Sitting of 19 February 1941

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  GREEK CHURCHES (ITALIAN BOMBING).
  Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to Italian bombing of ancient Greek churches?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I under stand that the 6th Century Church of San Sofia at Salonika with its celebrated mosaics has been bombed and the cupola and other parts of the building seriously damaged. His Majesty's Minister at Athens is being requested to telegraph particulars of damage to this and any other ancient Greek churches or monuments.
  Mr. Hannah: Why have we not given more publicity to this disgraceful action?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member has materially assisted us in this direction.

  TANGIER.
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to make a statement about the position in Tangier and our relations with Spain generally?
  Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the position in Tangier; and whether the pledge of the Spanish Government that the neutrality of the port is to be preserved carries with it any limitation of the number of Spanish troops to be allowed in the zone and an assurance that Tangier shall not be used as a base for operations against French Morocco?
  Mr. Butler: I regret that I am still not in a position to make a final statement regarding the position in Tangier. As regards the second part of the Question of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) I must ask him to await this fuller statement, but I must state clearly that my right hon. Friend cannot accept the implication which appears in the concluding words of the Question.
  Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. Friend say what it is that is holding up a settlement of this question, in view of the fact that many weeks, if not months ago, unilateral action was taken in abuse of British rights? Is it not about time we got some satisfaction?
  Mr. Butler: I think the hon. Member's view is shared by the Government. The position is that the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs has been away from Madrid, and this accounts partly for the delay in reaching agreement, but, as my right hon. Friend has said, negotiations have been proceeding satisfactorily.
  Mr. Cocks: Regarding the pledge that the neutrality of Tangier would be preserved, in what way does that position differ from the position in the rest of Spain?
  Mr. Butler: I think the importance of the hon. Member's observation is not denied, but I feel that it would be better if he would await the fuller statement.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.
  Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the progress of negotiations between this country and the Soviet Union?
  Mr. Butler: I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) on 21st January and state that matters have as yet been carried no further by the Soviet Government.
  Mr. Cocks: Regarding that part of the negotiations which relate to the recognition of the former Baltic States, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinion of many British jurists the distinction between de facto and de jure recognition is almost negligible, and as the Soviet Government want this recognition,

  131
  should we allow such a small thing to interfere with the establishment of better relations with that country?
  Mr. Butler: There are not only small but certain large issues involved in the question. I could not take it further at the present time.
  Mr. Mander: Is it not a fact that at the present time Russia is simply terrified of Germany, and nothing else matters?
  Viscountess Astor: And nobody is terrified of Russia.
  Sir Irving Albery: Will His Majesty's Government consider asking our Ambassador in Moscow to return to this country and report to this House at a Secret Sitting?

  FAR EAST (SITUATION).
  Mr. Caryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give to the House about the situation in the Far East?
  Mr. Butler: As the House is aware, there has recently been increased tension in the Far East over certain events, notably over the dispute between Indo-China and Thailand. The Japanese official spokesman made a statement to the Press yesterday which will no doubt come to the attention of hon. Members. My right hon. Friend has received from the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs a special message in courteous terms and on the same general lines as the statement just referred to. The terms of this communication are at present receiving due consideration.

  BALKANS (SITUATION).
  Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the position in the Balkans, and the attitude of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia?
  Mr. Butler: The view of His Majesty's Government has for some time been well known to all the Balkan countries concerned, namely, that the best hope they have of maintaining their independence and political integrity lies in mutual understanding and assistance. I cannot at present add anything to the terms of the Prime Minister's recent broadcast.
  Mr. Cocks: Have the Government any information regarding the reported offer of the Soviet Government last November to conclude a pact of mutual assistance with Bulgaria?
  Mr. Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that; vigorous diplomatic action is being taken by His Majesty's Government to counteract Nazi efforts in the Balkans?
  Mr. Butler: In the diplomacy of His Majesty's Government vigour and wisdom are always combined.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Turkish Pact with Bulgaria allows of the Germans passing through Bulgaria to attack Greece?
  Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman add initiative to our diplomacy?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    OBSERVER CORPS.
    Mr. Toucheasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the valuable services by the Observer Corps and the desirability of its members having a more definite status, he will consider making that corps a command of the Royal Air Force?
    The Under-Secretary of Stale for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I fully appreciate the valuable services rendered by the Observer Corps. But any proposal to form a new command of the Royal Air Force would raise wider issues of: organisation and administration.
    Mr. Touche: Does my hon. and gallant Friend not think it is time that these men had uniforms?
    Captain Balfour: The question of status and other relevant questions, including that of the uniform of the Observer Corps, are now under consideration by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Mander: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there is a very great feeling of dissatisfaction among the members of this corps and that a reply is required at as early a date as possible?
    Captain Balfour: I am fully aware of many complaints, some justified and some

    133
    unjustified, as regards conditions in the Observer Corps, and it is for that very reason that my right hon. Friend now has these matters under his consideration.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. Sloanasked the Secretary of State for Air why the English firm of Wimpey's receive so many contracts in Scotland involving large sums of money; and whether he will undertake in future to arrange that Scottish firms carry out all work in Scotland?
    Captain Balfour: The claims of Scottish firms to carry out contracts in Scotland and elsewhere are always fully considered; and of seven large contracts recently placed for building and civil engineering works in Scotland, six have been allotted to Scottish firms. The firm referred to has been allotted contracts by virtue of their favourable quotations and of their ability to complete urgent work to schedule.

    AERODROMES (LAND CULTIVATION).
    Mr. Lipson(for Mr. Perkins): asked he Secretary of State for Air why he refuses to allow commanding officers of Royal Air Force stations to grow food on waste parts of their aerodromes?
    Captain Balfour: So far from being refused permission to grow food on waste land in the vicinity of R.A.F. stations, commanding officers have been encouraged several times since the outbreak of war as to the need for intensive cultivation of all available land. Considerable areas have been brought under cultivation, and good results have been achieved. Advice has been freely sought from, and given by, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. With a view to assisting stations in planning increased production in accordance with the best professional practice, a technical adviser on horticulture is about to be appointed.
    Mr. Selley: Where sports grounds are commandeered, will compensation be paid to schools and other public organisations?
    Captain Balfour: That is quite a different. question. If my hon. Friend puts it down. I will give an answer.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, owing
    134
    to the inadequacy of the censoring staff in prisoner-of-war camps in Germany, letters for prisoners are held up for several weeks, and parcels too are delayed while the censors search them; and whether he will make representations, through the International Red Cross or the protecting Power, to secure quicker delivery of parcels and letters?
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): As regards letters for our prisoners of war in Germany, I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on this point to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 23rd January and to repeat that representations have already been made through the protecting Power in the sense suggested. There is evidence that the delays in Germany to letters from prisoners of war are being reduced. I have no evidence that parcels are inordinately delayed by censorship in Germany.
    Sir A. Knox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a letter from a prisoner of war dated 7th January states that in his particular camp there are 20,000 letters and parcels now held up by the censor, owing to the inadequacy of the staff of the censors' Department? He says that the censors look through books to search for secret codes, cut open cheeses to find lengths of rope, and open tins to find screw-drivers.
    Mr. Morrison: As regards letters, we are making representations to the protecting Power. I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with the information he has with regard to parcels, when I will certainly look into it.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
  Mr. Hannahasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether the damage done by enemy action in the Cloister Court has thrown any light on the history of this Palace?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): No, Sir. So far, no finds of any importance have been made. The clearing of the debris is, however, far from complete, and we are on the sharp lookout for information of this kind.

  TRINIDAD (CONSTITUTION).
  Mr. Parkerasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there is wide feeling in Trinidad that the suggested new Constitution is not an approach towards democratic representation, such as was recommended by the West India Royal Commission, and that particular exception is taken to an increase in the number of elected representatives without broadening the franchise, which now only covers 6 per cent, of the population; and whether he will reconsider the proposals put forward on this subject?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): My information is that the announcement of the proposed changes in the Trinidad Constitution was widely welcomed, and that they received the practically unanimous support of the elected members of the Legislative Council, in consultation with whom they were framed. The proposals to which effect is being given include the appointment of a franchise committee as recommended by the West India Royal Commission. The results of the work of such a committee could not be available in the immediate future, and there appears to be no good reason to await them before introducing the agreed changes in the composition of the Legislative Council.
  Mr. Parker: Is it not a fact that the proposed new Constitution does not meet the wishes of those who are outside the ranks of the existing electors, and in view of the fact that should it be accepted the new Constitution cannot be altered until 1948 ought not some action to be taken now to modify these proposals?
  Mr. Hall: Action is being taken in so far as we are putting into operation certain of the recommendations of the Royal Commission and are appointing a franchise committee. I think the main point which my hon. Friend has in mind is the extension of the franchise, but that cannot be done until we get the report of the franchise committee, which has been set up.
  Mr. Parker: In view of the importance of this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment

  GOLD COAST (GIN IMPORTS).
  Mr. Barrasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement showing the imports of gin or geneva into the Gold Coast for each successive year from 1928 to the last available return?
  Mr. George Hall: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the figures:

  Year.

  Gallons.

  1928

  1,002,860

  1929

  509,746

  1930

  334,440

  1931

  49,356

  1932

  94,867

  1933

  69,451

  1934

  45,966

  1935

  63,238

  1936

  6,575

  1937

  180,120

  1938

  49,780

  1939

  22,332

  JAMAICA (DETENTION ORDER).
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he will review the detention order of Mr. Bustamente in Jamaica; and what are the conditions of his detention?
  Mr. George Hall: Mr. Bustamante's detention is a matter for the Governor of Jamaica, who has undertaken to keep his case under review. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to a Question by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) on 6th November last, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. Strauss: Is it the case that release has been refused?
  Mr. Hall: As my hon. Friend knows, the Governor of Jamaica is at present in this country. Consultations have taken place with the Governor, but he does not propose to release Mr. Bustamante from detention, in present circumstances.

  COLONIES (ECONOMIC COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what

  137
  action has been taken since the publication of the report of the Economic Advisory Council Committee on Nutrition in the Colonial Empire; whether the Colonial Governments have considered the application of the many ideas and recommendations in the report; whether reports have been received from the Colonial Governors on this problem; and what progress has been made?
  Mr. George Hall: Copies of the report of the Committee mentioned by my hon. Friend were communicated to Colonial Governments in July, 1939. and reports have been received from the majority of Colonial Governments in regard to the application of the recommendations of the Committee in the territories under their administration. I regret that, owing to circumstances arising out of the war, it has not yet been possible to proceed with the collation and consideration of the very valuable information contained in these reports. The matter has, however, been considered in consultation with the Medical Research Council, and it is hoped that, with the co-operation of the Council, it will be possible in the near future to make arrangements to enable progress to be made with this important matter.
  Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask whether, in view of the very grave revelations in this report, it is desirable that the Colonial Development Act should be suspended altogether, and further, in spite of the war difficulties, if some progress can be made in improving the standard of living and regulating dietary?
  Mr. Hall: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is being done. Already we are hoping to make progress in regard to implementing this report. Dr. Platt, who organised the nutritional survey of the Colonial Empire and who has returned from Nyasaland, is obviously the person to undertake this work, and we are hoping that he will commence part-time duties in the Colonial Office shortly.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS (SERVICE VEHICLES).
    Sir Adam Maitlandasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to give the number of road accidents in which members of the Forces have been
    138
    involved during the last three months, or for such a period as he has been able to obtain information?
    The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has kindly provided me with an analysis of road accidents in the Metropolitan police district during the months of December, 1940, and January, 1941. In December, 1940, out of 4,128 casualties from road accidents, 223 resulted from accidents in which Service vehicles were involved. In January, 1941, the casualties were 2,929, and 219 of these resulted from accidents in which Service vehicles were involved. A census of traffic taken over a period of 24 hours at the end of January, at 42 points in the area, indicated that the ratio of Service to civilian vehicles using the roads was about 1:25.
    Sir A. Maitland: These figures apply only to the Metropolitan area. Has my right hon. and gallant Friend been able to form an opinion as to the significance of these figures?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I have not made up my mind about them. It is not really my province, and I may take the matter up with the Home Secretary. These figures want a lot of analysis before they will show whether there is any particular tendency. If they show such a tendency, I will take the matter up.
    Sir A. Maitland: In view of the great public concern, will the Minister make further investigations, in order to see to what extent there is an undue number of accidents in the provinces as well as in the London area, arising from vehicles in use by the Forces?
    Viscountess Astor: Will the Minister give us the times of these accidents and also tell the House how many of them are due to drivers having taken even a slight amount of alcohol? [Interruption.] It is important. We have to face this matter.
    Lieut. -Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The figures of accidents during daylight and during the night have already been published. On the alcohol question, I have not the figures at present.
    Viscountess Astor: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that a Commission was set up? Over 1,000

    139
    people were being killed a month. Is it not really vital that this question should be taken into consideration? If alcohol is causing the trouble, surely we ought to do something about it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The Question put to me relates to the difference between the Services and civilians. On that question, I do not think the alcohol aspect arises.

    RAILWAYS (LOST GOODS).
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give the approximate percentage of goods accepted for carriage by the British railways which is lost?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available. To obtain it would involve a great deal of labour and expense which would not be justified in present circumstances.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is my right hon. and gallant Frined aware that this percentage is serious and appears to be increasing and that it is becoming serious among the war industries? Would he not therefore look further into the matter, particularly to see whether too many key men have been called up for military service from the railways, with the result that the railways are not doing a job of work proportional to the responsibility that falls upon them?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I do not think I can accept as a fact that there is a serious effect upon war industries.
    Mr. Simmonds: Would not my right hon. and gallant Friend make inquiries from the industrial associations, when he may find that there are serious hold-ups in war industries, representing substantial losses?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I will make those inquiries.

    WORKMEN'S RAILWAY TICKETS (FIRE-WATCHERS).
    Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether the validity of workmen's tickets on the railways will be extended to cover a period of two days, for fire-watchers who have to spend the nights at their works or offices;
    140
    (2) whether he can arrange that workmen's tickets on the railways should be available for fire-watchers proceeding to their duties in the evening?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I do no think that it would be fair to the railway companies to place on them the cost of extending workmen's fares in the manner suggested. The concession to full-time Civil Defence workers, which I announced on 30th January, in reply to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves), is, however, being extended to fire-watchers, who normally avail themselves of workmen's tickets, when travelling between their homes and workplaces.
    Mr. Bartlett: Does that mean that people who are trying very hard to carry on with their ordinary, essential jobs and are, at the same time, doing one night a week at fire-watching, will get no benefit at all?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: They certainly get benefit, but it will be impossible to extend it without very grave inquiry. We are all fire-fighting now, and this suggestion really means a reduction of fares throughout the country.
    Mr. Bartlett: Surely there are certain areas where fire-watchers are very badly needed. The burden on them is already very great; should it not, as far as possible, be spread throughout the nation?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I have already said that I have considered this matter.
    Mr. G. Strauss: Would there actually be a burden on the railway companies? They would not be carrying more passengers and would not be losing revenue.
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I think so. A larger number of people would travel at reduced rates.

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) SCHEME.
    Mr. Marcus Samuelasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider increasing the allowance of 14s. per week for air-raid injury payable to women, which compares very unfavourably with the £1 is. payable to men?
    The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): This, among other matters, arising on the scheme of civilian compensation, is under active consideration.
    Mr. Samuel: Will the Minister bear in mind that trains, bus fares and food in restaurants, as well as many other items, are as expensive for women as they are for men?
    Sir W. Womersley: All these matters are taken into consideration.
    Viscountess Astor: We have to remember this principle when we are recruiting for women.

    SHELTERS.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the ill-effects caused to air-raid shelters through dampness caused by condensation; what instructions have been issued to local authorities to meet this trouble; and who will bear the cost of heating?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): My right hon. Friend is well aware of the problem of condensation in air-raid shelters. This has been the subject of experiments by the Department's technical advisers, and a memorandum for the guidance of local authorities will be issued in the near future. The dimensions of the condensation problem are much reduced by heating and proper ventilation. The cost of providing and installing heating equipment in public shelters is borne by the Exchequer; maintenance costs are borne by the local authorities on a grant-aided basis.
    Mr. Tinker: I hope that the hon. Member will get down to the instructions. I paid a visit to my constituency, and asked the people whether they went into the shelters, and they said, "No, they are not fit to be used." I agreed with them on that point.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not a cause for rejoicing that, in spite of the bad conditions in some of the shelters, the diseases which were prophesied have not come upon us?
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is my hon. Friend aware that shelters are now being built without proper amenities?
    Mr. Mabane: I am not aware of that.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: May I draw his attention to some cases?
    Mr. J. H. Hollins: Will the Minister take steps to see that the shelters are put into proper condition before next winter?
    Mr. Mabane: Certainly.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Head-lamasked the Secretary of State for War how many senior officers of the Auxiliary Territorial Service have been removed, a result of Auxiliary Territorial Service senior officers' courses?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): None, Sir. It is not the object of these courses to weed out unsuitable officers, but to give instruction to suitable ones.
    Sir C. Headlam: Does not my hon. Friend think that it might be of some use to have these courses, if they were a real test of the ability of the officer?
    Mr. Law: There is already a procedure for getting rid of unsuitable officers, and that is by the production of an adverse report. I do not think there is need for any additional procedure.

    COMMISSIONS.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the number of persons, other than qualified medical and dental practitioners, aged over 45 years and 55 years, respectively, without previous military service, who have been commissioned as officers during the last six months?
    Mr. Law: I regret that I could not obtain the numbers asked for without considerable research, but it is thought that they are very small.

    COOKS (TRAINING).
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Secretary of State for War whether the young soldiers detailed for special duties as Army cooks have had time to learn their job in Army schools of cookery; and what is the normal period of such training?
    Mr. Law: After a few weeks' duty as learners in the unit cookhouse, soldiers

    143
    who have shown themselves suitable are sent to a course of instruction. This course lasts for six weeks, and has been found adequate to give men the necessary basic knowledge of cookery.

    COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCES, SIERRA LEONE.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether any further consideration has been given to the case of the young men in the Sierra Leone Heavy Battery who were sentenced by court-martial in 1939 to terms of imprisonment, ranging up to 15 years, in Freetown for mutiny; and whether any information can be given as to the result of this further review?
    Mr. Law: The normal review of these sentences is a matter for the Officer Commanding Troops, Sierra Leone, who is the reviewing authority under the Army Act. Six men have now completed their sentences and have consequently been released. Inquiries are being made by cable as to the result of the latest review of the cases of the men still under sentence.
    Mr. Adams: When is it anticipated that the reply will be received?
    Mr. Law: I am afraid I cannot give an answer to that, but I should imagine it would be a matter of days.

  POLES, GREAT BRITAIN (DETENTIONS).
  Mr. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Benjamin Ajzenberg and his brother Jack were arrested by two Polish soldiers accompanied by a British police officer, detained for one night in a London prison, removed under escort to a prison in Scotland, detained there for six weeks without trial, then detained for a further 10 days without trial in a Polish military camp and finally released; whether these persons are stateless civilians; and under what authority they were deprived of their liberty?
  Mr. Law: I am informed that these two brothers are Polish citizens and came to this country from France with a group of Polish troops. They were assumed to
  144
  be soldiers and were subsequently detained by the Polish military authorities as deserters. They have been released because it was not established that they had been properly enrolled in the Polish Army. They were not detained in a British prison in London or in Scotland.
  Mr. Silverman: Do I understand from the hon. Member's reply that the series of facts which he has related were continuous, or was it not the case that these men were released by the Polish authorities at one time, were granted labour permits by the Ministry of Labour at a later time, and at a later time still were arrested by the Polish authorities, who at that time had full knowledge that they were not Polish soldiers at all; and were they not detained throughout the whole period as described in the Question?
  Mr. Law: My information is the reverse of my hon. Friend's. As I understand it, they were genuinely thought to be Polish soldiers because they came over from occupied France with Polish troops. They disappeared, and the Polish military authorities thought they were deserters and got hold of them again.
  Mr. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for War how many persons are now detained by the Polish authorities in this country under their powers under the Allied Forces Act; and how many persons are now detained by the Polish authorities who have never at any time served in the Polish armed forces?
  Mr. Law: Apart from. Polish soldiers who may be undergoing detention in Polish camps for disciplinary reasons, I am informed that there are no persons now detained by the Polish authorities in this country under the Allied Forces Act, but that six persons are detained who have never served in the Polish armed forces. Orders have been given that unless they wish to serve they are to be released immediately.
  Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Member bear in mind that a large number of us have been making great efforts in recent months to make the present scheme under the Allied Forces Act work harmoniously, and that if the Polish authorities are going to abuse these powers, they will make our efforts entirely useless?
  Mr. Law: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view in this matter. I think that in this case a mistake was made by the Polish authorities, and that mistake will be remedied.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    PEEL HALL COLLIERIES.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the notification from the Peel Hall Collieries that they are on the point of closing their collieries; and whether he will have inquiries made to find out the circumstances, and see what can be done to prevent this taking place?
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I have been inquiring fully into the circumstances of Peel Hall Collieries, Limited, and am now considering what steps, if any, I can usefully take to meet an admittedly difficult situation.
    Mr. Tinker: Will the Minister consult with the miners' side, and if I put down a Question later, will he be prepared to answer it?
    Mr. Grenfell: There has been no dispute with the workmen. The difficulty here is largely a financial one, which has been in existence for a long time, and also the fact that this company has lost 200 of its workmen in the last two months and is unable to get sufficient workmen to work the colliery.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Is the Minister not aware that it is now seven months since this matter was taken to his Department, and that he received a deputation last June? What is the reason for the delay?

    SUPPLIES (MANCHESTER CORPORATION).
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that, in order to force the Manchester Corporation electricity department to accept the conditions of sale which are being imposed by the executive boards of the coal industry, coal supplies are being diverted from the Manchester Corporation, notwithstanding the fact that that corporation are already having to lift large quantities from stock; and whether he will take steps to remedy this grievance?
    Mr. Grenfell: I cannot agree that the position, as regards coal supplies to the
    146
    Manchester electricity department, is as stated by the hon. Member, but I will take such steps as may be necessary and practicable to maintain adequate supplies. As to the position generally, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 23rd January to the hon. and learned Member for Withington (Flight Lieutenant Fleming). I understand that, as a result of the intervention of my Department, arrangements are now being made for this question to be dealt with by means of a joint discussion between the Conjoint Conference of Public Utility Undertakings and owners' representatives of the colliery districts concerned.
    Mr. Rostron Duckworth: Would the Minister realise that the position has been considerably aggravated since that reply was given; that on 29th January, after the reply was given, there was a meeting of the members of the executive board, at which it was clearly stated that even if the central council were to agree to discuss the problem with the members of the Conjoint Coference, it would be months before a meeting could be arranged for this discussion?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the many complaints coming from the Manchester Corporation, will the Minister consider sending a high official from his Ministry to consult with the corporation?
    Mr. Grenfell: There have been consultations, and our officials are busy in Manchester. Manchester is not the only place concerned, and there is now a meeting of all the undertakings involved.
    Mr. Graham White: Could not Mersey-side be included in the conference?
    Mr. Grenfell: I think Merseyside ought to be included in the conference.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SITTINGS).
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider extending the time of the Sittings of the House by one hour and thus give more time to the discussions as at present it is too limited?
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): My hon. Friend will be aware that the hours of Sitting were recently extended, and I do not think that it would be desirable at present to propose a further extension.
  Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to-day there will be a discussion on mining, and I can vouch for it that there will not be sufficient time to exhaust the matter?
  Mr. Magnay: Would it not be a far simpler plan to ask the Front Benchers on both sides to restrict their speeches to reasonable limits? They not only take a good deal of time, but they encroach on eternity.
  Mr. Attlee: I said that this matter was being studied. The position is being watched from time to time.
  Mr. Levy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a consensus of opinion, certainly on this side of the House, that there is no need to extend the hours of Sitting at all, and that to do so would be only for the benefit of the Opposition?

  DEFENCE (GENERAL) REGULATIONS, 1939 (PRIVILEGE).
  Mr. Priceasked the Prime Minister whether he will afford Parliamentary time for the discussion of the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean concerning Defence (General) Regulations, 1939 (Privilege), and the rights of this House to have information through a Committee of Privilege about the causes for the detention of a Member?
  [That this House do consider necessary an amendment to Regulation 18B of Defence (General) Regulation, 1939, and that for the future, if any member be arrested and detained under this Regulation, the Minister of Home Security do furnish to a Committee of Privilege set up by this House evidence, if necessary in secret, that the said member has been guilty of acts which debar him from the protection of privilege.]
  Mr. Attlee: I regret that the present state of public business affords no opportunity for discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Price: Would the Lord Privy Seal have any objection if the matter was raised on the Adjournment?
  Mr, Attlee: I doubt whether this is a suitable subject to be debated on the Adjournment Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a word with me.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    REINFORCED BREAD.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the report of the Scientific Food Committee supporting the synthetically reinforced loaf was unanimous; and, if not, which members of that committee differed from the majority?
    Mr. Attlee: It is contrary to accepted practice to give information in answer to Questions of this kind, and I am not prepared to make an exception in this case
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Lord Privy Seal consider publishing the report, in view of the muddle which has been created, and the fact that the policy of the Government is now only a half-measure?
    Mr. Attlee: I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement. I think the muddle is in his own mind.
    Mr. Logan: Would the right hon. Gentleman arrange for bread to be taken out of sausages?

    SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what number of prosecutions for illegal slaughtering of animals have taken place in the last six months; and whether a close watch is being kept in this matter?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George):During the six months ended 31st December, 1940, the latest period in respect of which figures are available, 106 such prosecutions have been instituted. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Parker: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a lot of talk about slaughtering being done on the sly, and is he taking steps to strengthen machinery for inquiring into such rumours?
    Major Lloyd George: A very close watch is being kept on the situation.

    POULTRY INDUSTRY.
    Sir A. Maitlandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties of the poultry industry and the prospect of scarcity of eggs next winter; and what steps are being taken in connection therewith?
    Major Lloyd George: I am aware of the difficulties of the poultry industry and of the present and prospective shortage of eggs due to the shortage of feeding-stuffs. I can, however, hold out no hope that it will be possible for some time to come to increase the supplies of feeding-stuffs for poultry.

    MEAT RATION.
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why the meat ration has been varied so frequently and drastically; and whether his Department's stock books reveal, from day to day, a true record of actual stocks on hand available for distribution to the civil population?
    Major Lloyd George: Supplies of both home-produced and imported meat inevitably fluctuate through the year. The size of the meat ration has been and will continue to be regulated from time to time in accordance with the supply position. There have been four changes in the meat ration since March, 1940, when meat rationing began. As regards the second part of the Question, the Ministry possesses full information regarding stocks of imported meat and the numbers of livestock in this country.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that officers of his Department are visiting cold stores and demanding delivery of several hundred tons of meat which were drawn out two or three months before for the Service Departments, and is it conceivable that the ration would have been juggled about as it has been within the space of two months if his records were correct?
    Major Lloyd George:I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. There have been four changes, and it is far better to keep the meat ration flexible than to have it rigidly fixed, because if the situation improves the ration can be increased, which would be desirable. I can assure my hon. Friend that we have ample information at our disposal to tell us what the available stocks are.
    Mr. Brookeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will reconsider, with a view to a better gradation, the meat ration for a child, which is now 7d. a week from birth to the age of six, and is therefore excessive at
    150
    the beginning of the period and barely adequate for many growing children at the end?
    Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend does not consider it necessary to change the present arrangement whereby a child who will attain the age of six years before the end of a six months rationing period is issued with an adult's ration book at the beginning of the period. The ration allowed in respect of an infant is intended to be used for the benefit of the nursing mother.
    Mr. Brooke: Has my hon. and gallant Friend any medical support for the view that a child of six may eat twice as much meat as a child of five?
    Major Lloyd George: I cannot say that, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that most things that we do are done after very good advice from medical sources.
    Miss Rathbone: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the fact that a housewife with a number of young children is able to get as much meat and milk for the children as for the adults is the only compensation which she gets for not having the time or money to have meals in restaurants, which causes her to be badly hit by the rationing arrangements?

    FISH (PRICES).
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the meeting of the wholesale fish merchants that was held in Leeds, with a view to supplying cheaper fish?
    Major Lloyd George: The meeting referred to appointed a committee representative of the principal sections of the white fishing industry to prepare a scheme for the control of the price of Iceland cod. It is anticipated that the recommendations of the committee will be available at an early date.

    FLOUR (WHEAT GERM).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that the only way of retaining the wheat germ in flour is by grinding the wheat with mill-stones, he will take steps to encourage the immediate use and reconditioning of the maximum number of stone mills?
    Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend cannot agree that the only way of retaining the wheat germ in flour is by grinding with mill stones. Most proprietary brown flours, produced by roller milling, contain as high a percentage of wheat germ as stone-ground flours. As regards the last part of his Question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) on 22nd January last.
    Mr. Stokes: If I send the hon. and gallant Gentleman full technical information which shows entirely the contrary to what he says, will he have it fully examined?
    Major Lloyd George: I am always glad to accept any technical information from hon. Members.

    EGGS (PRICES).
    Mr. Snaddenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that egg prices have been reduced three times in five weeks; that producers in this industry are discouraged; and what method is employed by his Department in order to obtain accurate information regarding conditions prevailing in the poultry industry?
    Major Lloyd George: The maximum prices of home-produced eggs were reduced on 30th December, 20th January, 3rd February and 17th February. A decline in prices is usual at this season, and it is considered that the prices fixed are remunerative for producers generally. In reply to the last part of the Question, the Ministry of Food keeps in constant touch with the Agricultural Departments about conditions in the poultry industry.
    Mr. Snadden:Is my hon. and gallant Friend not aware that home producers, including many thousands of ex-Servicemen, cannot make a living at present prices? Is it the policy of the Ministry of Food to wipe them out altogether?
    Major Lloyd George: No, of course not: it is the policy of the Ministry of Food to produce as much food as possible at a price which is economic to the grower and is not excessive to the consumer. I would point out that the producers are
    152
    very well represented on the committees which deal with these things.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that hens, almost without exception, lay more eggs at this time of the year, and has not the price always come down at this time?
    Major Lloyd George: In ordinary times there is a steady decline in the price of eggs at this time of the year.
    Mr. Price: Is it not a fact that the price of eggs is about the same now as it was at this time last year?

    WEST FIFE.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the letter from the Cowdenbeath Co-operative Society, sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife, drawing attention to the scarcity of essential commodities; and what steps does he propose to take to see that the Co-operative Society gets its full share of those commodities?
    Major Lloyd George: The letter in question refers to the representations from the Cowdenbeath Co-operative Society and other organisations in the West Fife coalfield on the necessity of increasing the allotment of beef and cheese available to miners. As regards meat, it is not possible to increase the present ration. As regards cheese, I would point out that supplies to the mining area of West Fife are above the average for the country as a whole but the possibility of improving distribution is being considered.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there is very bitter complaint in many parts of the country about what is considered to be discrimination against Co-operative societies, and may I also ask whether the Government have given consideration to the proposals for good distribution which were published in the "Daily Worker" before its suppression?
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this allegation is quite unfounded?
    Major Lloyd George: I am glad to have an opportunity of saying that there is not the slightest foundation whatever for these

    153
    complaints. The Co-operative societies get their full share of available supplies.

    MILK (PRICE).
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the increase in the price of milk from 4½d. per pint to 5½d. per pint?
    Major Lloyd George: Owing to the increased costs of production and distribution since the out break of war, the retail price of milk may, in accordance with the Milk (Retail prices) Order dated 23rd November, 1940, be increased by an amount not exceeding id. per pint as compared with the price charged for milk of a similar description on the corresponding date during 1939. The prices commonly charged for ordinary milk in February, 1939, were 3d. or 3½d. per pint according to locality. Special designated milks were sold at higher prices. The permitted increase of id. per pint applies to all kinds of milk.

    CHEESE.
    Mr. Priceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the importance of increasing the supply of cheese for mining districts and for agricultural workers, he will take steps to nave a certain quantity of surplus milk; this spring made into cheese?
    Major Lloyd George: Each year a substantial proportion of the milk which is surplus to liquid requirements is manufactured into cheese. During 1941 my noble Friend is arranging for a considerably increased proportion of such surplus milk to be made into cheese.

    UNRATIONED MEAT (SHORT HEALTH, STAFFORDSHIRE).
    Mr. Manderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will take steps to remedy the situation created at Short Heath, Staffordshire, whereby the local butchers have been prohibited from selling any unrationed meat, with the result that the residents have to go two miles to Willenhall to try and satisfy their needs, thus placing them at considerable disadvantage in obtaining such food as may be available and creating unnecessary queues?
    Major Lloyd George: General butchers receive in excess of the amount needed to
    154
    meet requirements of their registered customers a small proportion of meat which they can manufacture into beef sausages, pies, etc. No prohibition is placed on the sale of such articles. Butchers also receive small quantities of unrationed offals when available, which can be sold as such or manufactured. As regards pork sausages, I am aware that these may be difficult to obtain in some localities, and consideration is being given to the possibility of ensuring a more equitable distribution.
    Mr. Mander: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that if there had been only pork butchers in this district no difficulty would have arisen, but that it is because they are general butchers? Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see me about this after Questions?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

    COMMUNITY RESTAURANTS, LONDON.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps are being taken to develop a system of communal restaurants in London; and whether he will consider the acquisition of suitable empty premises in various parts of London for this purpose forthwith?
    Major Lloyd George: The London County Council already have a well-developed system of community restaurants in London which are known as the "Londoners' Meal Service ". This service has about 150 centres, and further centres are opened by the London County Council as required.
    Mr. Lyons: Would my hon. and gallant Friend consider taking over some of the communal restaurants which are outside the London County Council's control, seeing that they are now open to the public as general restaurants?
    Major Lloyd George: I will look into that matter.

    CATERING ESTABLISHMENTS.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can now announce whether measures are to be taken compulsorily to restrict the supply of foodstuffs at public restaurants, hotels, clubs, and the like; from what date such orders will be effective and whether they will be accompanied by price control?
    Major Lloyd George: The supply of rationed foods to public restaurants, hotels, clubs and all other catering establishments is already restricted. My Noble Friend proposes to make an Order at an early date with a view to regulating the consumption of food in catering establishments, but this Order will not contain any provision for the control of prices in catering establishments.
    Mr. Lyons: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider making that Order as soon as possible, so that for once, at any rate, there is no time lag between public opinion and the Ministry?
    Major Lloyd George: I do not know what the hon. and learned Member means by that, but I can assure him that it is only a matter of days before the Order will be out.
    Captain Cunningham-Reidasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship caused to small caterers by having to compete with canteens and communal feeding centres, who are able to obtain supplies at low prices; and whether he will take steps to protect the livelihood of these caterers?
    Major Lloyd George: Works canteens and community kitchens are being established with the main object of securing, as far as possible, that one adequate meal should be obtained by persons who, owing to war-time conditions, might otherwise be unable to obtain it. Speaking generally, the communal feeding centres are established only where suitable catering facilities are not otherwise available and they do not occupy a privileged position in regard to buying facilities.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: I suppose that what it amounts to is that in wartime it is quite impossible to protect all interests?

    CONFECTIONERY.
    Viscountess Astorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the increase in the demand for sweets, he will consider allowing more sugar to the confectionery trade and less to breweries?
    Major Lloyd George: Instructions have already been issued maintaining the allocations of sugar to the confectionery
    156
    trade and to the brewers at their present levels during March and April. My Noble Friend will give my hon. Friend's suggestion careful consideration when the allocations for May and June are determined.
    Mr. Woods: Is the Minister aware that in reception areas, where there are large numbers of children, practically all the sweetshops are closed, owing to lack of supplies, while in evacuation areas, where the numbers of children are reduced, there are still large quantities of sweets? Will he arrange that reception areas may get more adequate supplies of sweets?
    Major Lloyd George: Certainly; but the hon. Member will be aware that the distribution is largely in the hands of the manufacturers themselves. They have full information as to the areas to which children have gone, and they are doing their best to make arrangements. But I will look into the matter.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Does my hon. and gallant Friend recognise that the more sweets children eat, the worse their teeth become?
    Viscountess Astor: Does my hon. and gallant Friend recognise that the children of Canada and America eat more sweets than the children of the United Kingdom, and that they have better teeth?

    RABBITS.
    Mr. Price(for Mr. Jackson) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that a large multiple store in Birmingham called Lewis's, who in the past have not been sellers of rabbits for food, are now one of the largest, if not the largest, sellers of this commodity in the town, and that by allowing one firm to obtain such a large share of this commodity he is causing a great hardship to many small traders who have in the past sold this commodity as part of their ordinary trade; and will he, wherever unfair distribution is taking place in other towns, consider rationing them to the shops?
    Major Lloyd George: Rabbits are controlled only in respect of the maximum wholesale and retail prices, and I see no reason to interfere with the trade in obtaining such supplies as are available.

    POTATO BARS.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the opening of potato snack bars; how many have been opened; and who supplies them with potatoes?
    Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend has decided to encourage the establishment of potato bars wherever suitable facilities may exist, as one means of stimulating the consumption of this nutritious home-grown food. So far, only one potato bar has actually been opened, but my Noble Friend is aware of proposals for opening others. The firms concerned will obtain their supplies of potatoes through the usual trade channels.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Is it possible to get a more attractive name for these potato snack bars?
    Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Member can think of one, I shall be glad to see it.

    NUTRITION (CALCIUM).
    Sir Ernest Graham-Littleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will cause evidence to be published in regard to the percentage of the population who, under the present dietary regime, are exhibiting calcium deficiency; and will he also publish a statement by a recognised medical authority that the added calcium will in no circumstances injure health, or else withdraw the proposal?
    Major Lloyd George: Evidence that a considerable proportion of the population lives on diets which do not supply sufficient calcium for a desirable nutritional condition has been provided by dietary surveys. This evidence has been accepted by the leading nutritional experts at such representative conferences as the Technical Commission on Nutrition of the Health Organisation of the League of Nations, and has been published in the reports of the League of Nations. My Noble Friend will consider the last part of my hon. Friend's Question before a decision is taken as to the quantity of calcium salts to be added to flour.
    Sir E. Graham-Little: Will my hon. and gallant Friend keep in mind that this is a question to be determined by clinical
    158
    observation and not by laboratory experiments, and will he see that the medical authority consulted has the necessary clinical equipment?
    Sir E. Graham-Littleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Medical Research Council is at present examining all the aspects of the proposal to add calcium to bread, and not merely the quantity and methods; and why this problem had not been fully investigated before the Government announced its intention to add calcium to flour?
    Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The Medical Research Council made its recommendation before the Government announcement to which reference is made in the Question.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

    WOOL.
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Minister of Supply whether he will consider the case of the "Where-lying-in-Scotland"price for Blackface wool for export to the United States of America, which is. 2d.per lb., or more, and the price paid to farmers only is. 0½d.; and whether he is satisfied as to the propriety of retaining this profit when many hill farmers are in need?
    The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): The difference between the two prices is not sufficient to cover the costs incurred in dealing with the wool from the time of taking over from the farmer to the time of sale for export. As my hon. Friend was informed on 6th February, there is no profit to the Government.
    Mr. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend investigate the costs mentioned in the Question? Will he bear in mind that the difference in peace-time amounted to only one-eighth of a penny a pound; and will he take into account that when the is. o½d. price was fixed, Blackface mutton was badly wanted by the Government and Blackface wool was an unwanted commodity, but that the position is entirely different to-day? The 1930 clip has been sold, and the major part of the 1940 clip has been sold, and the industry is facing bankruptcy.
    Sir A. Duncan: That raises considerations quite different from those in the Question, but I will certainly keep those points in mind.

    MOTOR-CARS (PURCHASE PRICE).
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Supply whether his attention has been called to an offer published on behalf of the Director of Mechanisation of his Department to purchase 20 horse-power motor-cars less than three years old, at the original price, less 10 per cent, per annum depreciation; whether he is aware that this rate is in direct conflict with the basis upon which motor-cars have hitherto been requisitioned and is an increase thereon; that this rate is higher than is payable under the Defence Regulations, which prohibit increased appreciation due to the emergency; and what steps he proposes to take to disclaim this offer and to prevent this proposed increased expenditure?
    Sir A. Duncan: The offer referred to is strictly limited to a small number of cars required to meet a special and urgent demand from the War Office. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's statement that the terms offered conflict with the basis to which he refers. I can assure him that only cars in such condition as to justify the expenditure involved will be selected.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to arrange that companies which owe Excess Profits Tax will not be pressed for payment in cases where the companies can show that such payment would cause them serious embarrassment owing to their own accounts with Governmnet Departments being overdue for payment?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) was given on 28th November last.
    Mr. Simmonds: Whatever that Reply was, can my right hon. and gallant Friend say that in the next few weeks he will see that the authorities treat these people a little more fairly than they have done in the past?
    Captain Crookshank: I think my hon. Friend had better see what the Reply was.

    INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGES.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that no undertaking with regard to the restoration of the international exchanges on a pre-war basis will be given to the Government of the United States of America without first consulting this House?
    Captain Crookshank: No question of such an undertaking has arisen, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to give an assurance relating to a hypothetical, and vague, contingency.
    Mr. Stokes: Has the attention of the Financial Secretary been called to statements in prominent financial newspapers, that an undertaking of this kind has been given? Will he give an assurance that that is not correct?
    Captain Crookshank: I am not responsible for what is in the newspapers. I have stated categorically, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that no such undertaking has been given.

    PURCHASE TAX (DRUGS).
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the present incidence of the Purchase Tax as between doctors and chemists leads to great anomalies and difficulties; and whether he will appoint a technical committee within his Department to re-draft the list of drug sat present scheduled?
    Captain Crookshank: I have no reason to think that the operation of the Purchase Tax has the effect suggested, but if my hon. Friend cares to send me the information on which he bases his statement I will inquire into the matter.

  WASTE.
  Sir L. Lyleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number and nature of complaints of waste and extravagance which have been brought to the notice of the Treasury, and which have been investigated?
  Captain Crookshank: I presume that the hon. Member has in mind what my right hon. Friend said in the House on this subject on 6th February. I am afraid that no central record is available of the miscellaneous complaints which

  161
  have been made in the course of day-today correspondence. My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that all are investigated in consultation with the Department concerned.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
  Mr. Simmondsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether there is in his Ministry a department appropriately staffed and responsible that all new buildings shall be constructed as far as possible in accordance with the lessons learned from hostile air attack?
  Mr. Hicks: The Department of the Ministry responsible for the design and construction of new buildings is furnished with all information on the effects of hostile air attack, and steps are taken to ensure that provision is made for suitable air-raid precautions in all building schemes undertaken by the Ministry.
  Mr. Simmonds: Is my hon. Friend quite satisfied that the Minister has power to see that those who are constructing these buildings carry out the recommendations of the Department?
  Mr. Hicks: That is another question. The buildings that come under the control of the Ministry of Works and Buildings are the only ones for which I am able to answer, and I have given the answer that in each case provision is made for suitable precautions.
  Mr. Simmonds: Does the Minister mean to say that all other buildings are being put up in accordance with designs of the pre-war standard?
  Mr. Hicks: I did not say anything of the kind.
  Mr. Simmonds: Is the Minister aware that this is a very serious matter?

  BRITISH CONVOY (ENEMY CLAIM).
  Mr. Shinwell(by Private Notice): asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make on the reported loss of 13 vessels in convoy, and whether these vessels were under protection?
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As I have already warned my hon. Friend, it is not possible to answer his Question without assisting the enemy, which would not be in the public interest. My hon. Friend should not, however, assume that the reports broadcast by the enemy are correct.
  Mr. Shinwell:May I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not the case that a full report has appeared in the American Press and that the statement has also appeared that this very important convoy, in which 13 or 14 vessels were lost, had no protection whatever? Are these facts not well enough known to the enemy, and are we always to shield ourselves by complaining about questions being raised which may give information to the enemy; and is it not also desirable to expose anything in the nature of deficiencies in order to protect our shipping and our merchant seamen?
  Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend, at the beginning of that Supplementary Question, fell into the same error as before; he assumed that the statements of the enemy were correct.
  Mr. Shinwell: No.
  Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend said "in which 13 or 14 ships were lost," which is the statement of the enemy. It is a statement that I do not accept — I have already said that I do not accept it — any more than I accepted the report in the case of a previous convoy in the Atlantic, where their claims were grossly exaggerated. I cannot add anything effective to the answer I have already given to my hon. Friend, except to say that, on the principle laid down at the beginning of the operations of the present Government, when it comes to a question of giving information to the enemy, it is quite open to Members of the House at any time to ask the Prime Minister whether we can have a Secret Session. I should always be happy then, with the consent of the Prime Minister, to deal with the matter with the confidence that the House deserves.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend now say that the statement which has appeared in the American Press to the effect that 13 vessels have been lost is untrue?
  Mr. Speaker: The Minister has said that he has nothing more to say.
  Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the statement which has just been made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord, he is willing to have a secret Debate on this matter, and whether he will afford facilities for such a Debate?
  Mr. Attlee: I will bring that matter before the Prime Minister.
  Sir William Davison: Is it not most undesirable that these questions should be put?
  Mr. G. Griffiths: How many questions have you put?
  Sir W. Davison: Not one contrary to the national interest.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is it not in the national interest to expose muddle?
  Mr. Speaker: The Minister has already made a statement.
  Sir W. Davison: Leave it to the Admiralty; it is their duty to protect convoys.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he is in a position to make a statement of the Business to be taken on the third Sitting Day?
Mr. Attlee: On the third Sitting Day we shall take the Report stage of outstanding Civil Supplementary Estimates; Second Reading of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution, and Second Readings of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill (Lords), and of the Air-Raid Precautions (Postponement of Financial Investigation) Bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1941 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £192,055,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Education and Broadcasting, Pensions, Health and Unemployment Insurance, Unemployment Assistance, Roads and other grants and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, namely:

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1941 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).

    CIVIL ESTIMATES.
    CLASS VI.

    £

    Mines Department of the Board of Trade

    94,000

    CLASS I.

    House of Lords Offices

    25,000

    House of Commons

    155,000

    Registration of Electors

    20,000

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    194,000

    Privy Council Office.

    5,550

    Privy Seal Office

    2,500

    Charity Commission

    13,600

    Civil Service Commission

    13,250

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    75,000

    Government Actuary

    11,300

    Government Chemist

    31,800

    Import Duties Advisory Committee

    19,000

    The Mint

    10

    National Debt Office

    500

    National Savings Committee

    93,000

    Public Record Office

    14,000

    Public Works Loan Commission

    7,500

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    36,600

    Royal Commissions, etc.

    10,000

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    17,000

    Secret Service

    10

    Tithe Redemption Commission

    10

    Scotland:

    Scottish Home Department

    79,000

    CLASS II.

    Foreign Office

    270,000

    Diplomatic and Consular Services

    900,000

    League of Nations

    75,000

    Dominions Office

    24,000

    Dominions Services

    80,000

    £

    Oversea Settlement

    5,000

    Colonial Office

    80,000

    Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

    1,800,000

    Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)

    220,000

    Development and Welfare (South African High Commission etc.) Territories,

    8,000

    India and Burma Services

    720,000

    Imperial War Graves Commission

    500

    CLASS III.

    Home Office

    475,000

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    35.500

    Police, England and Wales

    6,600,000

    Prisons, England and Wales

    650,000

    Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales

    180,000

    Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

    10

    County Courts

    70,000

    Land Registry

    52,000

    Public Trustee

    9,000

    Law Charges

    60,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    35,000

    Scotland:

    Police

    275,000

    Prisons

    55,000

    Approved Schools, etc.

    24,000

    Scottish Land Court

    3,500

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    20,900

    Register House, Edinburgh

    9,000

    Ireland:

    Northern Ireland Services

    3,500

    Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ire-Land

    17,400

    Irish Land Purchase Services

    624,500

    CLASS IV.

    Board of Education

    19,000,000

    British Museum

    72,000

    British Museum (Natural History)

    45,000

    Imperial War Museum

    4,200

    London Museum

    1,400

    National Gallery

    11,000

    National Maritime Museum

    3,500

    National Portrait Gallery

    3,000

    Wallace Collection

    4,300

    Scientific Investigation, etc.

    120,000

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

    1,000,000

    Broadcasting

    2,000,000

    Scotland:

    Public Education

    3,400,000

    National Galleries

    4,500

    National Library

    1,500

    CLASS V.

    Ministry of Health

    7,000,000

    Board of Control

    82,000

    Registrar-General's Office...

    67,800

    National Insurance Audit Department

    57,000

    Friendly Societies Registry

    17,000

    £

    Old Age Pensions

    17,700,000

    Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions

    6,500,000

    Ministry of Labour and National Service

    12,450,000

    Grants in respect of Employment Schemes

    800,000

    Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales)

    10

    Assistance Board

    6,500,000

    Special Areas Fund

    500,000

    Financial Assistance in Special and other Areas

    70,000

    Supplementary Pensions

    10,000,000

    Scotland.

    Department of Health

    1,550,000

    Board of Control

    6,500

    Registrar-General's Office

    12,200

    Commissioner for Special Areas (Scotland)

    10

    Class VI.

    Board of Trade

    220,000

    Mercantile Marine Services

    320,000

    Department. of Overseas Trade

    150,000

    Export Credits

    125,000

    Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

    12,000

    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

    1,600,000

    Land Fertiliy Improvement

    600,000

    Surveys of Great Britain

    200,000

    Forestry Commission

    150,000

    Ministry of Transport

    250,000

    Roads, etc.

    3,000,000

    Development Fund

    200,000

    Development Grants

    172,990

    Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

    210,000

    State Management Districts

    10

    Clearing Offices

    10

    Scotland:

    Department of Agriculture

    175,000

    Fisheries

    13,200

    Herring Industry

    300

    CLASS VII.

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    64,000

    Houses of Parliament Buildings

    27,000

    Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain

    153,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    45,000

    Osborne

    8,000

    Ministry of Works and Buildings

    303,000

    Public Buildings, Great Britain

    1,044,000

    Public Buildings Overseas

    40,000

    Royal Palaces

    37,000

    Revenue Buildings

    490,000

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    75,000

    Rates on Government Property

    2,500,000

    £

    Stationery and Printing

    1,300,000

    Peterhead Harbour

    6,000

    Works and Buildings in Ireland

    17,000

    CLASS VIII.

    Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

    80,000

    Ministry of Pensions

    15,000,000

    Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

    480,000

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    1,000,000

    CLASS IX.

    Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

    18,000,000

    Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland

    2,285,000

    UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (War Services)

    10

    Department of Agriculture, Scotland (War Services)

    10

    Ministry of Aircraft Production

    10

    Ministry of Economic Warfare

    10

    Ministry of Food

    10

    Ministry of Health (War Services)

    10

    Department of Health, Scotland (War Services)

    10

    Ministry of Home Security

    10

    Ministry of Information

    10

    Petroleum Department of the Board of Trade

    10

    Ministry of Shipping

    10

    Ministry of Supply

    10

    Reserve of Plant and Building Materials

    10

    Total for Civil Estimates

    £153,635,000

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    Customs and Excise

    2,220,000

    Inland Revenue

    3,200,000

    Post Office

    33,000,000

    Total for Revenue Departments

    £38,420,000

    Total for Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments

    £192,055,000"

    COAL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. T. Smith: I beg to move, "That Item Class VI (Mines Department of the Board of Trade), be reduced by £100."
    This Vote is very wide, and I want specifically to raise certain questions connected with the Mines Department and mining generally, and it is in order to confine the discussion to these matters

    179
    that I am moving to reduce the Vote for the Mines Department by £100. In happier days this was the one Sitting of Parliament to which a good many of my hon. Friends used to look forward because it enabled us to review all the ramifications in the mining industry in regard to production, distribution, safety, and any question that we wanted to bring up. To-day I want to devote my remarks mainly to questions concerned with the production and distribution of coal supplies, a Debate, which, I think, by general consent is long overdue. But before doing so, there is a number of questions that I want to ask the Secretary for Mines, and I must say that I regret that he is not at present in his place. I do not want to have to deal with purely mining matters in connection with the Department without the Secretary for Mines being present. I had much rather sit down at the moment than continue in his absence. If we can have the assurance that the Secretary for Mines will be in his place within a few minutes I will proceed to deal with the particular things that I want to raise. He ought to have been here by now.
    There is a number of questions I want to ask the Secretary for Mines. First, in regard to accidents in mines and safety measures generally, I notice that in 1940 — that is, the last complete year— there were 910 persons killed in the mines of Great Britain, above and below ground, the highest figure for 10 years, with the exception of 1934, when the Gresford disaster, unfortunately, swelled the total. I would like to know from my hon. Friend whether he can tell the Committee and the country what was the explanation for the increase in fatal accidents in the mines of Great Britain during 1940, in view of the fact that we had a most searching Royal Commission a few years ago, of which my hon. Friend was a most distinguished member, and, also, in view of the fact that there are fewer mineworkers in the pits than some years ago. I know that in the past most of us have made long and strong speeches with regard to accidents in mines and that we have laid particular blame on many occasions on the Administration which has happened to be in office. I can recall vividly some of the things I have said myself to some of the holders of the office which my hon. Friend now occupies.
    180
    To-day I would like to put some searching questions to my hon. Friend. May I say that I do not intend to offer my remarks in any spirit of hostility, either to him or to the Administration in general, because I know some of the difficulties? Nevertheless, I intend to put my point of view strongly, because I think the present situation warrants it. I see that my hon. Friend has now come in. In pit terms, he seems to have "missed the morning tub," and in order that he may attune his mind to what I am saying, I will recall what I said a few minutes ago, although I detest repetition. I said that in 1940 there were killed in this country, above and below ground in the mining industry, 910 persons. That was the highest figure for the last 10 years with the exception of1924, when the Gresford accident unfortunately swelled the total. Even though we are at war, we have the right to have some regard for the safety and welfare of those who produce and distribute the coal. I asked whether my hon. Friend could give the Committee any cogent reasons why that figure should show so much increase. The year before we were priding ourselves on the lowest figure for a good many years; it was 127 fewer than the year before. Now we are much perturbed at the increase. Having regard to what was said at Question time about the reasonable length of speeches, I will not go into too much detail, but I would like to know what is the explanation. Is it, for example, due to any speeding-up, or is it due to an increase in machine mining? I suspect that the largest increase will be from falls of grounds. Has that any relation to the kind of timber which is being used to-day, or is there some explanation of which we are not aware?
    My hon. Friend did his best, not merely on the Royal Commission but in connection with the explosion at Gresford, and I want to ask him whether he can give us an assurance that even though we are war there is no slackening off either on the part of the inspectorate in pits or in any other way. Is all being done that can be done to make life in the mining industry as safe as possible, while recognising that as long as there is mining it will always be a dangerous and arduous industry? I would like to ask him how many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission have been put into

    181
    operation. I recognise that we cannot discuss on this Vote matters which need new legislation, but there are certain recommendations in that Report which can be introduced by regulation if not by legislation. How many have been put into operation or are under consideration at the present moment by those concerned? I know of one, and that is with regard to workmen's inspectors. This recommendation is well on the way towards operation. In one of the first speeches I made in this House I advocated that Section 16 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, which gave the right to miners to appoint any two people, not mining engineers, to inspect their pit at least once a month was not adequate. I said that protection ought to be given to those mines' inspectors, that they ought to be guaranteed against victimisation and that they ought to work as freely and as independently as possible without any reaction. I was pleased indeed to read in the Report that at long last there were to be "fifty-fifty" payments. This recommendation, which has been discussed in my own district, is one which will allow the type of man they will get to see that the duties are carried out.
    Have my hon. Friend's Department or any committee of the Department or people concerned with the matter considered what kind of new Mines Bill can be put on the Statute Book when times become favourable? In the report of the Royal Commission there were some excellent recommendations. There is, I believe, among those who know mining or who have read and studied the Report a general desire that the mining legislation of this country should be overhauled. I am not expecting the impossible during war-time; but I think somebody, if it is not already being done, ought to think out the kind of Mines Bill that we can discuss at a favourable opportunity. I would like my hon. Friend to give us some idea of what is being done in that direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and others have been asking questions recently with regard to pits which have been closed, and having the distinction of being the only man who has served as Parliamentary Private Secretary to each of the three Labour Secretaries for Mines, I know a little about the powers of the Department. I
    182
    want to ask, however, what power the Department have to deal with a pit which threatens to close?
    During the last war we attended huge conferences, sometimes 1,500,2,000 or 3,000 strong, at which the present Lord Chancellor and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) impressed upon us that the production of coal was absolutely vital for the winning of the war, not merely coal for burning in open grates, but for making coke, for carbonisation, etc. They spurred us on to do our best. In these days, when a pit is threatening to close, that is, I think, a serious situation. It is not sufficient for mine owners to write to the Department and say that for economic or other reasons they propose to close a pit and that is the end of it. It is not sufficient for somebody to go to the manager and ask what is the difficulty in regard to the pit. In war-time there ought to be an overriding authority to say whether the pit should be closed or whether it is necessary to keep it going. We ought to have some control of it, and I would like to know what my hon. Friend intends to do in such cases. One of the pits which has been referred to is in Lancashire, but we have trouble brewing in other districts. In the past there have been arguments by mine owners that they were not able to keep going, but they did manage to keep going, and I would like to know the Department's attitude to this kind of thing. Coal is still very vital and will be vital as long as man lives and industry continues. I ask the Minister has he sufficient powers to deal with this situation, and if not, will he have the courage to ask for those powers? If he does so, I am sure Parliament will not refuse them.
    I turn now to the question of production and supply, and I am pleased indeed to see that the Minister of Transport is in his place. I believe that in connection with this subject the Mines Department has been carrying a burden which is not altogether its own. Twelve months ago, before the advent of this Government, the present Secretary for Petroleum, then Secretary for Mines, escaped scot-free from criticism while the late Captain Euan Wallace, as Minister of Transport, had to stand a good deal of criticism for the lack of proper distribution. In the last four

    183
    or five months, however, all criticisms and questions in regard to this matter seem to be directed to the Mines Department, and in my opinion the Ministry of Transport have not been getting that amount of criticism which they deserve. I have here a large number of figures concerning the present production of coal in different districts. I would be the last to reveal any figures which might be helpful to the enemy, and therefore I shall speak to-day in more general terms than I would use otherwise, but if I am challenged, I shall be prepared to prove my statements by giving the figures; I do not think, however, that any of my hon. Friends would dispute the facts which I am about to present.
    When France and the Low Countries went out of the war and ceased taking our coal, production was bound to be upset. Districts like South Wales, Durham and Northumberland, which relied upon the export trade for their existence, were bound to suffer and did suffer terribly. The trouble in those districts is, largely, loss of markets due to the war and the very fact that those markets have been lost leaves a number of problems in those districts which will have to be tackled sooner or later. I speak on behalf of my hon. Friends behind me and not for any particular district, but I think I have a right to concentrate attention on the position in the export districts. I know the figures of loss of production. I know that a compensation scheme has been put into operation in order to keep certain pits ready in case they are required for production. But I also know that in some districts a social problem has been created. We hear a great deal to-day from responsible Ministers to the effect that we must never again have special or distressed areas in this country. Unless some of the problems to which I refer are tackled I am afraid we shall have acute social problems— if they do not already exist— in those affected areas.
    What has the Department in mind for dealing with the immediate problems in those districts? I know that discussions have taken place with a view to finding the best way of dealing with these difficulties in the export areas. I know that efforts have been made to divert a certain quantity of that coal into the inland
    184
    market and those districts, hard hit as they have been by the war, are entitled to a fair share of whatever inland trade is going. But the problem is not an easy one to solve. If all the coal in the country were of the same quality and the same price it would be much simpler. There is, however, a vast difference both in calorific value and price between the coal production of the various districts and it is not always easy to divert certain classes of coal which have normally gone across the sea to the inland market in sufficient quantities to enable the pits to remain in production. I ask my hon. Friend to take us into his confidence and to tell the men in those areas what scheme is being thought out, now, to deal with the immediate problem.
    If the difficulty in the districts to which I have referred is due to loss of markets, we have a different problem in the Midlands amalgamated area. That district was urged by the Ministry of Supply and the Mines Department to produce as much coal as possible, because it was centrally situated and had less to fear from attack and could produce more coal, comparatively undisturbed, than the other districts. That big district was anxious and willing to produce all the coal it could, but we find that for the last 17 weeks, up to the end of January, that district has lost, through shortage of wagons alone, more than 3,250,000 tons of coal. Yorkshire, both South and West, has lost out of that total, more than 1,000,000 tons in the last 17 weeks. This has created a good deal of concern. It has aroused a certain amount of hostility and bitterness; the position is far from satisfactory and unless tackled at once it will, in my opinion, grow worse.
    That district, anxious and willing, as I say, to produce all the coal it could, immediately advised the Mines Department and the Government what the situation was and pointed out that solely owing to lack of transport, pits were not working full time and that they could produce considerably more coal if they could get the wagons to carry away the coal. In October they met the local railway companies. Those railway companies admitted frankly that they had not sufficient wagons to convey the coal from the pits. They were very helpful, as some of these coal controllers, men whom we know, always are. They were helpful, but they

    185
    were frank. The position did not improve. Then there was a meeting with the railway executive in London at which the South Wales District also was represented. It was stated that there were 24,000 wagons surplus to requirements, 15,000 on the Great Western Railway and 9,000 on the Southern Railway, and that a large number of those wagons would be released and sent to the Midlands area where they could be used. Those 24,000 wagons represented a carrying capacity of 250,000 tons of coal. It was also stated that in one particular district there were 3,000 wagons standing full which had been there since July.
    Both the Minister of Transport and the Secretary for Mines, in answer to Questions, have stated, I believe rightly, that a good many of these wagons have been released and are now in commission, but the point is, to what places have the 10,000 wagons been sent? Will my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines say that they have been sent to the Midland area? If he says that, I can only say that somebody somewhere is not quite telling a straight story. The miners' leaders and the colliery owners in the Midland area deny that the wagons have been sent there. I ask my hon. Friend to tell the Midland amalgamated district and the workers there, some of whom have been working less than four days a week— and in one pit in my division less than three days a week— where these wagons have gone. If they have not been sent to the Midland area, why cannot they be sent there?
    The first thing we have to do is to win the war. I am far from being a prophet, but unless the problem of transport is tackled, I am sure we shall have a worse position next winter than we have now. A; a proof of that statement, let me say that we are at the present time consuming in this country 10 per cent, more coal than we are producing. We have been drawing on stocks. Unless the transport problem is remedied, there will be the possibility of a coal famine next winter. There is also an industrial side to the matter. In certain counties where industries have grown, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) knows, it has been a question not merely of a shortage of household coal but a shortage of industrial coal. The South Yorkshire coal owners are in the position that they cannot produce the requisite amount of coal
    186
    and coke for munitions work. The position is serious, and it must be tackled.
    Let me say, quite sincerely, that I know the position is not quite as bad now as it was last winter. This is due, first, to the fact that we have had a less severe winter, and secondly, to the fact that my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines succeeded in getting large quantities of coal stored in various parts of the country. For this he is entitled to a word of praise. In addition, many householders responded to the appeal to stock their cellars. These stocks, both in dumps and in cellars, were not big enough. We ought to be stocking from April to September against the eventualities of the winter. There is, however, a weakness in regard to stocking in cellars. I listened to the broadcast speech of my hon. Friend— and I have seen in the Press a castigation of that speech— and I am bound to say that when he asked neighbours to help one another, which is quite a natural thing to do and the thing that is done a good deal, it was certainly an admission that the situation was not as satisfactory as it might be. It was an admission of failure almost with regard to adequate distribution.
    Let it not be forgotten that there are thousands of people who would be only too glad and willing to put coal into cellars if they had room and if they had enough money to buy the coal. One of the complaints, particularly in the South of England, is this. People ask why there is so much difference between the pithead price of coal and the price which they have to pay. That is an old complaint and it is one on which explanations could be given, but not at this moment. The fact is that when household coal is sold in the South at £3 and £3 5s. a ton, it makes people ask a few questions. On the question of distribution, I do not want to give too many detailed cases. There has been quite a number of complaints of a shortage of coal. Questions by the score have been put to the Minister, and the Department have received hundreds of letters complaining about shortages. Some of the coal merchants have said that, with the best will in the world, they cannot supply coal to people, simply because they have not got it. The problem must be tackled.
    One complaint is that wagons are not being turned round sufficiently quickly.

    187
    All of us agree that they ought to be turned round quickly and taken back. Frequently it is argued that, if the present powers of the Government concerning demurrage charges were put into operation, the position would be better. I want the Secretary for Mines, as responsible Minister, to deal with that argument, because in some respects it is fallacious. Some years ago, in the Royal Commission, when, I believe, the demurrage charge was 6d. per wagon per day, the coal owners and the coal trades association vehemently denied an increase in demurrage charges. They said it would fall upon the consumers, and they said it would cost about six times more to re-handle the coal once it was on the ground than it would when it was kept in the wagons. From the time when the demurrage charge was 6d. per wagon per day the position changed until prior to the war it was this. The demurrage charged was 3s. per day after the third day, not counting Bank Holidays and Sundays.
    At the present time, if a wagon is received before noon the charge is 3s. per day after the first 24 hours; if it is received after noon, the charge is 3s. per day after the first 24 hours, timed from midnight on the day of arrival. Here is the point. I am told that the railway companies are anxious to operate these new charges, but that the Government are reluctant to exercise their powers. I want to ask why. I think I know. I know that there have been a good many difficulties on the railways, I know that the coal merchants and depots have had difficulties; perhaps the Government do not wish to lay any further burdens upon those who have to handle coal. Believe me, there have been some difficulties. Let me say, in passing, that I think we ought on occasion to pay a tribute to those engaged in transport. With all their troubles, many remarkable things have been done. The men in the Merchant Service who are engaged in the coastwise traffic deserve all praise. Anybody who has seen the coastwise traffic on the North East coast knows that this praise is due. The same thing applies to those who are engaged on the railways. We hear a good deal about miners and other people, but very little is said about railway workers. We know some of them and meet them
    188
    at week-ends, and they deserve a word of praise, particularly the firemen, drivers and shunters, who have been working under great difficulties in the black-out and when the "alert" has been sounded.
    I wish to extract from the Government some statement of what they intend to do. Transport, like coal, has been in a chaotic state for many years. What is the real difficulty with regard to transport? We have an Executive Committee of Ministers, but I submit that in these days those Ministers have sufficient work to do without bothering about transport or coal distribution. Is there sufficient co-ordination between the Mines Department, the Ministry of Transport and the railway companies? Is it true that the railways work independently with regard to wagons, and that that fact in itself is an obstacle? If it is not true, I shall be very glad to hear it. I should like to see the Minister of Mines relieved of a good deal of the anxiety of distribution in order that he can devote himself to certain other phases of mining which deserve attention.
    Then there is the question of alternative transport, such as canals and inland waterways. What a reflection on our history is the way in which we have neglected the canals. As a boy I used to spend many hours on barges in a certain canal when canals were carrying a regular coal traffic from the pits to the wharves. To-day, scarcely a ton of coal can be seen moving on the canals. I understand some of the railway companies were responsible for the sterilisation of this traffic in order to force it on to the railways. In 1929 we were carrying on the canals and inland waterways of this country 1,500,000 tons more coal than at the present time. Now we are told in the Press that somebody is going to look at the canals. Some gentleman of very great ability is being deputed to do this work, but why do we need a sight-seeing tour of the canals and inland waterways? We know what is needed, or have we neglected them for so long that we do not?
    The complaint of this House and the country is that the Government have delayed so long in considering the question. It is not good enough that after 18 months of war somebody should now be sent to look at them. I may be told that before you can carry goods on the canals you must have the boats, and I appreciate that, but what I am trying to ascertain

    189
    is, if there is congestion on the railway, and if it be true that there are insufficient numbers of wagons and rolling-stock to deal with the problem, what alternative methods of transport are being considered. So far as the distribution of household coal is concerned, especially in the South of England, could we not use some of the empty Army wagons, which are to be seen up and down the country? Many of us see these empty wagons at week-ends, especially on the Great North Road. The people of this country are responding nobly to all appeals for increased production. Those men who are working in the munition factories certainly have the right to have warm homes for themselves and their dependants. It is not very nice for a man to sit in his home without any fire or heat, and it does not make one feel ready to respond 100 per cent. to any appeals which are made. Quite frankly, I believe that more use could have been made of these empty lorries during this severe crisis. If the Minister of Transport is responsible for the delay, he ought to quicken things up; I know something could be done.
    We have to mobilise to win this war, and I have told the Committee that we are consuming coal to-day in far greater quantities than it is being produced. That state of affairs cannot go on for very long. Coal is needed for household consumption, for industry, carbonisation, for coke and a thousand and one other purposes, and if this problem of transport is not tackled, there will be not only more Debates in Parliament but tremendous unrest in the country. Is it not time that we had all forms of domestic transport brought under one directorate— railways, canals, coastwise shipping and road transport? We have had many Debates in order to get production concentrated under one directorate, but why cannot we have transport brought under one directorate? Why cannot we have some independent over-riding body which can give decisions with regard to priority, and which can survey and take action to deal with the congestion between the pits and the points of consumption?
    I conclude by asking the Secretary for Mines and the Minister of Transport to face up to their responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister for Home Security wrote a famous slogan on
    190
    the hoardings, "Go to it."A collier said to me last Friday morning,"Tom, they told us to go to it some months ago. We are anxious and willing to go to it, but we have nothing to go to." It is a little galling for a man who is working only four days out of six in a week, and these men cannot help asking themselves whether we are out to win the war or whether we are playing at the game. I hope the Government will face up to their responsibilities and seriously tackle these problems. My final word to the Secretary for Mines is, when he replies, not to be content merely with pious hopes and wishful thinking. Let him tell us exactly what the position is, and if there arc any difficulties, what they are, and if he has not the powers, what powers he needs. I am satisfied that the Committee will give the Government and the Mines Department any such powers they may need to deal with this particular problem.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his maiden speech from the Front Bench. He has done just as well there, if not better than he ever did on the back benches, but I am surprised at his having the effrontery to move a reduction in the salary of the Secretary for Mines. Up to a few weeks ago they were working together, and his speech has shown that he could answer all the questions that he has asked. He treated his hon. Friend with the consideration that I expected of him. It would be difficult for a man who has only just left him to be unkind to him. The one question before us is whether the coal industry is organised on the best possible basis to make a substantial contribution to winning the war. I understand that discussions have been going on for a number of weeks between the Miners' Federation, members of the Trades Union Congress and the Labour party as to reorganisation of the industry. They have put forward questions which may involve legislation and therefore cannot be discussed now, but I hope that before very long we shall hear from the Secretary for Mines some reply to the suggestions that he has received.
    We are not satisfied with the present organisation of the industry. We were not satisfied with it in peace-time, and we are more dissatisfied with it in war-time. The policy of control pursued between 1914 and 1918 did not prove the

    191
    best policy to handle the industry, and the way it was dealt with after the war created disaster. I do not want any policy to be adopted during the war which may result in disaster after it, but I hope the Minister is considering some change. I feel that it is being run just the same now as before the war and that the only motive is profit. The coal-owners are to-day more concerned with safeguarding profits during and after the war, and those considerations are determining their attitude. I ask the Secretary for Mines not to be influenced too much by the coalowners' point of view. We have felt for a long time that the Ministry is far too sensitive to that influence, and its policy is often arranged in order to satisfy the coalowners. We have felt that during the war their representations have influenced the Minister of Mines more than those of the miners. After all, the men are involved in the industry just as much as the owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] I think my hon. Friends are right but I prefer to be moderate and not to exaggerate. The miners' interests are involved as much as the owners', and they can make suggestions of equal value to those of the owners. I do not want the industry to be run during the war merely to safeguard profits for the owners and with an eye to their interest after the war. There is that danger.
    The questions that my hon. Friend has raised are those that we all want to emphasise. He has referred to production and to the closing of pits. This is an outrage in Lancashire, and I want the Minister to face up to it. I do not know who is providing him with Answers at that Box, but he has not given the Answers that we expected from him. Three months ago the Bold Colliery, near St. Helen's, employing 1,200 men, closed purely owing to difficulty in financial arrangement. It is now re-opened, and we have lost the output of 200 men for three months. Someone is responsible. That is a thing that ought not to be allowed to happen. I can understand a colliery going out of production for 'geological reasons over which the Minister has no control, but I do not understand his allowing a colliery to go out for three months and then to reopen and to produce almost as much as it did three months previously. If he says
    192
    he has not the power, will he decide whether he wants the power? If he thinks he ought to have it, let him tell the House, and I know that if it was refused he would not retain office. At a time like this, finance ought not to stand in the way. The colliery returned to production because someone had risked the finance which the previous owners could not or would not risk. Something has got to be done in this kind of case. In the case of the St. George's Colliery, Tyldesley, the owners met the men and pointed out the difficulties. They said that the same coal could be got from another shaft, and the men would be transferred and everyone re-employed. We do not complain.
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): Will my hon. Friend cite a case where men have made application and been refused?
    Mr. Macdonald: I do not know that I can, but I shall cite a case presently where they got a hearing and nothing happened. What I am pointing out now is that there are times when certainly collieries are better closed, and no one objects, but problems in consequence of closing have to be dealt with. In the case of the St. George's Colliery the best arrangement in the circumstances was made.
    I want to refer now to the Lancashire Colliery which was dealt with in the Question answered to-day. The House had better know the facts. On 28th June last the Secretary for Mines received a joint deputation. They put all their difficulties before him and asked if he would attend to them. The colliery is on the verge of closing. They have sent us this letter dated 11th February:
    "In view of your Question in the House to the Secretary for Mines regarding the closing of a Lancashire Colliery, we thought we ought to let you know that we have written Mr. Grenfell to-day informing him of the position at these collieries. On 28th June last the directors of this company, with representatives of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation, interviewed the Secretary for Mines with regard to the difficulties experienced here. Since then, instead of matters improving, they have become steadily worse and it leaves the company no other alternative but to adopt a policy of, at most, a temporary suspension of winding coal which may ultimately result in the colliery closing down altogether. A decision will probably be made during the next 14 days."
    Mr. Grenfell:The complaint I have had is that whereas 600 men were employed by the company they have now 400 and are 200 short of their full complement. I have no authority to go to the employment exchange and order men to work in the mine.
    Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend has had all these difficulties before him for seven months, and if he has done his best to deal with them and has failed, that is all I want to know, and I know where I am.
    Mr. Grenfell: My hon. Friend knows what laws are passed in this House, and he knows the difficulties of this country. He knows that I have no authority to go to the Employment Exchange and send anybody to the pit.
    Mr. Macdonald: I realise that my hon. Friend has limited authority. What I want to ask him, as man to man, is, if he has not sufficient authority to carry on this industry as he thinks it ought to be carried on, especially in time of war, will he ask for further authority?
    Mr. Grenfell: My hon. Friend must really understand that I do not seek authority over the work of other Departments.
    Mr. Macdonald: I do not ask my hon. Friend to do that. All I ask him is whether he is satisfied that the authority he ran exercise is sufficient to enable him to do all he wants to do with the industry?
    Mr. Grenfell: Yes, I think so. I have not failed to do what I think is essential for want of authority within my Department. There is, however, a large number of things which are beyond my authority. Suppose, for instance, there is a shortage of steel or labour, I cannot control the steel or order men to go to work in the industry. —
    Mr. Macdonald: I accept my hon. Friend's statement if he tells me that there are sometimes things involved in the industry over which he does not desire authority—
    Mr. Grenfell: Over which I cannot exercise authority because they are extraneous to my Department.
    Mr. Macdonald: But over which my hon. Friend does not desire authority. I
    194
    want to put it straight to him, for we are colleagues of his, and we are very concerned that he should run the industry successfully. If he has not the power he desires to have, we are anxious to press him to ask for power and to put it to the Prime Minister that he has not the power which he wishes.
    Mr. Grenfell: I must recall to my hon. Friend the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal in May last, when he said that the House in an Act of Parliament gave power to the Government to do certain things. I shall use that power if it falls to my lot to do so, or I shall give up my responsibility.
    Mr. Macdonald: All I am concerned with is that my hon. Friend should have all the power he thinks he should have. He tells us that he has all the power he thinks he ought to have and that he does not feel that there is any need to have any further authority in order to control the industry. He is satisfied with the authority that he has.
    Mr. Grenfell: On the present scale. Let me put this to my hon. Friend. He knows that when I came into office in May last I said that I wanted more pit room and more men and that I wanted all the power the State could give me to get more pit room and more labour. I am no longer sure that I need more pit room; I am sure that I cannot use all the pit room that I have. I am anxious about certain things, and one of those is the supply of labour, to which I will refer when I speak.
    Mr. Macdonald: I will leave this matter where it is, with this comment. The colliery company to which I have referred is, I understand, likely to close down solely because of shortage of labour.
    Mr. Grenfell: No; my hon. Friend must really know his own case. This company has been in a bad financial way for years. The reason for that is that there are geological difficulties.
    Mr. Macdonald: I realise that, but my hon. Friend tried at Question Time to get away from it with the difficulties of men.
    Mr. Grenfell: My hon. Friend must not say that, even in the House. I have never got away from anything in my life
    Mr. Macdonald: I repeat that my hon. Friend at Question Time to-day put forward the shortage of labour at this colliery. In reply to me now he has put it forward again and he has also introduced other factors by telling me that it is a poor mine and has been in difficulties for a long time. All I want to know is whether his Ministry have, since 28th June last, done all they could have done to keep this colliery in production, or whether they have decided that they could not do anything and that the colliery had better close down.
    Mr. Grenfell: I gave an answer that we were considering doing all we can to prevent the closing of the colliery.
    Mr. Macdonald: I want to deal with the general question of the closing down of collieries, because my hon. Friend must realise that we have to face this question in our divisions. When men report at the week-ends that they have had notice to terminate their employment they naturally ask us why. They are, they say, able-bodied men and anxious to produce coal, and that coal is needed in the national interest; why, therefore, should a colliery close down? They say, "We have a good pal at the Ministry of Mines; we know Grenfell, and he is one of us; why cannot he interfere and stop the closing of the colliery?" I do not want my hon. Friend, with his well-deserved good name, to suffer because he does not possess sufficient power. He tells us, however, that he does possess it.
    Turning to the question of wagons, the Minister of Transport received my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and me some time ago. We have since received a tabular statement telling us that the number of days lost owing to shortage of wagons is a small decimal point. It is not a question of decimals, however; it is a question of men having to lose several days every month because of the shortage of wagons. It is a question of the wagons that we had in Lancashire before the war not being there now, and we want to know why. We were told that the pooling system would be to the advantage of the industry, but that has not been so in Lancashire. The Minister of Transport says that the War Office demand a certain number of wagons, but I object to other Departments holding wagons up, and they ought to be dealt
    196
    with. I can realise that in a"Blitz" it may be necessary to send wagons along the line quickly, but I do not understand why the problem of colliery wagons has not been solved before this. We in Lancashire are suffering very much from the shortage, and other parts of the country are suffering, too.
    I want to refer to the question of prices, which needs to be dealt with. I have not too much sympathy with the gas companies, for their attitude towards this question has not always been very generous. I want to refer to the company which provides my gas in the county borough of Wigan. They write to me complaining of the increase in prices since 1st January, 1936. The Minister can probably help us with his coal committees, which, I would point out incidentally, are adversely criticised in Lancashire. This company goes back to 1st January, 1936, although I do not know why, and gives me the increases that have taken place since. The total of the increase is 9s. 10d. per ton. The average cost of coal per ton for 1934–5 was 17s. 10d. That was a disgraceful figure, and I would like to call the attention of this gas company to that. It was unreasonable for them to have had coal at that price, and I shall tell them so in my reply. They should have realised that an increase on 17s. 10d. was a necessary increase. This is a corporation which is managed by my own people. The composition of the town council is in the proportions of two Labour members to one Conservative, and therefore I know that they are interested in miners' wages, and if I could tell them, which I cannot, that the whole 9s. 10d. increase in the cost of coal had gone to the miners in wages they would not complain. They are worrying because some of the middlemen are getting more than their share.
    I want the Minister to take a glance at the question of prices. I believe that many gas companies and the gas departments of local authorities have had coal far too cheaply in the past, but there is this feeling to-day about the rise in prices. My hon. Friend has pursued what appeared to be a small point, but these small points are aggravating points. If there is an increase of is. 8d. a ton we know where we are, because that means an extra 1d. per cwt. on the retail price, and if the increase is 2s. 6d. it means an extra 1½d. But sometimes we get a figure that is less than

    197
    is. 8d., or between is. 8d. and 2S. 6d., and then the increases per cwt. are always to the advantage of the retailer. That irritates consumers. They do not see why the; retailer should have the advantage in every fractional increase every time. We realise that, so long as the present system of distribution continues, the retailers have got to live, and that the cost of living is going up, but we do say that the increase which the retailer puts on the price of the coal should be the increased cost which he has had to bear, and not something above that.
    I have some complaints from members of fuel committees that they are never consulted; that the chairman seems to decide; that the local fuel overseer decides without consultation with them. If the fuel overseer has that power, very well; but there is a feeling that fuel overseers are not doing their job as they might do. Both sides in Lancashire have the same feeling, and I should like the Minister to look into this point, because it may be that the machinery needs overhauling. My final words to the Minister are that he need not be afraid. We on this side have every confidence in him. We feel that it would be difficult to find a man who knows the industry better, or who has more courage and is more clear-sighted. We say to him that he should exercise to the full all the powers which he has in regard to the coal industry, which is very necessary to the successful prosecution of the war.
    Mr. Culverwell: About a fortnight ago I raised the question of the coal shortage, with particular reference to Bristol, and accused the Government of lack of foresight in allowing this emergency to come upon them. The Minister, in his reply, bore out my contention, I think, when he said that in the last few weeks they had been able to augment supplies by various means. My criticism was that those means should have been adopted earlier, and that it was because the Government had not taken more drastic action that the present serious position had been created. I think there is no doubt that the country has really been saved from disaster by the response which prudent and patriotic citizens made to the Minister's appeal to stock their cellars with coal. If they had not done so, we should
    198
    have been suffering from a severe coal famine. The Minister has also been assisted by the fact that the transport system has not been so vitally interrupted by enemy action as one might have expected. Transport difficulties are not due in the main to enemy action. For these reasons I do not feel that the Minister has any good cause to pat himself on the back because so far we have managed to get through the winter without a catastrophe.
    A fortnight ago, in an endeavour not to depress the House and myself unduly, the Minister departed somewhat from the path of accuracy. He said that we had nothing to worry about in Bristol, because the Bristol Gas Company had no less than five weeks' supply of coal in stock. That was a very strange answer to give, because only two or three days before he had been supplied by the gas company with the exact figures. The correct figure was not five weeks' supply but 3.3 weeks' supply on present consumption and 2.6 weeks on full consumption. I do not suggest that the Minister tried to mislead us, but he was painting a rosier picture than the circumstances warranted. Figures which I have received to-day from the gas company, so far from showing any improvement in stocks of coal, show a still further decline, and that in spite of the fact that the Minister said that things were getting better and that he hoped for a further improvement shortly. Now, instead of having 3.3 weeks' supply, it is 2.88 weeks, on present consumption. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that is a very comfortable position. If he were concerned in the management of a gas company supplying a city of 400,000 people, and were down to less than three weeks' supply of coal, I think he would begin to wonder whether there might not be a chance of disaster overtaking the company.
    In speaking a fortnight ago, I made three main proposals which I now wish to amplify in certain respects. I suggested that it should be the general rule that only complete trainloads of coal should be ordered from collieries, and that the order should be given by merchants in co-operation, or, if that were not practicable, by the regional coal overseer. The Minister assured me that that was the policy of the Government and that it was being followed, but I can

    199
    assure him that that is not so. It may be the policy of the Mines Department with what he calls his "nominated trains," but it is not the general rule that an industrial centre such as Bristol orders its coal in complete trains. There are more than 200 small merchants in Bristol, each ordering his own consignment of coal. One can see what tremendous advantage there would be from a transport point of view if those merchants were grouped together and compelled, if necessary, to order their coal co-operatively. I urge the Minister to take more drastic action to ensure that so far as practicable—I do not suggest that it can be done in every case—only complete trainloads of coal should come from a colliery.
    The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has mentioned the shortage of railway wagons. That is one of the main excuses of the railways for transport difficulties. Cannot the Minister do something to hasten the unloading of wagons by employing Army lorries, as the hon. Member suggested? What are all the Pioneers who were in France doing now? I know they have been doing a certain amount of salvage work and helping to clear the streets, and in this emergency cannot they be put on to clearing wagons of coal? The Army is making huge demands upon industry, many people think unnecessarily heavy demands, the labour market is becoming denuded, and merchants say they cannot get either the labour or the lorries to unload the coal from the railway wagons. The result is that wagons are left about station yards for two, three or five days waiting to be unloaded. Cannot the Minister insist that they must be unloaded as rapidly as possible, if necessary with the help of Army lorries and soldiers; and if he cannot go so far as to order that only complete trains of coal shall be sent to a place, cannot he insist that if a wagon arrives for Mr. Smith and Mr. Smith is unable to take it, Mr. Jones shall have an opportunity to take it? He has power to do that, but he has not exercised it. I urge him to endeavour to get these wagons unloaded as rapidly as possible
    The second suggestion I made was that the number of grades of household coal should be reduced. It would obviously be much easier to handle coal if there
    200
    were only two grades of household coal, and the position would be much better from the railway point of view. The Minister replied that he could not compel people to take any coal that he chose to offer them. I say, in reply to that, that in war-time he has to take unpleasant compulsory powers, especially in view of the present emergency, and that he is wrong in saying that he cannot compel consumers to take coal that is offered to them. Many consumers are taking the coal that is offered to them. I consulted a big coal merchant on this question, and he told me that he is already acting on the lines that I suggested. He sells only two grades of domestic coal, at different prices, and you can take it or leave it. If an individual merchant can do that, surely the Minister of Mines can take compulsory powers and can compel merchants to reduce their coal demands to two kinds of coal.
    I have no technical knowledge about coal, but I feel confident that if the Minister would adopt my suggestion, it would reduce the number of trains required and would facilitate distribution. It might even be necessary to ration coal. The Minister has not done that yet, but coal is rationed, where there is such a shortage that consumers cannot get it. I do not call it rationing to wait until there is no coal and then to say, "You can have only 2 cwt." I have been to a place where there is a coal shortage. I have almost got to a state of having to come to London for a hot bath, because they have had no coal for a fortnight, in the place which I visited. The main defect of democratic Governments is that they postpone drastic and unpopular measures which they know are necessary, until an emergency compels action. Then, the action eventually taken is often more severe than it need have been had the proper action been taken at the right time.
    I do not want to be harsh with the Secretary for Mines. The whole Government are always trying to postpone the evil day. They are reluctant to use compulsory powers which may be unpopular or may meet with a little opposition, although they know perfectly well that they ought to take them. I do not need to remind the Committee of the opposition to conscription, before the war started, although everybody in his senses knew that conscription ought to have

    201
    come years before. Why did the Government not adopt it? Because it was unpopular. Now, the public are prepared to suffer inconveniences and regulations which they would oppose bitterly in peace-time, and therefore the Minister can take powers to compel the adoption of measures which he would be afraid to exercise in peace-time.
    The third point I made was that coal should be supplied to consumers from the nearest colliery, so as to obviate the longer railway haul from more distant collieries. The position is extraordinary. Why is it that coal comes from Durham to Bristol, instead of from the Midlands, more than double the haul? I have a letter here from the Bristol Gas Company on this subject. It says:
    "Durham coal is the only class about which there appears to be no difficulty in respect of either quantity or transport. We have been pressed to take this in lieu of Midlands coal. Durham coal is, however, quite unsuitable as a substitute, for this special purpose, and it appears to us to be rather anomalous, that, at a time when transport difficulties are given as the official reason for the shortage of Midlands coal, it does not apply to Durham coal, which has to be brought a distance more than half as much again as Midlands coal."
    I confess that it surprises me, and I should very much like to know the explanation. I suggested that local collieries should be developed wherever possible, and I referred to Somerset collieries.
    On the question of output, I drew the attention of the Minister and of the House to figures I had from a typical colliery, which showed that, while wages had increased by 23 percent. output had gone down in the same period by just over 7 percent. per man. I wanted to have an explanation of that state of affairs, and whether it is typical of other collieries, of rising wages and falling output. It is a very serious matter. I have not had a satisfactory answer on this matter from the Minister. He said:
    "If I were speaking to an audience of miners, I could quite easily explain the reason for that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1941; col. 909, Vol. 368.]
    It would be better if the Minister would explain to this Committee the reasons for it, and for a paragraph in a letter which I should like to read. I think we should all like to understand the meaning of this:
    202
    "I note you referred to the fall in output per man. In our case this is due partly to loss of men from underground (as, naturally, the men engaged in surface work underground repairs, pumping, etc., are the same, although the number of men on coal production is reduced). But another serious matter is, of course, voluntary absenteeism,"—
    which the Minister told me did not exist.
    Mr. Grenfell: No, I did not say that voluntary absenteeism did not exist, and I have not read the letter. I said there was a difficulty of absenteeism, which was unavoidable.
    Mr. Culverwell: If it is unavoidable, it cannot be voluntary.
    Mr. Grenfell: Certainly, it can.
    Mr. Culverwell: Perhaps the Minister will let me finish the letter, and then we can have a better explanation. The letter goes on:
    " Another serious matter is, of course, voluntary absenteeism, and as the war wage has gone up the absenteeism has increased. The younger men are the principal offenders and do not hesitate to inform the managers and officials that they will only send sufficient coal to enable them to earn the minimum wage, whereas they could be earning considerably more. Another reason they give is that they do not intend earning sufficient wages to pay Income Tax."
    I should be very glad to have an explanation of that state of affairs and to know whether the Minister has given consideration to the matter. I wrote to him two months ago, and I should like to know whether he has investigated the matter.
    Mr. Grenfell: If the letter which the hon. Member has just read comes from a coalowner, I want to know why the coal-owners did not send this statement to the Mines Department, or let me have it when they came to see me.
    Mr. Culverwell: I do not know whether the coalowner who is my correspondent has given the facts to the Department.
    Mr. Grenfell: I asked the coalowners of Somerset to come and see me. They came, but that matter was not raised.
    Mr. Culverwell: I shall not go into that question at all. I am giving the facts contained in the letter, and I am asking for a reply. If the facts are untrue, the country will be very glad to have an explanation, if, upon investigation, the Minister finds they are so. This has

    203
    nothing specially to do with Somerset. It is common knowledge, if one speaks truly, and does not mind hurting feelings, that men, not only in the mining industry but in various industries, are not working above the Income Tax limit. It is a common complaint. They are slacking, and there is voluntary absenteeism, not only in mining but in other industries.
    Mr. G. Macdonald: To what extent?
    Mr. Culverwell: I do not know to what extent. I am giving the facts which have come to my knowledge, and I am asking the Minister to find out to what extent.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: You are making an assertion and not. giving figures.
    Mr. Culverwell: I am not giving figures to the hon. Member. I am giving them to the Minister. I am not giving figures of voluntary absenteeism but of fall of output and of increased wages. I make no charge because I cannot substantiate it, but this is a serious matter, and if it is prevalent in other coal fields up and down the country the Minister should inquire into it.
    Reference has been made to the question of the price of coal, and that, in my opinion, is a matter of Government policy. I do not think the Secretary for Mines can do anything himself. The fact is that at the beginning of this war the Government ought to have pinned prices and wages, and thus prevented a rise in the cost of living. The other day, in reply to a Question, it was said that miners' wages were governed by a sliding scale which went up with the cost of living. I do not suggest that the miners alone should be penalised. I say that this is a matter of Government policy which deserves the most urgent consideration. I am not sure that the vicious spiral has not started and gone too far to be stopped. Fire-watchers are now getting as much as £8 a week, and that is a proof that profiteers do not exist solely among employers.
    I would like to say something about the railway position, and to ask the Minister whether everything is being done to assist the solution of the transport problem. Is it not possible to cut out a lot of the unnecessary traffic that is now prevalent on the railways? It may seem a petty matter, but the other day I was on Pad-
    204
    dington Station and I saw a large truck-load of pots of daffodils just bursting into bloom being put into a luggage van. It struck me that that was unnecessary traffic in war-time, when the porters complain that they are overworked and short of staff. Last March I drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that bricks are being sent from London to Scotland and all over the country using up wagons which could be used for coal. Surely authorities could be encouraged, or if necessary compelled—and this applies particularly to Government Departments —to adopt the policy of using local materials regardless of price. It is not a question of price, as the hon. Member above the Gangway mentioned, so much as keeping the collieries going. With an expenditure of £12,000,000 a day, it does not cost much more to give a contract for bricks or any other material, which may be a little more expensive but which will reduce transport. I would ask the Minister to induce authorities to use the materials which are available in their localities instead of calling on the railways to carry goods from a distance. This is a serious position which does not look like improving and which will probably still face us next winter. If the Minister can get through the next month or two without disaster, a strenuous effort should be made to build up adequate stocks of coal and not the puny stores that he has got about the country, such as four days' supply in Bristol. What is the good of four days' supply in an emergency? There should be a fortnight's supply.
    I would urge the Minister of Transport to work in co-operation with the Secretary for Mines and, if necessary, to cut down the number of passenger trains. There are far too many people travelling at the present time. I would also ask the Secretary of State for War to try to avoid unnecessary troop movements. It is a fad of the War Office to shift troops about the country unnecessarily, just for the pleasure of it. They had that failing in the last war. When I proposed to the Minister that in order to encourage the quick unloading of wagons the Minister could increase demurrage rates, his reply was:
    "We have been trying to get people to secure the return of wagons, and we are not at all satisfied that it would be just or expedient to increase the demurrage."

    205
    He did not tell me that the existing demurrage rates were not being enforced. I was urging an increase in the demurrage rates because I thought that the existing rates were not doing the trick. He did not tell me that he was not even enforcing the existing rates, which I understand is the fact. Why are not these rates being enforced? Surely they would have some effect in encouraging the consumers or users of wagons to unload them quickly. From the railway point of view, the Government should plan and notify the railways of Government factory requirements. Numbers of new Government factories and munition works have been put up all over the country, regardless of transport facilities. Anybody who looks; it a map and sees the siting of the new Government factories will realise that many of them —
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I must ask the hon. Member to keep a little nearer to the coal question.
    Mr. Culverwell: I apologise, but the question of transport is so vitally linked up with the coal problem that any means which will relieve congestion on the railways will obviously help the coal position. If the Government would only let the railways know what are the requirements of the factories in material, either coming to or leaving the factories, it would put railways in a much better position to make adequate provision and to dovetail the requirements of Government factories with the coal requirements of the country. At present the factories are constructed higgledy-piggledy. No one knows how many railway wagons will be required to supply them and take their products away. I urge the Government to go in for a much more far-sighted planning of their factory system. In the "Times" the other day I noticed an article on Germany. It said:
    "In the opinion of some authorities who are studying conditions in Germany, the failure in transport may be more decisive than the insufficiency of labour or materials. Transport is one of the most important governing factors in Germany's industrial war effort."
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is just as vital and necessary to the war effort of this country.
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I would have liked the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) to have been here —
    Mr. Ammon: We did not expect the hon. Gentleman to reply so soon.
    Mr. Grenfell: That is my difficulty, too. I simply want to say—replying in general terms until the hon. Member arrives— that I appreciate the tone of the speeches which have been made. I know that the subject receives close attention from Members in all parts of the Committee and from all constituencies, but all Members do not look at this problem with the same eye. There are those who speak with familiarity of the actual working of the industry. Others have been more concerned with local coal supplies, and others have been concerned with prices. I have been asked to give a general statement touching upon the various aspects which most concern the Committee. I very much appreciate the tone of everything that has been said, and if I find more intimate knowledge of the subject on the part of one Member than of another, I excuse those who have not that knowledge of the new problems which have arisen in connection with the mining industry.
    One of the hon. Members who have spoken is a practical miner, and he naturally began by showing his personal concern for the safety of the men employed in the industry. As one would expect of any Member who has spent some time underground—as he has and as I have—he directed his mind to the conditions under which the miners are working every day. Mining is a hazardous occupation, often disagreeable, often inimical to health, and there is much that we have yet to do to improve the conditions of the men—still nearly 700,000—who produce this most valuable commodity. We really do not appreciate its value until a time like this, but in the case of a shortage everybody calls out for coal, which, next to food, is the most essential commodity in our national life. It is of vital importance in regard to our war effort, and I very much appreciate the concern shown by my hon. Friends, despite the criticisms that have been directed against me. I expected even more harsh treatment.

    207
    Another hon. Member asked me what we were doing in regard to the recommendations made in the report of the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines. I can assure him they have not been lost sight of. Indeed, had the war not occurred we might now have been taking part in a discussion on the details of a new charter of safety for the men employed in the mining industry. I can assure him that the Department has not neglected to give attention to this Report; we were well on the way towards completing the draft of a new Measure for completely changing and fundamentally improving legislation on mining safety in this country. In the meantime, we are going on with the Regulations, and among the subjects which have or will be dealt with by Regulation is that of the support of working faces by packs and chocks. A Regulation is now in course of preparation and will soon be issued. Another Regulation which has been issued and which is now operative deals with the stone dust content of dust on mine roadways. Hon. Members know quite well that there was a limit of 50 percent., but that the question has long been raised as to whether that figure was high enough for the dusting of main roads underground. It has now been provided by Regulation that the stone dust content must be raised, according to conditions, to a maximum of 65 percent. on a sliding scale.
    We have also in course of preparation— it is now being printed—a Report on the use of electricity in mines. Draft Regulations are contained in the Report, which I am sure will please hon. Members very much. It has gone further than I thought possible in so short a time towards presenting to the industry a new code regarding the use of electricity in mines. Another point we have been dealing with by Regulation is the question of adjusting the Regulations applying to alternatives to shot firing. There may be great possibilities in this, and we are adjusting the Regulation with a view to finding out how far we can exempt this kind of alternative from the conditions which have hitherto governed the use of explosives. We have also prepared Regulations to control simultaneous shot firing, in order to avoid the risk of misfire to which my hon. Friend referred. There is no abso-
    208
    lutely safe explosive, but we are watching very closely the use, for example, of sheathed explosives, and the methods of firing, to see how far we can approach towards perfection. All these things are now being done or have been done, and in addition, although it is not the subject of a Regulation, we are encouraging the sampling of air by analysis and by special instruments. The Department has taken a direct part in producing these instruments, and we are finding out very much more about the purity of the air in our mines that ever we did before. In addition, there are thousands of automatic firedamp detectors in use under Regulations issued by my Department.
    Those are the answers I would give my hon. Friend on those points. I think he is also entitled to an answer on his question relating to accident figures. This is a matter which concerns me very much. I confess that I have been disturbed for some months by the appearance of evidence that mining, both at the working face and on the roads, has become more dangerous this year than it has been in previous years. More fatal accidents have been caused by falls of ground this year than for several years past. In 1940, deaths from falls of ground numbered 505, against 406 in 1939, and the total number of deaths in 1940 were 910, against 783 in 1939. It is a formidable increase, and I have myself asked for an explanation. I consulted the divisional inspectors many weeks ago on this subject; I am in communication with them at present, and I shall attend a conference of inspectors at the end of this week to go into the matter as fully as we can. My hon. Friend asked me to give my views in regard to certain possible explanations. One suggested explanation was that green, unseasoned timber was being used. Those of us who have worked underground and have used various types of timber support know that new, unseasoned timber is not as good as seasoned timber.
    I have also been asked whether the use of steel supports or mechanised conditions may be partly responsible. Answers which I have already given to Questions on these points indicate that accidents cannot be directly attributed to any one cause. In some highly mechanised coalfields the increase has been less than in

    209
    coalfields where mechanisation has not gone so far. In some cases the incidence of accidents is greater where steel supports are used than where the support is solely of timber. I would not like to prejudge the matter, but I know that we must give more attention to safety. We cannot allow men to be killed like this. If timber supports are not good enough, we must somehow make good that deficiency, and if steel supports taken alone are not sufficient, we must rely more upon packs and chocks, as is already foreseen under the Regulations. I am going into this matter very closely, and I shall be uneasy until I can tell hon. Members that I believe something can be done to check this increase, and to restore the figure to something as near the pre-war level as possible. I was asked about the number of inspectors. I am convinced that the supervision has been maintained. As far as I know, there has been no falling-off in the number of inspections, but we -have already taken steps to appoint more inspectors, and the announcement of the appointments will be made in this House in a very short time. In addition, the Mineworkers' Federation and the owners, as my hon. Friend said, are negotiating, and an announcement is to be made soon about the appointment of additional workmen's inspectors, at the joint expense of the two sides, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines.
    Hon. Members from all the coalfields, and particularly from Durham and South Wales—from Lancashire, too; but the problem is far more serious numerically in Durham and in South Wales have asked whether I am satisfied that I have the powers required to prevent pits from closing. The general answer that I would give is this. We have been unable to get sufficient clearance for all pits; and many have closed down for want of trade and for financial reasons. If orders and transport are available, we shall call for powers to keep sufficient pits in production for all the coal we require.
    Mr. Sloan: After the pits have closed?
    Mr. Grenfell: We are doing all we can to prevent pits from closing.
    Mr. Tinker: Let us get this clear. My hon. Friend said, "After the pits have closed." I take it that the Secretary for Mines means that he will, definitely, take such powers before the pits have closed?
    Mr. Grenfell: A large number of pits have already closed.
    Mr. Tinker: I know that pits have had to close; but if the Minister is satisfied that pits ought to keep in production, will he take steps to see that they do so?
    Mr. Grenfell: Let me put it like this. If we require pits to fulfil the part allocated to the mining industry in the national effort, I shall take power to see that they fulfil that part.
    Sir Geoffrey Ellis: Presumably my hon. Friend will take financial responsibility where a pit is unable to go on working economically?
    Mr. Grenfell: Yes; if we want coal we must take that responsibility. The hon. Member raised the question of 'production and distribution in a very full way. I was glad that he took so much time, be cause he does understand this problem. He said the thing which has been said over and over again. He described the situation as paradoxical, with a shortage of coal and idle pits. It is a paradox; but there are many things in life which we find it difficult to reconcile. We have shortage of coal in many parts of the country, and a surplus of production in other parts of the country. It is the gap between that has to be closed. I would like the Committee to take note of what has happened during the past nine months. I do not wish to be unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culver- well), but he said that he did not think that the transport system had been affected by what had taken place—
    Mr. Culverwell: I did not say that. I said that that was not the main reason for the present shortage of coal, and that the Minister was very lucky that the damage had not been more severe.
    Mr. Grenfell: That is from Bristol. I would invite anyone to go down to Bristol, and to see whether the damage has been very light.
    Mr. Culverwell: It would not make any difference if the whole of Bristol had been blown up, if the railway system was intact.
    Mr. Grenfell: Bristol is the railway system—or part of the railway system. So is every town which is a railway junction. My hon. Friend is rather frivolous in his approach to this problem. It is a difficult problem. I could inform the Committee to-day of facts which I will not disclose; but some other time the story will be told. My hon. Friend has hinted at all these things. He asked me about wagons. We have heard a great deal about wagons. I wish that the Committee was very much better informed upon that subject. I was told by the Press of this country that there were 4,000 wagons standing somewhere in South Wales, and that that was tying up the whole transport system of this country. What a ridiculous distortion. The presence of 4,000 wagons there would have no more effect on the transport system of this country than I should have on the traffic of Whitehall if I threw three marbles down the road. There have been groups of wagons; there have been parcels of transport; there have been stand ages for a very long time; but the reason is known to everybody living in the industrial areas of this country, and to those who know about the conditions in which transport is being carried on. There are fewer wagons standing in the coalmining areas of this country to-day than in normal times. There is no great superfluity of wagons in one area, and shortage in another. The difficulty is the time taken by mineral traffic to go from one point to another. If we could keep mineral wagons moving, our transport system would be largely solved. I cannot specify the areas of delay in the movement of traffic: it would not be wise, it would not be advisable, to do it; but those areas exist.
    Please let hon. Members remember that I do not order transport. I have another role, which I accept readily. I shall not complain of any criticism in which I may share with others. I do not want to draw strict lines of demarcation in matters of this kind, but in this matter, I do not myself dispose: other Ministries and other Departments dispose of the ships, the trains, the wagons and the barges which carry coal in this country. With my knowledge of the conditions, I feel far more charitable than the majority of Members of this Committee towards the people who are directly or indirectly responsible for the maintenance of trans-
    212
    port in this country. I cannot sufficiently express, in the limited language at my command, my personal gratitude to the men who bring coal round our coasts, along the coastwise routes, or my personal esteem for the railwaymen. I have seen them at work night and day, and I join with anybody in wholesale appreciation of the services which those men are rendering. The Mines Department is responsible for the supply of coal in this country, and I shall accept readily all the responsibility that falls upon me.
    But there is such a thing as priority of supplies. You really must give preference to certain kinds of consumers. We are doing it in thousands of ways in this country at this time. There are certain vital industries and social services that must be maintained, and we have to pay attention to these. We have to have regard to the system of conveyance which will enable us to get the coal moved into the centres of distribution away from the coal mines under our authority and jurisdiction, but we are fully aware of the difficulties, and I propose by taking the Committee into my confidence for a few minutes to say what we have done. I came into office in the middle of May last, when I was told that we must push up production, and that everything that I required would be given to me in order to push up production. We wanted more pits to be opened. We wanted more men. We wanted adequate material and equipment for the task of production in this country. We took it on, and we made generous and bold terms with France, Italy and other Continental countries. Exactly a month after I had begun this job, on 17th June—and my hon. Friend put it in far better language than I can—France and the Low countries went out of the war. It has been said by some people—it was an eloquent statement of the case—that when they went out and left us in, they left us with an awkward coal situation, with a surplus of production and with pits for which no outlet was available. Pits were closing down before the end of June—on 23rd and 24th June. Many pits had closed before the end of June in South Wales and in Durham, and we had to consider what to do with the unemployed.
    We considered that we might want all this production once again. We hoped

    213
    to get the pits fully employed without delay, and we decided to embark upon a very ambitious stocking programme. We did stock. Some of my hon. Friends have said that I was a very lucky person. I thank my lucky stars that we did stock. We have stocked more coal in this country than has ever been stocked before. We stocked millions of tons more, and we are going on confidently in anticipation of stocking enough coal to carry us through even a winter as bad as last winter. But the present is not a very severe period of frost and snow. We have had a warmer winter, and from September to date it has been a matter of transport. We have been transporting on a winter basis for six months, and not a few weeks, which handicapped our efforts last year.
    Mr. Lawson: Has not there been loss of transport?
    Mr. Grenfell: There have been changes to which I cannot refer, but the stocks were put up, and we have still to-day far more stocks than we had 12 months ago. There are many millions of tons of coal in stock in the country, and even in Bristol the position is not as bad as the hon. Gentleman opposite suggested. There has been no public utility undertaking and no important production enterprise stopped this winter. There have been local shortages. There has been discomfort in some homes. I regret it. My hon. Friend was quite right, there is nothing which gives as much cheer in a poor home as a blazing fire. If you cannot get enough food or beautiful surroundings, the flames of the fire supply some comfort and beauty. When we were children we used to see beautiful dreams in the fireside pages, the only pages we were allowed to see. We shall never forget the visions that came to us under those conditions. I am very regretful indeed that there are people who have had to go without sufficient coal. That really comes first in my mind, and we shall try to avoid that kind of thing. We took steps to provide Government stocks for this purpose. We acquired 600 sites for the purpose of Government stocks. There is, to-day, nearly 1,000,000 tons in Government stocks in reserve for the great emergency which may come, but which we hope will not come. That is intended for the very poor who cannot stock and have no room for stock, and
    214
    who will not be able to stock for next winter or for any winter as long as the housing conditions persist.
    Mr. Gallacher (West Fife): They have not the money.
    Mr. Grenfell: Frequently they have no money with which to purchase coal, but it is physically impossible in many housing conditions to put by coal for the use of a particular family, and we have to do it communally. We talk about communal feeding, and there must be a communal coal system, and I have had it in mind from the very beginning.
    Mr. Culverwell: Is it the policy of the hon. Gentleman next winter, or through the summer, to rely upon consumers stocking their cellars, or what are the Government going to do about stocks?
    Mr. Grenfell: I was talking about Government stocks when the hon. Member rose. We have still millions of tons of coal in stock, and there will be many more million tons of Government stock before the coming summer is out, if we can manage it. That is the reserve upon which we will hope to draw, but we shall not discourage the private user who can stock. The best place is to stock it near the firesides where it is to be consumed, to stock it, if you have the transport, in your own house or cellar. If that is not possible, we hope to stock it in Government stocks.
    Mr. Lawson: Is it not the fact that much of this stocking depends upon the willingness and initiative of local authorities in giving sites?
    Mr. Grenfell: I said that we had 600 sites—and I do not wish to blame local authorities in any way—upon which many million tons of coal can be placed during the coming summer. I want to emphasise the point made by two hon. Friends who emphasised that we need greater production of coal. There are difficulties. We have not enough man-power in the industry at the present time.
    Mr. Batey: There is an abundance.
    Mr. Grenfell: My hon. Friend does not know enough to dismiss it in that way. My hon. Friend has not the responsibility for Lancashire or Somerset. He has not the responsibility for other coalfields. He is in

    215
    Durham and I am in South Wales. We may have enough men in one area but we have not sufficient men for maximum production. We must try to get them and make sure that we make the best use of all available transport.
    Mr. George Griffiths: What will the Minister do about the men who are victimised by colliery companies? In my division there are 470 men who have been victimised for almost six months. There are thousands of such men in the British Isles. Will the Minister see that they get back to work?
    Mr. Grenfell: That is a matter for the trade union organisation in the industry and it would be wrong on my part 8 substitute myself as an authority for them in these matters. I am very anxious indeed about the question of idle men in the districts where they are deemed to be necessary, but I cannot settle every individual problem in every part of the country.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: At the pit I have in mind they are starting fresh men from other parts of the country.
    Mr. Grenfell: If those are the conditions, that is a matter for the trade union organisation, and not for me.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Will the Minister refer later to the question of keeping open those pits which have been closed recently?
    Mr. Grenfell: Yes, I hope to do so, but I want to say now something about prices, beginning with pithead prices. There have been complaints that pithead prices have gone up to unreasonable levels. I disagree with that statement. No single addition has been made recklessly or without regard to the consequences. We are concerned about keeping prices down to a reasonable level but the materials necessary for mining have much increased in price. For instance the cost of timber imported for pit purposes is up by 200 percent. Other materials have gone up very considerably, too, and the increase in pithead prices has only been sufficient to meet the additional cost of materials and pay additional wages to the men in the industry. It has been suggested that we should deny the addition due to the increased
    216
    cost of living but if we want coal we must secure the goodwill of the men who hew it and we cannot do it if we deny them a reasonable wage for what they do. The price of coal has to pass the scrutiny of the Mines Department and the Government before it is fixed.
    Mr. Culverwell: I never suggested that the Minister should reduce only miners' wages. What I said was that it should have been Government policy to pin wages and prices. The Government have not gone far enough with a result that as miners' wages go up, so the cost of coal and the cost of living go up. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] It is no use saying "No" because it is happening every day.
    Mr. Denville (Newcastle-on-Tyne Central): We find it hard to weigh up exactly what happens between the coal face and the coal box. In and around London we are paying to-day 4s. a bag for anthracite.
    Mr. Grenfell: I was just starting on that journey and coming to my hon. Friend's coal box. I was saying that there has been no unreasonable advance in the price of coal at the pit-head. The advance has been sufficient to pay the men about 25 percent. more wages and the cost of materials has risen. In round figures, the average increase in pithead price above pre-war level is no more than 25 percent. and the average profit in the mining industry at the present time is almost at the same level as it was in 1938 and 1939. The natural price of a commodity is the cost of production and if you pay more for material and equipment and maintain reasonable living wages for the men, that is the higher price you have to pay for coal. As far as I know, there has been no exploitation of the public and there has been no claim or dispute in the industry since the war began. The men are living up to the agreement that their wages shall be raised only as the cost of living increases and come down when the cost of living comes down.
    This industry is a very difficult industry. There are 2,000 mines and there are no two alike. It is not a repetition of the mass production of factories. Coal is worked at different depths and thicknesses, some down to 4,000 feet and some near the surface. There is one seam in Lancashire where they are finding it difficult to get men to stay—and this is an

    217
    indication that wages are not too high— because it is 16 inches thick. Looking round the Committee I see that many hon. Members would be physically ruled out from getting this coal. We ought also to remember that in this industry it is not easy to prescribe a flat rate. Payments have been based for 20 years on the system which regulates wages district by district. It is a kind of payment by average results. There is no pooling. There are good pits and, if the term can be employed, there are bad pits. Bad pits keep company with good pits and you have to take a kind of balance sheet. Pits are closed down because they exist in the coalfield where there are so many good pits. A pit becomes bad and a poor financial proposition because somebody else has a better proposition.
    It is the good that makes the bad and the bad that makes the good. When, in connection with this arrangement which determines wages in the coal industry, people ask me to give a simple answer, I advise them to study the wages system which we have had in the industry for over 20 years. If they will do that, they will find that wages and other costs are related to prices. The prices are related to the general economic conditions in the mining industry. The hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Denville) asked what happens to increase the price between the pithead and the coalbox. Here transport comes in. It is no good the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) saying, in his first breath, "Why do you make people take the coal that is offered to them?" and then, in his second breath, asking why coal is brought from Durham to Bristol?
    Mr. Culverwell: The hon. Gentleman should remember that I read an extract from a letter in which the Bristol Gas Company complained of the quality of coal coming from Durham and asked why they could not get coal which they wanted from the Midlands, which is half the distance.
    Mr. Grenfell: There is not always the transport to enable people to get the coal which they want. Transport must be used to the utmost advantage. Every mile of railway and every wagon must be used in the way that will give the country the greatest advantage. Part of the coal is carried by sea, and that,
    218
    indeed, is a comfort to us. A very large proportion of London's coal still comes by sea, but I reveal no secret when I say that transport by sea is rather more expensive now than in normal times. Many people have to pay not only a legitimate and reasonable addition to the pithead price, but a legitimate and reasonable addition arising from transport charges. They have, moreover, to pay the additional cost of the distribution of coal.
    Mr. Denville: There is an increase of 300 percent.
    Mr. Grenfell: The hon. Member's figures are wrong. I maintain that it is amazing that, after all the experiences of this country during the last 18 months, gas and electricity works are able to get coal at as low prices as they are able to get it to-day. It is amazing that, with the intricate system for determining the pithead price and the no less intricate system for assessing retail distribution costs, the retail distribution prices are as reasonable as they are. The retail prices reflect all the additions and inequalities to which I have referred. My Department are now actively engaged on schemes which will do in the field of distribution and prices what has already been done in regard to the levelling down of inequalities in the field of production. Before long, schemes may perhaps come before the notice of the House to deal with the levelling down of inequalities in transport charges so as to give greater justice to consumers. We are working on a plan by which the additional burden of bringing coal a great distance to a given town will be shared over all the consumers.
    I have been asked to say something about the levy scheme. The district ascertainments showed that many pits were in a grievous position whereas their neighbours in the same district of ascertainment showed prosperous results. There were districts which were in a bad way because of the events of last Summer. In order that there should be no depressed areas in the country, we conceived a plan for a levy on the industry, and that plan was approved by the House in December last, and it is now in operation. On every ton of coal disposed of by the industry, a levy of 3d. a ton is charged, and this levy goes into a fund from which benefits can be paid to colliery

    219
    undertakings that have suffered a loss of output owing to war conditions. Durham and South Wales are very much affected. More pits have been closed there than in any other coalfield. In some townships in Durham and in some valleys in South Wales the results have been almost catastrophic. We have been able to help those two areas, and from this levy scheme, which represents only a small contribution of 3d. a ton on the pithead price, we are able to pay 2s. 6d. a ton in benefit to those collieries that must be kept alive. Hon. Members have asked what the Department are doing. That is one thing we are doing. We are keeping alive pits which would have been out of production but for this scheme. South Wales will benefit to the extent of many thousands of pounds and Durham will benefit to a great extent from this fund. That is my justification of the levy and my answer to those who ask what financial provisions we are making.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sure all my hon. Friends who come from mining districts fully agree with the Minister, for without a scheme of this sort the capital equipment of the pits would be lost to the nation. There is one point I want to put to the Minister. Unfortunately, the area which I represent is very badly affected by the loss of export markets. A number of pits have been closed. I gather that from this levy an amount will be paid to the owners of the pits to enable them to keep the pits open. Who decides which pits are to be kept open and which pits are to be abandoned? Is there any kind of supervision in this matter by the Mines Department? A colliery company, for instance, may say that they will keep open pit A and draw on the levy, but that they will abandon pit B. As this is a national levy, do the Department exercise some supervision in the decision as to whether a pit shall or shall not be kept open?
    Mr. Grenfell: We do not determine whether pit A or pit B shall be closed or whether both shall be closed. We ask that the pits shall be kept open, and the levy is made conditional upon supervision which guarantees maintenance. Hon. Members must not forget that this scheme is applicable not only to pits that are closed down; it applies also to pits
    220
    which hon. Members want us to try to keep in production, but which cannot get sufficient output. A pit working two days a week will get 2s. 6d. per ton on the loss it has sustained. This may mean far more than 2s. 6d. per ton on the coal that is got by working two days a week. It prevents the pits from being closed down. It is a means of achieving the end which hon. Members desire. We are watching the operation of the scheme, and I can assure hon. Members that it will not be abused and that it will be worked properly in the interests of the nation and the trade.
    My department has been engaged in multifarious duties. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) has questioned me a good deal on a matter in which he is interested. I have not been able to satisfy him with my replies, but I can assure him that the use of alternative fuels is a matter that is being very closely investigated. Some of the things are not ready for immediate adoption, but I can assure hon. Members that in the Mines Department, as a result of the reports we have received, we shall have something substantial to offer to those who are planning reconstruction when this war comes to an end. At the present time we are deriving immense benefit from the production of benzol and coal-tar fuel from coal. Progress has been made in the use of these fuels, and certain war essentials are being maintained as a result of work done by the gas industry and the research with which my Department has been connected.
    We are also planning a scheme of reorganisation of retail distribution. When I spoke of this scheme in September last it was not very popular. There were hon. Members who objected to it, and a certain number of other people who opposed it. I am convinced, however, that retail distribution in this country cannot be satisfactory without a very much improved and superior organisation. We are working on that now, and we are not losing a day. We are pressing for a drastic improvement in the method of distribution, and I feel quite sure, as time goes on—and before the summer is through—we shall have much more mutuality and co-operation in the retail distribution, and much more co-operation between those who distribute the coal and those who produce our supplies in the

    221
    coalfields. I do not know what our problems will be next summer. I do not know what difficulties will confront me, or what difficulties others will have to face. But if we encourage and build up a consciousness of our mutual responsibility, and if everybody works together, we shall get over these difficulties much better than by finding faults and making criticisms which are without foundation and which lead us nowhere.
    Mr. Culverwell: The Minister suggests that during the summer months some better organisation of the distribution of coal will be effected. Is he relying entirely on merchants and retailers voluntarily getting together, or will he use any of his compulsory powers?
    Mr. Grenfell: I use the word" pressure," and pressure suggests the application of power. We shall press harder and harder, perhaps to the inconvenience of some people. I want to assure the Committee, in connection with the Department for which I am responsible, that I shall endeavour to give fair play to every case, working in conjunction with the Minister of Transport. The Lord President of the Council, representatives of the Ministry of Shipping and other Departments, and myself have been attending meetings, and we have done a good deal to avert what might have been more serious consequences to this country. There has been much adjustment, much improvisation and adaptation. I cannot promise that during the whole course of the war these matters will be a settled sphere. I can only promise that as far as organisation, co-operation and planning will take us, I will play my small part to see that the people of this country, industry and the war effort shall not suffer in the times ahead. We shall not forget the men in the industry. We must never forget them. They have been very good, and they have suffered unemployment and all kinds of inconveniences. Their wage conditions are not good, and their working conditions are sometimes very bad. These men have played their part and are still playing their part; I can rely upon them and shall go to them with confidence. I make an appeal with the same confidence to Members of this Committee. Let us pull together and "go to it" until victory is won.
    Mr. Culverwell: The Minister has answered many questions which were never asked. Would he answer one which was asked by myself and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), namely, why does he not exercise his powers in respect of demurrage?
    Mr. Grenfell: I think an answer has already been given to that point. Let me point out that I do not charge demurrage, and that I am not responsible for demurrage. The parties concerned are now engaged in negotiations, and I believe they will soon reach a mutual agreement.
    Mr. Ernest Evans: Everyone will agree that we have heard a very important speech. The Minister has rather deflected me from the limited point I intended raising. He dealt with a very large number of questions of great importance with the skill and knowledge which he to a very particular degree possesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), who opened_ this Debate, very naturally and properly commenced his speech by referring to safety in mines. I am not a coal miner, but I come from a part of the country which has contributed very largely to the human element which has helped to build up the industry in South Wales. I have always taken a great interest in the coal industry, and, quite frankly, I am not satisfied with the answer the Minister made to this part of our discussion. I have perfect confidence in his sympathy on this matter, but I do not like hearing from him the reply which is so often heard from Ministers, that "We have this matter under constant consideration." I beg the Minister not to be content with what is implied in an answer of that kind. The mere fact that there is a war on is no excuse for any relaxation in existing Regulations; indeed, if anything, it is a reason for pursuing the matter to the utmost. I hope that my hon. Friend in charge of this very important Department will not forget these considerations, and that he will pay special consideration to this matter.
    In the course of his speech the Minister referred, in reply to a question put to him, to the financial assistance to be given to certain pits. I believe that we should have a much more detailed statement on

    223
    the Government's policy in this respect than we obtained from the Minister in reply to an interjection. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked who was to decide which particular pits should receive this support. That question is a very material and relevant factor in any matter of Government policy in this respect. Then the Minister referred to a levy. Do I understand that the only financial assistance is to come from the levy, or is the Treasury prepared to make some contribution towards the assistance to be given to pits?
    Mr. Grenfell: I was speaking of the levy only.
    Mr. Evans: I do not think the levy will be sufficient to make these contributions to what I regard as a matter of very great importance. It seems to me that the Minister's statement was opening up a question of policy which, for my part, I had not considered, and which I do not think many Members of this Committee had considered. I thought he was opening up a policy of very large support to the coal industry in regard to these pits. I felt that it meant much more than merely a contribution from these levies to particular pits unspecified. The third question I should like to ask is whether it applies only to pits which are already closed or also to pits which may be in danger of being closed?
    Mr. Grenfell: I think I said that.
    Mr. Evans: It applies to both. These are the questions that occurred to me in listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech. The point that I really want to raise is a very simple one. It seems to me a very extraordinary thing that this Committee should have to devote a day to considering the fact that there is a shortage of coal. I do not think it can be doubted that there is a shortage. One hears complaints of it from all parts of the country, and I cannot help feeling that these complaints cannot be untrue. Nowadays people are so oppressed by actual difficulties and anxieties that they do not bother very much about imaginary ones. In peace-time there is a fertile imagination in devising grievances. I do not think
    224
    that applies to the present time. Therefore, I am satisfied that there is real ground for the complaint of shortage in certain parts of the country. I can understand complaints of shortage of food or other articles which have to be imported, and we put up with the inconvenience with fortitude and patience, but to have to listen to complaints about shortage of coal seems an extraordinary thing. After all, there is coal in abundance which we can produce, and, despite what the hon. Gentleman said about shortage of labour, there are thousands of men available and anxious to produce coal. For that reason I do not think the hon. Gentleman is exercising such authority as he has over other Departments. It is very largely a matter, as he says, of transport, but surely the Minister of Mines has means of access and can dictate to the Minister of Transport as to what he should do in providing coal in different parts of the country.
    It is not a new question at all. The Government have had plenty of notice of this. It is exactly 12 months to the day—Wednesday, 21st February—that there took place a very interesting discussion on the shortage of coal at that time, and the same questions were asked as have been asked to-day. I have not seen the notes of the speech which the President of the Board of Trade is to deliver, but I should be agreeably surprised if he did not give exactly the same answers as were given 12 months ago, with one exception. It is very rarely that any good thing is said about the weather in this country, but this year the Clerk of the Weather has been the Minister of Transport's greatest friend. Twelve months ago the defence put up by the Government was "The weather is so bad that it has increased the demand for coal and made it difficult to produce it or to move it." The Government have not that defence this year. They may have it very early, because the winter is not over yet, and the trouble is that, despite the comparatively mild weather that we have had, there are still these complaints of shortage of coal.
    What defence has been put up? None so far. We have heard the same thing. The hon. Gentleman says there is a shortage of wagons. I travel to South Wales every week-end and back on Monday. There are miles of sidings occupied by

    225
    empty wagons. What is the good of talking of shortage of wagons if you see that confronting you every week? Then we are told that if you send engines to some stations there is no freight for them, and there are other stations where there is freight but there are no engines. Is that a problem which it is beyond the wit of the Government to encompass and solve? It seems so ridiculous that, with all the powers the Government have, and the control they can exercise, they cannot: produce the coal that is there and distribute it to centres where it is urgently required. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) used to ask last year what was the reason for the delay in the arrival of trains from Yorkshire to King's Cross and for all the inconveniences that were caused to passenger traffic. The answer always put up by the late Captain Euan Wallace, a very charming man, whose death we all deplore, was, "You cannot blame me, because I am responding to your invitation to give facilities for the traffic of coal from Yorkshire to London."With all that 12 months' notice, surely it is not beyond the competence of the Government to provide a solution. It is a serious problem.
    We are fold that the civilian population is in the front line of the war. The War Office, the Admiralty, the Air Ministry and the Home Office say it. When you are relying upon the courage and endurance of the civilian population, why should you deprive them of a comfort which you have in plenty but which you will not take the trouble to distribute? It is a very serious matter, not only from the point of view of domestic consumers, but of industry and of the public utility services. Ministers complain that they do not get sufficient notice of Questions on the Paper to provide proper answers. The Board of Trade, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Mines and the whole Government have had twelve months' notice of this question and we are no better off now than we were then. I appeal to the Government with great seriousness. There are three Ministers concerned and they are reported and reputed to be men of great action. Let them act now.
    Mr. Ritson (Durham): I am very pleased to have an opportunity to deal with this question. I am afraid I must correct the dates of the hon. and gallant
    226
    Gentleman who has just spoken. I remember a year ago last November a deputation consisting of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and others from the North met the three Departments on the question of transport. We felt in Durham that we were going to be in a very serious position owing on the question of ship transport. We met these three Departments, Captain Euan Wallace, the Minister of Mines and a Navy representative. The Naval people warned us that the difficulty in the future of getting coastwise coal moved owing to mines and so on worried them very much. When the Government were warned a year ago the late Prime Minister had to declare, because of the appeals in the House, that he would take the matter in hand himself. The Government have had twelve months to deal with the matter. I hope that they are better informed now than they were then, because I have never heard such ignorance on the matter as I heard at that time. When we pleaded for spare wagons one of the officials said deliberately that they could not afford to have spare wagons. You must have spare tubs in pits in order to get production, and I am glad to know that there are wagons on the road if they are only worked properly. You cannot work the coal trade without a large number of spare wagons. I hope that we are getting more intelligence among those who are concerned with this industry in the Department. I do not care what criticism is made of my hon. Friend the Minister of Mines, but it cannot be said that he is ignorant of colliery work. He has practical experience behind him, and if he can convert his brethren on the distributing side we shall get over our difficulties.
    The hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) does not know perhaps that we have three kinds of coal in Durham—steam-coal, the best gas-coal in the world, and a coking coal. In spite of that, we are lying idle two or three days a week. He talked about wages, but let him go to Durham and he will find that some of the best men whoever went into the pit are not able to have a week's work owing to the conditions there and short time. Cannot the hon. Member get electricity companies to work our coal? The people of Durham can generate electricity, gas and power from it. Undertakings are used to getting certain

    227
    types of coal and they stick to it because of their desire to get quick profits. In these days people have to take what fuel they can get just as they have to take what food they can get. People are using food that they never dreamt of using, and these undertakings will have to use fuel that they never dreamt of using. As a Member for Durham appeals have been made to me lately to see whether I can get some household coal for the people. We are living on top of the coal and some of it is so near the surface that you can almost scratch it out. They say that the Army have taken our lorry drivers. I wrote to the Army two or three times and they have released some men for three months. Although we are living on top of the coal we cannot get coal to the firesides in Durham simply because of the lack of transport. The Army have taken the lorry drivers at such a rate that many of the small coal merchants cannot deliver. More lorry drivers ought to be released so that the cellars of the people can be stocked. There is nothing that keeps the morale of the people up better than a good fire. If we had better fires there would be more happiness in the homes in more ways than one. Nothing makes me more miserable than to go home on washing day and not be able to get near the fire. I am convinced that a lot of people would never have gone to the divorce courts if they had had decent fires.
    With regard to the transport of coal by sea, I live in a seaport town, and as I have said before, the men in the coastwise trade have been forgotten. These men are not in uniform, but they are feeding the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. If their work has to be transferred to the railways something should be done to relieve their position. One of these men said to me the other day: "This is my eighth torpedo I have had on a ship. They have got me this time."These men are doing a great work, and we feel that there are possibilities and opportunities for them to be used on our railway system to help in the distribution of coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor and I made an appeal to the Ministry of Transport to see whether we could get a better system of running trains, both passenger and material. We
    228
    met a big, hefty fellow who looked to me rather terrifying, and the first thing he said, before he heard what we had to say, was: "I am very busy."I said: "So are we, and you are only one, and we are two. We have a complaint, and you have a right to listen to it."He treated us courteously, of course. The hon. Member for Spennymoor was like a little terrier, and held on to his coat-tails for a long time, and I think he was astonished that that little tenacious man and a tall, cadaverous being like myself could put up such a case.
    Let us see where we are in the matter of transport. I know nothing about engines, except that I know what end of a train to get into, but I feel that some trains are overloaded to the extent of almost stultifying their purpose. The engine is almost torn to pieces trying to get them out of the station. There are far too heavy loads behind engines. There ought to be some practical man who understands these matters to deal with them. They should not be left to officials who are so high in their own estimation that they will not listen to the practical men they are in charge of. That is one of the difficulties from which we are suffering. I thank the Minister of Mines for his references to timber in the pits. I have been rather worried about it, but some of us have been out of the pits for a very long time, and as sensible men we never intend to go back. If we had been sensible men we should never have gone into them, but we did get out. I am very anxious about the class of timber which is being used. I remember having to use green timber, and if there is anything that is a trap to the man who is trying to save himself it is green timber. It will not remain where it is intended to remain, and it does not give any warning. In some cases cement props have been introduced. I have been so long out of pits that I do not know anything about cement props, except that they are being used. But my hon. Friend, who knows pit work so well, will, I am sure, give their use serious consideration.
    Let me deal with Durham. In Durham colliery after colliery is closed, and what we are going to do I do not know. It is not only the social problem which arises. It is not easy to tear a man away from everything he has in Durham, his family and all his interests in the place, and take him down to Bristol, as some want to do.

    229
    I do not think the man would improve his conditions very much there, and in any case he does not like to be dragged away from home in that way. When this war is over we shall want all the export coal we can get. It is the greatest possible value export cargo we have ever had in enabling us to bring back full cargoes in return. We have sent many men away from the coal-exporting districts of South Wales and Durham and we may find it difficult to get them back again. If a man goes into the pit it is because he does not know where else to find a living. If we could put daylight into the pits and the working conditions there could be seen we should have the relieving officer and the doctor coming along to certify the men. When miners have found other employment it will be difficult to get them back into the pits. We may be pleased to get these men for whom there is no work at the moment out of South Wales and Durham, but it will be very difficult to get them back again.
    I am pleased that there has been an opportunity of dealing with this question on the Floor of the House to-day. No body of men is more loyal than our lot. The Secretary for Mines wanted to get men back to the pits when the war broke out. The men of 67 begged at the gates of the pit to be allowed to restart; but the young men have more sense than the old men. Most of the men who are now 67 years of age went into the pit at the age of 12, but you will not get boys of 12 into the pits any more. The difficulty is of getting young labour into the pit. Do not keep yelling for men to be employed, when you do not understand their position and their troubles and trials or the needs of the industry. I give the coalowners their due; they do understand. Sometimes we do not understand them, but they know exactly what end of the stick suits them. It reminds me of an old pitman who used to do a bit of preaching. He was describing the power and sympathy of the Deity and what happened to Aaron's Rod. When Aaron's Rod was thrown down, and became a serpent, and the Lord asked Aaron to pick it up, Aaron said, according to the old pitman: "Which end, Lord?" The Lord, being as merciful as He could, told Aaron to pick it up by the tail end. The moral was that the Lord never gave a man more than he could lift. You never
    230
    knew a coalowner pick anything up by the tail end. He has the other end.
    Let us get together in this matter. We have never lived in a time, especially on the East Coast, when so many men and women were doing their very best. Yet I have never known such sadness at their having to remove from one county to another. The people in Bristol will not have to mind what particular coals they get. We all have to accept any kind of coal we can get hold of. In the exporting areas, however, we think we are entitled to something more than a mere levy, and we ask that we should get our fair share of the inland trade. I fear, sometimes, that our own Federation is not as sympathetic in actuality as it is on paper. I am convinced that human nature enters even into federations. Some of the more rich members of the Federation—[Interruption]. It is you people in Yorkshire. You were prepared to come within the family circle so long as we were all feeding on one fare, but now that you have a better repast than we can get you sometimes refuse to allow our men to come in. It is very hard, and we feel it very keenly. We rather feel that they are being ostracised. I am sorry that any members of my class should run down another area, and refuse to take a man in, for fear that the bounty they are getting now may have to be shared.
    Lieut.-Colonel Mayhew: I have, as is probably known, a financial interest in a colliery company employing some 1,100 men in the Midland (Amalgamated) District, and we have suffered very considerably from the wagon shortage. I have taken the opportunity to speak to the Minister for Mines and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport upon this question, and I realise the immense difficulties of their Departments and of the railwaymen in regard to this wagon question, but I venture to suggest that it was quite unnecessary to leave large numbers of wagons standing in South Wales, loaded with coal for which there was no sale. I agree that it was partly due to the fact that France defaulted, and the coal which was intended to go to France did not get there, but there is no sense at all in leaving wagons standing fully loaded with coal for which there is no demand when there is a tremendous demand for

    231
    other coal in other parts of the country, and which could be delivered had it not been for the deficiency of wagons.
    This point was raised particularly in October, and Government Departments were warned of the serious situation which must arise. The point was raised again in November, and the railway Executive Committee disclosed the tact that there was a surplus of wagons on the Great Western and Southern Railways. In January we again pressed in this matter, and it was disclosed that there was no improvement whatsoever on the L.M.S. or the L.N.E.R., which are the two railway companies which cover principally this district. In fact, I think I may say that the L.M.S. could have very quickly utilised 15,000 wagons and the L.N.E.R. something like 3,000. In spite of what my hon. Friend has said, we tail to understand why these wagons were not made available. Figures are sometimes deceptive, and one dislikes using them more than is necessary, but the Midland amalgamated district is very centrally placed for the production of coal or the movement of it after it has been produced. Lancashire and Cheshire coal has been largely absorbed for war purposes, and Northumberland and Durham equally so, and it is not available for the general utility companies in the same degree as the Midland district. The Midland district are being continually badgered by the authorities to increase their output. In January, at a time when there is always a little opportunity for miners to take a holiday, even in war-time, there was a little coming together of wagons, with the result that the output sold from the Midland district was higher in the week ending, I think, nth January than at any time since the previous August, which was simply the result of the wagons being available.
    There is another point that I wish to emphasise. The men are disturbed by never being quite sure whether or not they are going to work when they come to the collieries. There is no man more loyal, more ready to play his part or to do his job, than the coalminer. We feel that a very definite effort should be made to enable wagons to be available where they are required. My right hon. Friend will realise that there is no advantage for any coalowner in mining coal at present. He
    232
    knows that, in regard to every ton of coal taken from the pit, the profit he would normally make out of it goes to pay the Government's taxes. He is proud to be making that contribution, and so are the men who mine the coal. They are doing their share. Coal is a commodity which, once it is out of the pit, ceases to have any value to the pit whatsoever. So we are taking out of our mines something which leaves the mines of less and less value, and eventually of no value at all.
    I do not wish to emphasise more than I have done the need of the industry. There is another need, and this is a point on which I hope my hon. Friend will also consult with the other officers of State, namely, the question of food for the miners. A miner mostly takes cheese for his midday meal, and meat when he can get it. At present he has great difficulty in getting either the one or the other, and I have taken steps to draw the attention of those who deal with these matters to the fact that a working miner has been able to get something like 12 ounces of meat per week, while the serving soldier, who is not working any harder, has had something like 56 ounces of meat per week. The discrepancy is so appalling that I am astounded that it has been allowed to continue so long. I very much hope that the Minister will use all his influence to see that there is a greater equity of treatment as between the heavy industrial worker and the serving soldier at home.
    Lastly, there is the question of service as it affects the miner and the mining community. We are in some little anxiety on this matter. A man goes into the mine very young, and it takes him a long time—a number of years—to acquire his sense of responsibility for underground work and his ability to live a not easy life under conditions which are very difficult indeed. There are certain men in mines who have to pass a definite examination before they can qualify. They are the men who are principally responsible for the safety of mines, and they are called deputies. Roughly speaking, men liable for service are between 20 and 30, and in the mines in which I am personally interested 20 percent. of the deputies—20 percent. of the men who have to pass a Government standard of qualification—are now liable for service. I cannot believe that these men

    233
    will now or at any future time be readily taken from the mines. If they are, the casualties in the mines may be serious. In a mechanical mine, such as ours, about 51 percent. of its personnel are between the ages of 20 and 30. I hold very strong views that every young man should be a serving soldier. My own two sons have been through the ranks, and 1 am proud to say that they have now obtained commissions. But we arc anxious about these men in the mines. I know that the Ministries concerned have strong feelings about this, but they are being pressed by the Forces to provide men. I should like some assurance that there will not be, either now or at any future date, any move to take away the deputies and other important men from the mines.
    Mr. Ammon: I have been asked to raise another aspect of the matter. It is the consumer's point of view, and, particularly, the question of the schemes that govern and control distribution. I have questioned my hon. Friend a good deal, and perhaps he feels at times that I am too critical, and too suspicious about some of the people concerned. I am afraid that what I shall say now will make him think me even more suspicious and critical. Both from the point of view of keeping the industry running, and from that of maintaining the morale of the people, the consumer's standpoint is an important one. There would have been very serious trouble this winter in London if it had not been for the combination of circumstances that the winter was less severe and there had been a very large evacuation from London. I will give some examples to show how far evacuation has taken place; and it will be seen that these figures are from boroughs where the poorer people live. Bermondsey has lost half its population; Poplar, about the same proportion; Southwark, 70,000, and Camberwell, 92,000. So one could go right through, and show that, with this and the milder weather that there has not been serious trouble. There may have been extra stocks over London as a whole, but those places most concerned have been considerably short of even their normal supplies.
    The scheme as at present administered makes for unequal distribution, it keeps prices high, and it reacts harshly on the poor and on people with small storage
    234
    capacity. These difficulties arise largely because distribution is left wholly in the hands of the merchants. I make a distinction between the poor and the people with small storage capacity; because there are people who could pay, but who, because of their limited accommodation, cannot take in large stocks, and they are, therefore, in the same position as those with small means. The scheme, I think I am right in saying, was adumbrated in a letter from the Director-General on 12th December, 1940, to the Chamber of Coal Merchants. The scheme—and I have a copy here—is good, both in plan and intention, but it is rendered practically ineffective because its operation is left wholly in the hands of the trade. There may be one or two places where it has worked a little better; broadly speaking, it suggests that there should be certain committees formed, and that depot managers should be appointed, and it proposes and lays down certain schemes for co-operative working, lending each other lists of their customers, and so on. What happens? In the first place, the organisation is formed mainly from the Federation of Coal Merchants; they appoint depot managers, and it is left wholly in the hands of the Coal Trade's Federation. It shuts out the small trolleyman. who is mainly concerned with supplying and serving people in the poorer districts, who can only take small quantities of coal. Large numbers of these people live in the boroughs that I have mentioned. These trolleymen supply the main number of people in these boroughs. It is because of that that I say this scheme will not operate, because those carrying it out are more concerned about the large consumer, whereas the small trolleyman is placed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Ritson) pointed out, in a very difficult position indeed. The merchants have not acted very helpfully in the distribution of coal, and they have certainly been very reluctant to hand over their lists of customers.
    Let me examine the situation. Customers are divided into two categories. There are those who can accommodate fairly large stocks of coal in their cellars, and others who can take only a cwt. at a time, and the latter are the people who buy from the trolleymen. The local fuel officer is in a very invidious position; he has the title but no power. The

    235
    position is largely based upon bluff, and once the bluff is called, he is in a very humiliating position. The small consumer is nobody is child. The local fuel officer has certain powers of control over the bigger consumer and, if he thinks a certain situation has arisen, he may say who must be served first, but there is nothing with regard to the position of the small consumer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham Has already pointed out, the bombing of cities and the calling-up of large numbers of trolleymen bring about insufficient supplies, which are very soon disposed of. It is particularly hard on people who live on the higher floors of flats, as, owing to the limited supplies of coal and the reduced number of men who take it round, the distributors naturally get rid of their supplies as soon as possible. They are very reluctant to take coal upstairs unless they are tipped very heavily. That, as hon. Members will see, places a handicap upon the poorer person. I put these Questions to my hon. Friend—I am sure he will understand—in order that he may know of, and look into, these points and see whether anything can be done.
    It may be a big job, but I suggest that we must register the small consumer. If this is done, it will to a certain extent make for more equal distribution over the whole community. The Department and the Minister himself have made requests that consumers should not be fussy about grades of coal. Although the Minister has forgotten more about the coal industry than I shall ever know, I would remind him that the system is built up on grading. There are 28 different grades of coal, and I suggest that the operation of so many grades has the effect of raising prices to the consumer, because many people cannot tell the difference between grades. I know boroughs where people do not know the difference between best coal and kitchen nuts, with the result that anything can be served out at top prices. I see that best coal is 68s. a ton and 68s. 11d. a ton, and hard cobbles and kitchen nuts 57s. a ton. It is a stiff price for poor people to pay.
    Mr. Denville: They are paying £4 per ton to-day.
    Mr. Ammon: That is for anthracite. I am talking about the ordinary, common,
    236
    house coal, and my concern is for the small consumer. Not only do we get these lists and variations in grade which are said to be an excuse for merchants making money, but I have been told on very good authority that two large combines, for instance, which are concerned in the sale of what are known as Kent boiler nuts, from the Betteshanger Colliery, sell them under other fancy names for an extra 4s. per ton. That kind of thing runs right through the business, and there is no means of checking it or preventing the exploitation of the people.
    Mr. Grenfell: But would not that be a case of fraud?
    Mr. Ammon: Precisely, and my retort is: Why has not the Minister gone into the question? I know it has been reported to him.
    Mr. Grenfell: No.
    Mr. Ammon: Well, as my hon. Friend has heard from the response in the Committee, it is not uncommon for this sort of thing to happen. I will give the Minister the source of my information. I am subject to correction, but I have been comparing the price lists of Lloyds, f.o.b., at various ports, including Swansea, Cardiff, Hull and Newcastle, and I find that the prices in the list I have here are 100 percent. higher than in those particular ports. I am told that it costs a trifle under £1 a ton to bring coal from Northumberland to London.
    Mr. Grenfell: Far more.
    Mr. Ammon: I am informed so by people who are supposed to know the business. I give this figure to show that these enormous prices are related not so much to the pithead price as to the rise that takes place between the ports and the consumers. This is a matter which certainly calls for some investigation, because there seems to be a big rake-off by somebody.
    Mr. Grenfell: The hon. Member should also inform the Committee that the freights sometimes double the pithead price before the coal reaches the port.
    Mr. Ammon: Reference has also been made to the amount of coal that has been stored. Surveys were made with a view to providing dumps and sites were approved, but throughout the winter very

    237
    few of the dumps had any coal in them. The local authorities selected the sites, the Government paid for them, but the coal was then distributed by the merchants, and again they got the rake off. Surely, there was in this matter an opportunity which my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines missed. There was a great opportunity for local authorities to have been the coal distributors in their districts, using the dumps the sites for which they had provided.
    I want not only to criticise, but to suggest remedies. I have already suggested that the Minister ought to give consideration to the question whether small consumers should be registered. I suggest that he might again consider dividing the country into zones for the purpose of fuel supplies. I suggest that he should examine the grading of coal, as shown in the retail prices, with a view to reducing, the number of grades as much as possible. The second and third of these matters have already been submitted to the Department. So far the Minister has rather objected to zoning the country, a suggestion that was contained in the coal transport reorganisation scheme of 1917. It was rejected by the Department as
    "unlikely to be advantageous under present-day conditions on account of other conditions that have now to be taken into consideration, besides the saving of transport; nevertheless, if the need arises adjustments in the flow of traffic will have to be made with the same end in view."
    This was stated in a letter from the Department. It is a little difficult to understand and perhaps some explanation can be given by the Minister. What are the present-day conditions that make it impracticable to apply the coal transport reorganisation scheme of 1917, when it is admitted, in the same sentence, that in certain conditions some adjustments might have to be made to put into operation that which is now said to be of little or no use? With regard to the examination of the grading of coal, we again find that the feelings of the merchants are considered and given first place. They said:
    "This, it is considered, would entail a measure of control of the mining industry on which His Majesty's Government is not at present prepared to embark."
    Why not? Surely they ought to have taken control over these things. Here was an excellent opportunity, during a life-and-death struggle, when it is necessary that the morale of the people should be
    238
    kept up at the highest, and when the supply 01 these necessary things was needed to maintain that morale, without considering the feelings so much of the industry itself, for them to have stepped in and taken charge of it and exercised full control. Look at the powers of the scheme itself. I have a letter which was sent from the Chamber of Coal-Trade Merchants immediately after the scheme, to which I have referred, was issued. They issued it to their people and wound up with these very interesting words:
    "The scheme, as will be seen, is an essential one for enabling the trade to deal with difficulties arising during the emergency period of the war, but the experience which will be gained from it, and from the establishment under Statutory authority of the machinery in which the trade itself through its national local organisation has a definite part, should be of value to the trade in strengthening its organisation to meet any circumstances which it might be faced with when the war is over."
    So again they are using all these things in that particular connection. The local fuel officers have little or no authority or power and that they merely relied to a large extent on bluff. If that bluff was called, then they would be in a very perilous condition indeed. I have in my hand a leaflet issued from the Minister's Department, headed "Statutory Rules and Orders, 1941, No. 121." Paragraph 5 (a) of this leaflet lays down, in effect, certain steps to be taken if it is felt that certain people are amassing too much, or have more than is necessary, and it gives instructions to the officers what they are to do in that connection. I also have a copy of a confidential circular issued to the local fuel officers, warning them not to operate paragraph 5 (a) because of the difficulties which might arise. This states:
    "Divisional coal officers should understand that there are almost insuperable difficulties in securing the effective enforcement of that part of Article 5 which enables limits to be placed on the supplies of coal"
    Is there anything which is more absurd? Here we have a printed, public instruction what they are to do, and then we find the Department going behind their own instructions and telling their own officials not to operate the provision. It is utterly absurd. The fuel officers are told they cannot operate the instruction, and therefore they must go carefully. I suggest that the Minister should look into this question.
    Mr. Grenfell: May I ask the hon. Member how this affects the interests of consumers?
    Mr. Ammon: It is not my duty to answer that. It is my duty to bring before the Committee the instructions issued by the Minister's Department, which are known to the public, and to show how the Ministry have been going behind the backs of the public by telling the officials that they are not to take the instruction seriously. [Interruption.] There it is. Naturally, if a fuel officer goes to the coal merchant, he is laughed at.
    Mr. Grenfell: My hon. Friend must know that it is being operated. I have never heard of a single complaint by a fuel officer.
    Mr. Ammon: It is given me by fuel officers who found their position untenable and that they have no power. I would ask my hon. Friend to look into the points that I have raised. The whole distribution of coal in London is entirely in the hands of the merchants, and the merchants are exploiting it for their own ends and for the benefit of their own trade to the disadvantage of the community itself. The hon. Gentleman's own machinery which he has set up to check it is being rendered ineffective. On behalf of the consumer, I ask him to give careful attention to the matter and see that the scheme as adumbrated works to the advantage of the public.
    Sir Geoffrey Ellis (Sheffield, Eccleshall): I may have misled the Minister in a point that I put to him, and I think he gave me an answer which was not quite intended. It is with regard to the responsibility of the Government for taking over pits not financially capable of production. Docs the hon. Gentleman really mean that he has the power to-day to take over any pit and run it for production if the owners are not in a position to make it pay?
    Mr. Grenfell: No, what I intended to tell the Committee was that if I find pits which are unable to produce coal, and coal is required, and the plea for exemption is that they have not the financial resources to do so, I must take responsibility for getting sufficient financial resources to get those pits into production. I can cite the case of a coalfield, which must be unnamed, which does not pro-
    240
    duce sufficient coal. The hon. Baronet knows the coalfield to which I am referring. The pits are not remunerative. They have been assisted with outside financial resources, because they say they cannot carry on. We say we must have the coal and the resources must be found.
    Sir G. Ellis: The Minister has cleared up that point. Let me take it a little further. Before he himself takes on the responsibility, is there not the larger question of the consideration whether you cannot have better and quicker production possibly in another set of pits in another district?
    Mr. Grenfell: Will the hon. Baronet explain to me the advantage of producing more coal in Yorkshire at the expense of cutting down production in Somerset, or what benefit you obtain if you produce more in Yorkshire and close pits down in Northumberland?
    Sir G. Ellis: The hon. Gentleman must not try to get round me on a side issue. I did not suggest that. I admit that for certain purposes, especially in the present condition of transport, which instead of getting better may get worse, you may have to consider production on a regional basis. If that is what is in his mind, there would not be any objection, but if his answer also implies that he is trying to keep open an unfinancial pit for other reasons, the question has to be looked at from a good many different points of view. I am glad that that has been cleared up, because there was a little doubt in our mind.
    Now may I say a word about transport? I was chairman of a sub-committee which has now made its report. What struck me more than anything else from the evidence and what I have heard since is the assumption of so many Members that we can continue our transport of coal pretty much as we did before the war and that, therefore, when anything goes wrong it is the fault of some Government Department or some individual that the coal is not getting delivered. I wonder whether it has ever struck hon. Members that one of the main reasons for the shortage of coal to the consumer is the disturbance that happened owing to enemy action. The experience we have as coal producers is that the blame does not lie at the door of the Minister of Mines and his people

    241
    or of the Minister of Transport and his people. On the question of distribution at the end, I think the Minister—and he will as a Socialist probably laugh at me as an individualist saying this—has never been strong enough. He will never get the eventual distribution properly carried out in war-time until he prevents competitive distribution. He must pool the small merchants so that they will work together to distribute the coal. It is only possible to-day to make distribution properly to the homes of the people if you use all the sources of transport you have got, and you can only do that by compelling the merchants to come together and co-operate.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman say that.
    Sir G. Ellis: My hon. Friend from Yorkshire knows me very well, and he knows also that we get astonished at many things in war-time. Do not let him make any mistake, however; I do not know that his astonishment will continue beyond the war.
    Something has been said about prices and the grading of coal. Nobody more than the people who produce the coal desire the Minister to take up a position which will ensure that the coal they produce and which they know to be good is sold to the people who burn it, so that they may be satisfied that they get the coal they want. A great many of the so-called qualities of coal do not mean quality; they are simply names. I go so far as to say that if you had the simplest examination of a great many coal merchants on the coals which they now call by certain names, and you were to take away the labels on the coals, they would not be able to distinguish them. Here is an opportunity for the Minister of Mines to do what is long overdue, and insist upon a very different scale of qualities and prices from those that have been used in the past. I really do not see why, while the war is going on, you cannot reduce them to something like halt a dozen. I am glad that the levy scheme has been introduced and generally accepted. Let me say to some of my hon. Friends who are in districts not so fortunate as others that after the war the position may be the other way round. I do not say that it solves the whole diffi-
    242
    culty, but I do say that it is helping to solve a portion of it. I am very glad to think that by arrangement between ourselves it has been possible to arrive at something which, at any rate, will help us in present troubles.
    Mr. Cocks: We have had a very interesting speech from the Secretary for Mines, who explained very clearly the intricate and difficult nature of the problems with which we are dealing. Some solid work has been put in by him since last May, and I have myself sufficient confidence in him to say that if he had a free hand and could do exactly what he liked, he would be able fairly quickly to resolve most of these problems. But we know that he has not a free hand. He said so himself. He has interests to contend against, other Departments to consult and Cabinet decisions to consider —he is not a member of the Cabinet himself—and so I want him to understand that any criticisms I shall make are not about himself personally but about the general position. The point with which I want to deal has been mentioned by many Members in this Debate. I do not think the Minister himself dealt with it in sufficient detail, but perhaps the President of the Board of Trade, who, I believe, is to reply, will take up the matter. I refer to the difficulties in distribution owing to the shortage of railway wagons, or, rather, the fact that wagons do not get back to the pithead quickly enough. We have suffered from that very badly in Nottinghamshire, where pits have been working short time because there have not been sufficient wagons to take away the coal. The railways have been blamed, and the merchants have been blamed. The railways blame the merchants, and the merchants blame the railways, and, apart from difficulties due to war action, 1 expect that both parties are to some extent culpable, and, anyhow, both have their difficulties.
    Let us take the case of the railways first. The other day Mr. Lemon, of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, dealing with the allegation that it was the fault of the railways that wagons were not at the collieries, said:
    "In the Manchester area between 25th October and 7th November last year the average number of loaded wagons available each day was 3,505, but only 756 were unloaded"

    243
    He was putting the blame on the merchants.
    "During that period there were 42,055 wagons loaded with coal and only 9,075 were unloaded."
    Speaking of the Manchester and Salford area, he said:
    "Each week-end we have 2,000 wagons standing there which have been there loaded for more than 48 hours, and a large number of them for seven days or more"
    That is the railway side of the case. On the other side I have read a statement by Mr. Wiggins, the president of the Master Cotton Spinners' Association, in which he said:
    "Often wagons after they have been emptied of coal are left on the sidings, thus impeding the unloading of other wagons"
    He was blaming the railways for the time taken in the transit of loaded wagons and the delay in shunting out empty wagons, and returning them to the collieries. He gave this example of the difficulties of merchants. He said that a certain merchant whose normal requirements were 10 wagons a day received no wagons at all for nine days in succession and on the tenth day received 30 wagons all at once. In those circumstances it was impossible to unload them as quickly as they would have been unloaded if they had come regularly in the normal numbers. There are many reasons why things cannot be worked so smoothly as they were worked before, and nobody in this Committee would unreasonably expect them to be so.
    There is one other matter which has been mentioned by several speakers and which probably causes delay in unloading, and that is the number of qualities into which coal is divided and the number of sizes into which it is sub-divided. The example was given to me of a man who had 100 bags of coal to deliver. In order to load his vehicle, the driver had to go to 10 different wagons to take out 10 different types of coal. That took time. The small coal merchant has no storage space beyond the wagon and the siding, and he sometimes uses the wagon as a kind of storage. Because of the different qualities and the slowness with which certain qualities are bought, he may have to keep coal in the wagon. The wagon will be partially unloaded for a week or more, and that directly causes delay. The Minister said in a speech recently that people insisted upon different
    244
    grades of coal because they needed different qualities for different kinds of fireplace. That difficulty is, I think, very much exaggerated. I get what coal I can, and it all seems to burn equally well. The only question for me is, Have you any coal? I have an ordinary fireplace, and all the coal seems to burn the same. In war-time we shall have to put up with whatever inconvenience there is in this respect.
    In regard to sizes, a suggestion has been put to me. I am not an expert, but this has been put to me by an expert. Would it not be possible to cut out all the sizes above what are known in the trade as doubles, which are 2 inches by 1 inch, and have an all-in fuel? Below this, let the industrial fuels be graded as before, eliminating various sizes between doubles and selected large. That would still leave the same qualities for the public, but the merchants, instead of having four or five different sizes, would have only two, as has been suggested by more than one speaker. It would save time and clerical work for the merchant, and would reduce the number of wagons; it would also reduce the time for unloading. The collieries could easily alter their screens to enable this to be done.
    Another cause of delay relates to wagon repairs. I am not sure that the arrangements for oiling and greasing wagons are entirely satisfactory. In these days, wheels and bearings are getting damaged. I know a firm who were asked by a number of collieries in the Midlands to do the work of greasing and oiling the wagon bearings. As that work has now to be done through the Railway Clearing House Committee, they wrote to the Committee. This is the reply which was received from the Committee:
    "It has now been decided that the railway companies shall be generally responsible for the oiling and greasing of requisitioned, privately-owned wagons, on the understanding that consideration will be given, in certain exceptional cases, to the question of permitting a colliery company, or repairing firm, acting on behalf of the colliery company, to continue to perform this work when it was in their hands prior to requisitioning..…You are seeking permission to set up facilities for carrying out the work at certain collieries. … As … this is the case, the railway companies cannot see their way to concede such a request."
    Here is a firm, asked by certain collieries in the Midlands to do this work. They have the facilities for doing so, but the

    245
    Railway Clearing House Committee will not allow them to do it.
    Sir G. Ellis: Responsibility for these wagons has now gone over to the railway companies.
    Mr. Cocks: I know—
    Sir G. Ellis: Financial responsibility attaches to the work of repairing and dealing with the wagons, and you cannot have divided control, divided repair work and all that kind of thing.
    Mr. Cocks: Surely there is no reason why the wagons could not be oiled, because the Committee says it can be done in certain cases but it does not allow a new firm to come in and do it. The question of repair arrangements should be looked into, because the arrangements made by the Railway Clearing House Committee have resulted in a lot of waste of public money. I will give one instance. Before the war the owner of a fairly modern 12-ton wagon, built between 1933 and 1939, used to hire it out at 5s. 6d. a week, and had to do his own repairs. Under these new arrangements which are now in operation, the Government pay 5s. 9d. a week, and they do the repairs themselves. This amounts to about £4 10s. a wagon a year. The owner does not have to do the repairs, and he gets more money for it. The older the wagon, the bigger the bill. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are being wasted in that particular way at the present time. The owner is on velvet, and the taxpayer has to pay the bill. Only selected firms are allowed to do the repairs. Other firms of wagon repairers are not allowed into this enchanted and extravagant circle. As a result, the wagons are taking longer to repair and money is wasted. That state of affairs should be brought to the notice of the Committee on National Expenditure. I would like to ask the Minister why it is that municipalities are not permitted to purchase coal themselves and distribute it to merchants in their localities? Salford wanted to do this, and were not allowed to do so. It was recommended by the Samuel Commission and I believe the Minister of Mines has often advocated it. The Ministry says there is no need to duplicate buying agents, but I can see no reason why municipalities should not buy coal in bulk. It might help to ease the situation in these difficult times. Cannot the Minister reconsider his attitude?
    246
    In conclusion, I commend the few points which I have made to the Minister and to the President of the Board of Trade, and I wish them both every success in the work they have to do.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: We must all recognise that in all probability the situation which we are now considering is mere child's play compared with what it will be in a few years' time. Assuming that the potential war production in this country reaches its peak in 1943, it means that we shall have to have an enormous quantity of coal delivered to a great many factories which are still under construction. There will be a large number of people who will still want to be warm, and therefore I appeal to the Minister to consider, with the Lord President of the Council, the importance of planning ahead and doing it quickly. The greatest offenders to-day are Government Departments. Government Departments now have more wagons in heavy demurrage than a whole mass of private firms put together. Private firms cannot afford to keep wagons standing, because they have to make use of their sidings. Unless the wagons are emptied and turned round quickly, it is almost impossible, with the wagons that are available, to continue to supply the country in the way required. Various hon. Members have recognised the extraordinary difficulties under which the railways have been working due to enemy action. It is unfortunate that we cannot always explain these things; they are all well known to the railway companies. But there is surely no reason why something should not be done to improve terminal facilities wherever possible at public utility works like gas works, electric light plants and so on, which are dependent on coal. Under present arrangements, which are very often the same as they were in 1850, it is not possible to handle large wagons and do the tipping expeditiously so as to free the wagon to do another job.
    Another matter which I think is important to-day is that the coastwise traffic in coal has, for obvious reasons, been reduced to a very small trickle. There are certain ports and other places with good terminal facilities which might possibly be removed to some other point where they could be used to greater advantage. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat

    247
    down stated that the privately-owned wagons have now been pooled and have been placed in the charge of the Ministry of Transport, who is now in control of railways. So far as I know, there is no reason whatsoever why the wagon-repairing companies should not be employed as agents by the railways to carry out repairs, but clearly, as must be obvious to everybody, someone has to be responsible for getting the work done. If wagons are treated in the way they are now being treated, there will undoubtedly be an increased shortage owing to a lack of proper repairing facilities. The situation is a great deal more serious than some people recognise, because we can only suppose that enemy action is going to become more severe. The fact that this island has always used its coastwise traffic in the way that Germany and other Continental countries have used their internal canal systems means that if the coastwise traffic is cut off, an enormous extra load is laid on the railways at a time when most of the traffic is being handled at ports which are unaccustomed to it, and where, in order to get extremely quick dispersal of goods, the goods have to be moved in wagons normally used for coal We have been very short of covered wagons, and recently the use of sheeted wagons has been permitted.
    The real point however that we all have to face in our own constituencies, certainly those South of the Thames, is that we are still having coal from Northumberland or Scotland routed to points South of the Thames. This is inevitable, for political reasons—political in the sense that it is necessary to keep working the pits which normally engage in the export trade. But when the coal has been mined in Durham and Northumberland, if you make up a train of 1,000 tons and haul it all the way from Northumberland to Hampshire, you are wasting wagons, wasting engine power and holding back and blocking traffic on the railway. Then the German bomber comes along, with the result that you have wagons full of coal waiting for transfer from one system to another. Much of the delay is due to the fact that instead of having a sort of short shuttle service, there are these heavy trains which have been sent from great distances. And very often when it arrives South of Thames
    248
    people very naturally do not want to burn steam coal in a cottage grate. It takes some time to get well alight. They bellow it up because they want to cook their meals, and it is gone.
    Lieut.-Colonel Mayhew: All the South Wales miners' wives burn it.
    Sir R. Glyn: The point is that they want to use what they are accustomed to. I know the Minister's difficulties, but I submit to him that this is not a time to put coal into dumps. It is a time when the people want coal, and if we are to put coal into dumps, let us do it during the summer months. Hundreds and hundreds of people were asked to lay in coal last summer and gave their orders, and to this day have never received the coal. Things of that sort make it extremely difficult for people who have cellar accommodation to meet the Minister's request during this forthcoming year.
    Anthracite is expensive; but it has to be won and hewn, and I think greater emphasis should be placed on the desirability of institutions and buildings with central heating using it instead of coke. The more we induce people to use anthracite, and to save coke, which is required for other purposes, the better it will be. I agree that in small houses, and especially bungalows, it is impossible to store coal. Therefore, the people in such houses depend on the man with a trolley. But the man with a trolley is being called up. I know of case after case where, in isolated places, such men have been called up, and there is no means of getting coal. There is a real need for planning ahead, which we are not doing at present. In many cases proposals have been put forward by the railway companies for improved facilities for working, without result. This is the most vital thing that confronts the country. Nothing is more important to the morale of the people than that they should be kept fed and warm. I would rather have tons of coal for the people than all the speeches of the Minister of Information, which make one so furious. Also, the war potential depends on proper distribution of coal. We are not going to get that unless planning is started without a minute's waste of time.
    Mr. Tinker: I want to deal with one or two points which have not

    249
    been dealt with to-day—points which I have raised before by way of Questions. 1 come from an area where we are able to produce more coal than is required in the district. That coal is sent out, and other coal is brought in for local consumption. One would expect that at a time like this, whatever private enterprise docs in normal times, the Minister of Mines would examine the position in every district, and say that no coal must be sent out of the district if it would mean other coal having to be brought in. The Minister talks about transport difficulties, yet he knows that that kind of thing is going on. In Lancashire, as a whole, we are able to produce only about 50 percent. of our requirements; yet I have reason to believe that coal is sent out of the county. Therefore, in addition to the 50 percent. of our requirements that we should need in any case, we have to bring in enough to replace the coal which is sent out to meet orders that were placed, no doubt, before the war.
    Private enterprises have this sort of thing in mind. They say: "We must hang on to our orders, because, when the war is over, we shall be able, through having kept contact with our customers, to get orders again in times when there is a plentiful supply of coal."In a crisis like this, all such things should be put on one side. The ramifications of private enterprises in protecting themselves ought to be put upon one side, and there should not be a pound of coal sent from any district that itself requires coal. It may be said that this is due to the necessity for using certain classes of coal, such as gas-producing coal. The same might be said about householders. We are having to use coal at the present time, which, under ordinary conditions, we would never think of using. We must not forget the war effort, and we cannot have everything we would desire in peace-time, and we must put up with difficulties.
    We blame the Minister of Transport, the Board of Trade and other people for what is happening, but I believe a thorough examination of these points would result in much of the difficulty being eliminated. While the railways are cluttered up with traffic, why does the Minister of Transport allow trains of excessive length which have to draw up twice on the platforms, causing considerable delay? In the journey from London
    250
    to Lancashire trains have frequently to draw up twice at station platforms. I do not object to trains of excessive length, but I think that arrangements ought to be made, so that passengers could be told which section of the train would draw up on the platform, so that they could arrange accordingly, and thus perhaps save a delay of three or four minutes at each station. I think that passengers would readily agree to some such arrangement at a time like this; I have not met a person who would not be prepared to make big sacrifices to help the war effort.
    The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not develop that matter too far, as this is not the Vote of the Ministry of Transport. Strictly, the whole Debate is restricted by the Amendment.
    Mr. Tinker: Probably I have gone too far, but I was taking the opportunity of trying to bring in the wider question. On the question of production, I want the Secretary for Mines to pay close attention to the question of the closing of collieries. I appreciate what he said to-day in regard to the powers that he will take, if required. I agree that there will be collieries that may have to close owing to their being worked out or for other reasons, but I want him to be thoroughly satisfied that that closing is really necessary. If he has examined the question and is satisfied that a particular colliery must be closed, that will go a long way towards allaying the feeling of suspicion that coal-owners are seizing their opportunities to close particular pits. We want to know whether the Secretary for Mines has sanctioned such procedure. Two collieries in my division are on the point of closing. One employs 700 men and the other 200, and they are up in arms about this kind of thing. They believe it is entirely due to the coalowners' view of the matter, and if we can be sure that the Mines Department will examine these questions and say that if a pit is closing it must be done, it will bring back confidence to the public. If that happens this Debate will have been well worth while.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): The President of the Board of Trade has, I suppose, a general rather than a particular responsibility for the coal-mining industry, but I think it would be the wish of the Committee that I should speak on some of the broader

    251
    economic aspects of the industry, as well as attempt to deal with some of the many very interesting points which have been raised during the course of the Debate. I think that this is an appropriate occasion to say something about coal prices. The Minister of Mines has touched on the subject, because it forms the background against which many other problems stand in relief. The general index number of basic raw materials has risen by about 70 percent. since the war started, but the price of coal has risen by only 30 percent. This is, I think, quite a remarkable thing; it is to some extent a tribute to the industry and an answer to those who think that the price of coal is out of line with prices for other raw materials. The small rise in the cost of living is, of course, due to the fact that the Government are controlling many of the prices which go to make the cost-of-living index. Without that control it would be very much greater.
    I think I ought to say something, too, about the war assistance levy. The Minister of Mines said it was not based on profit but on loss of trade. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked how this levy was applied and whether there was selection by the Ministry of Mines of the pits which would benefit. The operation of the scheme at present is automatic; it does not receive any process of selection. Indeed, there are a few exceptional instances where undertakings already on a profitable basis will actually receive some additional profits. I think I need spend very little time on the general matter of the levy, but I believe hon. Members will agree that it is a step in the right direction, even though it may be described as a small or halting step. In peace-time many other considerations would have to be borne in mind—for instance, whether a disservice was not being done to the national interest by keeping in being undertakings which would be permanently unprofitable in operation. But I suggest, as I think every hon. Member will agree, that in present circumstances the difficulties of the export areas are due to military and not commercial reasons. Nobody will say that the loss of the French or Italian market has anything to do with com-
    252
    mercial considerations. Who is to know-how soon those markets will come back? We must be in a condition to take advantage of the markets when they are there again. Therefore it is unnecessary to discuss the merits of the levy scheme, which I think is beyond controversy at this moment.
    A subject which I do not think has been specifically raised is the disparities which are beginning to make themselves felt in various places in England in the delivered price of coal. I am speaking of the disparities between one place and another which may be quite near together. They are due, of course, to the necessity of taking coal in some instances longer distances than has been customary, or to the rise in coastwise freights. My hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines has told the Committee that he has schemes under consideration, but in the meantime I think hon. Members should know that these disparities are being temporarily ironed out by means of a direct Treasury subsidy on coastwise traffic. That is only a temporary measure, which we hope will be replaced by a permanent and more scientific system.
    I will deal now with the subject of merchants' prices which was raised particularly by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). This gives me a good opportunity of saying something which every housewife ought to know—namely, that the price of coal in every district to every consumer is controlled by the Mines Department, and every housewife has a right to ask for the official price. The hon. Member for North Camberwell suggested there were merchants who, while advertising one grade of coal, delivered another. That is fraud. If these instances are brought to the notice of the Government we shall prosecute the offenders with the utmost severity I think that is all I need say on the general question of the disparities in prices and merchants' prices.
    I now turn to the subject which is of the greatest interest and which causes the greaest anxiety to hon. Members—the distribution of coal. I realise that many of these matters are more the concern of the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Shipping than the Mines Department. Nevertheless, the two subjects are so

    253
    closely interlocked that I hope I shall be allowed some latitude if I stray from the depots on to the rails. I have had, for the last 20 years, some experience of mining industries. Every time I hear of the problems of the coal-mining industry I have to remind myself that, instead of dealing, as I have been accustomed, with a mere 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 tons a year, we are here dealing with some 250,000,000 tons. It is in this light that we have to look at the distribution problem. The figures are startling.
    Several hon. Members have referred to the canal system. Whatever may be said about the canal system from the long-term point of view, if we look one or two years ahead, I think the general opinion would be that the utmost amount of extra coal that we could hope to transport by canal would be in the order of 300,000 or 500,000 tons. Although my arithmetic is not strong, I think that represents about one-tenth of I percent. of the total problem. To suggest that one-tenth of 1 percent. is not worth tackling would be incorrect. It certainly is, but I think that we should remember its contribution to the whole will be very exiguous.
    While I am on this subject I should like to mention the question of Army lorries, to which reference has been made. During the winter months it must be very galling, in an area where there is a lack of mechanical transport, to see empty Army lorries, but I earnestly ask hon. Members to remember the fact that mobility of the Army is a thing upon which our lives depend. If you are going to turn soldiers over to transport duties, even in cases where the necessities are very great, and an emergency arises, the most serious consequences may occur. Any general system of using Army lorries for the transport of coal for industrial and household purposes is very dangerous, but wherever the Army have been asked to co-operate they have done so to the extent of their ability.
    For the last few months, as hon. Members know, a committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, has been sitting, and trying to co-ordinate, or help to co-ordinate, the work of the Ministry of Mines, the Ministry of Shipping and the Ministry of Transport. The distribution of this vast tonnage of coal is one of the most complex administrative
    254
    problems possible to imagine. It is like a vast jig-saw puzzle, and its complexity would make it fascinating if the stakes for which the game is played were not so high—the stakes of cold and hunger, the spectre which we have always standing over us.
    We should once again realise the background of the difficulties, some of which are human and some not, with which we have to contend. First of all, I think it is worth mentioning that this country alone among the belligerents had not built strategic railways at the beginning of the war. Our railway system was entirely laid out for peaceful and commercial purposes. Another factor, which will, I think, be more familiar to some other hon. Members than to me, is that in peace-time, and for very sound commercial reasons, wagons not only serve as a means of conveyance of coal, but, to some extent, as warehouses for the merchants. There are very sound reasons for that practice, but it is a very serious difficulty when one comes to deal with this particular problem in war-time. I would add here that the number of wagons standing in South Wales had been reduced quite recently by 15,000, and in the Midland (Amalgamated) District there are more wagons than last year and considerably more than there were a few months ago. It is difficult to give exact figures.
    Mr. Ernest Evans: Are they empty or full?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I could not answer that question; but they will not remain empty for very long. The next difficulty, which has been touched on by many hon. Members, is that the industries of the country are working at a record rate and that new factories have been put up which represent a new outlet for coal, but which bring a new transport problem, which is not confined to coal, because into those factories have to be borne the raw materials and the coal with which to fabricate them and the finished article on its way to consumers. The general effect is to place a very much greater strain on the railways. The next difficulty is that there are rapid changes in the population, and any long-planned system of building up stocks may fail to some extent if our forecast of what those changes are should prove to be wrong. There is a number of towns—hon.

    255
    Members will immediately suggest to themselves where—whose population has fallen by 50 or 60 percent. and others which have increased by smiilar amounts.
    My hon. Friend talks about planning ahead. We cannot go on a rigid plan; it is necessary that the plans should be flexible and capable of dealing with the changing situations which occur. I do not think it necessary to say anything about this country being in the front line. I was most encouraged to find that hardly anyone has even mentioned the enemy at all—I can hardly imagine anyone being more furious than the Germans to hear no reference to any of their efforts—but the enemy is a gentleman who comes into war. There are, of course, unlucky hits from time to time, and very little reference has been made to the vital work that has been done by the railway repair gang and to the extraordinarily rapid way in which they have been able to repair the damage that has been done. It has been suggested that we should have dumped coal out of wagons indiscriminately. The effect of that, on the whole, would have been to create worse problems lower down the scale. If you throw coal out on to a field, the labour required to load it into lorries, and the number of lorries to be used to pick it up again, would probably make the problem still worse.
    My hon. Friend has said that no munition plant has been stopped for shortage of coal. Actually he forgot one public utility undertaking, which was shut down from 5 p.m., 21st January, until 11 a.m. on the 22nd. There have also been plants engaged on unessential work which have been dangerously short of coal and have had to change over to types of coal which they have not been accustomed to use, with perhaps some effect on their costs. But I think we can congratulate ourselves that there has not been a serious shortage of industrial coal. Several hon. Members said that the weather has been a great friend of the Minister of Mines. That surely again is infuriating to General Goering, because, although the weather last winter was certainly cold, I do not remember that there was a "Blitz" then. I am told by the meteorological experts that the weather this winter—though not so bad as last—has also in fact been below the average, and I think that we
    256
    can congratulate ourselves upon the fact that there has not been any general shortage of coal.
    The congratulations, however, stop there. We are not at all complacent about this matter. We had to live through this winter by a series of devices and expedients. There have, of course, been shortages of house coal which are most regrettable, but I would like to put the thing in a correct perspective by means of some statistics. The rationing order is operated on the basis of local authority areas. There are nearly 1,700 such areas in the United Kingdom, and restrictions in varying degree are in operation in only 197 of them. I do not think that that is satisfactory, but it is not disastrous. We cannot live through another period on a series of expedients and devices. New mechanical handling apparatus, new sidings and labour must be provided. The Government have not got these things under consideration; they have them under construction. It takes many months to bring them into operation. I would like to assure hon. Members that the Government are dissatisfied with the coal situation, and I hope they will always remain dissatisfied. I am sure that the most insidious effect of air attacks is that it gives excuses to the inert and the incompetent for not fulfilling their duties. That will not be an excuse which will be used by the Government. The measures we have taken and are taking will greatly improve both the stock position and the supply of industrial and household coal next winter.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: There has been a lot of talk in the country about staggering pay-days. At the pit where I worked power has been given by the Yorkshire Miners' Association to take a ballot because the owners will not have a pay day before Saturday afternoon. Other workers in that area get their wages on Wednesday, or Thursday or Friday. We have been negotiating with the management of that colliery for at least three years with the object of getting wages paid on a Friday, but they have said deliberately that they will not pay on a Friday. What happens? The miner gets home with his wages at half-past one or two, or even half-past two, on Saturday afternoon, and then his wife has to go to market and finds that there is nothing left. It is true that she can get the

    257
    rationed foods, but foods that are not rationed have been bought up by then. I hope that either the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary for Mines will use his persuasive powers with this colliery company and that there will be no necessity for the men to take a ballo on whether they shall cease work until they get their pay on a Friday afternoon.
    I also want the Secretary for Mines to give his attention to the case of men who are out of work in Yorkshire at the present time. I know men in three Parliamentary divisions of Yorkshire who are victimised to-day—400 in one division, 120 in another and 70 in the third. We are crying out that we want more coal, and what answer am I to give those chaps when they say, "George, I have done nowt for a week"or"George, I have done nowt for a couple of months''? They can produce coal: practically every one of them is a coal-face worker. There are up to 600 or 700 of these coal-face workers who are victimised and cannot get work. When I interrupted him the Secretary for Mines said to me,"This is a trade union matter" It may be a trade union matter, but it is also a national matter. You say, "We want the coal," and we say, "We want the men working" If the trade unions cannot settle this grievance, what on earth are the Government here for? The Secretary for Mines may smile at this business. I have felt in a sense that I had no right to touch it, because my own trade union have said, "Keep off the grass," but while we are keeping off the grass those men have no grass to eat. They have no wages. They have a bit of unemployment benefit, but what is that to men who want to work and help the country? They are not like the men the Minister of Labour spoke about the other day who were asking about the possibilities of a strike being settled, and said, "Is there any fear of an agreement being come to so that we have to go back to work?" That is not the case with our chaps. They want to work. I ask the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary for Mines to get down to this business and see that these men get back to their work.
    Mr. Grenfell: The hon. Member knows that at the Mines Department we have machinery for conciliation, and if application is made to us, I will see that some re-
    258
    presentative of my Department gives his services.
    Mr. Mander: Strong representations have been made to me recently about the situation in the West Midlands. I am told that great difficulty is being experienced in delivering coal both to works and to households on account of the calling up of coal merchants' assistants, persons who cannot be replaced by female labour. There is great anxiety about it. There may be the same difficulty in other parts of the country, but it is certainly a difficulty in the West Midlands. Men are being called up and there is no one left to deliver the coal, because women cannot do the work. Could one of the Ministers concerned say something as to the view of His Majesty's Government on this question, and as to what they propose to do?
    Mr. Grenfell: On the question of calling up these people, I would point out that they were first to be called up in July last, but the calling up was deferred for a month. It was then deferred for the month of August and then, at our request until the end of October. Then it was deferred until the end of the year and again until 30th April. I think we shall be able to keep them while they are still engaged in the delivery of coal, up to the end of April. We are very anxious to see, as far as possible, that sufficient men are retained to perform the work of delivering coal.
    Mr. Mander: If I know of any cases where that does not happen, may I call the attention of the Minister to them?
    Mr. Grenfell: If there are individual cases, such as where the men have been registered but the coal deliverer does not take the matter up, I shall be pleased to consider them.
    Mr. David Adams: I wish to call attention to the position which obtains on the North West Coast and, I suppose, elsewhere in regard to demurrage on wagons. Railway officials told me that they had no difficulty whatsoever in collecting demurrage charges, which in many cases are extremely high, the reason being that these charges are debited to the work in hand. That applies particularly to factories. I know that the Northern Area Committee, together with representatives of the Amalgamated Engineering

    259
    Union, have made a series of representations to works in the district to get these wagons discharged more quickly. For a time the result was satisfactory. Wagons were being discharged under that relatively slight pressure which had usually been held up. I suggest that the Ministry of Transport might have a note, weekly or half-weekly, of the traffic which is being held up at the different works, and complain of the matter by telegram or by some other method. There would be a very great stimulus given to the release of wagons throughout the country. I believe that suggestion to be of considerable value, and it was indeed confirmed by the officials that it would be one method by
    260
    which the Ministry of Transport would have the use of much more traffic than is available at the present time.
    Mr. T. Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.
    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now ladjourn"—[Major Dugdale.]

  CASUAL WARD INMATES (WAR WORK).
  CASUAL WARD INMATES (WAR WORK).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  EGGS (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  EGGS (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  MAGISTRATES' DECISION, HOVE.
  MAGISTRATES' DECISION, HOVE.
  RABBITS.
  RABBITS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  FIRE PREVENTION SCHEMES (EMPLOYÉS).
  FIRE PREVENTION SCHEMES (EMPLOYÉS).
  PERSONNEL (UNIFORM).
  PERSONNEL (UNIFORM).
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  INTERNEES.
  INTERNEES.
  DETENTIONS.
  DETENTIONS.
TRANSPORT.
  "HELP YOUR NEIGHBOUR" SCHEME.
  "HELP YOUR NEIGHBOUR" SCHEME.
  CANALS (INDUSTRIAL AREAS).
  CANALS (INDUSTRIAL AREAS).
AGRICULTURE.
  TOWN REFUSE (UTILISATION).
  TOWN REFUSE (UTILISATION).
  ROOKS.
  ROOKS.
  LANDLORD AND TENANT (WAR DAMAGE) ACT.
  LANDLORD AND TENANT (WAR DAMAGE) ACT.
  SENTENCE, LEEDS.
  SENTENCE, LEEDS.
  REQUISITIONED BUILDINGS, COLWYN BAY.
  REQUISITIONED BUILDINGS, COLWYN BAY.
  WOMEN'S AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (ALIENS).
  WOMEN'S AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (ALIENS).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACTS (ALLOWANCES).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACTS (ALLOWANCES).
  BRITISH ARMY (SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS).
  BRITISH ARMY (SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS).
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  CEMENT (TECHNICAL COMMITTEE).
  CEMENT (TECHNICAL COMMITTEE).
  POST OFFICE (UNDELIVERED PARCELS).
  POST OFFICE (UNDELIVERED PARCELS).
  LIMITATION OF SUPPLIES.
  LIMITATION OF SUPPLIES.
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:)
BOROUGH OF BECCLES ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF HITCHIN ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF NEWTON ABBOT ORDER.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on the 12th instant be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on the 12th instant, be approved.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion appearing in my name upon the Paper. I think it would be for the general convenience to make an exception in the present emergency to the rule that Amendments cannot be put down before Second Reading, because there is a good deal of legislation that has to be passed without any delay, and it is the only means by which Notices of Motion can be brought to the knowledge of noble Lords.
  Moved, That for the remainder of the present Session, Notice of Amendments to be moved to a Bill in Committee may be handed in, printed and circulated before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Lord Moyne.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  WAR-TIME ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENTS.
  LORD PERRY LORD PERRY rose to call attention to the administration of Government Departments in war-time; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am calling attention to the functioning of Government Departments in war-time, when abnormal conditions compel a change of habits, outlook and behaviour. Your Lordships will, I am sure, agree that what may be adequate when the business of Government flows more or less smoothly along established channels is altogether insufficient when the obstructions of special demands threaten to check the flow, choke the channels, and necessitate an application of driving force. The present war is in many respects unlike any war which has been fought in historical times. The British Empire, with Allies whose moral supports much greater than their material help, stands alone in the world at arms in defence, for ourselves and the whole of civilisation, of a heritage distilled by our ancestors from centuries of experience—a heritage which a short time ago President Roosevelt most ably defined as "Freedom of speech and expression; freedom and the right to worship God wherever He may be found; freedom from want and freedom from fear." By the exploitation of treachery and bad faith, a rabble of upstart plunderers has overrun Europe. This time last year the Empire of France was at our side as an Ally. Other great nations—Norway, the ancient home of the Vikings; Holland, the one time mistress of the seas—were amongst those who still enjoyed freedom. To-day, at least so far as Europe is concerned, they are bond slaves to an organisation of depravity, wickedness, corruption, and evil.
  This has been brought about because the nations of Europe, including Britain, believed the word of a man who was a self-declared liar from the beginning. They paid no heed until he offered them his protection and then, like Adam and Eve in the Garden, they saw that they were naked and were afraid. All Europe, including Britain, had one fault in common: they believed that Germany could be bought off. We called it appeasement in this country, defeatism in France and Belgium, credulity in Scandinavia and
  414
  Holland, and sheer funk in Rumania and Hungary. It is all a question of terminology. The war we are now fighting is unlike all preceding wars because in the British Empire we know what we are fighting for. And there is no one in this country who wants to stop the war at any point short of complete victory. The nation, the Empire, most of the civilised world, know that we shall win. But are we compelled to muddle through to victory?
  Probably never before have there been so many changes of Ministers and in the High Command as have occurred during this present war. We are now led by a second Prime Minister—God bless and preserve him!—we have had four War Ministers, three Secretaries of State for Air, plus one Minister of Aircraft Production, making four in all, three Ministers of Supply, three Presidents of the Board of Trade, three Ministers of Transport, three Secretaries of State for the Dominions, throe Ministers of Shipping, three Ministers of Information, and so forth. There have been numerous changes in the officers holding high positions in the Fighting Forces. The purpose of these changes, it must be assumed, is to secure greater efficiency by using men with the best brains and experience. Ministers of the Crown are served by a personnel which has been carefully selected for peace-time pursuits. It consists of a body of men and women highly trained in their profession, and, indeed, throughout the world without rival for integrity and sense of duty. It is only those having experience, as I have, of Government servants in other countries, who can appreciate that the British permanent official is in a class by himself. He is never failing in courtesy and deportment. His patience exceeds the patience of Job. He never hurries to a decision but invariably consults his colleagues and discusses with them concerning even the most trivial of details. He believes that second thoughts are better than quick decision and that to sleep on a matter is preferable to immediate action. He is conscientious to a scruple in his care of public funds. To secure "Treasury sanction" is in many quarters a synonym for having achieved the impossible. This, I feel sure your Lordships will concede, is a fair description of the attributes of the civil servant.
  If he is less cautious than I have described, he frequently seeks another walk

  415
  of life where he may experience greater freedom of action and have opportunity for enterprise and initiative. Indeed. many famous names, which are household words with us, belonged to men who were civil servants, that is were servants of their country in a capacity other than as members of a fighting force. The archaic phrasing of present-day Civil Service correspondence may perhaps be traced back to Geoffrey Chaucer and Edmund Spenser; ponderosity and emphasis of the unreal may be lineal descendants of John Milton and John Locke. The obsession for Minute records is obviously derived from Samuel Pepys and it would be difficult to avoid observing the emulations of Charles Lamb's essays which are to be found in the "jackets" of every Government Department to-day. Isaac Newton alone seems to have failed to have left his impress on the traditions and practice of the Service, although he was Master of the Mint! In more recent times the names of W. W. Jacobs, A. B. Walkley and others will immediately spring to the mind as civil servants who found sufficient leisure to secure eminence in other professions.
  Whence and how is such an illustrious body of men recruited? The procedure appears to be that given a young man on the threshold of life, whose ceiling of ambition is short hours, little work, mediocre surroundings and no responsibility, with the knowledge that so long as he does not commit an outrage, he has a "cushy" job for life, and that there is no one who can discharge him because of stupidity, or lack of interest in his work; given a young man who is content to go through life waiting year by year for dead men's shoes to secure promotion, and whose goal is to reach sixty years when he can retire on half pay—that is the man who is attracted by the Civil Service.
  He passes an examination and his name is put down on a waiting list. Eventually he gets to the top of the list and he begins his work somewhere in Whitehall. There is no one who can discharge him, excepting Death itself. And, in a general sense, there is no one who can promote him but Death itself. If Death is kind, by the quick removal of his seniors, he may, on approaching his sixtieth birthday, be in
  416
  receipt of a salary of £3,000 a year with an Order of the Bath.
  As an administrative officer he is in charge of a personnel over whom he has none of the ordinary accepted powers and authority. He may not dismiss incompetent subordinates any more than he can engage a messenger to run errands; consequently he has no opportunity of demonstrating judgment as to the character and abilities of men. In the course of his duties he buys nothing, he sells nothing, he pays for nothing. He never has anything at risk and therefore lacks that great champagne of life—the thrill of hazard. When it is necessary for him to see anyone outside of Government circles, he raises his finger and sends for the desired person to call at his office. As a consequence, he never mixes in the world and is woefully ignorant of the swaying passions and interests which dominate ordinary humanity engaged in the manifold struggles of life. "Take no responsibility" is the corner-stone and keystone of the permanent Civil Service structure. Money, my Lords, is the yardstick which measures success in most walks of life. When money has been acquired, and to most ambitious men it is an ever-receding goal, there is but one further thing remaining and that is power.' The limits of money rewards are rigidly defined and fixed in the Civil Service, so that, after satisfying the needs of mediocrity, any ambition which remains must seek after power. In Whitehall power is closely associated with politics. Indeed there is little scope for the exercise of power otherwise. As a consequence, the Civil Service, although so outwardly self-effacing, is really a, seething mass of well-trained gentlemen of leisure grabbing after power.
  Your Lordships will not be concerned with the small and insignificant trifles which serve as identifications of power on the way up to the top, but at the top power is to be spelt with a capital P, because the higher officials of the Civil Service are the permanent Government of this country. Ministers come and Ministers go—and some of them do so with alarming rapidity—but the permanent official survives them all. When a Minister changes his office he walks into a new and strange land populated by exponents of a subject of which he, the Minister, has been appointed to be a

  417
  master but really knows very little. He must learn from his permanent officials. However great may be the Minister at the hustings or on the public platform, when he becomes a Minister it is a civil servant who is his wet-nurse, and when an indignant country demands a change of Government it is a civil servant who is his pall Bearer. This is power and, what is strangest of all, power without responsibility. In the words of Lord Hewart:
  "Of all methods of administration, that is the worst whereby real power is in the hands of one set of persons, while public responsibility belongs to another set of persons."
  The last war gave a great impetus to this tendency which has continued to grow until it may well be said that Bureaucracy "doth bestride the; narrow world like a Colossus "and it may be asked" Upon what meat doth this our Cæsar feed that he is grown so great? The answer which has been suggested is that "New Despotism," as Lord Hewart terms it, battens on the Constitution itself. Instead of seizing power by arbitrary action, the bureaucrats have usurped it by Act of Parliament.
  This was clearly and concisely condemned by Sir John Marriott in his article on "Law and Liberty" in the Fortnightly Review for July, 1928, when he said:
  "It is my profound conviction that the prevailing and increasing disposition on the part of the British Parliament to confer upon the Executive quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions is wholly mischievous and ought to be resisted."
  Parliament is passing ever-increasing legislation, couched in general terms, and leaving it to the Departments to work out detailed regulations necessary to give effect to the Statutes. These regulations have all the force of law. More than 2,000 Statutory Orders were in fact issued in 1940. It is gratifying to note a sense of awakening consciousness on the part of Members of Parliament from time to time, as exemplified during the current debate on the War Damage Bill. I quote from the Official Report of 23rd January, 1941. Major Milner said:
  "The whole administration and conduct of matters arising under the Bill would be in the hands of the Treasury and not in the hands of the War Damage Commission at all. The commission would merely be a channel, or more properly an agent of the Treasury. … It would be bound hand and foot by the
  418
  Treasury. … Many of us feel that there is already far too much power given to the Executive. …"
  Sir Patrick Hannon followed with:
  "It is true that we have been conferring upon the Treasury inordinate powers in relation to the administration of public Acts in the country. … I hope that some limitation will in future be placed on this kind of extension of the powers of bureaucracy. It is wrong that we should remove from Parliament the powers that Parliament ought to exercise."
  Such opposition is unfortunately rare and unheeded. Unless Parliament as a whole will take the trouble to scrutinise all proposals from the constitutional aspect, one great principle of our democratic Constitution, "the sovereignty of Parliament" will soon have to give place to the "sovereignty of the Civil Service."
  I am, however, not now concerned with the constitutional or judicial aspects of bureaucracy. I have merely referred briefly to ideas expressed by leading authorities to illustrate the growing powers of the permanent officials. The price paid for this power is, of course, a sacrifice of all recognised self-expression, and an ability to be all things to all men. For Ministers change and a reactionary Party Government of to-day becomes the Radical Socialist Government of tomorrow, but both are served by the same permanent officials. It is probably impossible to escape the necessity of delegating powers in circumstances like the present. But it is imperative that executive functions should be exercised only by those who can adapt themselves to the changing conditions and needs of the nation in war time. Peace-time methods of the Civil Service obviously cannot be expected to meet war-time conditions; still less are they adequate for such a war as the present one. Is the Executive suitably constituted and organised to exercise its rapidly expanding powers? If not, is it willing to adapt itself to do so? Some have suggested, and probably not without justification, that more effort is directed towards the acquisition of bureaucratic powers than to the prosecution of the war It is a bureaucracy controlled by men of remarkable ability, quite capable of carrying out their duties in a leisurely, unimaginative and prescribed manner, but quite incapable, by inclination and training, of exercising initiative and taking responsibility, as is indicated by their

  419
  method of communicating with the outside world. Correspondence always commences "I am instructed" and finishes "Your obedient servant," neither statement being, in fact, true. The general administration is cumbersome and procrastinating; short-sighted and opportunist; swathed in forms, ceremonies and red tape.
  Such a body must be at a serious disadvantage when undertaking functions far removed from those originally intended, especially when it attempts to grapple with the problems connected with the conduct of modern warfare. Unfortunately this has not been sufficiently realised by those outside and still less has it been realised inside the Service itself. Lord Hewart says "One of the marks of despotism, as history shows, is that it is unreachable." To meet the exigencies of war-time conditions attempts have been made to modify a cumbersome and antiquated machine by introducing new parts instead of evolving a new model suited to the needs of the situation. It would appear that the preservation of the old type of machine is of greater consequence than its output and efficiency. Indeed, so arduous is the perseverance for the preservation of the species that many thousands have been removed far from their necessary contacts, apparently only to escape all dangers of elimination. You may decide to mechanise your Army, to increase the offensive and defensive equipment of your Navy; you may set out, by constant experiment and at great hazard, to build up the finest Air Force in the world; but the Ministers who take the responsibility for the Forces are dependent upon the civil servant working in his musty office somewhere in Whitehall or elsewhere. He is not a mere cog in the machinery; he is the power, and without him nothing can move. He is the steam in the engine, and the steam is of very low pressure and operates through many complications of valves, governors, gauges and other contraptions designed—deliberately designed—to afford the maximum of obstruction and delay.
  The country is now engaged in a stupendous conflict. Our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our guns and equipment, our ships and our aeroplanes were all submitted to some description of emergency training and testing. They are now subjected to the searching tests
  420
  of war. At least our Fighting Forces and their equipment were selected, trained and designed for use in the contingency of war. Not so the Civil Service, the exclusively peace-time functions of which I have attempted to describe to your Lordships. So as to obtain greater supplies of munitions of war and to ensure food for the Forces and non-combatant citizens, the State has taken over and controls many branches of industry, transport and food supplies. All of the work of securing these munitions and supplies falls upon the Civil Service. Obviously the peacetime establishment is insufficient and help is needed; not assistance to carry on and perpetuate leisurely, procrastinating, obstructive methods of peace-time government, but something quite different. Instead of leisure, intense application is now required; instead of exchange of inter-departmental opinions, it is quick action which is of paramount importance. An entirely new job has to be done. To create instead of obstruct, to loosen instead of tighten the purse-strings is now necessary.
  New Government Departments are created and skeleton-staffed by robbing personnel from the establishment of the peace-time Service, all for the purpose of perpetuating ignorance and prejudice, and instilling bad practice into the minds of the new help which has to be recruited. So as to preserve the atmosphere of dilettantism, additional help was in the first case recruited from among the academic, scientific and professorial classes, but it was very quickly seen that, whether or not this was a wise choice, there were not enough to go round; consequently the help of business men was enlisted. Much responsibility should thereby have been taken away from the permanent officials. They, however, were reluctant to part with any executive powers. The Fourth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure (now sitting) comments, for example:
  "We have been impressed in the first place by the great amount of time of the highest officials in the Ministry which has been and still is being absorbed in this process of bargaining. We regard this as unfortunate at a time when the full energies of the leading officials are required for constructive planning and administration."
  I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to emphasize a characteristic of officials which is altogether different from

  421
  the principles which guide our nation as a whole. The public servant, perhaps quite properly, is the embodiment of hesitation, suspicion and distrust. His training is to rake as his motto "My country, right or wrong," and his outlook upon life-is based upon the axiom "The King can do no wrong." These admirable sophistries arc excellent in a general sense, but they necessitate very great discretion and a maximum of care and accurate judgment in their individual application. They must never be put forward as excuses for sharp practice and wilful obstruction. In this country we do not apply the principle that every accused person is guilty until he is proved innocent. The business man and the civil servant are therefore opposite in their outlook upon life. The business man has succeeded because of courage, confidence and trust. The fabric of this nation of shopkeepers of ours is credit—credit based upon straightforward dealing, quick action and honourable undertaking. No business man, for instance, piles up files of correspondence and memoranda to justify himself. He is his own justification. That he makes mistakes is human. Life consists in correcting mistakes. When such a man is called upon in national emergency to end help to this country in a crisis he does not expect that all his experience, freedom of action and responsibility for taking decisions will be circumscribed and circumvented by ceremonial red tape and the imposition and supervision of officialdom. He is adaptable of course, and only too willing to reconcile himself to the influence of precedents, but his environment is strange and he is made to feel unwelcome because the permanent official objects to any suggestion that quick decision and action are imperative necessities. The intrusion of a business man disturbs and upsets the quiet restful procrastination which is the alpha and omega of life in Whitehall. The suggestion of having to take or share responsibility, and the necessity to rub shoulders with men who are accustomed to face the rough and tumble of life is distasteful.
  But the strange new power of holding the destinies of tens of thousands of auxiliary workers is intoxicating to the permanent official. The effect of sudden change such as added responsibilities and enlarged sphere of action are problems
  422
  which have to be faced by everyone having authority. Will the new load carry with it that last straw which proverbially breaks the camel's back? Will the expanded vista occasion loss of proper perspective and provoke that mental giddiness vulgarly known as swelled-head? These considerations cannot be ignored. As I have said, soldiers, sailors and airmen adapt themselves to the necessities of their new occupations. Politicians and Ministers do the same, but the executive officers of government are permitted to carry on in their old ways. Why should this be? War demands greater change and adaptability of the civil than of the Fighting Forces of the Crown.
  The inviolate position of the civil servant has apparently had to be contended with throughout the ages. Two thousand years ago, as Plutarch records, when Cato was appointed to the office of Quaestor he found the "permanent officials" of the Treasury were in control, while the Quaestor or Minister of Finance appointed by the Senate, being dependent on what they chose to tell him, remained simply a figurehead. Cato, however, was made of sterner stuff and made himself thoroughly familiar with the working of the department. He soon found it necessary to make drastic changes amongst the officials. By this means he reformed the administration and brought efficiency to the department. Here I quote the delightful words of North's translation:
  "But Cato not contenting himself with the name and honour of the thing, did thoroughly understand what the clerks and registrars should be, and therefore would have them to be as they should be, administrators under the Quaestor only… Thus having pulled down the pride and stomach of these clerks, and brought them into reason, in short time he had all the tables and records at his commandment, and made the Treasure Chamber as honourable as the Senate itself."
  I recited to your Lordships the extraordinary rapidity with which Ministers have been changed since the outbreak of war. Why have the executive and administrative Departments been immune? It is they who are charged with the duty of arming and equipping our Fighting Forces. Are there no complaints of lack of foresight and prevision in the supply of fighting equipment, in the control of shipping and transport, in the administration of home affairs and in agricultural and food interference? I am not suggesting

  423
  that the extraordinary demands which are made upon the national resources and purchasing power can be satisfied in the same way as a conjuror produces rabbits, but has there not been thoughtlessness and undue delay involving considerable loss of life, extraordinary extravagance, and a prevalence of misery, suffering and discomfort, which could and should have been avoided? No good purpose would be served, I am sure, by giving a long list of such cases, as it would not be in the public interest to disclose now the many distressing details which are forthcoming, but I would refer your Lordships to the various Reports of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which are most enlightening having regard to the necessity for silence under which its various Sub-Committees work.
  Weeks after Mr. Churchill became Prime Minister, almost a year after the country had been at war, a member of the War Cabinet stated that "in the past few weeks there has been a great swing over to war production." Which of the great Departments of State was responsible for the previous non-production? Whatever answer you choose, the administrative and executive control was in the hands of the permanent officials. It would be gratifying to think that the swing over announced last July was complete and permanent, but can it be complete or can it be permanent so long as the executive Government of the country is entrusted to men, who, by inclination and training, are opposed to everything which will disturb their serenity; who know nothing of the essential, fundamental duties which require immediate and unremitting attention if our country is to win an early victory? I hope your Lordships will agree that I have made out something of a case to show cause why the most important of the nation's Services demands closest possible scrutiny and investigation, and should be subjected to the same disciplinary action as is practised in other Departments of State and, indeed, in all walks of life. The reason for changes of Ministers is certainly gossiped about as being because they have not proved to be good Ministers, but when one finds a succession of ill-suited Ministers, it surely is permissible to ask whether it is the Minister who is to blame or the staff which is at fault.
  I would therefore impress upon the Government the need for examining the system of doing things as they are now done. I do not suggest any such inquiry as that being conducted by the Select Committee on National Expenditure, although that Committee is instructed to report what economies may be effected. I assure your Lordships that experience proves that economy follows in the footsteps of efficiency.
  In conclusion, my Lords, I would trespass upon your time for a few more moments to ask your consideration of what I have said as it applies to the miracle of the morale of our people. It was not the fatuous optimism of statesmen in the early days of the war or propaganda regarding war aims, or any confidence inspired by a continuous reshuffling of our Ministers' duties, which created the wonderful spirit we have found to inspire our country and Empire. If one is to give any human reason for the hardiness of our people during the past nine or ten months, it is rather to be found in the words quoted by our Prime Minister: "I have nothing to offer but blood and toil and tears and sweat." It was not traditional British race and blood, or any hereditary pride in the liberties which our ancestors have won for us as a nation which prevented the thousands of alien residents in London, many of whom could not even speak English and had but an instinctive idea of British liberty, from panicking and rioting when they were subjected to mass murder from the air. It was something far higher than human agency. I have personally seen not a little and heard a great deal more of the conduct of the nation's affairs by our civil Departments of State during these trying times. I know of nothing worth while and worthy which they have done since the war began, and I would remind them that the same authority which said "Ask and it shall be given you" also laid it down that "My Spirit shall not always strive with man." I beg to move for Papers.
  VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment to remind the noble Lord who has just addressed us that it is the tradition of your Lordships' House that speeches should be delivered and not read?
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord who has introduced this question has made what I, at any rate, consider an extraordinarily interesting and valuable contribution to our debates. He has raised several very important questions, and one in particular, which I hope your Lordships will consider very carefully and take whatever measures are thought right in order to investigate the evils that exist and remedy them. May I preface the observations which I shall address to your Lordships, and which I hope will be short, by a gentle protest? The noble Lord compared business men with officials, very much to the advantage of business men. I have the greatest respect for business men because I know I am not one myself, and therefore I admire the qualities which I do not possess; but I am bound to point out to the noble Lord that in the last war—I say nothing about the present war for obvious reasons—on the whole the record of business men in public administration was not very good. There were a great many tried, but very few of them really succeeded, and on the whole men of very different type were the best recruits that were brought in to assist the nation in the extraordinary difficulties of carrying on a great European war. I am not going to pursue that subject, but the noble Lord might perhaps be interested if he would study the records of actual experience in the last war. That is only by the way.
  The basis of the noble Lord's observations was this—that the government of the country is in the hands of the permanent officials. If that proposition is established, I should agree that that is a very serious criticism of our present machinery of administration for many reasons. My own judgment is that permanent officials are not the people to be entrusted with the great responsibility of decisions on policy and on what ought to be done in great emergencies. I agree, therefore, that if it be true—and so far as it is true—that permanent officials really are in control of the government of the country, that is a very serious criticism of our system. The noble Lord made some very severe criticisms of the methods. I am sure I am interpreting his view when I say that he desired to make no personal attack on any particular official and that, on the contrary, he recog-
  426
  nised that by their standards, and with their conception of what their duties are, they are very valuable public servants. I am sure all of us who have had any experience of permanent officials will agree with that.
  But he said that the system under which they worked and which they supported involved intolerable delays, and was also perverted by an extreme narrowness of vision which prevented officials from looking at the broad general aspects of the emergencies and difficulties they have to meet. I think there is a good deal of truth in that, and all of us who have had any kind of experience, or have been able to watch the administration in this country, must be aware that on these occasions when the government or the administration of a particular Department is left in the hands of the permanent officials, it is true that there is a tendency for great delays to take place, for a want of proportion, a refusal to upset old departmental traditions, however great the public need may be. All these things many of us must have noticed on particular occasions. But the fault really is, as I think, in the fact, which does not apply to all Departments, certainly not to all Governments—it does to some Governments and some Departments—that the function of the permanent official has not been reserved for that which he can most admirably do.
  It is not the function of the permanent official, in my judgment, to direct policy or even make great administrative decisions. His business is to see that the decisions arrived at, the policy laid down, arc carried out in the best possible way, that all the details of administration are rendered possible and easy to be worked so that the policy will not be hindered by administrative difficulty. Many of us must have had experience of a great permanent official working out the policy of his chief. Many of us probably have had experience of a permanent official who has been of a wholly different opinion to his chief, thinking that the policy his chief has decided upon was wrong, yet carrying out with the utmost loyalty and ability the necessary measures in order to make that policy as efficient as it could possibly be made. If it were proper for me to do so, I could give instances from my personal knowledge of that kind of thing having been done, and every one

  427
  of your Lordships who have had any experience of the kind will, I am sure, agree with me. The whole thing depends on the bureaucracy being subject to Parliament as a whole and to the Parliamentary chief acting as the agent and leader of the Parliamentary machine.
  That is the essence of our system. As for Parliament I am laudator temporis acti. I cannot help feeling that there has been a growing subordination of the House of Commons to the Cabinet and a loss of individuality and energy by your Lordships' House which are due to circumstances altogether beyond your Lordships' control. The result has been that the direct control and influence of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the administration of the country has sunk very much in the last fifty years, and on the whole I think that has been a great misfortune to the country. But the cases in which Parliament could intervene effectively in the detail of administration are very rare. Members have not got the opportunity or the time or the possibility of discussing and forming an opinion generally on such matters. Their influence must be as a kind of court of appeal from the decision of the Parliamentary chiefs, and their function mainly is to express their view, either by vote or by debate, that a particular chief has been inadequate for the post to which he has been appointed, and to demand or suggest that his post should be changed. That has happened, as we all know, in recent months on more than one occasion.
  Ultimately the machinery for the initiation of policy must rest with the Ministers and the Cabinet for the time being, and I agree with what the noble Lord has said that there is something wanting in that part of our machinery. I think it is true that on the whole Ministers have less control over their Departments and exercise it less frequently than they did in times past. I am quite aware that to many people it seems absurd that a Parliamentary chief entering upon the duties of a Department with perhaps very little previous experience will be able to control that Department and insist on his policy being carried out, but I am quite sure that that can be done, and is done frequently, and always when the Minister is really fit for the post that he occupies.
  428
  It is his business to initiate and carry through policy. If that is not done, if the policy is left in the hands of the permanent officials, if the bureaucratic delays and narrowness of which the noble Lord complains really exist, as they do exist in some cases, then that is the fault of the Parliamentary chief, and it is because that part of our machinery is not working satisfactorily that these difficulties occur.
  May I call your Lordships' attention to one, as it seems to me, rather striking fact, and that is the tragic frequency with which in the last, let us say, thirty or forty years Ministers have broken down under the strain of office and been driven either to resignation or to complete inability to discharge their duties? I do not think it would be very courteous or decorous to mention names, but any of your Lordships who think over the history of the last fifty years will be able to supply a large number of such names. It seems to me that that is the great danger that we and indeed all democracies are in—the tremendous strain that it puts on the really crucial official, the Parliamentary official, who ought to have all the responsibility and by far the largest part of the administrative power. It all depends on him. You must have in that man a man of considerable ability. He must have the art of government, not only, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, the art of directing a great commercial or industrial machine; he must have the art of government, he must know how to act, how to recommend his policy to Parliament and the country as well as how to initiate it. There is a series of extraordinarily interesting articles by General Wavell which have just been published in The Times, and in to-day's article he recognises with great truth and great impartiality the immense difficulty that the Minister has in properly administering military affairs because of the fact that he has to do it as part of the government of the country.
  I will not detain your Lordships longer. I do think that is the essential part of our system. I think that there has been an immense growth of business, an immense growth of the actual amount that has to be read by a departmental Minister, a tremendous call upon his time made by democratic government, and a tremendous increase in the number of meetings that

  429
  he has to address, speeches that he has to make, and criticisms that he has to meet. All these things have grown prodigiously during my lifetime, and they mean a tremendous strain on Ministers. In the meanwhile the system is practically as it was; very little has been done to reorganise the administrative machine to sec whether something cannot be done. Various suggestions have been made, which would be well worth of consideration, for delegating some of the power from one Minister to another and forming some kind of inner circle of Ministers-just as the War Cabinets that we have found it necessary to create in each of these great wars have been formed—consisting primarily and chiefly of Ministers, whose business will be to direct the policy of the country rather than to deal with departmental difficulties.
  All these things seem to me to require the most careful consideration. Many people much more able to speak on the matter than I can pretend to be have drawn public attention to these things. I think the time has come when a more serious attempt should be made to investigate what could be done to improve the administrative material. So far I agree entirely with the noble Lord, and I venture to hope that this Government, though evidently they can do very little while the war is going on to investigate things, for they are and ought to be fully employed with the war and nothing else, may yet find some means, by appointing a Committee or some body of that kind, really to go into the matter and formulate something that must be cone, but it must be a Committee which really intends that some reform shall be carried through. I am certain that we are running a very serious risk in preserving the old machine, which was perhaps sufficient for dealing with the business of the country in years gone by but which is now quite out of date and requires a great reform of some kind in order to enable it to discharge the very multifarious duties that now fall upon any Government of any country.
  LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I think every one of us will agree that the noble Lord has called attention to one of the most important matters affecting the efficiency of public business, and I am sure we all feel grateful to him for his presentation of it. One thing which the noble Viscount
  430
  has just said impressed me from my own experience as perhaps the most important thing of all. There are cases, we all know them, where the Minister is we may say run by his permanent officials. My feeling is that where that has been the case it has not been the fault of the permanent officials. It has been mostly because there has been in office a man either insufficiently experienced, or one who is either timid or, as sometimes has happened, actually unfit. If he cannot make up his mind himself, somebody has to make it up for him.
  I know quite a number of cases in which that is a fair and accurate description of the position and of course it is not right in those cases to blame the official. I can also call to mind other cases quite in accord with the ones cited by the noble Viscount, in which the Minister, having a policy and understanding it, has found that the chief secretary is not personally in accord with that policy, but when the Minister has made it clear that with the consent of his colleagues that is the policy to be pursued, the civil servants have combined with complete loyalty to make that policy efficient. For all that, I think that when there is a justifiable complaint that in peace-time permanent officials have run a Ministry, it is more often the fault of the Minister than of the permanent official. That emphasizes the importance of the observations which the noble Lord made in his opening speech about the frequent changes of Ministers. In any inquiry into this matter I am sure that cognisance must be taken of that fact.
  The part of the noble Lord's speech about the training, selection and outlook of the permanent civil servant was a graphic and, I think myself, on the whole, an accurate description. It is quite clear that the tradition and habit of the permanent civil servant is not adaptable to the rapid action and decision that is called for in war-time. We all know cases in which the permanent staff, the network of arrangements and the complexity of forms must cripple, and does cripple, rapid action. In most of those cases in my opinion it is the business of the Minister in charge to cut the tapes. Many a time during the last war when rapid action was called for, it was necessary, if I may use the expression, to "cut the cackle" and get immediate and rapid

  431
  decision and action. That, of course, is all against the tradition of the Civil Service, but I think it is fair to say that in the main civil servants, like the rest of us, when they have got to, do rise to the occasion. Nevertheless, it is true—and I think the noble Lord has dealt with one of the most urgent matters of the day—that the constitution and the habitual methods of work of our permanent Civil Service are not adapted to the rapid discharge of responsibilities called for in wartime. For myself I do not think we have yet found the right way of doing it.
  In the last war we had to improvise as we went along—I had the honour of the company and help of the noble Lord for some of the time—and it usually-happened that the Civil Service became the administrative staff but that the decisions as to the methods of carrying out policy were the result of daily conferences between the Minister and the chief business men and others in the Department. I do not agree that inquiry into this business should be postponed until the end of the war. I think we cannot improve our methods too soon. The Government should act in this respect now. We all know that there are instances which justify very abundantly the general cases made by the noble Lord. On the other hand there are quite a number of cases where rapid and efficient action has been obtained; but I do not think we have yet got the proper method of bringing in, at a time of emergency such as you have in war-time, the experience and methods of work of the great business men and industrialists to help us in association with the Civil Service. In other words we have not yet developed the right kind of administrative machine. I would like the Government to take action on this now, and if the noble Lord's Motion leads to some action of that kind I believe he will have rendered a very real service to the more efficient prosecution of the war.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, when I read on the Order Paper the Notice of this Motion, I hoped there would be many members of your Lordships' House who would feel, like myself, that it was an occasion when, rightly, one should attend the sitting of the House, listen with attention and thought to what was being said and, if ideas should come to one's
  432
  mind after listening to the speeches, make some contribution to the debate. It is a subject the importance of which should make every member of your Lordships' House realise that if he sincerely felt he could make some contribution, he should do so. The subject of this debate strikes at the whole principle of the government of this country. It is a subject upon which all members of your Lordships' House who have had experience of working in association with civil servants in administration will have formed some very definite ideas.
  To the noble Lord, Lord Perry, the mover of this Motion, I feel that the House should be much indebted. The Motion comes from one whose achievements in life justify his claim in addressing your Lordships' House. I refer to his own personal achievements and his experience in connection with administration and therefore with civil servants. It is a wide experience that he has had, and anyone like myself must listen with attention to the deductions which that great experience has led him to make. Apart from that, your Lordships, I am sure, will agree with me that the careful preparation of the presentation to your Lordships' House of his reflections about this matter signifies the deep interest which he feels in the subject. I regret that more members of your Lordships' House have not decided to attend and take part in this discussion. The noble Lords, Viscount Cecil and Lord Addison, who have just spoken have urged the claim that it is a subject which should receive the thought of the Government, and that there should be a decision to take some action with regard to some possible revision of the traditional practice.
  In the course of his speech Lord Perry emphasized the position of civil servants. I was particularly impressed with one phrase: that they take no responsibility and no risk. He added that promotion depended upon death. The responsibility of civil servants in the administration of this country certainly qualifies the method by which they begin their careers as being the subject of a very definitely decided method as best suited to the circumstances of the day. In your Lordships' House in the year, at least, before the outbreak of this war, there were several debates in which it was urged that there should be

  433
  a Ministry of Supply. The then Government of the day resisted the demand and resisted the arguments advanced in justification of it. The House must now admit that Lord Strabolgi, in the insistence of his frequent urgings, has been justified by events.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, made a very sweeping statement which seemed to suggest that business men in the main, who gave their time, service and experience in the last war, were not a success, and he insinuated that civil servants were entitled to the greater credit for what had been done. There then sat in this House Lord Inverforth, who, I think, in the direction of the Ministry of Supply, achieved a success which exceeded what had been achieved until he took it over. Certainly it is true that he put at the heads of all departments making decisions men who would be described as business men, taking responsibility from civil servants and placing it in their hands. Unfortunately, at this late stage of the war, insinuations have been made as to the inadequacy of preparations made in early days of the war, but there are now at the heads of most of the Departments of a commercial character—such as the Ministry of Munitions and the Ministry of Food—men who are neither career politicians nor civil servants. They are certainly such men as would satisfy any member of your Lordships' House who would wish to see rapid action achieved, that it would be achieved under their direction.
  A quotation was made by Lord Perry from a speech in another place delivered, I believe, by Sir Patrick Harmon, in which he emphasized that there was a danger of the powers of Parliament being displaced. Doubtless it was opportune, but it was, as Sir Patrick Hannon said, not his intention at that moment to prosecute it. But the point there emphasized concerned rapidity of decision. I chanced to spend last evening with a distinguished civil servant who enjoys a very responsible position at the present moment. This subject was discussed—tardiness of decision. Examination was made whether under other systems of government decisions were more rapid. The suggestion was made that if they were it was probable that they were frequently less good,
  434
  and that a rapid decision that was wrong was worse than no decision at all, or at least a decision which had come after long delay. The point really seems to revolve on what is the aim of the Civil Service. While on that rather academic question, one could hardly expect a Government occupied in a great war to give much thought to changing methods by which the government of the country shall be carried out, and I would not have ventured to urge it had not the two noble Lords who have just spoken argued that it was a proper matter to receive the consideration of the Government.
  Lord Perry in his opening speech gave a catalogue of rapid changes in Ministers. Under our constitutional system we cannot avoid changes of Ministers. I regret that he did not include a reference to one Department the frequent change in the head of which has caused some dismay to the commercial community of this country, in view of the importance of our export trade at the present time. It is certainly regrettable and disappointing to industrialists who conduct our export trade that the head of the Department of Overseas Trade should have been changed so frequently. In making that remark I make no aspersion on the achievements of any of those who have filled that post in the past, nor do I make any reference to the present holder of it; but among the traders of the country there is some disquiet as to whether the consistent policy which foreign trade merits can be followed when the Minister responsible is so frequently changed. I hope that the noble Viscount who is to reply on 'behalf of the Government will make a note of that point.
  Regarding this as an academic debate, as it is, the important point for consideration is that of the intake to the Civil Service. There are such questions as the interchange between the Diplomatic Service and the Consular Service, and questions affecting all the other Departments of State which have to be fed by a constant inflow of candidates. The only justification for spending time at this juncture in considering such a question is that the intake into the Civil Service will determine the future interpretation of what Parliament in its wisdom decides should be the relationship between the Civil Service and those holding political responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, will

  435
  have rendered a service in bringing this question forward if the noble Viscount who is to reply for the Government can give us hope that this matter will be examined.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, the two speeches in this debate with which I have found myself most in sympathy are those delivered by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and I am grateful to them that, without any summons from myself, they should have found it possible to return to the House. I think that it is fundamental to the correct understanding of this question to appreciate what is the part which the Civil Service is trained and called upon to perform and what is the part for the correct discharge of which the political Minister is responsible. I am speaking for the moment of times of peace. If, as my noble friend Lord Addison said, there is a Minister in office who is really not discharging his proper function, it may well be that the permanent Civil Service perforce takes upon itself larger responsibilities that those properly belonging to it. That, however, is not a reason for blaming the Civil Service; it is really due to the fact that the office in question is not being in the circumstances adequately administered by its political chief. There are many members of this House, and many among those now present, who have a large experience of many offices; and I am bound to say, from an experience of my own, which now must count as fairly - considerable, of Ministerial office in many capacities, that I do not recognise as true the proposition that the members of the Civil Service direct in great matters of policy. On the contrary, our whole Cabinet system, the responsibility of a Minister to his chief, the Prime Minister, and above all the responsibilities of political Ministers to the House of Commons, and I hope also to the House of Lords, make that proposition, to my way of thinking, quite unjustified.
  My noble friend Lord Perry, in his very carefully prepared speech, has conveyed to me the impression that from his recent experience—and we are most grateful for the help that he has given to the public service in this time of war—he has not been satisfied with what he has found. I should like first of all to say, therefore,
  436
  that none of us forgets the immense services which he rendered to the country twenty-five years ago, when we were all younger, and when in the Ministry of Munitions and in the Ministry of Food his advice and his help were very greatly valued and appreciated on all hands. But what is the conception which my noble friend has of the part which a business adviser in time of war should play in a Government Department? I listened carefully, but he did not, I think, very precisely describe what should be done. I well understood—because he had very carefully prepared his sarcasms—that he has the very greatest contempt for the permanent Service now operating in this country. If I caught him aright, I think one of his sentences was that nothing has been done by civil servants since the war began which was worth while. He will excuse me if I use equal plainness in saving that I believe that proposition to be both ungenerous and unfair.
  But let us examine what it is that my noble friend wishes should be done. I cannot help feeling that he imagines that there can be an organisation of business men within a Ministry which will reach great decisions and have them carried out quite independently of the other authorities of the Department, and that by that means speed and certainty are going to be secured in business matters. He said with obvious contempt in the course of his speech that a civil servant has never bought anything, has never sold anything, and has never had anything at risk. In some respects I think that I share the advantage of my noble friend, in that I have had a certain contact with business as well as a certain contact with the Civil Service. For a great many years I found myself occupied because business men—and often very important business men — thought it worth while to consult me professionally. Sometimes it was because they were not quite sure what was the meaning of the contract they had made; sometimes it was because they did not know what rights they had to the delivery of goods; and a whole series of necessarily complicated questions had to be discussed. I quite appreciate that business men do not come to advisers in the Temple when things are going well, but I really cannot accept the proposition that all that it is necessary to do in order to correct the shortcomings

  437
  and futilities of the Civil Service is to put in positions of undisputed authority a number of business men. What my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood said about the experience in the last war was not unjustified, although of course there were many striking instances to the contrary.
  I hope that my noble friend will allow me to point out that it is really quite impossible for even the most distinguished business man in an advisory capacity to decide and execute, or immediately have executed, very large and important matters of policy, which are extremely likely to involve other Departments and to raise a social question, or a political question, or a diplomatic question, or a currency question as well as the particular aspect of the matter in which we are so grateful for business advice. I hardly think that sufficient attention has been given to the special dispositions which have been made, and necessarily were made, in preparation for war as distinguished from the ordinary arrangements of the Civil Service. Some noble Lords know that very well. Let me tell my noble friend that to my own knowledge, before the war was imminent, there was intense work being done in respect of every single great Department of State in order to try and judge beforehand what additional help would be needed and from what sources it could best be got. In many cases a distinguished business man or a number of distinguished business men were approached long before the war began for the purpose of securing that if this pressure came upon some great Department we should have the benefit of their help. It was not improvisation at all; it was a matter which was gone through Department by Department.
  But I would be the first to recognise that there is of course a difference of outlook in the business man and in the civil servant. Undoubtedly there is. I hope I may be forgiven if I point out this: the business man, the man who is conducting successfully some great enterprise, is really not concerned if in the course of the half-year some of his adventures turn out very badly as long as he has got some other adventures which turn out very well, and which result at the end of the six months in his showing a big profit. You may have some great enterprise where great extravagance has been shown—it may be
  438
  in acquiring a site or in other ways—but on the other hand great profits have been made by carrying on sales. Now all that the business man need fear, and that which he very properly struggles to avoid, is that at the end of the six months, or at the end of the year, when he meets his shareholders, who are the only people concerned, he is able to show that his business has been carried on with great energy and presents a substantial profit. Thereupon the shareholders are naturally pleased, they receive a dividend, and everybody is happy.
  Does anybody suppose that that is what happens in a Government Department? Why, you have only to make two or three mistakes, serious mistakes, in judgment in a Government Department and be called to book for it in Parliament, and your efforts are ruined. It is no answer to say. "Oh yes, I know, I did not do very wisely about that; I know there was a waste there, but just look at the success which we had in something else." The essence of Parliamentary Government, and rightly so, is that a democracy insists on examining every transaction as it goes along and challenges it minutely through the Comptroller and Auditor-General, through the Estimates Committee and through the committees on waste. I do not think that the distinction is always quite appreciated. The contribution that is being made by so many business men is most valuable; I am happy to think that the extremely friendly and confidential terms which exist between Ministers and civil servants in many Departments show that the system is working satisfactorily.
  There is obviously a very great distinction between what the business man contributes and the part that is played by the Civil Service, but I believe myself that the key of this whole business is what was emphasized by my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood and by Lord Addison—namely, that you must not hold the Civil Service responsible for making great decisions. The decisions are the decisions of Ministers, and it is the Minister who takes the responsibility. I was very glad indeed to hear from both Lord Cecil and Lord Addison an acknowledgment that these distinguished civil servants are people who, once they have got their definite directions in matters of policy, undertake

  439
  and carry through what has to be done without the smallest partisanship. If you consulted those who held posts in a Labour Government in this country, I am sure they would testify to a man that the service of the civil servants has been given without the slightest question as to whether the change of policy was one which they approved or not. It may have been justified—the point is that the civil servant is trying to carry out the policy which his political chief and the Government decide. That I believe to be a true doctrine.
  Now what has happened since the war began? Not only have we already made very considerable arrangements to secure the services, which we value so much, of experts and business men in all directions, and of scientific men too, but there were, and there are, in operation special directions to the Civil Service aiming at the purpose of reducing delay and securing the effective carrying out of decisions as rapidly as possible. The circular in its terms may be confidential and therefore I had better not refer to it, but I know-that it is required in every Department that every possible step should be taken to avoid an administrative delay, to accelerate decisions and to expedite executive action. And not only that, but it goes on in detail to describe how in many ways this might be done. For example, it is pointed out that although a series of considerations may necessitate the passing of papers from one room to another, wherever possible there ought to be a conference in which you get together those whose business it is to advise, as well as, of course, someone representing the political chief, and the decisions should be reached as far as possible there and then. I am quite certain that the method which was followed, for example, in the Treasury is one which does very much hasten and accelerate business. I could give many other examples.
  It may well be that in spite of all that there is a great deal that could be improved. The only point in which I do not agree on this occasion with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, is that I do not think it would be a practicable step to institute an exhaustive inquiry into all these matters in the middle of the war. Anyone who knows how hard civil servants
  440
  I are now worked will realise what a difficulty there would be in getting the necessary information by means of a Commission sitting a reasonable number of hours a day. The same is true, I think, of Ministers, and therefore I do not think that is in fact a practical suggestion. But that we should study perfectly impartially the way in which the machine is working—civil servants, special advisers, Ministers of the Crown and so on—I would most willingly believe is a wise piece of advice. Of course I am not giving any Government assurance on the matter, but I appreciate entirely that argument as it was put by my noble friend Lord Cecil. I hope I shall have Lord Perry's forgiveness if I say what I feel bound to say. He has used very hard language about the Civil Service. I have had the advantage of serving in many offices, and I really think I should not be doing justice if I did not remind my noble friend of some of the expressions he thought fit to employ. If I heard him rightly, he described the Civil Service as" seething mass of gentlemen of leisure." He described them even now, to-day in war-time, as "gentlemen whose one desire was that nothing should disturb their serenity." He accused them of leisurely procrastination, and he informed us that in his view nothing had been done by the Civil Service since the war began which was worth while. I am bound to say, moderating my language as I must, that I do not think these phrases and judgments are justified. It may be that the noble Lord, in reflecting on what he was going to say before writing it down, did not appreciate how wounding these observations are.
  I happen to have been political head of a Department in which civil servants have worked all night. I know of men who have come out at all possible hours to try and give an extra bit of help in the war, which is their war as well as our war. I do not think it is right that I, standing here for the Government, should not reply with equal definiteness and say that such reflections are not called for. We are not engaged in elevating the virtues of business men at the expense of civil servants. We want to do right all the way round. I certainly think that in the very nature of the case the life of a civil servant is one in which he has not got a prime responsibility. I

  441
  am willing to admit that in time of peace there may be occasions when business standards are sadly neglected, but nothing that I know, nothing that any Minister on that Bench knows, of the services of the men who are working for us now would justify so contemptuous a criticism. I hope, therefore, this debate may do good. I regret that the noble Lord felt so dissatisfied as the result of his experience of the working of the Service in recent times. He has, at any rate, this satisfaction, that the head of the Ministry from which he recently resigned is a man who, whatever else, is a business man, and I should be surprised If, as a business man, he insisted on supervising every detail of his great office and if he did not insist on deciding matters of policy himself. I have spoken with warmth on this matter because I do not think it is right that such an attack should be made on people who are doing a long day's work to-day—a great mass of silent men and women who, as many of us know, are striving with all their might to contribute what they can to winning the war.
  LORD PERRY: My Lords, before asking leave to withdraw my Motion, T should like to make one comment on the rebukes which have been addressed to me by the noble Viscount. In my remarks concerning business men I was certainly not referring to myself, except that one lives one's own life and looks at the world through one's own eyes, and it is impossible to get objective information in any other way that I know of. It is not very pleasant, of course, to listen to the rebukes which I very likely deserved, and I leave myself in your Lordships' hands about them. If I have done nothing else, I am very glad to have disturbed the serenity of a Cabinet Minister to the extent of rousing his indignation and getting him, I hope, to express indignation elsewhere than here. I believe that every speech that has been made, except that of the noble Viscount, has really admitted the truth of the main claim I made. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, said business men were not successful in the last war, and he invited me to consult the records. I know of only two records, and as they were both written by civil servants or quasi-civil servants I rather think they might be biased. I wish to assure your Lordships that there was nothing personal at all in
  442
  the case I tried to make against the Civil Service or that branch of government as we have it at present, and I am extremely I sorry that personalities have been introduced because I tried to refrain from them. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  STATE SUBSIDISED FOOD.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to develop the policy of subsidising meals especially for pregnant women and children in order to improve the physique, health and mental development of the rising generation, to economise foodstuffs and to utilise the increased output of agriculture", and move for Papers.
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if I had not had a Motion of my own on the Paper, I should have been sorely tempted to take part in the very interesting discussion to which we have listened. It was one of those discussions where there is an element of right on both sides. I witnessed in the last war the bringing of many business men into Government Departments, and I am perfectly satisfied the civil servants were delighted to have their help, but I can also say, from observation and experience, that where you had business men without any adequate leavening of civil servants the business men did not make the progress they might have done with the assistance of those experienced in the machinery of government. I say only one other thing. In so far as red tape operates, whether at the centre or the periphery, it is very largely due to the fact that the elected authorities, whether Parliamentary or local, insist on the right of applying a magnifying glass to every small decision of an officer. It is that as much as anything else which tends to slow up the machinery.
  In relation to the Motion on the Paper I should like first of all to apologise to your Lordships for having had to postpone this debate from the date originally selected a week ago. I apologise to any noble Lord who suffered inconvenience on that account, but circumstances over

  443
  which I had no control made it impossible for me to be here to take part in a debate a week ago. Your Lordships had a debate yesterday on the inadequacy of feeding in connection with hunger. Today I rather want to have a discussion on the inadequacy of feeding in connection with malnourishment and malnutrition; they are different things. My Motion urges upon the Government the desirability of subsidising food for expectant and nursing mothers and children. The war has dislocated child life as it has dislocated all life. We have had evacuation; we have had injury to school buildings; we have had many public buildings destroyed by bombs or raids; we have had in the early days of the war a large number of inspectors of the Board of Education seconded to other work so that they were not there to carry out their usual functions. It is very difficult to illustrate the results of what I am referring to in terms of statistics. I will refer only to one figure and that is to compare the consumption of milk under the cheap milk in schools scheme in October, 1938, when it was 2,500,000 gallons, with the consumption of milk under the scheme a year later, October, 1939, when it had fallen by 1,000,000 gallons to a total of 1,500,000 gallons.
  That is a very serious state of affairs and one likely to prejudice the welfare of a considerable number of children. We know that as a result of the last war there were a large number of children on the Continent who suffered through malnutrition, and who through the whole of their lives have borne traces of the fact that in their youth they had not had an adequate dietary. It is because of that that I came here to praise the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, for the steps he has taken to see that enough of the primary and most important food is made available for all children who need it. I would like to refer to a circular which was issued in July, 1940, less than a year ago, by the Board of Education. Although it was issued by the Board of Education it was issued in consultation with other Government Departments, and therefore presumably indicated the state of mind of many Ministers. This circular certainly shows that there was considerable anxiety in the minds of many Ministers who are brought in contact with the welfare of the rising genera-
  444
  tion of our population. Various points are referred to in this circular, and I would like to take them one by one.
  The first quotation I want to make to your Lordships refers to the fact that the Government, according to the circular,
  "had under consideration the action necessary to secure increased provision for communal feeding arrangements, whether free of charge or on payment of the cost of food for children.…"
  That is to say, the Government recognised the fact that the situation then was unsatisfactory. The next point is where the circular refers to the position of necessitous under-nourished children. The circular says about this that the provision, which was insufficient before the war, is now even less adequate. In about half of the local education authority areas in England and Wales no provision is made for free meals for necessitous undernourished children, and in many areas where such provision is made it is insufficient to meet the needs of all the children who require it. That is a very serious indictment.
  The third point I want to refer to in that circular is the one which is headed "Meals for the children of mothers engaged on war work." There those who are in a position of responsibility are urged to supply meals on payment for the children of mothers who go out to work, and the circular points out that
  "the rapidly growing employment of women in munition factories and other forms of war work has made it a matter of urgency. … The nation cannot afford to immobilise a large proportion of the mothers of children of school age in order that they may be free to cook midday meals for their children."
  Your Lordships know of the increasing extent to which our women folk are being brought into industries, and that the Government, quite rightly, have dispersed factories and built factories in rural areas. Consequently there are many women who have to go quite a long way to their work in these war factories and, as a result of that, the probability is that their children do not get the attention which they would normally get in peace-time.
  The fourth point I would refer to is under the heading "Meals for other children." The circular deals with women in industry and necessitous malnourished children, and says:

  445
  "The Board therefore think it important that the local education authorities, in addition to making provision for the needs of the special classes of children already mentioned, should consider the desirability of making provision for other children and of encouraging parents to take advantage of such provision."
  That is a very important matter of major policy. The last point I want to refer to is contained under the paragraph with the heading "Free Milk." Here local authorities are
  "urged to consider whether the provision of free milk is needed for a larger number of children and whether the normal ration should be increased to at least two-thirds of a pint (one bottle in the morning and one in the afternoon. …"
  These five separate points are all of importance and worthy of consideration and action, and it was quite obvious that the various Government Departments responsible for the welfare; and development of the population at large and of the child population in particular were worried and anxious when this circular was issued in July, 1940.
  When we are tempted to criticise local authorities for not having done more, let us all recognise the practical difficulties that are facing them. I happen to be very closely associated with a local authority and I see the practical difficulties which face them all. On the periphery you have a shifting" population due to evacuation; you have raids which come and destroy essential buildings; there is a shortage of labour and materials when one is asked to rebuild these buildings; there is the fact very frequently that the buildings which local authorities require are requisitioned for military purposes; and there is also the fact that local authorities, like others, have a shortage of staff. I would agree that all these practical difficulties face the elected authorities at the periphery. But having said that, I would also agree with the Government that in spite of all this there are undoubtedly many local authorities that have not done as much as they ought to have done. I hope that the noble Lord, when he replies for the Government, will be able to give us the latest information which is available as to the exact extent of the improvernent compared with what the position was in July, 1940, when this circular was issued. I am aware that there has been a great improvement, but
  446
  naturally I am not in a position to know the extent of the improvement and I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some information.
  I want to go out of my way to congratulate the noble Lord upon one contribution which he has made. Under the milk scheme which was prepared about the time that this circular was issued—I think it actually came into operation on July I—an enormous contribution has been made to the physical welfare of children at an age when their feeding is a matter of primary importance. Under the milk scheme any expectant or nursing mother and any child up to the age of five years where the family income does not exceed 40s. a week is entitled to a pint of milk a day. There are modifications but that is the main part of the milk scheme. Where the family income exceeds 40s. milk may be obtained at 2d. a pint, which at the time was not much more than half its market price. There is a further important provision. The noble Lord, I understand, has taken power to himself to impose priority—that is to say, if there is a shortage of milk at any moment mothers and school children may have prior claims.
  I have in mind a chart produced in the last war—I think a committee of which I was chairman was responsible for it—which indicated that if all children had the milk which the medical profession and others thought they ought to have, there would be no milk at all at some periods of the year for the adult population, whereas it was quite obvious that all through the year, summer and winter, adults did drink a considerable amount of milk. It was equally obvious therefore that a large number of children were not having the quantity of milk they ought to have. The result of this scheme is that no less a number than 2,500,000 people or slightly over that figure were benefiting by this scheme a few weeks ago. That is a huge contribution not only to the physical but also to the mental welfare of the child population. Everybody knows that an underfed or malnourished child cannot take advantage to the full extent of the teaching and instruction given him. If you give a child enough to eat you will get the full advantage of the public money spent by the ratepayers and taxpayers on his education and upbringing.
  Another point, which I am sure will interest many noble Lords, is that this is an indirect benefit to agriculture. Under this scheme 10,000,000 gallons of milk are being drunk a year. A measure such as this combines the interests of the consumers in the towns with the interests of the producers in the country. Before sitting down I am going to urge your Lordships individually and collectively to do all you can to see that this step, taken now in the emergency of war, is never given up when we reach the time of peace. I am going to urge your Lordships to do what you can to extend this principle to children over the age of five. If you do that, you will link up the welfare and prosperity of British agriculture with the interests of the masses in the towns and you will get mothers in the towns to vote for an expenditure of money to benefit agriculture in a way in which they have never done in the past when efforts have been made to benefit agriculture. So far as I am concerned, I consider it well worth while to have travelled from Plymouth if only to have an opportunity of thanking and congratulating the noble Lord on the enormous step forward he has taken.
  I indicated just now that a great deal more ought to be done and I tried to bring out some of the practical difficulties which we have to encounter. It will be necessary for the Government and local authorities to improvise, and I hope that in any circulars that are issued from Whitehall local authorities will be reminded of that. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give publicity to what is called the Oslo breakfast. The Oslo breakfast, as many of your Lordships know, is a meal for which no cooking is required. Milk, cereal, raw fruit or vegetables, a bit of cheese if cheese is available, constitutes the Oslo breakfast, and a great advantage from the point of view of war-time emergency is that you do not require a kitchen. Every child who goes to school can be given an Oslo breakfast without it being necessary to incur the expense of setting up communal kitchens. Just as there is a shortage of bricks and skilled labour, so there is a shortage of cooking stoves and other implements and utensils.
  I read a speech the other day by the Minister of Labour in which he reminded
  448
  industrialists of their responsibility for the welfare and feeding of their employees. One of the big gains of the last war was the adoption, to a very great extent, of factory canteens and they are being developed and extended in this war. That is quite right and I hope that the contribution which we make in this war will be the recognition by local authorities of their responsibility for providing meals to a far greater extent than they have ever visualised in the past for children in their areas. In the discussion which we listened to earlier to-day, reference was made by more than one speaker to the constant delays which are associated with the administration of Government. I wonder whether it would not be possible for Whitehall, and even for the Treasury, to realise that in the larger local areas, counties and county boroughs, the treasurer is a responsible man, a man of ability and experience, and so far to forget itself as to allow that treasurer to give a decision on relatively small amounts. I have seen most important schemes held up for weeks and months over a trivial amount because it had to go back to Whitehall. Let us lose a few hundred thousand pounds if necessary—I do not believe you would lose, but that you would actually gain—by allowing the Treasury in London to delegate more authority and responsibility to these very responsible persons who hold the important office of treasurer in our larger cities.
  I understand that in the near future your Lordships will be having a discussion on family allowances. The proposal for family allowances, I think, is very closely linked up with part of the Motion which I have ventured to bring before your Lordships' House to-day. The matter of family allowances is backed on the now generally admitted fact that whereas industry is expected to provide a wage which will enable the recipient to bring up a wife, a child, two children or perhaps even three children, industry cannot be expected, and does not now, fix its wage rates at such a figure as will enable a man to bring up a large family—a family comprising more than three dependent children—and bring it up adequately. That was very clearly brought out by Mr. Seebohm Rowntree in a book which he published some years ago. I think he brought out quite conclusively that a sum of, I think, 5s. per

  449
  week per child ought to be provided by somebody other than the industrialists, the employers, in cases where there are more than three dependent children in a family. He estimated the total cost at something like £5,000,000.
  One can relieve a family—a father and mother—of the expense of bringing up a large number of children either by giving them a grant in cash or a grant in kind, and that is where I link up my Motion to-day with that which is to be brought before your Lordships' House. If you give children free meals, one meal or possibly even more, obviously you are going to reduce the burden upon the family. If you relieve a family of the cost of feeding their children obviously you are going to assist the children and assist the employer in industry. I believe that if you were to do that you would get a greater economy of cash and of foodstuffs than if you were to give the whole of the money to the family and hope that they would spend it to the best advantage. You would guarantee that the whole of the money would be spent for the benefit of the children and that the right foods would be provided. I do not say that if you were to adopt the suggestion implied in my Motion you would necessarily solve the whole problem of the family income of the large family, but you would make a large contribution, and it may very well be that by a combination of the two, of providing free meals for families with a low income, you may make such a large contribution that the burden involved in family allowances may be very substantially diminished.
  I said just now that I hope the principle which has been adopted by this milk scheme will be continued when the war is over. People are already beginning to talk of the new order which they are looking forward to when the war is over, and when they talk of the new order in terms of domestic policy they are apt to emphasize and underline the inequalities and injustices which exist I believe that the most serious inequality and injustice which exists to-day is not an economic inequality of talents but an inequality of the opportunities which the young have at the beginning of life—the unequal opportunities which tens of thousands of children have of physical development, of mental development and of moral development. That inequality, the fact that the
  450
  young, at birth or before school age or during school age, have not a fair and equal opportunity of proper nourishment, proper mental development, hampers them throughout the whole of life. That is why I hope that when we come to work out our new order, whoever is going to do it will recognise the fundamental importance of removing these impediments, these inequalities, these injustices which to-day face tens of thousands of young children in this country.
  Let us recognise the fact that the noble; Lord, Lord Woolton, has taken a step forward whereby the State recognises that it is its duty and obligation to provide necessary, adequate and essential food for expectant and nursing mothers and for young children where the family income is of a low level. Let us see to it that that conception of public service is put in the same category as our conception of public service in terms of sanitation, housing and education, and that it becomes part of the recognised Government machinery and administration. If we do that, and if we extend that principle so that it shall apply not only to children below the age of five but also to children above that age we shall have made a very substantial contribution to a new and better order for this country. I beg to move for Papers.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Viscount who has just spoken, because, as I told him, I wish to enlist under his flag on this subject if I may presume to do so. However important it is at the present moment to provide extra milk and food, I regard that as going only a very little way towards the desired result, the desired result being, as I see it, that every boy and girl born in this country should from the moment of conception have the best chance of developing mentally and physically, through childhood and through youth, so that these children in their turn can be the healthy parents of a new generation of the British race. In these times, when families are undergoing great difficulties, no one could hesitate to support the noble Viscount in his plea that more attention should be paid in the schools and elsewhere to seeing that the children receive adequate care. The children are the most important asset that we have, but they are not getting a fair chance under present conditions. If

  451
  that were so only in time of war it might be excusable, but they were not obtaining fair treatment even before the war.
  We have had many warnings. We have recently had Sir John Orr's views, and there have been Lord Luke's Committee, the Shoreditch report, and the Bristol Survey of the standard of living. Bristol is a particularly favoured city; it has many industries, and the conditions of the working population are probably better than in a great number of other cities, and certainly better than in London. I do not know what the housing conditions in Bristol are like, but it has been pointed out that one child in every five, amounting in all to 16,000 children, came from a family who, because of insufficient income, could not provide meals up to the standard laid down by the British Medical Association as necessary for proper nutrition, although that standard has itself been criticised by various authorities for not requiring enough milk to be supplied.
  Let me remind your Lordships of the Shoreditch report. Shoreditch is a place where children have to live in conditions of almost unbelievable squalor, over- crowding, lack of open spaces, ill health and poverty, yet its boundaries march with those of the City of London—"the gilded City of London" as The Times described it. It was found that 75 per cent. of the houses in that district were bug-infested, extremely damp and unhealthy, and that rheumatism affected both children and adults. There were outside lavatories, with five or six families having to use one outside lavatory. I remember that the article in The Times which dealt with the matter was headed "Five in one bed." What is the good of supplying good food and milk if the children have to live in such conditions? What is the use of giving them extra food if they have to live, not through the fault of their parents, in these wretched conditions which must breed disease?
  We are always inclined to tackle this matter piecemeal and not whole-heartedly. We have never made a big attack on the whole of these conditions of living. Take the case of the Bill providing for physical culture which was considered in this House four or five years ago. It touched only the fringe of the question;
  452
  it provided certain facilities for physical culture for young men and women who were in a position to take advantage of them. The Government were not in a position to compel the wretched small employers, of the class who sweat young men and women in miserable quarters unfit for people to work in, to allow their young people to have the opportunity to go out into the fresh air and take advantages of the facilities for physical culture which were provided. I can imagine that your Lordships may be listening with some impatience to these remarks about housing conditions, because you may say that there is no labour now available for housing. Perhaps it is a good thing that there is not, because we have made no plan, and we are not yet ready to build the towns which ought to be built in place of those which have been destroyed. It is an ill wind which blows no one any good. The Fire of London was supposed to have done a great deal for the London of its day, and no doubt it did; and I am not sure that Hitler's bombing of our towns will not do good in the future.
  One of our weaknesses as a nation is that we do not plan sufficiently beforehand. That is so in war, and it is so in peace. When history comes to be written, it will be seen that we did not learn from the last war, as we ought to have done, the great importance of planning ahead. This planning is needed in our social system also, and I believe the lack of it is largely due to the disinclination to stir up trouble and to offend vested interests. In the concluding part of his speech the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, urged that we should plan ahead, I am sure that we ought to plan ahead now for the rebuilding of our towns, which should go on alongside better feeding and the various other steps which will be taken to improve the conditions of life for the people of this country. Economies must come after this war, but that is one of the things about which we cannot afford to be miserly. We must see that the chilare fed, and that the mothers are fed, so that they can breed healthy children, and we must see that the children are brought up under conditions which will enable them in their turn to become healthy parents. Surely the magnificent people of these islands have established a claim for their children to be brought up with a far broader outlook on life and

  453
  with far greater chances of education and of enjoying their existence than their parents had. I hope that they will insist upon it, and I hope that we shall have no peace in this country until some system of that sort is instituted.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I am honoured in following such a very distinguished member of my own Service. I agree very sincerely with all that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has said about the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and what be is doing in this very difficult food situation. I deeply regret that my naval duties took me to Scotland yesterday, so that I could not be present at the debate which then took place. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, will forgive me if I ask one question now which I should have asked had I been present yesterday. It relates to some criticism which I have heard from trades people and from others in many walks of life, as to why the meat ration is based on value and not, as in the case of the Service ration, on weight. It seems to me that if it were done by weight it would enable the more expensive parts of the carcass to be bought by those who could afford them, and the less expensive parts would be available for others.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, the rules of your Lordships' House are very wide, as we all know, but it is stretching them a little far to introduce, in a debate of this kind, a question which the noble Lord might have asked yesterday had he been here, a question about the price of meat. I have no more right than any other Peer to draw attention to tins point, but I have an equal right, and I think it my duty to do so.
  LORD GILFORD: I apologise if I have gone outside the wide rules of this House. However, I did not rise to bring up that point particularly, but rather one which I am sure has a direct bearing on what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has said. There are certain commodities—in particular I am thinking of orange juice and tomato juice—which are specially needed by infants. There have been times in the past few months when oranges have been almost unobtainable. I would like to make what I think is a concrete suggestion—namely, that when commodities
  454
  such as oranges are only available in small quantities and there are not enough of them to go round, arrangements should be made for infants to be given the preference. It has been suggested to me by a lady who is closely connected with infant welfare that the various infant welfare centres and baby clubs might well be entrusted with the task of seeing that the oranges reach the families where there are infants which require them.
  THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, the question raised is one which concerns three separate Ministries; and I confess to your Lordships that I asked that I might be allowed to answer, because the subject that the noble Viscount has raised is one that is particularly close to my own heart and to my own interest; for, many years ago, I spent a great deal of my time and energy in establishing clinics and trying to persuade education authorities to provide meals and milk for necessitous children in the elementary schools in the slums of Liverpool, We have moved indeed a long way since those days. The Ministry of Health and the Board of Education, in which two Ministries the major responsibility for these movements lies, are bound to work through local authorities, and I think in fairness we must: recognise that in these days central government is pressing very hard on local authorities, constantly asking them to undertake more and more work. Those local authorities are indeed heavily burdened; but there are signs, I think, that on the subject which the noble Viscount has raised to-day they are indeed making progress. Yesterday we had in this House the great advantage of the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, and it was very encouraging for us to hear that at the present time there was no sign of malnutrition among the population of this country—and he mentioned children specifically—resulting from war conditions.
  I must just tell your Lordships one or two facts that seem to me to show that we have not as a Government neglected to make provision. The consumption of milk in schools has indeed dropped, as the noble Viscount said, by 1,000,000 gallons, but the total increase in the consumption of milk by the population as a whole has

  455
  increased by 5,000,000 gallons a month. Most important of all, the consumption of milk by people who are recognised as having prior necessity has risen to 10,000,000 gallons a month. Therefore, for what these figures are worth, they show that, in so far as the Government are intervening in the distribution of milk, they are arranging that it goes to the people who need it most from the point of view of avoiding malnutrition. We are indeed at the present time drinking, and so far as I can see we are likely to continue to drink, all the milk that the agricultural industry can provide. I look forward with some fear to see whether the agricultural industry will provide as much milk as we are teaching people to drink; and the prospect of the manufacturers this next summer having that surplus of milk which normally goes into manufacture are not very rosy.
  The noble Viscount asked a specific question as to whether the local authorities were taking any notice of the Board of Education circular of July, 1940, on the subject of the provision of extra meals. I can tell him that the number of local authorities who are making this provision has increased from 200 to over 250—an increase which I think is not unsatisfactory. But I am assured that the President of the Board of Education is by no means complacent in this matter, and is pressing on still further. It was indicative, I think, of general Government policy that in that circular reference was made not only to meals for necessitous children, but meals for other children. There the Board of Education and the Ministry of Food are working in the closest possible contact. We realise that under war conditions, when women have been drawn into factories, there will be more need for meals in schools. Moreover, both for that and for other reasons, I have, as the noble Viscount knows, taken very active steps to secure that there shall be communal feeding centres throughout this country in order to deal with such emergencies as arise under war conditions.
  The noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, has raised issues which I think he will admit are of a very wide order. But there is one point on which I think we shall disagree with him. He said, "What is the good of providing
  456
  people with good food if their housing conditions are so bad?" I do not think we can admit that. It seems to me that we must look after housing conditions when occasion admits of our doing so; but in the meantime it is, at any rate, my duty to secure that the people are provided with the best food we can give them. I am sure the noble Earl will like to know that so great has been the anxiety of the Government to provide these people to whom he referred with food that we are at the present time subsidising foodstuffs to the extent of some 82,000,000 per annum, so that food may be available to people at prices which they can afford to pay. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asked me a question about orange juice for children; and I went up to the box to ascertain if, in fact, I was in a position to announce a decision which I hope has been taken in my Ministry during the course of the day. When it is taken I think the noble Lord will not be dissatisfied with it.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I beg leave to withdrawn my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  ABYSSINIA.
  LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name.
  The question was as follows:
  [To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to Press reports of a statement attributed to Mr. Frank Gibbs, formerly British Consul in Addis Ababa, to the effect that the attitude of the Abys-sinians towards Britain is doubtful and that "if Italy were at all successful they might join in with her against Britain"; whether if is considered that such statements are calculated to contribute to the maintenance of good understanding with a people whose gallant struggle for liberation we are now supporting; and whether the official in question is still in the service of His Majesty's Government.]
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Cecil (Viscount Cranborne), I have been asked to reply. I would say that at the end of last year the atten-

  457
  tion of His Majesty's Government was drawn privately to certain observations attributed to Mr. Gibbs and published in East and South Africa. At that time the offices in question, whose service record has throughout been good, was proceeding to another post in South America where he is now serving. It was accordingly not found possible to consult him. The attitude of His Majesty's Government to the gallant Ethopian people has been made quite clear, and I am sure ray noble friend will agree that no useful purpose would be served by reopening the question.

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name.
  The question was as follows:
  [To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider the desirability of providing units of the Royal Army Medical Corps now stationed in country districts with facilities for practical training by arranging for them to be drafted, in suitable instances, to urban areas which have suffered or are likely to suffer heavy casualties as a result of enemy action in order that they may assist the first-aid and hospital services in their district.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, we are willing to provide facilities for the training of the Royal Army Medical Corps units in urban areas or to assist hospital services in that district where this docs not interfere with unit training in mili-
  458
  tary formations and the military commanders agree that the units can be detached for the assistance of civil authorities.
  LORD DAVIES: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, may I ask my noble friend whether opportunities will be given to units stationed in rural areas from time to time to assist the medical authorities in districts which have been subjected to very intense raids?
  LORD CROFT: My Lords, I shall take note of my noble friend's suggestion. It might be very difficult for us to take units away from rural areas specially to help in urban areas subjected to air attacks. It would not be suggested that we should do so if the units in urban areas were near at hand, but it would be very expensive to move units from country to town as we might have to do a lot of it.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT,1932.
  Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Act to the

  Borough of Honiton,

  Urban District of Long Eaton,

  City and County of Kingston-upon- Hull,

  Urban District of Leighton Buzzard,

  Urban District of Milford Haven,

  Rural District of Wincanton,

  Urban District of Wymondham:

  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned.