declare their policy for the abatement of this evil. That the Government are fully acquainted with the existence of the evil and also of its magnitude I have no doubt at all. I know that two Ministers, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Home Security, held a conference about a month ago at which were represented all the interests concerned, pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. In the course of that conference many useful and important suggestions for the abatement of this evil were made, and were so regarded by the Ministers who were present. They promised what is not unknown in Departmental circles as "consideration" of all these suggestions, but what we really want to know, I venture to think, is what has resulted from that consideration. We are still awaiting a declaration of the policy of the Government in this matter. I venture respectfully to think that it is overdue and I hope that it will be made this afternoon.
Now, while I do think that this is a matter for Government formulation and declaration, I venture very humbly to
142
give some indication of the lines upon which it seems to me that Government policy should proceed. It seems to me that there are three directions from which the problem may be attacked—first, increased propaganda; secondly, increased lighting; and thirdly, increased restrictions imposed upon road users. May I say, with your. Lordships' permission, a few words about these three topics? First of all, increased propaganda. Personally, I dislike the word intensely and I also dislike what it stands for, but at the same time we must recognise that in this world of uncertainties there is nothing more certain that that propaganda, both national and international, has become an essential feature of our so-called present-day civilisation. Well, then, I suggest to the Government that by posters, by the issuing of a wartime Highway Code, by lectures, by films, by newspaper articles, and above all through the British Broadcasting Corporation, the public should be enjoined to take unremitting care, particularly during the black-out period, in crossing the street or crossing the road. If the public kept to the left on the pavement, if they wore light coloured attire, then the danger during the blackout period might be somewhat minimised. Some of your Lordships may think these are very rudimentary and obvious considerations. Perhaps they are rudimentary, but I think that they are essential in the present situation.
I said the second angle of attack was increased lighting. I should have thought that without detriment to the public safety or to national safety the existing system of lighting might be considerably bettered, and I am glad to think that that seems to be the view that has now been formed and expressed by the Minister of Home Security himself. I am not to-day interested in better lighting of railway trains. I am not to-day interested in better lighting of shop windows. No doubt these are important, and no doubt any improvement in them would be welcomed. But these two things sound respectively in inconvenience and in financial loss only. What I am interested in is the better lighting of streets and of the vehicles which use the streets, because that sounds in human life, which is much more important than inconvenience or even financial loss.
I have read with interest of the experiments which are being made in the direc-

143
tion of better lighting, but I think these are somewhat belated. It has been suggested to me from an authoritative quarter that even at the outbreak of hostilities, a standardised device for masking the headlights of motors should have been adopted and made available in sufficient quantities at that date. Surely such a device is an obvious corollary to the blackout which was contemplated, and it should have been foreseen, I should have thought, if I may respectfully say so, by any man or body of men of ordinary foresight. I am not going to discuss better lighting in detail: it is a technical question which I am not competent to discuss. But I do know this: that the Government are well equipped with competent advisers in this matter, and what I do feel entitled to ask is that the Government should consult their advisers, obtain their advice and act upon it promptly. So much for lighting.
Then I come to the other point: further restrictions upon road users. These, of course, are divided into three classes. Pedestrians, I venture to think, should be enjoined, unless imperative duty requires it, to stay at home during the black-out period and leave the streets for those who have no option but to be there in the course of their duty. I am not suggesting that a regulation to that effect should here and now be made, although, if counsel and injunction to that effect go unheeded, it may be necessary to consider that at a later stage. At any rate, propaganda should be particularly directed to pedestrians, who, after all, are the chief sufferers in this matter.
Then one comes to cyclists. The last thing that I desire at a time like this is to be controversial, and yet I cannot refrain from saying that it took a war to compel cyclists to carry red rear lights upon their cycles. That is the law to-day. Many of us thought it should have been the law in peace-time, others thought differently; but let that pass. It is the law now, and what I plead for is that that law should be observed and enforced. I speak from observation, apart altogether from information, when I say that to-day, in spite of the fact that that is the law, many cyclists are riding through the black-out period without red rear lights on their machines—many of them. I venture to press upon the Government the necessity not only of
144
having adequate law in time of war, but also of enforcing that law, and seeing that those who disregard it should be properly penalised for their omission.
I come lastly, in connection with further restrictions upon road users, to the case of motorists. I do not know how many of your Lordships I shall carry with me when I say that I humbly think that the speed limit of thirty miles an hour is far too high during the black-out period. I think it should be reconsidered in the light of new conditions and reduced to twenty miles an hour and even—I do not rule that out—fifteen miles an hour. But I go further than that. I say this—and I do not think I shall be contradicted in what I say by His Majesty's Government—that the speed limit, even outside the black-out period, in the daytime, may also fall to be reconsidered under new conditions. It must have been within your Lordships' observation, as it certainly has been within mine, that many motorists—I am not indicting motorists as a class—are to-day driving in the more or less empty streets at a far higher speed than they ever drove before and driving at a higher speed than the public interest requires. Therefore, so far as that class of road user is concerned, I suggest to the Government that the existing law urgently requires reconsideration and re-enactment in a new sense.
May I say to the Government that I think that they will carry the country with them in their imposition of road restrictions during war-time which are necessary, if they make it clear to the public mind that the so-called bureaucratic mind is not always deaf to intelligent suggestion or deaf to informed advice? Personally, I should like to see the Government adopt a more mobile and elastic policy in this matter than they have done in the past, by which I mean that if a restriction is no longer necessary in the public interest or for the protection of private lives, then it ought to disappear, or at any rate it should be modified until it has regained the quality to which I have just referred.
I would close by making one suggestion which has come to me from an authoritative quarter. It is well worthy of the consideration of the Government. When you are imposing restrictions in one direction, may it not be possible to counterbalance these restrictions by making re-

145
laxations in another direction? Motorists are to-day restricted in speed, in lighting and in petrol. Might it not be possible to compensate these restrictions reasonably by freeing them from certain other restrictions which were necessary in crowded streets in peace-time but which it seems to me are not now required? For example, personally I should like to see one-way streets restored to their normal and useful condition. Personally I should like to see those tedious and unnecessary roundabouts, such as we have in Trafalgar Square, in Aldwych, and in many other quarters, disappear altogether. However, that is for the Government to decide. I put the idea forward and I suggest to them that it is worthy of their consideration. I apologise to your Lordships for speaking so long upon this topic, but I feel very strongly about it. I have endeavoured to state the case fairly, I hope, and dispassionately, although one is tempted by strong feeling to overstate it. Having done that, and having humbly made one or two suggestions of ways and means whereby this frightful carnage of the roads might be abated, I shall await, after the debate has run its course, with interest and with a measure of hope, the Government's reply. I beg to move.
4.8 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I feel I must rise to support Lord Alness in this Motion, for the reason, if for no other, that I was and am still Vice-Chairman of the House of Lords Roads Group. That group, as may well be within the memory of a good many of your Lordships, had no fewer than four different Motions down last Session; and had the war not intervened, no less than four different sides of the Report of the Select Committee would have been brought forward before the Government's notice by the House of Lords Roads Group. Owing to the war, that idea has had to be dropped. The members of our group were mostly younger men: we had very few here much over sixty. The result is that they are now nearly all engaged on work of some sort of national importance, and I am afraid most of them are in the same position as myself in that they find the very greatest difficulty in getting a spare minute to themselves or time to attend your Lordships' House.
146
But we have felt as a group that the Select Committee over which Lord Alness presided produced a very wonderful Report, which showed a wonderful grasp of its subject and contained some magnificent suggestions. It took a war to get the first of those introduced, and that was a rear light on cycles; the rest of them apparently have not been started. One has come in which was not included in the Report, but was mentioned in this House in the discussion of the Report, and that is the prohibition of vehicles drawing up on the wrong side of the road after dark. Why it is restricted to darkness I cannot imagine; but still there is an advance in that direction.
There are other suggestions in that Report which can be carried out without any legislation—without anything more than a regulation from the Ministry of Transport. One of them relates to pedestrians. The Minister of Transport has the power to restrict pedestrians to crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing when there is such a crossing within 100 yards of where they are. Is there any conceivable reason why in black-out hours—and I am quite prepared to have it restricted to black-out hours—the pedestrian should not be compelled to use the pedestrian crossing? Is there any reason why there should not be a small blue or orange light, or any light you like, on the beacons, with an illuminated orange globe, instead of an unilluminated one, so that when the motorist comes along he sees where a crossing is and he looks for pedestrians?
I do not know how much any of your Lordships have driven at night since the black-out started. Personally I have driven over 5,000 miles during the last two months, and a great deal of it has been in the dark. I can assure you that in going round a corner, with the modern contraption on the front of your headlight, the side to which you are turning, whether left or right, is a complete blank. You can see nothing beyond ten or fifteen yards of the car, simply because the lights do not show round the corner. It is the best anti-dazzle light that has ever been produced from the motorist's point of view; it is equally the most dangerous from the pedestrian's and the motorist's point of view. You go round the corner turning to your left, and if there is an unlighted

147
obstruction there you are bound to hit it, because you certainly will not see it. If there is a pedestrian moving there, you are bound to hit him. The only way you can save yourself in going round these corners—and I invariably do it—is to go round at about five miles an hour. Then if a pedestrian is there he has got a chance of jumping out of your light, and you have got a chance of stopping when he comes within your very limited vision. But if you set back your pedestrian crossing ten yards from any corner and make it compulsory for people to cross at that crossing, they will be in sight by the time the car gets round the corner. It will make for safe walking—and I think most of us walk a great deal more to-day than we did a few months ago.
There is another aspect of this matter and that concerns the criminal motorist. I am afraid I must say that in these days there are a great many criminal motorists on the road, and by far the worst offenders are the Services, the Air Force in particular. The Army are very bad, but not quite so bad as the Air Force, and the civilians are not a bad third, particularly the lorry drivers. The other day I was driving back from Lincolnshire in the black-out down a country road, wide enough for two vehicles certainly, but not wide enough for two vehicles and a push-cyclist. I was driving somewhere about thirty miles an hour, it may have been thirty-two or thirty-three, or only about twenty-seven or twenty-eight. I heard a row behind me. I did not pull into the side of the road, because I was already there, and I waited for the row to pass. It was an R.A.F. lorry with tender, and when I accelerated to see what speed it was travelling at—and this, mark you, after dark on a country road—I was doing fifty miles an hour, and the lorry and tender were still drawing away from me. Well, I call that criminal.
I was coming back two nights ago from Shepherds Bush. I turned at Holland Road with a lorry behind me, and as I pulled away the lorry went past me. I sat on that lorry's tail until I was doing over forty miles an hour, and then I let it go. It was quite impossible for me to catch him without risking my own neck, and I was not going to do that. The fault of that lies with the police force, you would think, but I am inclined to put it on the petrol control. Chief
148
Constables have been told that they are not to use petrol. They have shut down on the use of their police cars. The number of police patrols has been reduced to a negligible figure, and the result is that these drivers have no fear of being caught. To take London alone, you had, when the war broke out, in addition to your ordinary mobile police, a transport section of the Special Constabulary some 150 strong. I believe six of that section—it may be seven—are now being used by the police. A large number have gone off to other jobs because they were not used at all. The sole reason was that there was no petrol available for them to use their cars. But those men could have done invaluable work in controlling the traffic on the roads.
Now I want to come to the question of lighting. I am afraid I cannot entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness. He seemed to think that we could not really improve our street lighting very much. I suggest that if you are killing people at the rate of an air-raid every week, you may just as well save their lives and wait till the air-raid comes and does it for you. Let us light the streets properly and switch the lights off when we hear there is going to be an air raid. We get five or ten minutes' warning—we may get an hour, we may get two hours; but what is the sense in killing people one way to prevent their being possibly killed in another? I have said precisely the same thing before in another way, and I must repeat it, that when it comes to air raids it is not a bit of good killing people on the roads to prevent their being killed by a possible air raid.
Next with regard to the speed limit. I quite agree that the thirty mile limit is much too high, but I do suggest that the answer is not to put on a limit of twenty, or even fifteen, miles an hour; it is to take the limit off altogether and restore to the police the power, of which the speed limit has practically deprived them, of getting a conviction on a charge of dangerous driving. At the present moment, after dark you cannot illuminate the speedometer in your car because if you do so the light makes it still more impossible to see what is in front of you, with the existing light. In other words, everyone has to go entirely by guess. To guess a speed of fifteen or

149
twenty miles an hour after dark is really asking too much of the motorist. On the other hand, there is no need to guess what is a safe speed. If you do not know a safe speed instinctively, you have no right to drive. And if you have sufficient police cars on the road they will know what is safe driving, and the police must be told to stop dangerous driving and to prosecute.
I speak rather feelingly when I say "and to prosecute," because last night, as I was going home, I went from Gloucester Road tube station and reached Cromwell Road, which I was just going to cross, the lights being in my favour, when a car came up and went straight across the lights without stopping. It turned round and, still against the lights, proceeded to come back. There was a policeman standing on the corner just beside me, and I said to him: "Why the deuce do you not stop that car?" In a very leisurely manner, when I repeated my question, he went over and waved a light at the car and stopped it. Then, in a very gentle tone, he said: "Do you realise that you crossed against the lights?" The fellow said: "Oh, did I? There are so many things to look at that I did not see them." I am afraid I then lost my temper with both of them and I said to the constable: "Do you realise that this gentleman has just committed an extremely serious offence? Do you not think it is your job to point it out to him?" I said to the driver of the car: "Personally, my own view is that you ought net to be allowed to drive a car and I hope you will not be." The constable took no further action, except to say to the driver: "The gentleman is quite right; it was most dangerous." If the police are not going to prosecute motorists for dangerous driving we are not going to stop that sort of thing.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord himself could have prosecuted the driver.
LORD SANDHURST: I could have prosecuted him myself, but it is rather difficult, when one is working twelve or fourteen hours a day, to go to a police court and prosecute, particularly when there is a policeman there who can do it for one. I think that the speed limit should be done away with and that the police should be instructed to deal really firmly with dangerous driving.
150
One final word in support of Lord Alness's suggestion about pedestrians. I do hope that the Press will hammer at the carrying or wearing of something white, not on the arm, because the modern light does not show up as high as that, but below the waist. Tie a white rag round yourself if you are wearing dark clothes—a white apron or anything you like—or wear a white coat or a light coat: but it is not a bit of good having a white arm band, because it comes above the level of the modern light. Even a policeman standing in the street with white arm bands on is absolutely invisible to the motorist. He must have a white coat. I will say this also, that the Commissioner of Police has no right to allow a single man to stand on point duty who has not a white coat.
4.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord who has spoken last has just taken a point from me which I was going to make about light clothing. I think it is most important that white clothing for pedestrians should be enforced. I know there is a certain diffidence on the part of the authorities about enforcing that, but rear lights have just been enforced on bicycles. I drive a good many miles in a year and I cannot see the difference between enforcing lights on bicycles going slowly and enforcing white clothing for pedestrians. A bicycle may take up slightly more room than a pedestrian; a bicycle is going rather faster than a pedestrian; therefore it is just as difficult to see a bicycle as a pedestrian. Indeed, I think in many cases it is more difficult to see a pedestrian, and therefore it is more important to enforce some sort of white band or reflector for the pedestrian to wear. There has always been, I think, a certain tendency to blame motorists as against pedestrians, and not only as against pedestrians but as against cyclists. It was a long time before the cycle rear light was introduced; and I remember that a few years ago, whenever a motorist had an accident, it was maintained that he must have been driving too fast or he would not have run over the pedestrian. If the pedestrian got in his way that did not matter. It is only recently that that tendency has changed. So I should put in a very strong plea for the enforcement of a white belt or light clothing. Obviously some sort of

151
belt would be cheaper and easier, but that should be compulsory.
I do not want to labour a point which I made the last time I spoke, about street lighting, but I do feel that there is no advantage to be gained by lighting the streets without giving the full amount of light that is obtained in normal conditions. If only a slight or an obscured light is given, the pedestrian will find it more difficult to see the motorist, because the street lighting to a certain extent obscures the sidelights of a car. Equally, the motorist will not be able to see the pedestrian. There are various technical objections against giving full lighting. I do not pretend to be an expert on that subject, but I think I am correct in saying that the streets lights are not wired from a central point. Therefore, if you are going to turn off the complete circuit, it means cutting off the lighting in houses as well. I think that would tend to a great deal of panic in an air raid.
Another point made by the noble Lord who spoke last was that of the man who over-ran a traffic light. All of us have made mistakes at times, and I do not think it is necessarily criminal to run over a traffic light. If it is done intentionally through careless driving it should be punished with the very highest possible penalty: but I myself have run over traffic lights and I think all of us are liable to make errors. I do not think it is fair to come down too heavily on a man who may have been looking at the side to see a pedestrian crossing on the right and who may have failed to see the traffic light. I remember, when I started working in a firm, a motto was displayed which stated, "The man who never made a mistake has never made anything worth while"; and it is only human to err. Therefore I think that we want to try to prosecute the driver who drives in an intentionally dangerous way, rather than the driver who just makes some slight mistake. It may be fatal, but all of us make mistakes.
4.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I so very heartily agree with what fell from Lord Alness that I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with more than a very few observations. I think, if I may say so, in reference to the speech which has just been made, our
152
business is not to consider whether motorists are fairly treated or not fairly treated. That is really a secondary consideration. By all means let them be fairly treated.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I thought I was replying to the speech of the noble Lord who spoke last. I was not making any reflection on the administration of justice in this country.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not think that the motorists have any cause to complain of the administration of justice in this country. My experience of them is that they are always let off very lightly, even when they have committed the most horrible offences; but that only just shows how the same facts produce different opinions on, I hope, perfectly honest observers. But the point I was going to make is rather different. We are faced with the fact that a great number of our fellow countrymen are being killed, and killed unnecessarily. There is no doubt about that. They are killed unnecessarily. That is a terrific fact. The figures mentioned by Lord Alness are astounding, that if the slaughter goes on at this rate we shall have killed 40,00o people in three years. Just consider: Suppose a battle took place, even under modern conditions, and we were told that 40,000 of our soldiers had been killed, we should say, "That is a very terrific slaughter." But this slaughter is in pure peace-time, under conditions which ought to be so arranged as to give a reasonable degree of safety to all people using the highway. Therefore, that is the terrific point that we have to consider.
It really is not the consideration, if I may be allowed to say so to the noble Lord, whether it is right or not right to punish a motorist for having failed to observe a traffic light. He may be right or wrong. That is not a matter of any very great importance. But it is of the utmost importance that we should save the lives of people on the highway. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, is quite right in saying that the armlet is insufficient protection for the pedestrian. At the same time we must be reasonable. You cannot put all the pedestrians into white cloaks. That is out of the question. That just simply cannot be done. Many of them could not possibly afford such a luxury. That is not a practical proposal.
LORD SANDHURST: They could carry white newspapers or a white piece of paper.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Lord knows much more about this, tactically, than I do. If that would do, it might answer, but it is no use for us talking here about what would be a good plan. It is for the Government, with their skilled advisers, to say what would be the right practical precautions—not unpractical—for pedestrians to take. It is most important, most desirable, that that should be laid down. I entirely agree. I am all for propaganda within limits, as it has been shown to have done a great deal of good in certain cases, but I confess that to my mind the central proposition is this. It is plain that the cause of the great increase in accidents is that the motorist is driving under conditions of light which do not enable him to see the pedestrian or whatever it may be—an obstruction—in time to stop before running into him or it. That is the plain fact. There can be no doubt about it. If that is so, it is absolutely essential to lay down, as a rule, that the motorist must not drive at such a speed that he cannot stop within the limits of the distance he can see. If you can get a greater range of vision by a fresh system of lighting, then let him go rather faster, but until that is done, he must be able to stop his car within the limits that he can light the road. How that would work out, practically, is again a matter for the skilled advisers of the Government, but I am sure that is the principle on which we ought to insist.
It really is essential that we should establish the principle that these great engines, weighing some of them more than one ton, must not be driven along the streets under conditions which imperil those who use the streets with reasonable care. That is the principle which ought to be established absolutely. When my noble friend opposite talks about the motorist not having a fair hearing, or some phrase to that effect, he must remember that it is the motorists who kill the pedestrians, not the pedestrians who kill the motorists. That makes a very important difference. It is for this principle which I contend very strongly, not because I hate motorists at all, but because I wish to see this great blot on
154
our civilisation abolished. I hope the Government will make any regulations they consider essential and that, at any rate, they will put out in some intelligible form the precautions that are necessary for those using the highways under present conditions, as long as these conditions last.
Merely to give an illustration of what is in my mind, I saw a case in the papers the other day where a man and his wife, crossing the road, very foolishly crossed just past a stationary vehicle, and the moment they emerged from behind the stationary vehicle a motor car struck them and killed the man. I do not know in the least whether that motorist was to blame. I can conceive circumstances in which he was not in any way to blame, but that is the kind of case regarding which the Government might issue special instructions. They ought to say it is very essential that pedestrians should not cross just behind a stationary vehicle, and it is equally necessary that motorists coming towards a stationary vehicle should be extremely careful of someone emerging at the last moment. I am afraid I have made a rather ragged contribution to the debate, but I hope the Government will really try to make some effort to put a stop to this very serious state of affairs.
4.35 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I have a practical suggestion to make. Two years ago I introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House, asking the Government to accept the simple proposition which has been very well stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. That Bill proposed that it should be the duty of every motorist to go at such a speed that he could pull up within the distance he could see. I consulted the Ministry of Transport before introducing the Bill and they said, of course, it was common sense, but there were various considerations which prevented them from adopting it. That was very wrong, because it has always been the rule of law, so I understand—I had to go into it with some care at the time—that you ought to take this precaution in order to avoid damaging your fellow subjects. That has been the law for centuries. But at that time, whether it was due to the motor industry or whether it was that some other reason

155
prevailed, this elementary principle of law was rejected by His Majesty's Government. I would ask the noble Earl, before he replies, to consider whether he could not just take up my Bill which was carefully drafted by, I suppose—the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will not dispute it—almost the ablest living lawyer in the country, and get it passed into law. It could be proved by mathematicians of repute that it would probably reduce the casualties described by Lord Alness by at least a quarter, and probably more, just by establishing the age-old rule that everybody must only drive so fast, whatever vehicle he is using, that he can pull up within the distance he can see. If the noble Earl says "No," then I feel I should introduce my Bill again.
4.38 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I shall keep the noble Earl only a minute or two from his reply, which we are all awaiting with great interest, while I comment on two points brought out by Lord Alness. The first is propaganda. I agree with him entirely that a great deal more could be done, particularly through the B.B.C. I do not think the ordinary man in the street nowadays, having so much else to think about, with the war foremost in his mind, is inclined to care very much about reading in the newspapers about this holocaust on the roads. If on a special evening, at an opportune time in the evening, every week, a B.B.C. commentator were to thrust down his ears the facts of what had happened during the week in the way of accidents, and perhaps put some of the salient points in regard to these accidents, adding a word as to any safety measures which might have prevented them, something might get home to the road user's mind. I feel a great deal more should be done in the way of propaganda and I believe the B.B.C. is the way to do it.
My second point relates to extra lighting in the streets. I have to mention this because I happened to be talking to a flying friend of mine the other day. He told me that recently he had flown over London once or twice, and he said the effect of the black-out was perfectly astounding. He could not believe it possible that such a result could have been brought about. In fact, he said, he had the greatest difficulty in finding his
156
way back to his own aerodrome, though he is an accomplished night flyer. I am told that the danger of increasing street lighting is not so much that there will perhaps be a difficulty in putting out the lights in time of an air raid, but that the area of London is so vast that if you increase the lighting only to a small degree in the streets you will set up such a glare in the sky as can be seen a great many miles out at sea. That, I imagine, would be a very useful guide to people wanting to bomb London, or would give them a very useful line of direction to the Medway or Thames Estuary. I feel certain that if any arrangements can be made for mitigating this terrible loss of life on the roads very full consideration will be given by His Majesty's Government before any large increase in our street lighting is even thought of.
4.42 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, before I deal with the general subject of the debate perhaps I might make specific mention of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I certainly will undertake to put his proposal before my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, but it does occur to me, as one who has not made a profound study of this problem, that thinking of it on general lines it would be extremely dangerous to specify just one thing in an Act of Parliament, because there are so many forms of dangerous driving. That would be evident to those who have read the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Alness. His Committee decided that the problem was many-sided. I think from the debate it is quite clear that the noble Lord, Lord Alness, need not for a moment have felt it was necessary to apologise to your Lordships' House for raising this subject again; indeed there is no one more competent than the noble Lord to do so. He reminded us that he has presided over a Committee in peace-time which heard evidence showing how acute this problem was then. Your Lordships may remember that it was only in May last that I promised your Lordships, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, that the Report was not going to be pigeon-holed. In fact the Minister was then in the position of being very near to having his full statement prepared in answer to the Report. To-day the specific subject

157
that is in our minds is the condition of the problem in war-time.
The noble Lord has given us some appalling figures which are perfectly accurate. He told us that in September the deaths on the road were no fewer than 1,130, which is just more than double what they were in peace-time. In the following month there were over 900 which, although representing a reduction of over 200, still leaves us with an appalling toll of death. Notwithstanding, it does perhaps suggest to us that people are becoming a little more accustomed to dealing with black-out conditions. The only small comfort to be derived from those figures is that they do not appear to include any substantial increase in the number of children under fifteen. I think that is partly explained by evacuation and partly by the fact that the parents and those responsible for children are definitely taking more care. The education authorities are endeavouring to make quite sure that the children get home before darkness. One outstanding feature in debates in your Lordships' House upon this problem is that there is very little attempt made to lay the blame on any particular party. Rather is the problem dealt with as one constituted of certain factors that have to be faced. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has a very good idea in the back of his mind as to where he places most of the blame, but I think the majority of your Lordships regard the problem rather objectively. We all realise that when we are ourselves pedestrians, we do sometimes forget the problems and difficulties of motorists, and, equally, motorists, certainly under present conditions, are inclined to forget the appalling difficulties under the black-out for pedestrians.
Your Lordships will want to know what steps the Government have actually taken to lessen the risk of road accidents during the black-out and also what steps they intend to take. I think we are all agreed that there is no one solution for this problem. It is really a matter of dealing with a great number of detailed needs, and if, therefore, my speech takes a little the form of a catalogue attempting to deal with the points that have been brought up in the debate, I hope your Lordships will forgive me. One point that has received great attention this afternoon is the question of pedestrians wearing or
158
carrying something white at night. If I may say so, one or two extremely interesting remarks have been made upon that matter. I particularly took note of one point put by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. There is no doubt that those of us who have been driving lately have realised that our lights do not reflect as high as the arm band. I will certainly put that point to my right honourable friend. As your Lordships know, the Minister of Transport has made repeated appeals to the public to do something on this matter, but one of the most difficult problems of government to-day is the number of times that you have to repeat anything before you can get it through to the public. There is so much said and so much to read that it is extraordinarily difficult to do that. The public are using torches. To that device they have taken, although I am not sure it is so much because of advice as simply because they found for themselves that it was a good thing to do.
Two or three noble Lords have referred to the fact that cyclists now have to have a rear light, and they have remarked upon the folly of mankind which makes it necessary for us to wait till we have a war until we do something which is obviously only common sense. At least let us be pleased that it has now happened. One noble Lord—I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness—referred to the fact that there are still some cyclists going about without rear lights. Up till very lately it was rather difficult for them to obtain them, but I am informed that that difficulty is disappearing and any excuse for not having rear lights is being rapidly removed. Then there is the question of the type of headlights that motorists may use on cars. Although it has not been specifically mentioned, I think it will be generally agreed that the latest type of mask for headlights is definitely an immense advance on anything that has hitherto been devised. We hope in the near future to find ourselves in a position to make the use of these masks compulsory, but of course we must be completely satisfied on the question of supplies before we can do so.
Another point that has not been mentioned in this debate is the painting of white guide lines on the roads. That I think really has been of very considerable

159
use. It has been immensely extended, and I can say that Divisional Officers of the Ministry of Transport are impressing upon all highway authorities the importance of maintaining these white lines at a high standard of visibility. I think your Lordships will agree that the St. Andrew's Cross which has replaced the red light on islands and pedestrian refuges is an improvement. I know myself that at the beginning of the black-out it was very difficult to know whether you were aiming for an island or the back of a taxicab, and as they are of very different widths the uncertainty was liable sometimes to have rather unfortunate results. In rural areas we are taking steps to see that signs are lowered so that they catch the headlights of cars. I think that will be of considerable use. Noble Lords have already referred to the practice of leaving cars at night with the lights facing the wrong way. There again we have learned wisdom during war-time.
No one here this afternoon has criticised the omnibus drivers, but I have seen certain criticisms of them, although I think the schedules of the omnibus companies receive the blame. Steps have been taken to modify these time schedules so that omnibus drivers need not drive at an excessive rate in order to maintain their schedules. I think all your Lordships would be willing to join with me in a tribute to the omnibus drivers, who have been going through a period of the most appalling strain during the last few weeks and months. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst who referred to the lack of use of the police patrols owing to shortage of petrol. It is perfectly true that many of them have been laid up for that reason, but I can assure the noble Lord that they are being brought out in increasing numbers at the present time.
One very important point has been discussed by many of your Lordships this afternoon. I refer to the general principle of the black-out. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, reminded us of what in fact the black-out is protecting us against. He also gave us an extraordinarily good and interesting example of how important and how effective a protection it is. Actually I am informed that when London is fully lighted up the glow can be seen for something between thirty and forty miles. Even some weeks
160
ago, when we were experimenting with systems of modified lighting, the best system we were able to devise could be seen something like sixteen miles away at a height of a few thousand feet. The Government have been a little criticised by one noble Lord for not making earlier experiments with lighting. I think the answer is perfectly clear. Experiments could only be made under conditions of complete black-out and it was not possible to obtain those conditions until we came to war itself. As soon as the complete black-out of war-time was instituted experiments were begun with various forms of lighting. One noble Lord said he hoped that we would call in all the advice that was at our disposal. I can assure the noble Lord that we are certainly doing so. While one experiment to which I had referred was not successful, I think your Lordships will be pleased to hear that different methods are now being tried and that these new experiments have reached a very advanced stage. If, in fact, they do prove to be successful, then indeed they will make a most profound difference in the whole of the problem we are discussing to-day.
There is one other point which I have not yet mentioned, one which was referred to I think by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness. He proposed that we should reduce the speed limit in built-up areas from thirty to twenty miles per hour. The trouble in regard to that proposal is that it would be very difficult to lay down a limit that could be regarded as applicable generally in all conditions. On a moonlight night conditions are completely different from those on a wet and rainy or foggy night. The view of my right honourable friend is that it is much better to rely on the general law and to institute prosecutions for dangerous driving. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said that that power of prosecution had rather fallen into disuse as the result of the speed limit. I will certainly bring the point to the notice of my right honourable friend, although I am not sure that it would be found so difficult to bring a successful prosecution. The noble Lord referred to a certain personal experience of his own. I cannot help feeling that he was extraordinarily lenient in the whole matter. I am very surprised that he did not take the number of the policeman and of the car and report them both.
LORD SANDHURST: I quite admit I ought to have, but I was very tired.
EARL DE LA WARR: Noble Lords have referred to the need of more propaganda. I quite agree that every attempt should be made to bring the facts and the seriousness of the situation before the public. I have already mentioned one difficulty: how difficult it is to get the public to listen or to appreciate things; but I can tell your Lordships that the Minister of Transport, in consultation with the Minister for Home Security, is making arrangements for further broadcasts on the subject of road safety in the black-out. While other proposals such as posters and so on have been put forward, I think that most of your Lordships will agree with me that the wireless is the best way of getting at the public to-day.
I hope that these remarks of mine, admittedly, as I said at the beginning, rather of a cataloguing character, will convince your Lordships that the Government, and particularly my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, are endeavouring to tackle these problems. Many of them are new, some of them are not new, but even those that are not new have to be looked at with a fresh eye in the light of new conditions. I hope your Lordships will feel, from this list of what has already been done, that my right honourable friend is really looking into this problem and seeing it in its extremely serious aspect. I think you must all feel that, whatever the Government can do, ultimately the solution must come from the action of individuals, whether they are pedestrians, cyclists or motorists. The Government can do everything in their power to lay down the conditions under which those individuals can best operate, and can do everything in their power, as they intend to do, by broadcast and other methods to make individuals realise what is the position; but, in the words of the Highway Code, accidents are inevitable unless due allowance is made for possible errors on the part of others.
5.4 p.m.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, my words shall be few. I want in the first place to thank the noble Earl very cordially for his most courteous reply. I said that I looked forward to it with a measure of hope, and I trust that he will not think me ungrateful if I say that I have listened to it with a measure of disappointment. The Minister of Transport is face to face with this damning fact, that in the first three months of the war 3,000 people have lost their lives upon the roads of Great Britain. I am not at all satisfied, if I may say so, that the plans which the noble Earl has described as being in contemplation by the right honourable gentleman are commensurate with or adequate to deal with a situation so tremendously serious as that disclosed by that simple figure. However, I am glad the matter has been aired, if I may say so, this afternoon, and I thank your Lordships who have spoken in support of the Motion. With the permission of the House, I should now seek to withdraw the Motion which I originally moved.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn, may I by leave of the House ask one question of the noble Earl? He said he did not propose to vary the speed limit. Does he propose to abolish speed limits altogether? If not, since they were fixed under one condition, surely it is right to vary them now that the conditions have changed?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I said that it was not proposed to vary them, nor was it proposed to abolish them; but it is not merely conceivable but quite likely sometimes that someone who is driving within the limits of the speed limit may still be driving to the danger of the public. We therefore have a second line to fall back on, and that is prosecution for dangerous driving.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at six minutes past five o'clock.