Sitting of 5 August 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Stepney (White-chapel and St. George's Division), in the room of James Henry Hall, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Whiteley.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION.
  Mr. William Brownasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by whom invitations to sign the United Nations Pact were issued to the exiled Governments of Holland, Belgium and other States; by whom a similar invitation was issued to the Governments of Mexico, Haiti, and other belligerents; on what date an invitation to sign the Pact was issued to the Emperor of Ethiopia; and whether all nations whose representatives have signed this Pact are now members of the United Nations Alliance?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Invitations to the original signatories of the United Nations Declaration including Holland, Belgium and Haiti, were issued by President Roosevelt in consultation with the Prime Minister, who was then in Washington, and with the Chinese and Soviet Governments. Provision was made in the Declaration for subsequent adherences and following on their declaration of war on the Axis Powers, the Mexican Government adhered to the Declaration on 14th June. As I suggested in my reply to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 26th February last, the Declaration is of course open to adherence by Ethiopia but I have not yet heard that the Emperor of Ethiopia has approached President Roosevelt in this connection. As regards the last part of the Question, the United Nations are those nations who
  1004
  have signed the United Nations Declaration.
  Mr. Riley: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to why there has been no request by Ethiopia to adhere to the Declaration?
  Mr. Eden: I think the position is that the Emperor knows that an invitation by him can be made, and he also knows, I feel sure, that we would support it if it were made, but obviously the initiative must come from him.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up a point that disturbs my mind about this? Does this mean that Ethiopia is a neutral?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir. This is a question of adhering to the Declaration. All the Allies have adhered to it.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: Am I to understand that an invitation was issued to other countries, but that Ethiopia is expected to apply?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Member's statement is not quite right. The Governments which adhered originally wer invited to do so, but since then Mexico has applied and Ethiopia, as a result of her treaty with us, is in a position to apply.

  UNITED KINGDOM AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
  Major Sir Derrick Gunstonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the recognition of the Czechoslovak Government in July, 1941, and to the resistance being offered to German oppression by the Czechoslovak people, His Majesty's Government still consider themselves bound in any way by the terms of the Munich Agreement?
  Mr. Eden: I am glad to have this opportunity to inform the House that I have e to-day exchanged notes with the Czechoslovak Minister for Foreign Affairs in which I stated that the policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in regard to Czechoslovakia was guided by the formal act of recognition of the Czechoslovak Government by His Majesty's Government in July, 1941, and by the Prime Minister's statement on 30th

  1005
  September, 1940, that the Munich Agreement had been destroyed by the Germans. I added that, as Germany had deliberately destroyed the arrangements concerning Czechoslovakia reached in 1938, His Majesty's Government regarded themselves as free from any engagements in this respect, and that at the final settlement of the Czechoslovak frontiers to be reached at the end of the war, His Majesty's Government would not be influenced by any changes effected in and since 1938.
  In his reply Monsieur Masaryk informed me that the Czechoslovak Government accepted my note as a practical solution of the questions and difficulties of vital importance for Czechoslovakia which emerged between our two countries as the consequence of the Munich Agreement, while maintaining their political and juridical position with regard to that Agreement and to the events which followed it.
  The text of this exchange of notes is being laid as a White Paper.
  I should not like to let this occasion pass without paying tribute on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the tenacious and courageous stand which the Czechoslovak people are making against their ruthless German oppressors. Acts such as the destruction of Lidice have stirred the conscience of the civilised world and will not be forgotten when the time comes to settle accounts with their perpetrators.
  Sir D. Gunston: While congratulating the Government and all its Members on denouncing the Munich Agreement, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether his statement in any way affects the frontier between Czechoslovakia and Poland?
  Mr. Eden: My answer deals with the Munich Agreement. The point which my hon. and gallant Friend makes, if I understand him aright, concerns the frontier between two Allied countries, and I have every confidence that will be dealt with on the basis of the close and friendly relations which now happily exist between them.
  Mr. Gallacher: Can the atrocities referred to possibly stir the conscience of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), if she has one?

  POST-WAR EUROPE (GERMAN AIMS).
  Mr. Brookeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the captured document embodying Hitler's views on the functions of the Waffen S.S. in a future Europe; and whether he has communicated facsimile copies of this statement of German long-term intentions to the other Allied Governments of Europe?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I have seen this document which sets out in unmistakable terms what Hitler has in store, not only for Europe but also for the German people in the event of a German victory. It makes quite clear Hitler's aim to include peoples of different nationalities against their will within the boundaries of a greater German Empire and to police this Empire with the notorious S.S. guards. As this document has received wide publicity in the Press and in broadcasts and is, of course, well known to the Allied Governments, I have not considered it necessary to communicate it officially to them. I will, however, bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind,

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    Personnel (Leave Petrol).
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for Air how many petrol coupons were issued to Royal Air Force personnel proceeding on leave during the last 12 months?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I regret that the informations asked for by the hon. Member is not readily available and could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.
    Mr. Dugdale: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend state how it is that Air Force personnel have this facility of obtaining petrol coupons, a facility which is denied to Army personnel?
    Captain Balfour: I think that Question had better be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

    Aerodromes (Transport Officers).
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether transport officers have now been appointed at all aerodromes in the country; and whether, as a

    1007
    result of such appointments, there has been any saving in the consumption of petrol for non-flying purposes?
    Captain Balfour: Personnel have been specially appointed at all R.A.F. stations to supervise the use of mechanical transport and to see that the regulations enjoining economy in petrol consumption are duly observed. I am advised that these appointments are achieving their object.

    Flight Engineers (Badge).
    Major Sir Edward Cadoganasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will grant flight engineers of the Royal Air Force, who take part in operational flights, the right to wear a single wing badge similar to that worn by observers?
    Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. A badge for flight engineers will shortly be introduced.

    Bombing Policy.
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Secretary of State for Air with whom rests the final decision as to what German towns shall be bombed in force and when such action shall take place?
    Captain Balfour: The War Cabinet lays down the general lines of our bombing policy after receiving the advice of the Chiefs of Staff. Within the limits of that policy and under the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Air Staff, after consulting the other Departments concerned, issue a directive to Bomber Command indicating on broad lines the targets to be attacked. Subject to any special directions that may be given, the final decision how and when a particular target is attacked necessarily rests with the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Bomber Command.
    Sir L. Lyle: Apart from naval and military objectives which are attacked, or decided upon for attack, are the economic attacks decided upon by the Ministry of Economic Warfare?
    Captain Balfour: I said in my reply "after consulting the other Departments concerned," but I think my hon. Friend and the House will appreciate that this is not a matter which one can debate in Question and answer. If my hon. Friend wants any information on specific points, I would ask him to put a Question on the Order Paper.

    Firing Practice (Accidents to Civilians).
    Captain De Chairasked the Secretary of State, for Air whether he has any statement to make in relation to the death of Mrs. Redcar, of Denver, Norfolk; what precautions as to the safety of civilians are taken in connection with air-to-air firing practice over populated districts; how many cases of death or injury have been caused through such firing practice since the beginning of the war; and what compensation is paid in the event of accident?
    Captain Balfour: Mrs. Redcar was unfortunately killed on 9th July, 1941, by a bullet fired from a Royal Air Force aircraft engaged in air-to-air firing practice. All possible step" are taken to avoid injury to persons by bullets fired from aircraft engaged in these practices which form a vital part of the operational training of our air crews. Unhappily the risk cannot be completely eliminated. Great care is exercised in selecting suitable areas; the regulations forbid practices below 2,000 feet or in visibility of less than five miles, and the guns must be elevated to not less than 20 degrees when firing. A fire control officer is carried in all aircraft and the regulations are strictly enforced. There have been very few accidents but I regret to say that, over the past two years, four persons have been killed and two injured as a result of air-firing practices of this character. I understand that the position with regard to compensation has been fully explained to my hon. and gallant Friend by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions.
    Captain De Chair: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for his clear explanation of how these practices are conducted, may I draw his attention to the unsatisfactory nature of the pensions payable in these cases? Is he aware that the reason I have raised this matter is because no pension was paid to the husband of Mrs. Redcar. It was refused.
    Captain Balfour: I cannot comment on that, because this is entirely a matter for the Minister of Pensions. I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend addresses a question to that effect, to the Minister of Pensions.
    Captain De Chair: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that it is precisely

    1009
    because the Ministry of Pensions say it is a matter for the Air Ministry that I have raised the question with his Department?
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that when these very necessary practices were started on the Berkshire Downs, the Secretary of State for Air stated that immediate compensation would be paid? Is he further aware that animals have been shot while grazing and no compensation has so far been paid? Will this matter be dealt with promptly?
    Captain Balfour: I am not aware of that, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars, I will certainly undertake to look into it.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Does not the Under-Secretary think that compensation ought to be paid?

    Aircraftsman Bernard Wellsbury.
    Mr. Messerasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet received any information from India concerning Aircraftsman Bernard Wellsbury?
    Captain Balfour: No, Sir, but I will inform the hon. Member as soon as I receive an answer to my inquiries from India.
    Mr. Messer: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this case has been hanging over for two months? It does not take two months to get a cable to India.
    Captain Balfour: We have twice signalled India, but I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that pressure on the lines is very heavy in respect of priority military requirements; but we have sent a hastener to India.

    Enemy Bombers (Destruction).
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of enemy bombers destroyed over, or around, the coast of Great Britain by night during the month of July; and the number credited to night-fighter pilots and anti-aircraft guns, respectively?
    Captain Balfour: The answer to the first part of the Question is 43. It would not be in the public interest to give the further information asked for.

    Women's Auxiliary Air Force.
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for Air whether officers of the Women's Auxiliary Air
    1010
    Force filling vacancies in Royal Air Force establishment are granted the equivalent rank which would be held by a Royal Air Force officer filling the vacancy?
    Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir, that is the rule; but in cases where the appointment of a W.A.A.F. officer to a post, previously filled by a R.A.F. officer, involves the grant of acting rank this may be delayed until the. W.A.A.F. officer has sufficient experience of her new duties to discharge them with full efficiency.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: May I ask whether in that case it is back-dated?
    Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir, it is backdated.

    Fighter and Coastal Commands (Broadcasts).
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he proposes to give facilities for the air officers commanding-in-chief of Fighter and Coastal Commands to broadcast details of the potential attacking force under their command to enemy countries in the same manner that the air officer commanding-in-chief of Bomber Command has warned the German nation of the air attacks they are likely to receive from his command?
    Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. Facilities will be arranged for these and other air officers commanding-in-chief if and when it is in the public interest to do so. No detailed information, however, which could be of the slightest operational value to the enemy about our potential attacking forces has been or will be broadcast.

    Distinguishing Badges (Colonial Personnel).
    Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any decision has yet been reached which will permit men in the Royal Air Force who have come from a Crown Colony to bear a shoulder-flash of the name of their Colony and thus follow the same practice as is accorded to men from the Dominions and the United States of America?
    Captain Balfour: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend on 17th June, the question of the extension of the privilege of wearing distinguishing

    1011
    shoulder badges involves administrative and other difficulties on which it has been necessary to consult other Departments and authorities concerned. These consultations are nearing completion, and I hope that a decision will not now be long delayed.

    Bomber Command Chief's Broadcast.
    Sir L. Lyleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his approval was given to the recent broadcast address by the Chief of Bomber Command in which he indicated our intention to bomb Germany every night whatever the weather conditions; that the German armies could never get to England and that there would be peace if the Germans overthrew their Nazi rulers; and whether these views represent the opinion of the Government or are personal to the Chief of Bomber Command?
    Captain Balfour: The answer to both parts of the Question is that the commander-in-chief's message to the German people was broadcast with the approval of His Majesty's Government.
    Sir L. Lyle: Is it not undesirable and even unfair to ask Service chiefs to make political broadcasts, because they are not in a position to defend themselves against criticism in this House?
    Captain Balfour: The Ministers concerned take full responsibility for all statements made by those who are under their direction. As regards the issue which my hon. Friend puts forward, that is something entirely different—it was dealt with yesterday in another place—and does not arise directly from the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that part of the statement made by the Chief of Bomber Command was in the nature of political propaganda, may I ask whether the Under-Secretary thinks it wise to entrust political propaganda to those who are unable to defend themselves in this House?
    Captain Balfour: That may or may not be so, but it is an entirely different Question from that on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Why did not the Minister make the statement?

  WORKS AND PLANNING.

    Building and Civil Engineering Contracts.
    Mr. Leslie Boyceasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that local firms of building and civil engineering contractors have given undertakings at the request of the Government, both directly and through the Builders Emergency Organisation, regarding their ability and capacity to carry out large contracts; and why these firms are being ignored by his Department and preference given to large financial firms and their subsidiaries?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that assurances have been given regarding the ability and capacity of local firms of building and civil engineering contractors to carry out large contracts and careful attention is paid to these assurances. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air that local firms judged capable of executing these contracts within the requisite time are not ignored and preference is not given to large financial firms and their subsidiaries.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: How is it then that large firms obtain all the contracts?
    Mr. Hicks: The answer is that they do not obtain all the contracts.
    Mr. Boyceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he is aware that at a recent building and civil engineering conference, over which the Minister himself presided, an undertaking was given on behalf of His Majesty's Government that the resources of the medium-sized firms of contractors would be utilised by the Government; that effect has not been given to this undertaking and that the placing of many Government contracts has since been confined to a few large firms, mostly from the Metropolitan area; that in some such cases the contracts have been let under preferential conditions differing materially from those relating to smaller contracts; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the above undertaking is complied with in future?
    Mr. Hicks: My Noble Friend is making the fullest possible use of the medium-sized - firms in the building and civil

    1013
    engineering industries, both as main contractors and as sub-contractors, and is giving personal attention to the steps necessary to ensure that this policy is followed. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no foundation for the suggestion that contracts are confined to a few large firms. Further, it is not the policy of my Department that any essential difference should exist between the conditions of contract applied to large and small works. There is in existence an Industrial Advisory Committee consisting of building and civil engineering contractors, building and civil engineering operatives representing nationally their respective bodies who are in closest touch with my Ministry upon the fullest utilisation of contractors and their industrial capacity, also contracts and their allocation. My Ministry already invariably uses the services of the Works and Buildings Emergency Organisation in regard to the preparation of all tender lists for medium-sized contracts. My Minister is inviting other Departments to follow this practice and we shall also in future consult them generally in regard to the effect on their area of the larger works.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: Is the list of medium and small contractors and subcontractors eligible to undertake work under the Ministry now closed, and can such firms tender for work when available?
    Mr. Hicks: There is no closed list. A register was taken of the whole of the builders and civil engineering contractors last year. They all had ample time to register, and, as far as I know, they did all register. If there is any doubt about anyone who is eligible to go on the register, we should be quite willing to accept him. They get an opportunity to tender for work as occasion arises.
    Mr. Mathers: Has the Minister investigated charges that, where large firms have succeeded in obtaining contracts, they have not been able to proceed with them until they borrowed plant from the smaller firms with whom they were competing for the contract?
    Mr. Hicks: That is a totally different question.

    Railings Removal (Kensington).
    Mr. Silkinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning why the railings in Campden Hill Square, Kensington, have not been removed?
    Sir William Davisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning if he will state the reasons why the Special Appeal Panel have directed the retention of the railings round the garden enclosure at Campden Hill Square, Kensington, which were scheduled for removal by the Kensington Borough Council, while the railings of many other similar squares and enclosures have been removed; and, in particular, how these railings have been differentiated by the Panel from the railings of Ladbroke Square Garden, which was a freehold property specially purchased as an open space and let to subscribers in the neighbourhood for recreation and a children's playground, a purpose which has been frustrated by the removal of the railings?
    Mr. Hicks: The railings in Campden Hill Square are being retained on the recommendation of the Special Appeal Panel. The Panel is concerned only with appeals on the grounds of special artistic merit or historic interest and not with the conditions under which the open spaces have been enclosed and maintained.
    Mr. Silkin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these railings have no special beauty or historic value, and that the suggestion is being made that they are being retained for future ulterior purposes? Will he take this matter back again to the Panel?
    Mr. Hicks: If my hon. Friend requests me to do so, I will ask the Panel to have another look at the matter.
    Mr. Thorne: Fair play for all and privileges for none.

    Emergency Organisations.
    Mr. Boyceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, of Works and Planning whether he is satisfied that the best use is being made of the emergency machinery which was set up at considerable cost by his Department to deal with emergency conditions; and whether the Regional Emergency Committees are being relegated to perform

    1015
    relatively minor duties which are disproportionate to the expenditure of the time and public money incurred?
    Mr. Hicks: The hon. Member is presumably referring to the voluntary bodies known as the Works and Buildings Emergency Organisations which were established in all regions as a result of our experience of the air raids of 1940–41. They have performed and are performing admirably the work for which they were established, that of first-aid repair. They also form an essential of our machinery for other emergency duties. In addition, they are recognised and used by this Ministry as the advisory bodies in respect of the selection of local contractors to tender for work to be carried out in their respective areas and their utilisation in this respect is increasing. I do not think we, or they, consider these to be minor duties and the valuable services which these organisations have rendered in the recent blitzes amply compensate for the time and the small amount of public money involved.

    Standardisation.
    Mr. Bossomasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning what steps he is taking to ensure that articles, fitments or accessories, which his Ministry has decided to standardise, will be designed by the best recognised designers in each instance?
    Mr. Hicks: So far as war-time standardisation is concerned, it has been dictated solely by need for economy of materials and labour; the industry has been consulted and the standard specifications have been issued through the British Standards Institution machinery. So far as postwar standardisation is concerned, the Minister has established a standardisation branch of the Directorate of Post-War Building in the charge of Mr. Francis Lorne, and one of the special Committees of the Directorate will deal with standards for all consumer requirements, including articles, fitments and accessories. It will advise on the means to ensure the best scientific and aesthetic results.
    Mr. Bossom: As there will probably be millions of these articles made in the next 50 years, is it not essential that the very best designers in the country should be employed to design them?
    Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bossom: What provision has the Minister made to do this so far?
    Mr. Hicks: The need for economy in labour and material is the condition which has been imposed during the period of the war. Secondly, we have a highly qualified gentleman in charge of one of the committees, and any representation can be made to him, and all the ability that we have in the country will be harnessed to produce the result that the hon. Member desires.

    Building Development, United States (Mr. Jellicoe's Report).
    Mr. Bossomasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether Mr. Jellicoe has yet delivered an account of his findings in the United States of America; and what action does his Ministry contemplate taking as a result of this American visit?
    Mr. Hicks: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, but it is expected that Mr. Jellicoe will shortly place before the Central Council for Works and Buildings a report giving the information he has obtained in the United States of America. This report will be considered by the Education Committee of the Council in relation to their inquiry into conditions of education and training for the building industry and until that Committee has completed its inquiry and made its report the Ministry do not contemplate taking any action as a result of Mr. Jellicoe's American visit.
    Mr. Bossom: Could the hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of seeing a precis of this report before any action is taken?
    Mr. Hicks: I have not seen it myself.
    Mr. Bossom: Could there be one produced, so that we could see it?
    Mr. Hicks: It is obvious that if a person is appointed by a committee and sent under the auspices of the Ministry to make inquiries, his first duty is to report to those who sent him. Until they have a chance to look at it and express their opinion, it is impossible to guarantee that it shall be given to someone else in advance.
    Major Lyons: Do not the whole of these circumstances show that sending one gentleman on this errand was a waste of time?
    Mr. Hicks: We do not think anything of the kind.

    Scott and Uthwatt Reports.
    Mr. Bossomasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he will give an assurance that no developments his Ministry contemplates as a result of either Lord Justice Scott's or Mr. Justice Uthwatt's Report will be put into operation before this House has had an opportunity of debating them?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): Neither Report has yet been received, and it is impossible to consider any action as a result of these Reports until they have been received and studied. I do not know what my hon. Friend means by developments, but if what he has in mind is the possibility of legislation by Order in Council, I would refer him to the Answer which I gave him on 22nd July, 1942.
    Mr. Bossom: Seeing that these Reports have been waiting now for over a year, and that the matter has caused great interest throughout the country, cannot the House be given an opportunity of debating them before any action is taken in connection with them?
    Mr. Strauss: I hope the Reports will be received very soon, but it is possible that they might contain some suggestion for an improvement in my Department, and in such a case I do not suppose the House would wish my noble Friend to delay action upon it.
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Would it not be impossible to put any of the Reports into action without Parliament considering them?
    Mr. Strauss: That is the point of the beginning of my reply. I quite agree that when these Reports are received they will have to be most carefully studied before action can be taken upon them.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is not the question. The Question is whether the House will be given an opportunity to debate them before anything is done.
    Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Member looks at the Question, he will see that that is not so. It is not whether a Report will be adopted, but whether any develop-
    1018
    ments will be put into operation. That is in very wide terms. I have informed the House that no permanent changes in the law of town and country planning can possibly be effected without coming to the House for legislation. I do not wish to give an undertaking in wider terms than the House would desire.
    Mr. Stephen: Can we have an assurance that the Reports will be given this Session?

  BRITISH MANUFACTURE AND RESEARCH COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he can make a statement about the British Manufacture and Research Company, Limited, and the prices charged for work done in connection with aircraft-gun production; why the management of the firm was allowed to prolong the negotiations for a long time until they got all they wanted; whether the gun in question was the design of the firm or of the Ministry; and what prevented the Departments concerned putting Defence Regulation 55 (1) (a) into operation?
  The Minister of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewehin): I am advised that Defence Regulation 55 (1) (a) does not apply to a case of this sort. The design of the gun was a foreign one and the gun was only manufactured here under licence. Negotiations were not prolonged for the reason suggested by my hon. Friend. I understand that arrangements are being made to discuss this matter when the House resumes its Sessions, and I think that it would therefore be inappropriate to make a long statement now. I would, however, add that the company, by way of adjustment of the provisional prices paid, has already refunded a considerable sum to my Department.

  AEROPLANE CONSTRUCTION (SUGGESTIONS).
  Sir Robert Youngasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he has considered a letter from Mr. B. Vallance, of Golborne, Lancashire, regarding aeroplane construction; and whether he will give an assurance that the suggestions made will receive careful attention from himself and from the

  1019
  Department of Scientific Research without undue delay, owing to the urgency of the matter, If approved?
  Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. This matter has been carefully considered by my Department, and a reply was sent to Mr. Vallance last week.
  Sir R. Young: Does that reply give any explanation of whether the suggestion was or was not suitable?
  Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. I have seen the reply and have read the claim put forward by Mr. Vallance. What Mr. Vallance is suggesting is not a new thing; I have seen it in operation, and I am afraid that Mr. Vallance does not add anything to what we already know.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    Leave.
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether consideration can be given to the possibility of granting seamen, stationed at a place of which he has been informed, travelling time in addition to their regulation number of days leave, on the ground that those with their houses in the South of England spend the best part of four days going and returning?
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I regret that this is not possible since the period of leave given to ratings from the place referred to is already sufficiently greater than that given to shore establishments generally to allow for the extra time spent in travelling.
    Mr. Hall: If the men could be let off a few hours earlier it would make a great difference in the time at which they reached home.
    Mr. Alexander: I will have the point looked at to see if we can do it without undue extension of leave, but already they are treated rather generously because of the difficulty of that particular station.

    Motor Boats (Hire).
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that two young soldiers recently hired a motor-boat for a private commando raid on
    1020
    France; and what restrictions are placed on the hire of boats to prevent them from being used by enemy agents or others anxious to reach the Continent?
    Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. Various Orders have been made under the Defence Regulations imposing restrictions on the use of boats and providing for their immobilisation in certain areas. I am having inquiries made into the working of these Regulations.

    Flying Duties (Medical Examination).
    Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueterasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether there is any difference in the method and severity of the medical examination and test of candidates for entry into the naval air service and into the Royal Air Force;
    (2) whether a board of medical specialists exists to assist in examining candidates for entry into the naval air service, as is the case in the Royal Air Force;
    (3) whether surgeon-captains and surgeon-commanders detailed for examining candidates for the naval air service have any special qualifications for this work; and do they consult at any time their opposite numbers in the Royal Air Force with a view to reducing air accidents by unsuitable candidates to a minimum?
    Mr. Alexander: There is no difference between the method and severity of the medical examination for entry for naval flying duties and that for flying duties with the R.A.F. Prior to appointment to medical boards all medical officers undergo a special course of instruction in the medical examination for fitness for flying. There is a close liaison between the medical department of the R.A.F. and R.N. regarding the medical standards and methods of examination of candidates. Medical boards receive instructions as necessary. In cases of doubt regarding the medical fitness of a candidate for naval flying duties, the case is referred to a civil or Service specialist.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the fact that a large proportion of these young men are under the National Health Insurance Scheme, would not the information of the approved societies considerably help the medical board when dealing with their cases?
    Mr. Alexander: I will have the point looked at, but I feel sure that, in view of the very strenuous duties in which these people are engaged, the House would wish them to have a special examination.

    Torpedoes and Mines.
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty are responsible for the supply, testing and upkeep of torpedoes and mines carried by land-based aircraft in all theatres of the war; who provides and is responsible for the sea training of the crews; and whether the present system is in every respect efficient for operations of war at sea?
    Mr. Alexander: The Admiralty is responsible for the supply of torpedoes and mines for both Fleet Air Arm and R.A.F. aircraft. It is also responsible for the testing and upkeep of these weapons in the Fleet Air Arm and for the provision and sea training of air crews for the Fleet Air Arm. The system of training is considered satisfactory. The Air Ministry is responsible for the testing and upkeep of torpedoes and mines used by the R.A.F. and for the provision and sea training of R.A.F. air crews. The Air Ministry consider this system to be satisfactory, but in conjunction with the Admiralty they have for some time been giving attention to securing any further improvements which may be found to be possible.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he has given, while partially satisfactory, indicates a certain measure of divided control, which can only lead to uncertainty and inefficiency?
    Mr. Alexander: I would not accept that. I feel sure that the Air Ministry and ourselves want to co-operate so as to get the most efficient results.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Would it not be infinitely better if the whole of the naval flying were under one control, namely, the Admiralty?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    Admiralty (Staff).
    Mrs. Tateasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will take steps to get rid of the redundant civil servants
    1022
    employed in Admiralty Departments in a town of which he has been informed; and whether he is aware of the indignation aroused in that town by the number of this redundant staff?
    Mr. Alexander: I am not aware of any redundances in the town in question. However, if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any cases, an investigation will be made.
    Mrs. Tate: In view of the great hardship imposed on large numbers of people in that district owing to the call-up, could not the right hon. Gentleman send inspectors down, as it is a byword in this town about the lack of work in the Department?
    Mr. Alexander: It is easy to say that things are a byword, but we must have specific cases put to us. My information is that the civil staffs in the town in question are below the proper establishment.
    Mr. W. Brownasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that certain members of the clerical staff in the Armament Supply Department who are liable for military service were officially asked to indicate whether they are keen to be released, willing to be released, or unwilling to be released for service with the Forces; that the selection of individuals for whom continued deferment was not asked was based upon the replies received from the individual officers; and whether he will ensure that there is no repetition of this way of making selections of civil personnel to join the Forces, and will review the cases that have already occurred?
    Mr. Alexander: It was recently decided to release to the Armed Forces a proportion of the clerical staff of the Armament Supply Department who fell within certain age groups. All the clerical staff of the groups concerned were reviewed and to enable the review to be carried out reports on each individual were called for, under eight separate headings. The personal circumstances of the individual was only one of these headings. Much more important factors were the experience of the individual, the dislocation his release would cause, and the future need of the Department. I am satisfied that the selections were fairly carried out but I feel that it would have been much better not to have included the personal

    1023
    questions in the questionnaire and I have given instructions that this is not to be repeated.

    Public Relations and Press Officers.
    Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Prime Minister how many feature writers are employed by the Public Relations Departments of the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry, respectively; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee, consisting of representatives of these three Departments with an impartial chairman, which, by deciding upon the relative importance to be attached to the news issued to the Press about each of these three Services, will put a stop to harmful comparisons between them?
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am informed that no feature writers in the ordinarily accepted sense of the term are employed in any of the three Service Departments. I do not think that the appointment of a committee such as is suggested by my hon. Friend would be practicable or useful.
    Mr. Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there does exist serious rivalry between the Service Departments because the publicity given to each of the Services depends on the ability of these feature writers—or journalists, if they are not to be called feature writers—rather than upon the courage of the men about whom they are writing, with the result that there is a serious disturbance in morale between the Services? Will the right hon. Gentleman really look into the matter, because it is very serious?
    Mr. Attlee: If the hon. Member will bring me any details of that, I shall be pleased to look into the matter and discuss it with him. I do not think his suggestion would be practicable.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been raising this subject on the Floor of the House over and over again?
    Sir Percy Harris: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider as a way out concentrating all this work in the Ministry of Information, which could allocate publicity according to the individual merits of each case?

    Ministry of Supply (Overtime).
    Mr. Purbrickasked the Minister of Supply why it was necessary for the amount of overtime worked in his Department to be tripled in the last six months?
    The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): The amount paid in overtime to the clerical staff in London in May was about double that paid in December last. The work of the Ministry has continuously increased; but it has been practicable to call on the clerical staff to work longer hours this summer than during last winter.
    Mr. Purbrick: Would it not be better to employ some of the staffs who are already crying out for more work in some of the Departments than to pay overtime to others?

  MOSLEM MOSQUE, LONDON (SITE).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any progress has been made in the selection of a site for a Moslem mosque in London?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir. Negotiations have now been completed for the purchase by His Majesty's Government of a site known as Regents Lodge adjoining the Outer Circle of Regents Park.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this development will be received with a great deal of appreciation and satisfaction?
  Earl Winterton: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that there is a body of trustees, Moslems and non-Moslems, of whom I am one, for handling this matter who are quite satisfied with the arrangements made by His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Hannah: Should not this be made far better known throughout the world than it is?

  MALAYAN AND HONG KONG LOANS (PAYMENT OF INTEREST).
  Captain Gammansasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that the assets of the Malayan Governments in Great Britain

  1025
  exceed£70,000,000, what justification there is for the continued delay in the payment of interest on the various Malayan War Loans, Saving Certificates and municipal bonds to persons resident outside territory occupied by the enemy?
  Major Cazaletasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government will assume responsibility for the payment of interest on Federated Malay States and Straits Settlements War Loans, in view of the fact that the entire proceeds of these loans were placed at the disposal of His Majesty's Government for the prosecution of the war?
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: Interest payments on the sterling loans issued in London will be met as a matter of obligation. As regards the local dollar borrowings of the Malayan Governments and municipalities, and also of the Hong Kong Government, the obligation is to meet the services of such loans locally in the local currencies, and holders have no legal claim to be paid elsewhere or in any other currency. But in order to avoid hardship His Majesty's Government have decided that, subject to certain reservations, interest shall be paid out of the resources here which are available to the representatives of the respective borrowing authorities. These payments can only be ex gratia and subject to adjustment in any particular case if this is subsequently found to be necessary. Such payments will be made to individuals in British or Allied territory and to organisations and corporations which have no establishments in enemy or enemy occupied territory. Notice of the detailed arrangements affecting stock holders will be published shortly.
  Major Cazalet: If any of these people have lost everything, will my right hon. Friend see that these payments are expedited?
  Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

  SIERRA LEONE (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give a full account of the safeguards which exist, and the steps taken to create them, in connection with
  1026
  the Defence (Essential Work General Provisions) Order, 1942, of Sierra Leone, under which it is an offence for any workman to be absent twice a month, or two days consecutively, or to be late for work?
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: Although it is true that the worker can be dismissed for these and other offences specified in the Order, he has the right to be reinstated and to receive his normal rate of pay from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement in any of the following contingencies:—

  (a) If he is not, within 48 hours of his dismissal, brought before a court and charged with the offence in question, or

  (b) is acquitted of the charge or discharged, or

  (c) is convicted of the charge but the sentence imposed does not include either imprisonment or the payment of a fine.

  The acts referred to by my hon. Friend are not offences for the purposes of the Order unless committed without reasonable excuse. Before this Order was made its provisions were submitted to the Labour Advisory Board, which includes five labour representatives drawn from the trade unions. The labour representatives, with one exception, agreed with the rest of the Board that the penalties provided for in the Order were necessary in the present exceptional circumstances.
  Mr. Adams: Will the Minister take upon himself to look into the operation of this Order in Sierra Leone, as it is declared in the public Press that it is operating with great hardship and that a state of virtual slavery has been restored?
  Mr. Macmillan: I will call for a report.
  Sir P. Hannon: Would it not be better to leave these matters to the local authorities?

  WEST INDIES.

    Jamaica (Government Employees' Wages).
    Mr. D. Adamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as the wages of Government employees in Jamaica are 31 per cent. below the rise in the cost of living since the outbreak

    1027
    of war, he is recommending this deficiency to be made up forthwith, both as a right of the employees and as an example to private employers in the island?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this question again, Since replying to a similar Question from him on 29th July, I have considered this matter further with my Noble Friend, who is communicating with the Governor on the whole question.

    Trinidad (Employment).
    Mr. Rileyasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the termination of the construction of the American air and naval bases in Trinidad, the Government will favourably consider restarting the reclamation of the Caroni swamp in Trinidad, both in order to afford employment to the 20,000 men who have been employed on the American bases and to make available a large area of land suitable for rice cultivation?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: There is a serious shortage of labour in the Colony for agricultural work, and the labourers so far released from work on the United States bases can be absorbed in agriculture and on public works for which there is need in Trinidad. But I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion which will be kept in mind.
    Mr. Riley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a surplus of labour in Barbados, which is not very far from this site, and could not that labour be utilised?
    Mr. Macmillan: There are some difficulties about the movement of labour, although we are doing it to some extent.
    Sir L. Lyle: Is it not a fact that labour is urgently required on established industry in Trinidad where the withdrawal of labour has caused the harvesting of this year's crop to be put seriously into jeopardy?

    Rice Cultivation.
    Mr. Rileyasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the production of rice in British Guiana fell to 9,000 tons after having reached in one year a maximum of 30,000 tons; and whether, in view of the loss of an annual import of 30,000 tons of rice from Burma, the steps now
    1028
    being taken to extend rice cultivation in British Guiana and the West Indies are intended to make the West Indies independent of imported supplies of rice?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: It is true that for a variety of reasons, including droughts, there was a decline in the production of rice in British Guiana, but it is understood that British Guiana will be able to supply the needs of the British West Indian islands other than Jamaica this year. The measures now being taken in British Guiana and the West Indies are intended to meet future West Indian requirements with the least possible recourse to external supplies.

  GALLANTRY (CIVIL AWARDS).
  Mrs. Tateasked the Prime Minister whether he will in future recommend that civil awards should be made according to the merit of the service rendered without regard to the rank or age of the recipient?
  Mr. Attlee: Gallantry awards such as the George Cross, the George Medal and Commendation are made without regard to rank or age. I do not consider that it would be practicable entirely to dissociate rank or status from selection for recommendation for appointment to the various Classes of the Orders. The achievement of a certain status is often in itself meritorious. Age alone is not a criterion, but length of exceptionally good service must often be an important factor in making recommendations.

  TANK WARFARE (ADVICE).
  Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister whether the great experience of General de Gaulle as a specialist in tank warfare is at the disposal of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether it is being utilised to the fullest extent?
  Mr. Attlee: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office gave on 24th February last in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean) of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. Cocks: As I am not aware of that answer, could the right hon. Gentleman give me an indication of it now; or would he consider, providing that General de

  1029
  Gaulle is agreeable, offering him the command of one of our armoured divisions either in Libya or elsewhere?
  Mr. Attlee: That is another question. If the hon. Member will look at the reply, I think he will see that it has been already answered

  FACTORY BUILDING (SUBSTITUTE MATERIAL).
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Production whether he is aware that the substitute material, for the production of which the Vestey combine has been granted permission to build a factory, is already being supplied to Government departments by the original producers; and why assistance to develop production has been refused in the case of this original firm?
  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): Yes, Sir. The material is supplied by a number of firms and it was decided that although further manufacture by the industry should be encouraged the facts did not warrant the granting of financial assistance to any particular firm.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that if the Vestey combine get control of this substitute they can crush out the independent producers and then regulate the production of the substitute to suit their financial interests in the original material, which at present is costing the lives of seamen and the loss of ships? Is not that the case? Mr. Speaker, will not the Minister answer? If the combine get control of this substitute will they keep down the production of the substitute in order to safeguard their investments in the original product? It is a dirty racket, one of the dirtiest rackets being run.

  RUBBER SUBSTITUTES.
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Minister of Production, whether he will make a statement on the investigation of substitutes for rubber?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Apart from materials generally known as synthetic rubber, about which I made a statement in reply to the hon. Member on 8th July, raw natural rubber can be replaced in par- 1030
  ticular circumstances by a number of materials of which the most important is reclaimed and crumb rubber, the use of which is being extended, Polyvinyl Chloride which is being used in place of rubber in cables and a variety of materials which can be used instead of rubber for waterproofing. In addition, the rubber available can be made to go further by a suitable use of extenders. Investigation is proceeding into other means of saving rubber.
  Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether arrangements are being made to manufacture the maximum quantity of this substitute rubber over here?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I do not understand to which substitute the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman making arrangements for the manufacture in quantity of any substitute?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I have already answered that question.
  Mr. Levy: When my right hon. Friend says "which one," does he realise that there is a rubber substitute made from Budidene and that can be transformed into any end-product, and therefore my hon. Friend opposite is quite right?

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    Dried Meat.
    Mr. W. Brownasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will now give an assurance that if dehydrated meat is used in Britain the sole medium for its distribution will be the butchers' shops?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): No, Sir. I cannot now give the assurance suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Sir W. Davison: On a point of Order. May I ask what the word "dehydrated" means?
    Mr. Brown: Does not the Minister realise that if the use of dehydrated meat becomes general and it is sold through other sources than butchers' shops, the position of butchers will become an extremely serious one, and cannot he give me the assurance asked for?
    Mr. Mabane: Arrangements for producing dried meat in the principal exporting countries are still in the early stages, and it is not yet possible to say how it will be distributed in this country, whether as a substitute for carcase meat or in addition to it. We shall have to consider that.
    Petty-Officer Alan Herbert: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the tins of this food which he has courteously sent to me the word used in every case is "dried"?
    Mr. Mabane: If the hon. and gallant Member will open the tins, he will find they contain not meat but vegetables.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he proposes to put on the market dehydrated meat; and whether he will arrange for Members to try some of this meat?
    Mr. Mabane: Arrangements for the production and packing of dried meat on a commercial scale are still in an early stage, and I am not at present able to say how or when supplies will be made available to civilian consumers. I will give consideration in due course to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend in the last part of his Question.

    Prosecution, Rochdale.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the charge made against Burneys, Limited, confectioners, of Dodgson, Rochdale, heard on 13th July at Rochdale; how many charges were made against the firm and other people; and whether any public officials were involved?
    Mr. Mabane: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on 23rd July. It would not be possible within the limits of a Parliamentary answer to give an account of this complex series of cases, which were reported fully in the local Press at the time. Thirty-six summonses were issued against Burneys Ltd., and 116 against other persons and firms concerned. No public officials were involved in the case.

    Fruit (Distribution, South Wales).
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food
    1032
    whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that prevails in South Wales owing to the unfair distribution of the cherry crop of this season and the large quantities that are now one sale in London shops and on its streets at prices considerably below the control price; and will he take immediate steps to rectify the position?
    Mr. Mabane: I cannot agree that the distribution of the cherry crop has been unfair, nor am I aware of any general dissatisfaction in South Wales. All the main markets in South Wales have received good supplies of excellent quality throughout the season. In so far as cherries have been sold in London at prices below the maximum controlled price, they have been of inferior quality.
    Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cherries sent to South Wales have been largely of inferior quality, and that they were sold at the controlled price, which is very substantially above the price at which ripe cherries were sold here on the streets of London?
    Mr. Mabane: I have made very careful inquiries and they lead me to the conclusion that the cherries sent to South Wales were of excellent quality. I have not been able to find cherries in London below the controlled price.
    Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Member not aware that cherries have been sold by the ton in the streets of London at 1s. or 1s. 1d. per lb.? Every hon. Member here has seen them.
    Mr. Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will take immediate steps to remove the restrictions recently placed on the transport of home-grown plums to South Wales, in view of the fact that the plum-producing areas are at considerable distances from South Wales and near to large and populous districts which will, in consequence, deprive South Wales of its fair share?
    Mr. Mabane: There are at present no restrictions on the movement of plums into South Wales. The entry of plums from areas other than the West Midland area will be subject to licence during the period of peak production, but South Wales will receive during this period plums from the West Midland area free of restriction.
    Mr. Davies: Is it not likely from that answer that South Wales will receive very few plums during the season, owing to the vast populous districts which surround the West Midland area; and cannot the Minister arrange that plums from, say, the south-east part of the country shall come direct to South Wales and not go through the bottleneck of the London market?
    Mr. Mabane: The West Midland area contains 30 per cent. of the total acreage of plums in the country. This is considerably higher than the proportion of the population there to that of the whole country. In fact some plums will have to go out of the West Midland area in order to supply areas elsewhere.
    Mr. Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will take immediate steps for the distribution to South Wales of its fair proportion of the anticipated crop of homegrown apples?
    Mr. Mabane: The initial proposals covering the Control of the main apple crop are embodied in the Maximum Price Order which came into operation on 2nd August, and plans are being discussed for the distribution of stored apples later in the year. The needs of South Wales will be fully borne in mind.

    Sweet Marketable Oats.
    Flight-Lieutenant Boothbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will give a definite assurance that the whole of this year's crop of sweet marketable oats will be purchased by his Department?
    Mr. Mabane: No, Sir, nearly two-thirds of the crop will be required for use on the farms where it was grown, either for feeding livestock or as seed for the following year. The Ministry of Food, however, intends to purchase from the trade as large a quantity of sweet marketable oats as are available without prejudicing supplies for oatmeal milling and other essential purposes from that portion of the crop which growers are able to offer for sale.
    Flight-Lieutenant Boothby: Thank you very much.

    Hotel and Restaurant Meals (House Charges).
    Mr. Silkinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether
    1034
    he is aware that restaurant charges have increased since they have been limited; and what action he proposes taking in the matter?
    Major Lyonsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the inquiries into the working of the house charges for hotels, permitted under the recent Order, have now been completed; and what reductions and withdrawals are proposed where prices are now equal to, or more than, formerly?
    Mr. Mabane: As I have indicated previously, my Noble Friend instituted an inquiry into the facts in the central London area. The conduct of this inquiry was entrusted to an accountant and has now been completed. My noble Friend is at present reviewing the existing and provisionally authorised house charges in the light of the evidence now available and taking into consideration the capital charges which have to be borne by the various establishments concerned.
    Major Lyons: As this review has now been concluded, will my hon. Friend take some steps to see that there is a stoppage put to this racket which his Department has created?
    Mr. Silkin: May I send my hon. Friend particular instances of what is happening?
    Mr. Mabane: I shall be very glad to have them.
    Mr. John Dugdale: Will this review go into the meals served in private rooms in hotels?
    Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir.

    Bacon Production (Bilston Factory).
    Mr. Hannahasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he realises the strong feeling that exists in Bilston over the decision to close the bacon factory of J. E. Downs and Sons and the grave doubts locally felt about the continued supply of offal products; and will he grant an inquiry into this matter?
    Mr. Mabane: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on Wednesday, 29th July.
    Mr. Hannah: Do the Government realise that this is a serious matter for Bilston? I found dismay on the subject in the town hall, at the citizens advice

    1035
    bureau, and at the food office. There is a fear that it will have a very bad effect on food supplies both for Bilston and the surrounding towns. The matter simply cannot be allowed to rest where it is.

    Co-operative Societies.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is the position of the members of a co-operative selling group of growers not registered under the Companies Act, 1929, when a share-out is made; and, in view of the uncertainty of the position, whether he will make a statement to assist the many co-operative selling groups registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, in order that they may be prevented from committing offences unwittingly?
    Mr. Mabane: I am not aware of any circumstances in which a co-operative society, distributing its surplus funds in accordance with its rules, would thereby be committing any offence relating to food, but if my hon. Friend has any special cases in mind, I shall be glad if he will let me have particulars for consideration in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not the Minister aware that the position is irregular at the present time and needs to be clarified? Is he not further aware that I have sent him particulars of two cases quite recently in this connection where grave breaches of the Regulations seem to have been committed?
    Mr. Mabane: I am aware particularly of one case which the hon. Member sent me, but it seems to be a case in which the funds were not being distributed in accordance with Rules which would be approved.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does not the whole matter need to be gone into very carefully? The Government are here to do a job; let them get on with it.
    Mr. Mabane: If the hon. Member will supply me with the particulars, we will get on with it.

    Fish, Scottish Ports (Distribution).
    Flight-Lieutenant Boothbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is satisfied that
    1036
    the fish now being landed in Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Macduff, and other northern Scottish ports, are being given adequate and timely clearance; and whether he will take steps to ensure that herring in particular are not wasted, but are distributed quickly and equitably over as wide an area as possible?
    Mr. Mabane: I am satisfied that, at the ports mentioned, the landings of fish are being disposed of in reasonable time and without special difficulty. All landings of herrings have been cleared and distributed as widely as possible. My Noble Friend is at present considering if special steps are necessary to ensure at all times an equitable distribution of herrings, either fresh or as kippers.
    Flight-Lieutenant Boothby: Will not the Minister consider the possibility of making certain quantities of cured herring available, as well as fresh herring?
    Mr. Mabane: Yes; Sir, and I may say that we took action in this sense in connection with some heavy landings at Buckie on 1st August.

    Distribution Frauds.
    Mr. Denvilleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food Whether, in view of further information given him by the hon. Member for New-castle-on-Tyne, Central Division, he will now take further steps to improve the system for preventing fraud in the distribution of food?
    Mr. Mabane: The information received from my hon. Friend is receiving careful consideration, with a view to determining whether the circumstances of this particular case reveal any need for a general revision of the system of issuing permits to canteens.

    Retail Deliveries, St. Andrews.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the report of Sir James Irvine's Committee upon retail deliveries in St. Andrews; why delay has occurred in replying to the Committee; and whether the Committee's recommendations are accepted?
    Mr. Mabane: The report to which my hon. Friend refers has been fully considered by my Noble Friend in consultation with my Noble Friend the Minister

    1037
    of War Transport. Receipt of the report was acknowledged on 26th June, and a considered reply was sent to Sir James Irvine on 28th July. I regret that it has not been found possible to amend the Order in the manner suggested.
    Mr. Stewart: Does not my hon. Friend recall that this Committee was set up at the direct suggestion of his Department, on terms agreed by his food officer in Dundee, for the precise purpose of discovering what amendments were necessary? These amendments have now been presented, and it is time the scheme was out. Will my hon. Friend reconsider the announcement which he has just made?
    Mr. Mabane: I am afraid I cannot accept any of my hon. Friend's suggestions. This was not an official committee of the Ministry of Food. The initiative came mainly from the hon. Member himself. The terms of reference were not determined by the Ministry of Food. There seems no special reason why St. Andrews should have special treatment.
    Mr. Stewart: Is not the Minister aware that his statement as to the facts is wrong? In view of that misstatement, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SECTIONS.
  Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Minister of Supply (1) how many operational research sections, employing scientific observers, exist; how many are projected and in what theatres of war it is intended they should be used;
  (2) what broad classes of equipment will be covered by operational research sections; and what is the appointment of the officer responsible for their work?
  Sir A. Duncan: Seven operational research sections are at present at work in this country and the Middle East. Others are being formed as and where the military situation demands. Practically all classes of operational equipment will eventually be covered. Operational research is the joint responsibility of the Scientific Adviser to the Army Council and the Controller of Physical Research and Signals Development of the Ministry of Supply.

  RUBBER (WRONGFUL USE).
  Mr. Bowlesasked the Minister of Supply what information he has relating to the wrongful use of rubber in contravention of the Defence Regulations; and whether any steps have been taken to prosecute any firms guilty of this contravention?
  Sir A. Duncan: To ensure the observance of the Statutory Orders a small staff of full-time inspectors is employed by the Rubber Control. One case has been dealt with by the courts, and others are under investigation.

DEPUTY-FIRST SEA LORD (APPOINTMENT).
The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a short statement on an appointment which has recently been made in the Admiralty and which will, I think, be of interest to the House.
In view of the expanding naval administrative work at the Admiralty, and in order that the First Sea Lord may be able to devote the maximum time to duties connected with plans and operations, which are the main responsibility of the Chief of Naval Staff in regard to the conduct of the war, a Deputy-First Sea Lord has been appointed to take over the administrative side of the First Sea Lord's duties. In particular, the Deputy-First Sea Lord will superintend the work of the Naval Staff related to the provision of the necessary Naval Forces of all types (including the Fleet Air Arm) and other requirements, to meet present and future needs for the conduct of the war. He will also deal with all large questions in connection with the development of the fighting efficiency of the Fleet as regards training and material.
Admiral Sir Charles Kennedy-Purvis, who recently relinquished the appointment of Commander-in-Chief of a foreign station, assumed his duties as Deputy-First Sea Lord on 29th July, 1942.

WAR SITUATION.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I repeat the Question which I put to the Leader of the House last Thursday, as to whether it is proposed that a statement should be

1039
made on the war situation before we rise for the Recess?
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): No, the Government see no reason to change their decision, which was announced to the House last week.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER RECESS).
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move,
"That this House, at its rising upon the next Sitting Day, do adjourn till—"
I have already informed hon. Members a short time ago that it was proposed that the House should adjourn. I would like to make it clear to the House and to the country that this is not in order to give hon. Members a holiday, nor, I am sure, will they in fact get such a holiday, as they will all have many other important activities to undertake in their constituencies and elsewhere. I think it is not realised by some persons what a strain the constant attendance on Parliament puts upon Ministers and others, and what a very considerable burden is cast upon the administration by the constant attendance upon the desires of the House in the answering of Questions, and otherwise. It is absolutely essential, if we are to preserve the efficiency of Ministers and their staffs, that there should be an opportunity for them to have a consecutive period free from Parliamentary duties, so that they may have a chance, in turn, of taking a few days' relaxation and so that they may be without the interruption of Parliamentary business in their Departments. This essential period of the cessation of Parliamentary activities does not mean that the Government may not recall Parliament if the need arises, by making to you" Mr. Speaker, representations for which provision is
1058
made. They most certainly will do so, and the House may rest assured that, if there is any special information to be communicated to hon. Members, or if any unexpected situation arises, they will be recalled. I very fully appreciate the feelings of hon. Members that, in such difficult times as the present, they desire to remain at their posts, but I am sure that they will realise the need for Parliament to rise for a short time for the reasons that I have given.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I think the House fully appreciates the arguments which have been put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend. Nobody can believe that the public interest is to be served, or public feeling in any way influenced, if this House meets for no special purpose. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a very specific assurance that if the Government feel that it is necessary, they will recall the House. May I put this point to him? It has been put before, and answered, as no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will say. There may be feelings outside Government circles, and, after all, some of us are in a position to be more closely in touch with public opinion than busy Ministers can possibly be. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake, if representations are made from responsible quarters for the reassembly of the House, that those representations will be given earnest consideration?
Sir S. Cripps: Certainly, without the slightest doubt. If serious representations were to be made from responsible quarters, the Government would give the matter their most earnest consideration.
Mr. Greenwood: In those circumstances, my hon. Friends and I will gladly support the Motion.
Mr. Austin Hopkinson: What is meant by the term "responsible quarters"? Does that mean the "usual channels," because there is a growing suspicion in the minds of many hon. Members that they are the most irresponsible people the House contains?
Sir S. Cripps: It would, I think, be invidious to attempt to define "responsible quarters." That must be left to the Government to judge in the circumstances.
Mr. MacLaren: I think there is a great constitutional issue here. If outside bodies, it does not matter how responsible they may be, start making representations with regard to the calling together of this House, that should be done through the Members of this House and through no one else.
Sir S. Cripps: I think the hon. Member misunderstood what was said. It is with responsible persons in the House that we are dealing, not with anybody from outside.
Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Government have considered the possibility of making a rule that if a certain number of hon. Members request the summoning of the House, the request will be granted? The question has been raised before, but in this matter we always hear about responsible quarters and all the rest of it; but if a certain definite number is fixed, and if that number of signatures are obtained to a request for the meeting of the House, I think the Government ought to be ready to meet that request. I do not expect to get an answer to-day, but I want the assurance of the Leader of the House that the Government, in considering this thorny question, will see whether it is not possible in the future for some such arrangement to be made.
Sir S. Cripps: The Government are anxious to preserve the maximum of flexibility in this matter. If it were necessary for Members to go round and collect signatures from people all over the country in order to get a sufficient number, it would be very likely to delay their representations to the Government. I think it is better to leave it as it is; if responsible sections of opinion, responsible bodies in the House, or responsible Members of the House, make representations, the Government will consider them very carefully.
Mr. Hopkinson: Are we to understand that the majority of Members of this House are not responsible? [Interruption.]
Mr. Gallacher: I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether, in the event of the House being called together, he will make certain that the notice is sent out in time to allow of
1060
the Scottish Members attending the Sitting?
Sir S. Cripps: I am sure that Mr. Speaker, who will be looking after that matter, will pay attention to what the hon. Member has said.
Dr. Haden Guest: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in making his statement, said that the House' would be recalled if it were necessary to make some communication to Members of Parliament. Will he take notice also of the fact that the country expects that the House should be called together, in order to be reassured that the House is being consulted if a condition of grave emergency arises, as it may very well do in connection with the operations in Russia at the present time? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to give consideration to that aspect of the matter, to reassure the people of this country that the House is in Session to consider grave matters?
Sir S. Cripps: I think I covered that in the statement I made. I said that if any unexpected situation arose, the House would be recalled.
Captain Plugge: May I put a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty in connection with the statement he made?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is too late.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That this House, at its rising upon the next Sitting Day, do adjourn till—."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power for the Treasury to borrow.)
Mr. Stokes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out "three" and to insert "two."

1061
I do not want to detain the Committee long in moving the Amendment which stands in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). We have put down this Amendment partly to call attention to the wrongful way, in our view, in which the war is being financed, and partly in an endeavour to persuade the Chancellor to alter the rate of interest which is stated in Clause 2 (3) by reducing the percentage to be paid from 3 per cent. to 2 per cent. I know I should not be in Order in wandering over the whole field of how money should be raised, but we do wish to point out that the Government have power to take over the lives and property of everybody, and we submit that the way in which the war is at present being financed allows the moneylenders to profiteer and nobody else.
It appears to us that the whole method is wrong, and the Chancellor would do well to take into consideration what we have to say. I would like to point out that at present the Chancellor, under this Clause, borrows by Treasury bills, but there is no arrangement which prevents the banks from converting the money, when repaid or at some future date, into War Loan or some other loan at a higher rate of interest. Our submission is that the right way to finance this war is by interest-free money, and we would have preferred to have moved a Clause to that effect.
The Chairman: The hon. Member must not, under this Amendment, go into any details as to the general question of financing the war. The Amendment covers a very limited point indeed. It is merely an Amendment to the maximum rate of interest permitted in the case of transactions which are perfectly well known and well established.
Mr. Tinker: On that point, Sir Dennis, surely we have the right to show where it would be saving money for the nation if a less rate of interest were fixed, and to give examples; surely there is nothing wrong with that?
The Chairman: I think perhaps the hon. Member ought to leave this matter to me. I have put the position as clearly as I can.
Mr. Stokes: I fully appreciate how narrow the limits are, and I will endeavour not to stray. I was only mentioning that matter in passing. I would, however, call
1062
the attention of the Committee to this point. The alteration which we suggest, the reduction from 3 per cent. to 2 per cent., would have a very substantial effect on the cost of the war when you consider the sums involved. For instance, at the rate at which the National Debt is now' increasing this proposal would represent a saving of something of the order of£20,000,000 a year. We do suggest that there is no reason for this high rate of interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has it in his power to control the Bank rate. He can put it down to 1 per cent. and make money cheap, and it is outrageous in our view that a 3 per cent. rate of interest on any borrowings should be included in this Bill at this stage of the war. I do not wish to detain the Committee, in view of, the fact that I shall not be allowed to cover the whole of the range which I had wished to cover, but unless we get some promise from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that an alteration will be made in this respect, my hon. Friend and I feel disposed to divide the Committee on this Amendment.
Mr. Tinker: On this matter I think the Committee ought to be aware of what our intention is. We believe that there is no reason to pay any interest at all on these sums, but we recognise that it would be very hard to convince the Committee of that, because the idea of interest has got hold of the public mind. But we do say that 3 per cent. is too high a rate of interest and that 2 per cent. would be sufficient at a time like the present. The State has full power now to take over everything that is necessary for the prosecution of the war. If the Government want man-power or anything else, they have the right to take it. Has not the State an equal right to take over control of all money? In that case why should the Government ask people to lend them money at interest when they have the power to take it? To my mind the question of money ought not to enter into this matter at all. The State's resources ought to be complete and there should not be any question of paying any interest on borrowed money.
Let me give one or two illustrations of what I mean. The public are invited to lend money to the State and are told that if they lend the money they will get 3 per cent. for it. The man who has a

1063
few pounds at his disposal responds to that and says, "All right, I will lend my£100" or whatever the amount may be. At the same time the man who has control of large sums of money will lend his£1,000 or his£10,000 or some larger sum, and he is getting a far greater amount in interest than the other man. The man who lends£100 gets£3 interest on it in the year; the man who lends£1,000 gets£30 interest in the year. It is true that he may have to pay back£15 by way of Income Tax, but he is still getting£15 against the other man's£3. We are demanding sacrifices from the people of the country in this war. We are saying to them, "Give all you have." There is no restriction on what people can give. But while demanding these sacrifices, we are saying to other people, "Lend us your money, and we will pay you a certain rate of interest."
I think if Parliament and the country realised what this meant, they would not tolerate it any longer, and at a time like the present, when the Consolidated Fund Bill comes before us, we have an opportunity of drawing attention to it, and we intend to do so. As my hon. Friend has said, we are prepared if necessary to go into the Division Lobby on this Amendment for the express purpose of drawing the attention of the nation to what is behind all this. I take part in meetings on behalf of what is called the War Savings Movement for the purpose of showing that the people are behind the war effort. I know in my own mind that the lending of money makes no difference at all, but I attend meetings for the purpose of getting people to show that they are determined to carry on the war, and I give all the help I can. As I have already said, the question of money has no real bearing on the question at all. The question of money ought not to be brought into consideration in this matter, and nobody, because he happens to be better off than others, ought to be able to make a profit out of the present position of affairs. That is what is happening now. You have the wealthy man making a profit while the poor man or the moderately well-off man is asked to give his all. I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
Sir Herbert Williams: I have listened with some surprise to the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I do not think I have ever heard more inaccuracies in such a short time, in so many words, about so little. What the hon. Gentleman really proposes is that all depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank should have their rate of interest cut by one-half per cent., and probably a large proportion of his constituents have deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank. People have been asked, in good faith, to subscribe to War Savings Certificates on which the present rate of interest is 3 per cent., free of Income Tax, or in effect, 6 per cent. The hon. Member proposes to this Committee that we should tell the millions of people who have subscribed on those terms, that faith will be broken with them.
The hon. Member spoke of people making sacrifices. The other day he was asking for an extra 3s. a day for coal-miners. I have not the slightest objection to the coalminers having it, but what is the use, in those circumstances, of talking about sacrifices, and what is the use of saying that the rich man—I do not happen to belong to that category myself—makes no sacrifices? The so-called rich man has had his income cut in half since the war started; some have had their incomes cut by nine-tenths. Broadly speaking, the only people who cannot subscribe a shilling towards War Savings Certificates, or any other form of national investment, are the people called millionaires, because their pre-war commitments exceed their net income. It is sheer hypocrisy to suggest that people who are getting perhaps twice the money that they got before the war, are making sacrifices. There is no sacrifice in such a case, and it is dishonest, if not unfair, to the people of this country, in the present condition of things, to make a speech of the kind to which we have just listened.
Mr. Bellenger: I do not know whether the hon. Members who have put forward this Amendment have, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) alleges, made a number of inaccurate statements, but I think the hon. Member himself has made a few extravagant ones. I seem to remember a table recently prepared by the Treasury which went to show that the number of higher incomes assessed for Income Tax

1065
and Surtax during the war had increased over the number which existed in the prewar period. It looks to me therefore as if some people, other than coalminers, are making a very good amount of profit out of the war.
Sir H. Williams: Is the hon. Member referring to gross incomes or to net incomes after deduction of tax?
Mr. Bellenger: I am referring to gross incomes. If you refer to a miner's gross income of£4 3s. a week or whatever it may be, you must also refer to the millionaire's gross income if you are to deal with them on the same plane. We have heard and read a lot about the "poor rich," but they are better able to maintain their standard of life than some of the "poor poor."
I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to a matter which I think merits serious consideration. As the Committee knows, most of this money on which we are asked to pay three per cent. is in short-term borrowings other than Treasury bills, for which the Government pay only something in the nature of£1 per cent. With the war expenditure increasing and therefore a large amount of money inflation there is a bigger volume of money on which we are compelled to pay up to 3 per cent. To show the casual way in which the Treasury deal with this question of interest on borrowings, it is only necessary to recall what happened on a previous occasion when my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) pointed out that the 5 per cent. which was then the figure, was too much, and the Treasury immediately reduced it to 3 per cent., thereby, I suggest, proving conclusively that there was room for cutting the rate of interest. When we consider the 2½per cent. paid on Post Office Savings Bank deposits, we must remember that they are almost entirely small deposits. If we are to continue the interest system—and my hon. Friends, be it noted, have not advocated cutting out interest altogether—then I think we have to make some discrimination between the small saver and the large saver.
The Committee must be aware that today the money industry is probably the only industry which has not been seriously affected by Excess Profit Tax. To-day this industry is making huge pro-
1066
fits owing to the inflation of Government expenditure. I suggest that my hon. Friends are quite right in suggesting to the Treasury that to-day, when they are paying only about 1 per cent. on Treasury bills, they ought to reduce the interest on the next class of short-dated securities with which this Amendment deals to 2 per cent. at most.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is going outside the subject of this Amendment. If in addition to looking merely at the word "two" or "three" in the Amendment he will look at the sentence of which that word forms a part he will realise that no question arises here of differentiation between the rate of interest paid on small deposits or large deposits or matters of that kind.
Mr. Bellenger: But in reading the Bill I find in Clause 2 Sub-section (3)
"Any money borrowed otherwise than on Treasury bills shall be repaid, with interest not exceeding three pounds per cent. per annum…"
Then it goes on to say:
"…at any period not later than the next succeeding quarter to that in which the money was borrowed."
It seems to me that the 3 per cent. we are asked to pay is not for long-dated securities as we understand that term but for comparatively short-dated securities. I suggest that in transactions of this kind, which are somewhat analogous to Post Office Savings Bank deposits, there is some similarity between the trustee savings deposits and the Post Office Savings Banks which are a form of short-dated security, and this type of security on which the Government ask us to pay up to 3 per cent. Whether the Committee agree with me or not, I think the time is coming when the country will not be content to see the National Debt swell and increase, thereby increasing our capital liabilities and at the same time incurring increasing interest liabilities from year to year. I suggest to the Treasury that on technical grounds alone, apart from questions of equity, the Treasury might consider reducing the 3 per cent. inserted in this Bill to the 2 per cent. advocated by my hon. Friends.
Earl Winterton: I wish to ask a question. As you, Sir Dennis, have pointed out, this

1067
is a very narrow Amendment, and I do not intend to follow either the hon. Member beside me or the hon. Member behind me on the question of the poor poor and the poor rich. I would only say that the poor poor are better on than before the war, as they deserve to be, and that as long as the poor rich can afford to clothe and house themselves and give their children food, it is all they ought to expect in time of war. I think that the principle of the matters raised in the Amendment is of very great importance, and perhaps my hon. Friend can indicate that at some future date, for example after the resumption, he will speak to us on the whole question of long and short-term borrowing policy, because there are certain disturbing factors about it which it would not be in Order to mention now.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I hesitate to intervene too soon, but it is clear from what has been said that Members who have spoken on this Amendment are under a complete misapprehension as to what the Sub-section deals with. It has nothing to do with medium or long-term borrowing. It has nothing to do with War Loans or War Bonds or Savings Bonds, because these are raised under the National Loans Acts, not under this Bill at all. Therefore, while I appreciate the skill with which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) raised the issue which is always at the back of his mind, I cannot go out of Order in replying to it. What this Sub-section refers to are what are known as the Ways and Means Advances, which are day-to-day borrowings. As a matter of fact a large number of our Ways and Means Advances represent the idle balances which are in the hands of other Government Departments, that is, inter-Departmental borrowing, and lending which, of course, does not cost anything at all. It is only common sense that money should be used if available in any Department and then put back again. There is no expense there at all.
The only part on which there can be any argument at all is the case of advances by the Banking Department of the Bank of England on this very short-term basis. A reply was given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodbum) on 16th January, 1940, when he asked
1068
what were the rates payable. The reply was:
"The present rate of interest payable on Ways and Means Advances from the Banking Department of the Bank of England is ½per cent. per annum. If exceptionally large amounts are borrowed, the payments on the excess amounts would be higher, but not exceeding 1 per cent. per annum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1940; col. 20, Vol. 356.]
That is what we are talking about. Actually, during the present war advances from the Banking Department have been on quite a small scale. In fact, I can inform hon. Members that during the four months April to July this year the amounts have averaged only£4,000,000 outstanding on any given day. Therefore the hon. Gentleman will see that the theme of his speech was really concerned with an entirely different matter.
Mr. Bellenger: Is that borrowing against banking deposits?
Captain Crookshank: It is only Ways and Means Advances from the Banking Department. As the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) pointed out in his speech, last year he persuaded the Committee to change the figure in this Subsection, which is a common form of Clause and which exists in all Consolidated Fund Bills, from 5 to 3 per cent. That figure of 5 per cent. had been in Consolidated Fund Bills for 71 years. As it bore no relationship at all to what in fact is the cost of these Ways and Means Advances, my right hon. Friend accepted that in the circumstances of to-day 3 per cent. was perhaps a tidier sum for the reason that it is the maximum at which we have been borrowing on long and medium terms, and therefore, it was most unlikely ever to be reached for this type of borrowing. The limitation has not been effective, and there is no reason to suppose that it will be. The hon. Member says that as 3 per cent. is not reached, why not change it to 2? I would answer that by saying that 3 per cent., because it is the maximum figure for other borrowing, is a reasonable figure to insert here. No one expects it to be reached.
On the other hand, it is reasonable to think that in Consolidated Fund Bills, which come before us regularly year by year—in war-time we have to take them more frequently; in peace-time it is usual to have two each year, one to cover the main Estimates and the other to cover

1069
the Supplementary Estimates—the Committee should agree that a figure like this should be stereotyped for a number of years. Certainly there is no point in changing it from time to time. Indeed, it would be difficult to say at any particular moment in normal times, to forecast ahead, whether it might or might not be desirable that the figure should be changed. In point of fact it is not reached at the present time, but it seems better that we should let it stand as it is now and not change it. There are certain disadvantages in constantly chopping and changing these figures in formal Bills of this kind; and, as I have explained, we are not borrowing at anything like that rate, nor are we likely to. The Noble Lord asked whether we could have, at some stage or other, a discussion on the general borrowing policy of the Government—short, medium, and long. I can only put the Noble Lord's point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. I am neither the Chancellor nor the Leader of the House. I cannot explain the matter now, but I can well believe that there would be some advantage in having some of these matters discussed, although I would point out that we are not far distant from the time when the Budget was opened, and when it was possible to discuss these matters.
Earl Winterton: The ordinary peacetime system, by which we have a discussion on these matters on the Budget, is hardly applicable to the circumstances at these times. I hope that this point, which is not a frivolous but a substantial point, will be considered. As several of my hon. Friends have suggested, we should have not once a year but more often, a more or less full-dress Debate on our financial position.
Captain Crookshank: I will certainly convey that point to my right hon. and learned Friend. The Noble Lord will agree that we do take Votes of Credit from time to time, and that opportunity for such discussions is given then.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Is it not a fact, Sir Dennis, that under the Rules of the House it is not possible on a Vote of Credit to discuss this matter in all its aspects? I feel that the noble Lord is right in his suggestion, that we should have an opportunity for a dis- 1070
cussion with a broader sweep on the whole question.
Mr. Benson: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that discussions of this kind can take place on Votes of Credit. Am I right in supposing, Sir Dennis, that on Votes of Credit we may discuss only the spending, and not the raising, of the money?
The Chairman: There are certain limitations on what may be discussed, because the Votes of Credit are taken in Committee of Supply.
Mr. Benson: Therefore, financial policy could not be discussed on Votes of Credit?
The Chairman: That is probably so.
Mr. Woodburn: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman taken into consideration my point?
The Chairman: I am afraid that this is an example of how my anxiety not to interrupt Members too often leads to trouble. The matter is entirely out of Order.
Mr. Stokes: I am not in the least convinced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's so-called subtle argument. It only makes me think that instead of substituting "two" for "three," I should have put down to substitute "one." However, provided that I can get a categorical assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the House that we shall have a whole day to discuss this matter after the Recess, I will withdraw my Amendment.
Mr. Greenwood: I gather that my right hon. and learned Friend indicated his assent when I asked for an early Debate on the whole question.
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): There will be an early Vote of Credit.
Mr. Bellenger: Would it be in Order to discuss the matter on the occasion referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? If so, that would meet our point.
Captain Crookshank: Would it not be better to leave the matter as I suggested—that I should bring it before my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House?
Mr. Stokes: I have been raising this matter for three years with the Chancellor and I have never got any satisfaction.
The Chairman: The hon. Member must not press the matter further now.
Mr. Bellenger: Would it be in Order to ask whether on the occasion mentioned by the Leader of the House the House could have a discussion on the point we are raising now? The opportunities are very limited, owing to the Rules of the House.
The Chairman: I do not follow the hon. Member's question. I have just explained that debate on money matters generally is not in Order on this Amendment.
Mr. Bellenger: May I endeavour to make myself clear? The question has been asked whether it would be possible to discuss the wider implications of the Amendment on a future occasion. The Leader of the House has replied that that would be possible on a Vote of Credit which is to come later.
The Chairman: In the first place, that is, strictly speaking, irrelevant. In the second place, I am not prepared now to give any Ruling on what may or may not be discussed on a Vote of Credit.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 3 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Before I refer to the Eleventh Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure in detail, I think it would be for the convenience of the House that I should give a further brief picture of the dimensions of our Royal Ordnance factory organisation. There are 42 Royal Ordnance factories, of which 24 are engineering, 8 make explosives, and 10 are engaged in filling. They employ 300,000 people, 60 per cent. of whom are women, 32½per cent. semiskilled and unskilled men, and only 7½per cent. skilled men. The engineer-
1072
ing factories engage in a very wide range of high precision work. They make guns, gun carriages, small arms, the components for gun ammunition, and small arms ammunition, but their principal output is guns. At the present time they are responsible for 66⅔per cent. of the total gun output of the country, whereas a year ago they were responsible for only 50 per cent. of the total output. With improvement in efficiency, with more workers coming into employment, with improvement in design and with the mass production of components in associated factories, the output of guns has gone up very considerably indeed, and to-day the Royal Ordnance factories are producing from the gun factories four and a half times as many guns as they were producing 12 months ago. One factory alone to-day is producing a number of guns equal to 75 per cent. of the total number per month that were produced throughout the whole country in the last war when production was at its peak, and, over all, the Royal Ordnance factories are to-day producing twice as many guns as they were originally rated to produce. They have, therefore, become a powerful and very flexible instrument of production, and great credit is due to the Director-General of Ordnance Factories, who has the prime responsibility for the running of these factories.
On the explosives factory side we make something like 60 to 70 per cent. of the total explosives output of the country, and it is a long time since the supply of explosives gave us any trouble. In no case at the present time is the filling of shells, bombs or cartridges in any way limited by the supply of the principal explosives. Whereas the skill of our engineering industry in this country was a very sound foundation for our gun-making, there was really no counterpart on the filling side and the development of filling factories was behind the development of gun factories at the outbreak of war. The rapid growth of these factories, therefore, has accentuated to a considerable degree the difficulties that are in any case inherent in this kind of industrial activity. Individual factories have been recruiting five, six or seven thousand people, and the total personnel of most of these factories ranges from 10,000 to 25,000 persons. Not only is the labour new to the technique of filling but a great proportion is new to factory life altogether. By

1073
the end of 1941 these factories could be said to be completed and at the beginning of 1942 we agreed a programme with the War Office for their requirements for the whole of 1942 and set a target figure for them. The target figure was deemed by-many of our factories to be too high, but I am glad to be able to say that by the end of June the rate reached was 98 per cent. of the target, and with the rise in output there should be no difficulty at all in more than meeting the requirements for the full year.
During the last 12 months we have recruited 66 per cent. more people into our Royal Ordnance factories engaged in filling. We now have two and one-third times the production of a year ago, and what is very interesting and important is that the increase in output per individual operating in these filling factories is 40 per cent. more than it was a year ago. There is really no peace-time parallel to a development and production of this kind and the variations which take place in war, whether by land or air, or sea—the filling factories serve all three Services—make changes in programme from time to time quite inevitable, but as in the gun factories so in the filling factories we are now in a strong and flexible position to meet all sudden developments.
However gratifying our production results may be, neither the Minister nor a Departmental head would have any right to do anything but welcome help from any review made by a detached or representative committee of this House. We would not wish to fail either in appreciating or accepting guidance which makes for the improved efficiency of this national organisation. It is not possible, however, to accept all the statements made in the Report as statements of fact nor is it possible to agree that, in reaching their conclusions, the Committee had in mind all the material considerations that were bound to be in the minds both of Ministers and Departmental heads at the time when decisions had to be taken. I hope I may be allowed to express the view that great value would have accrued had there been an opportunity for the Ministry to discuss with the Committee their draft conclusions before they were either printed or debated.
Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I am sure that my right hon.
1074
Friend is aware that such a procedure would be out of Order.
Sir A. Duncan: I am aware that such a procedure might be out of Order.
Sir J. Warlaw-Milne: It is out of Order.
Sir A. Duncan: Is out of Order. I make the suggestion, nevertheless, so that it can be put into Order in some way.
Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Such a change must be made by the House of Commons and presumably initiated by the Government.
Sir A. Duncan: I am making the suggestion to the House of Commons, and I hope the seed will fall on fertile ground. With regard to the Report itself, I shall take first the large range of questions which relate to filling factory capacity, to labour in the filling factories and to the hostels.
On the question of filling capacity, there was a period in the war when on any prudent calculation the present filling capacity would have seemed likely to be quite inadequate. Indeed at one stage a much larger number of factories was contemplated. On present requirements and in the present state of the ammunition programme, we have, it is true, some surplus of filling capacity. That surplus constitutes a necessary, valuable and wise insurance. If there were no occupational hazards in this industry, if there were no hazards from the air and if there were no hazards of other kinds we might well concentrate more than we have done, although even then there must be practical limits to concentration. I am, however, very glad to observe that the Committee do not put their recommendation higher than that the possibility of concentration should be carefully examined. It must be examined in the light of the uncertainties of the future and the possibilities of higher requirements. We do keep in the Department careful records of and a close watch on surplus capacity, even temporary surplus capacity. All buildings which are reasonably suitable for storage in these factories—many of course are quite unsuitable for it—have already been turned over to our storage branch at the Ministry of Supply and a great many of them are in use for storage purposes.
With regard to the labour requirements of these factories, there has been from

1075
the beginning until to-day the closest possible liaison with the Ministry of Labour. It is through the Ministry of Labour that we find our personnel for these factories and it is to the Ministry of Labour that we intimate as far ahead as it is possible to do that, owing to changes in programme or for any other reason, releases of labour will be possible when such releases are likely to take place. In regard to the question of miners at one of the factories named in the Report, I would like to make it clear, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour stated in answer to a Question yesterday, that right at the beginning all ex-face workers below the grade of supervisor engaged in our Royal Ordnance factories were made available to the Ministry of Labour when their transfer back to the mines was wanted. However, a great many of them—in fact, it would be fairer to put it the other way and say very few of them—were found to be within the physical age and other qualifications necessary for their return to the mines. Nevertheless, in accordance with the Select Committee's recommendation, we, with the Ministry of Labour, are prepared to accept the view that there should now be a joint survey, in detail, of these factories. We must not lose any chance of looking into things thoroughly. We have also asked the Ministry of Labour to join with us in investigating the question of the dilution and employment of women which, also, was a recommendation of the Select Committee.
Mr. Culverwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not so much a question of his being blamed as the fact that these miners are still in ordnance factories? The point is that they were available, and the Ministry of Labour did not take them away. It is a question of divided responsibility between Government Departments.
Sir A. Duncan: I feel confident that the Ministry of Labour has missed no chance in taking from ordnance factories any miners who fall within the qualifications for return to the pits. I would emphasise to the House that the relationship between ourselves and the Ministry of Labour is of the closest, mostly friendly and co-operative character. In regard to the recruitment campaign, to which reference is made in the Report, it was initiated last autumn in agreement with the Ministry of
1076
Labour. In the spring of this year we again consulted with the Ministry of Labour and greatly reduced activities of that kind, engaged in by the Ministry of Supply. In answer to the recommendation made by the Select Committee we propose to close this section for special recruitment altogether.
In considering the recommendations and observations of the Select Committee as to hostels, I think it is necessary to remember how difficult it is to reconstruct the conditions that existed when decisions were first taken on these matters. I feel certain that members of the Select Committee will themselves agree that it is difficult completely to put their minds back to over a year ago. Efficiency in factories has greatly improved; in fact it has improved more than it was reasonable to anticipate, and that, of course, has meant that the numbers of workers required are less. There has been freedom from air raids, which has made it likely that people are willing to travel—and it certainly has made it possible for them to travel—much longer distances than they could have been expected to travel at the time when the severe "blitzing" was on, as it was when these hostels were originally planned. Transport has been excellently maintained; one might almost say surprisingly well maintained. Concentration of industry and the registration of women have also made much more local labour available for these filling factories than was apparent before these steps were taken. For all these reasons I think we must, in considering what the Committee calls "this remarkable miscalculation," be guided rather by the advice given to us by the Select Committee in July, 1941, than by that given to us in 1942. In 1941 the conditions and the outlook were different and the advice was also different. Then the Committee recommended that the provision of hostels should be increased and speeded up as a matter of urgency.
Sir Herbert Williams: I was responsible for that document, and as the officials of the Ministry told us that in a certain factory there were to be twice the number of people as there were then, and as the increase in the factory has been about 15 per cent., the right hon. Gentleman must not blame us for supplying misleading information.
Sir A. Duncan: I gathered the impression from this Report and other Reports

1077
that the Select Committee did apply their minds to all these things for themselves. I have no means of knowing how evidence was obtained.
Sir H. Williams: I do not want to make it difficult for the right hon. Gentleman, but the fact is perfectly well known to the Ministry. A factory was designed to employ 45,000 people, and when I visited it with my colleagues there were 19,000 people at work. We were told that the factory was to get 45,000 people. That applies to the bulk of the hostels built now and not wanted.
Sir A. Duncan: That may relate to a particular factory, but it remains true that when correspondence took place, following the Report in which the need for greatly increasing the number of hostels was accepted by the Select Committee, the Committee did not revise their recommendation. However, there is no need for us to quarrel about this matter. In the light of the circumstances at the time it was the right thing for the Select Committee to do and the right thing for the Ministry of Supply to do. To think that there was any guesswork about this is to be under a misapprehension. The subject of hostels was very carefully considered in collaboration by the Ministries of Supply, Health and Labour, and plans were only decided after the closest consultation with all the local people concerned. Even now, it would be quite unsafe to make any final assessment on this question of hostels. Circumstances may yet change and all hostels may be required, but in the meantime 14 out of the 16 surplus hostels to which the Report refers have been taken over by other Departments, which have been extremely fortunately placed in having them. Seven of those which were suspended are now to be completed for other Departments. In regard to the hostels occupied by our own workers, careful attention will certainly be given to the Select Committee's observations. The managing associations in charge of these hostels give the closest attention to the psychological questions that arise and are striving all the time to improve the comfort and homeliness of the hostels.
Now, on the range of questions that relate to factory conditions and the smooth running of these factories, I must say that we are very conscious of the importance of the smooth and regular supply of components,
1078
to which the Select Committee direct our attention. I am glad to say that conditions in that respect have greatly improved. Both the output of ammunition and stocks of components have improved. Stocks of balanced sets are substantially higher than six months ago. The great majority of components and materials to be assembled into rounds of ammunition come from innumerable trade factories. Only a small proportion come from ordnance factories, and the closest attention must be given to the movement of this large mass of components into the filling factories. Our machinery for ensuring that there is every care taken in the assembly and stocking of components is given very close attention.
With regard to the liaison that exists between the design and the production of components, I fully accept what the Select Committee says, subject only to one limitation, and that is that the user's purpose must be served. If every design by a producer were accepted as the last word, there is no doubt that the user's purpose would not be served.
All classes of components are inspected before despatch for filling. There must of necessity, of course, be occasional exceptions to that general rule, because of new designs having to be tried out on a larger scale than that of a small trial. I believe it is true that the case to which the Select Committee's Report refers was an exception in respect of small arms which was put right as far back as March of this year.
Mr. Woodburn: It is satisfactory now?
Sir A. Duncan: Yes, it is satisfactory now. On the questions of factory performance, the exchange of information, and promotion to the grade of overlooker, we accept the Select Committee's recommendations. Attention is drawn by the Select Committee to economies which might be drawn from the unification of the Inspection Departments of the Admiralty, the Ministry of Supply, and the Ministry of Aircraft Production. As the Select Committee point out, there are considerable administrative and technical difficulties in effecting complete unification, but the advantages are realised, and considerable progress has already been made in this direction. A further development along those lines is now being

1079
discussed by the Ministry of Production and the Supply Ministries, and the House can rely upon us to give the fullest possible effect to the proposals and observations of the Select Committee. On the subject of time and motion studies and incentive bonus schemes, we are in general agreement with the Select Committee's observations and conclusions, but in suggesting that the embodiment of these methods should have taken place in the original lay-out, it seems to me that the Select Committee are overlooking that the bulk of these plans were made in the early and less knowledgeable days of the war. In so far as they can be incorporated in lay-out, of course they should be. I think the Select Committee err also in thinking that even now the Ministry are giving more attention to time study than to motion study. But subject to these reservations, I am bound to confess that I find the observations of the Committee on that subject a matter of great interest to us.
There are only two major questions in the Report that are left to be considered, both of them matters of very great importance. One is absence from work. There is no denying that absence from work is still a serious problem in Royal Ordnance factories, particularly on the filling side, as it is in a great many other places where there have been large influxes of new labour, and particularly where large numbers of married women are employed. During most of the period covered by the review, these factories were receiving large influxes of new labour and there was less opportunity during that time to focus upon this problem as a whole the attention which we now give to it; during the last six months however close attention has been directed to it both at headquarters and in the factories. At headquarters a Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Assheton), whose sympathy with and experience of these matters is well known, is giving constant attention to this question. A notable improvement has already taken place within the last few months, particularly in the lessening of casual absence—non-accountable absence—but the problem is not one that is easy of solution, particularly in those filling factories where there are very long distances for people to travel to and
1080
from work. In these days of curtailment of shopping facilities, and in view of the domestic and family circumstances and responsibilities of the women, one has to be tolerant and patient—indeed, it is only with patience that this improvement can be effected. Large numbers of these people have been rooted up from their normal environment and ordinary habits, and it is a delicate task to build them now into a real community in their new environment, and certainly it is a very difficult task to build them up into an industrial entity within which the importance of regular attendance at work is recognised as an element in the smooth running of the shop.
Headquarters can guide policy in these matters. They can examine the causes and they can formulate remedies. They can initiate ideas and they can effect interchange of experience. They can organise a steadier flow of work—and that is very important. Headquarters can do all these things, but it is in the factory itself that the real problem must be effectively tackled in the end. As the Select Committee point out in their Report, we now have a staff of labour officers in these factories who have been asked to give priority to the consideration of this subject. We also have, under the more recent Regulations and the Essential Work Order, absentee committees which are appointed in all these works. I would like to pay a tribute to the zeal and enthusiasm with which these committees are setting about their task.
Mr. Bernays: What exactly are these absentee committees?
Mr. Dunn: Will the Minister say a word or two about the factories where attendance is quite good?
Sir A. Duncan: These are committees composed of representatives of the workers and managements who give weekly, and sometimes daily, study to the records of those who are absent and try to discover why they have been absent—the whole object, of course, being to avoid prosecutions, because prosecutions are in the end the least satisfactory method of dealing with this subject—and to ensure that there is throughout the factory an understanding of the need of regular attendance if a smooth flow of work is to be maintained. I would like to recognise the help we have had from

1081
the district officials of trade unions who have lent their weight by addressing meetings in the canteens. I would like also to acknowledge the very great assistance we have had from a number of hon. Members who have taken special care of and interest in the factories within their constituencies. The Select Committee's observations on the whole range of this subject will receive most careful study, and in so far as we can benefit by the advice they give, we hope to do so. We had hoped that the initiation of a three-shift system in the filling factories and the lessening of hours generally would have given us greater relief on this question of absence from work than we have yet had from it. In 30 out of 42 factories the hours are 60 or less for men and 55 or less for women, and reduction to these standards will be achieved, I hope, in the remaining 12 factories within the next three months. I accept the rebuke which the Select Committee's Report administers. The Government certainly should be an example in these matters, and the standard having been accepted, we should work to it as faithfully as we can.
Mr. Benson: Can the Minister tell us what the effect on production has been per hour where the total hours per week have been reduced?
Sir A. Duncan: It has really been very mixed, although I think a fair deduction would be that in course of time we are likely to get more output from those factories where the hours are reasonable. I do not think I could myself subscribe to any other view than that, and that is the aim we are now putting to ourselves quite definitely in respect of those factories that still have to have their hours reduced.
there remains only the question of the headquarters set-up of the Royal Ordnance factory organisation of the Ministry. Originally the final authority for the whole range of Royal Ordnance factories was vested in a Director-General of Ordnance Factories. The over-all programme of production in these factories was, of course, a matter which had to be coordinated within the Ministry of Supply so that the total output could be integrated between the Royal Ordnance and other factories. There were certain other headquarters co-ordinations which were necessary. The Ministry of Supply as a whole has a central responsibility to the Ministry
1082
of Labour to see that all bottle-necks, whether they be in private or in Royal Ordnance factories, are relieved, and also that that Ministry is supported in all its efforts to secure up-grading, whether in private or Royal Ordnance factories, to secure the substitution of women for men wherever practical, and the proper use of labour. There are certain other Departmental requirements which apply more widely to Royal Ordnance factories; there are wages, conditions, medical welfare and canteen arrangements which apply equally as a matter of principle to our experimental stations and other forms of direct labour for which the Ministry of Supply is responsible.
All these services constitute what is called functional control, and I am very glad to see that the Select Committee do not question that principle. They think the pendulum may have swung too far, but the pendulum has a habit of doing that, even in a Select Committee's Report. It may be that readjustments may be necessary to bring more direct authority and responsibility to the headquarters organisation, and to bring a more definite link of responsibility with the superintendents of the factories. We shall certainly examine the position afresh in the light of the Committee's recommendations with a view to a clear definition of headquarters responsibility, and to seeing that the superintendent is really captain of his own ship. The Committee drew special attention to a change in the Director-Generalship which took place about 11 or 12 months ago, and to this new arrangement they ascribe a great many shortcomings, some of which I cannot accept, but many of which relate in their origin to the period before the split took place. However, I do not think that is important for this purpose. The change which took place was that the Director-General of Ordnance Factories, instead of having the responsibility for engineering, explosives and filling, now has responsibility for engineering and explosives and a certain administrative responsibility in relation to filling. A separate Director-General of Filling Factories was appointed with sole responsibility for production in the filling factories, and also with certain administrative responsibilities for them.
The filling factories were and are a special problem. They are quite distinct in their production from the other Royal Ordnance factories. They have a safety

1083
element which compels ultimate responsibility of a very onerous character, and their labour is no more interchangeable with the engineering labour of the ordnance factories than with the engineering labour of other factories—in any case the release and interchange of labour is a matter for the Ministry of Labour. I would remind the House that the components—and the flow of components is a matter of great importance—come to these factories not, except in very small part, from engineering factories of the Royal Ordnance organisation, but from private factories all over the country. Therefore, in almost every sense, from the productive point of view these filling factories are capable of being regarded as a separate entity. The Director-General of these filling factories was formerly the Deputy Director-General. He is a man who has shown rare aptitude for leadership and has established a morale which is quite priceless in those sections which demand great care against internal accidents and great calmness in air raids. I wish I could give some details to the House of examples of fortitude shown in one of these factories in a recent air-raid. The leadership which the Director-General of Filling has given in these matters is one to which I cannot pay too high a tribute.
I am glad the Select Committee do not express disapproval of the work which the Regional Directors have done under the present Director-General of Filling Factories; indeed, they commend with appreciation, the work which has been done. They feel, however, that the arrangement at the top looks lopsided. I have to admit that, as constituted at present, it does look lopsided, but lopsided things sometimes work very well, and this has produced very excellent results. I certainly must, in the light of what the Select Committee has said in the Report, be prepared, and I am prepared, to review the whole of this matter with the greatst possible care, but I feel it would be wrong to do it too hastily because there are a great number of considerations involved.
That, I think, covers all the questions raised in the Select Committee's Report. I end as I began by saying that even if it is necessary to dissent from many of the statements and some of the conclusions, I accept the Committee's Report as constituting a call for stock-taking,
1084
both in the organisation and in the functioning of the national factory organisation. In a growth so speedy and so big, there may well be many directions in which, now that the mechanism is in full working order, its operations can be consolidated into a better ordered whole. Even so, I ask the House to pause before applying the ordinary standards of criticism of administrative competence without some reservations, not too many, for the emergency conditions under which so much of this has had to be done. I feel certain that the Select Committee would say that the improvements of this machine must be tackled with a sympathy and an understanding of the dimensions of many of the human problems which are involved. I would claim, however, that this country has every reason to be proud of this Royal Ordnance effort in productive State enterprise, and no one connected with it has any other ambition than that it should be made still more effective.
Mr. Colegate: I am sure that the House must have listened to the speech of the Minister of Supply with a good deal of satisfaction. The problem dealt with in this Report is admittedly very difficult for the reason the Minister has stated, that we are dealing, not with a static problem and some system of factories set up under more or less ideal conditions, but with an organisation which has not only been set up under emergency conditions, but has had to develop under emergency conditions, and which has had to change from week to week, sometimes almost from day to day, as the users of their products alter their demands. One of the great disadvantages of Select Committee Reports is that they give one a picture of a particular set of conditions at a particular time, and those conditions may very easily have been materially altered by the time the Report comes to be published, and still more by the time it comes to be discussed. I find, and I think others find, that it is a little difficult sometimes to understand exactly what the scope of a Select Committee is. Unfortunately, in contradistinction to the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, there is no evidence published, and there is no reference to the evidence except in the most general fashion. That makes it extremely difficult to judge how far the criticisms that we get in these Reports are justified. I

1085
do not mean that they are not made in good faith. Of course they are, and they are very valuable, but to judge of their real value you want the whole of the facts before you. Sometimes in reading these Reports I have the impression that I am listening to one end of a telephone conversation all the time, and I say to myself, I wonder what the reply to that is. I wish I could hear the fellow speaking at the other end of the wire. To-day we have had the Minister of Supply supplying the other part of the conversation, but even now it is very difficult indeed, without the evidence in front of us, to judge what the real position is.
Miss Ward: Is the hon. Member aware that the House can at any time ask for a Debate on one of our Reports, and the Minister can always give the answer that the hon. Member is so rightly asking for? We should be delighted.
Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Member further aware that periodically the Committee issues a Report and gives a list of recommendations, and alongside them gives the replies from the Department?
Mr. Colegate: I am fully aware of that, but it does not really meet my point, nor does what the hon. Lady said meet it. It is all very well to have a Report in front of you and then say, "Do not read it or, if you do, do not make up your mind. Wait until you can get an opportunity for a Debate." How many opportunities have we had on these Select Committee Reports, and how many are we likely to have with the press of Parliamentary Business at present? We do not have Debates on these Reports shortly after they are issued, and when we read them we have not the evidence on which they are based before us. You can tell exactly what has happened. You can see this emergency organisation growing up. You can see the constant process of adaptation going on, and you can easily at any given moment come in and criticise the position.
May I deal for a few moments with the question of absenteeism? It is a very difficult question. I have defended the miners when they have been accused, because I know what the difficulties are and why some of the absenteeism arises. Consider the conditions in these factories. I believe a large number of the people in
1086
them have never worked in factories before. If you have not worked in a factory, it is difficult to get into the frame of mind to arrange your life so that you can always attend at regular hours, and it is difficult for people who have home ties to which they have been accustomed to attend to put all those matters aside and so organise their life that they can attend at absolutely regular hours. It would be remarkable if there were not absenteeism. Naturally one wants to see the figures improved, and the Minister has been able to give us an assurance that they are being improved and will be still further improved in the future. Absenteeism is not a question that you can deal with by a general resolution. Whether it is in the mine or in the factory, it is a matter for very patient work and very serious investigation by itself as to its causes and then endeavouring to remove them by such means as may be available. No one has given more help in removing them than trade union officials, and they will tell you how difficult it is to reduce the percentage, even when the men and the unions concerned are all whole-heartedly in favour of trying to effect an improvement, because it is a slow business. I do not think there is anything disturbing in the Report nor anything which, as far as I can gather, is not being dealt with.
The Report refers to a particular group of factories which has seen a most enormous expansion, one of the biggest industrial expansions that can be imagined. A large number of these factories were non-existent before the war, and they now employ altogether some 300,000 hands. Some of the matters complained of, we are told, had already been put right as far back as March last, and, consequently, the Report, in that respect as in others, is out of date. That again draws attention to the method by which these Reports are produced. It is extraordinarily unfortunate that when a Report is published the Press immediately picks out any sensational features in it. These are given large headlines and a great feeling of unrest is created among people when they feel that the ordnance factories are being very badly run. That was the suggestion in some Press reports, and as a rule there is no official reply. The hon. Lady said we could ask for a Debate, but how many people who read those headlines, and the

1087
allegations of inefficiency against the factories, will take the trouble to read this Debate to-day? Very few, even if it is fully reported. A great many papers cannot find much space for Parliamentary reports. I think it is time we found a more regular and more convenient method of dealing with Select Committee's Reports. Some of them have not been debated at all. Some of the suggestions made are immense and far-reaching, and others are very trifling. There is the celebrated Report of a Committee which recommended that ladies engaged in forestry in Scotland should be provided with cinemas.
Miss Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that that particular recommendation with regard to women in timber forests has been followed up very strongly by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, and that the whole organisation has been dealt with thoroughly satisfactorily?
Mr. Colegate: I am very glad to hear it. I am sure that most of the recommendations which are practicable are dealt with effectively by the Government Departments concerned, and that is assured by the Minister's speech to-day. That does not detract from my point that the Committee deal with a vast number of matters, some of small detail, and that we do not necessarily know what action has been taken. The hon. Member has herself supplied me with evidence, of which I had not heard and I do not think anybody has, that that recommendation has been satisfactorily dealt with. Some of the Committee's Reports are adopted and some are not, and the ordinary Member of the House has no assured method of knowing how the Reports are dealt with except by Reports issued at long intervals showing what action has been taken. By that time the Reports are out of date.
It is essential, in view of the remarks that are sometimes made on these Reports, that the country should understand that the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Production have achieved one of the most remarkable industrial miracles that could be imagined. We have now an enormous outflow of production, and in spite of the difficulties under which it has been done the work has proceeded with a speed and, indeed, a regularity which are much greater than might have been ex- 1088
pected. There have been blitzes, and there will undoubtedly be blitzes again, and it is essential that there should be surplus factories and room in the hostels in case workers' homes are destroyed. That being so, an attempt should be made to get the public to see things in their proper proportion and to see that a vast amount of production is being turned out under conditions which reflect great credit on all concerned. By that I do not mean so much the Ministries as, more particularly, the managers and technical staffs in the factories. They have had a terrible task and very little praise, and some of them feel that their efforts are insufficiently appreciated. Therefore, this Debate serves a very useful purpose if for no other reason than that it puts things in their proper proportion and enables us to see that the work, with suggestions here and there which are being adopted, is going forward on a scale which is essential in order to supply the Forces with the things that they require.
Mr. Woodburn: I would like to congratulate the Minister on the way he has received this Report. He has received it in the way that the Select Committee and the House would like a Minister to receive a report, not as something antagonistic but as a report to the House of investigations which are intended to be helpful. If I may refer to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate), I would like to make one or two explanations with regard to the work of the Select Committee. The Committee had for their purpose the asking of questions on behalf of this House. The questions are asked in private and the evidence is taken in secret, but that has the enormous advantage that people speak to the Select Committee without reserve and say what they think. Even the Minister could not go to his officials or to any Department under him and be quite sure that they would speak to him without reserve and make criticisms and suggestions about what should be done and should not be done. That power is given to the Select Committee. Therefore, on frequent occasions the Committee have been able to obtain information about what is going on in the country that even the Ministry itself could not obtain.
More than that, the Committee have visited factories in all parts of the country,

1089
and they not only ask questions but see things for themselves. Very often they have been able to help the Ministry without reporting to this House at all. The very fact that the Committee ask a question and elicit that something is wrong makes it unnecessary to report to the House in order to have it put right, because fortunately everybody in the industry and the Ministry wants to put things right. The Minister has been able to tell us to-day that a number of things discussed in this Report have been put right. That willingness has in my experience always been exhibited by the Departments. I would like the House to realise that the effective work of this Committee is not what they report to the House. The fact that they are in existence, that they are going to make investigations or are making investigations means that people keep a critical eye on themselves, which is far more important than anything which even the Select Committee could do. I remember an occasion when a Member of this House was anxious that the Select Committee should conduct a certain investigation which could not be done immediately. A fortnight or three weeks later he became greatly alarmed because the Committee had not begun investigations, and he said that unless they did so quickly all the things would be put right because it was known that the Committee were coming. I say that to show the importance of having such a Committee in existence. The fact that they exist has a deterrent effect on carelessness and it is an incentive to keep up to scratch.
With regard to ordnance factories, it is not a question of blaming the Government or of being wise after the event, but I think the Minister himself will agree, looking back, that these factories were too big for efficient handling. When you are thinking of a factory of 40,000 people you are thinking of a town, but it is a town which has to be built in a scattered fashion with far fewer people to the acre than would exist in a normal town. The physical difficulty of managing such a factory is an obstacle in itself. The transport difficulty is a further obstacle. As the Minister said, some of the people have to travel 40 and 50 miles to work in an ordnance factory. The complications involved in that and in bringing transport into new parts of the country make it difficult to bring efficiency in a
1090
factory of these dimensions. It is, however, no good crying over spilt milk; we have to make the best of it. For that reason, perhaps, hostels were being built in these isolated places. I can speak from personal knowledge of the hostels when I say that, except that they hardly give the people enough width to go along the passages, they are remarkably fine places, and I have assured people in my part of the country whose daughters have been going to the hostels that they would be very happy from the point of view of social life and the general facilities provided. I think the Ministry have done a good job in the matter of hostels, and that those who are going to the unoccupied ones will find them very satisfactory.
An earlier Report of the Committee with which I was rather more closely associated than with this one dealt with absenteeism in Royal Ordnance factories, especially the filling factories. At that time the word "absenteeism" had been coined. It conveys the impression of culpable absence from work. All absence from work is not culpable. Think of these factories which were working a seven days' week, with married women travelling 20 to 30 miles a day to work. Such a woman had to work seven days a week and was at the same time in charge of her home and responsible for purchasing goods for the home. How could she ever get anything from the shops if she had to work seven days a week? It was impossible. Therefore she was absent from work some part of the time in order to get to the shops. That was put down as absenteeism and called "culpable absenteeism." It makes a farce of an investigation of absence from work if such cases are mixed up. We found-that in one factory, not a filling factory, absence from work over the whole workshop was 0.7 per cent., and I was at a factory recently where the absence was 0.1 per cent. I think those are very creditable figures from the point of view of real absenteeism. Statements were made about there being 25 per cent. absenteeism. When a careful investigation was made into that allegation it was found that there was only about 5 per cent. real absenteeism. People who make these loose charges, including some employers, I am sorry to say, do great disservice by giving a misleading picture of the actual situation.
The question of transport is also very important in the case of these filling factories, and I hope the Minister will use his influence to see that facilities are provided for repairing the many omnibuses which are laid up. We found this to be a serious handicap to securing 100 per cent. attendance at factories. People could not get a bus in the morning and so could not get to work that day. When all these things are taken into account we get: down to what may be called "culpable absenteeism," and there we are dealing with something which must be handled in the tactful way the Minister has suggested.
Time and motion study has been referred to. I think it is important that a watch should be kept upon the efficiency of factories. Some factories have done a remarkable job. I have been at a Royal Ordnance factory with a manager who had never made guns before, with machinery which never made guns before, in a new building in which guns had never been made before, and with girls who had never made anything before. The manager started from that basis. That factory is now turning out guns of an efficiency which engineers did not believe girls could produce. That is largely because these workers were recruited from girls with secondary school education, who are efficient in themselves and who have acquired a skill which enables them to do jobs in a way that would be a credit to skilled engineers. These things ought to be borne in mind, because what has been accomplished has been a great triumph. I agree with what was said by the hon. Gentleman that what we have accomplished with the help of our educational system and the adaptability of our people can only be described as an industrial miracle.
I would make one other reference to certain things that might be overlooked. When a factory has got into production and is running nice and smoothly there is a tendency to think that we ought not to disturb the smooth tenor of the way. That may lead to inefficiency, and I have had criticism from some whom I am sure the Minister of Supply would recognise as experts that in certain ordnance factories there is a tendency to take more man-hours for the production of certain articles than would be required if they were properly tooled up. There is still too much
1092
hand-work, even where girls are being employed. I suggest there ought to be a comparison between some of the other factories and the Royal Ordnance factories to test up the man-hours on certain jobs, but that involves going into details and could only be done over a considerable period of time. Generally, I should like to pay a tribute to the work which has been done, which I think is a very great credit to the resourcefulness of this country and its citizens. Factories have sprung up where there were only fields before and have become great hives of industry. Instead of failing to accomplish the task set them they have so far overtaken their job that for the first time the Government have been criticised for having done more than they ought to have done and not less.
Miss Ward: I should like to pay my tribute to the manner in which my right hon. Friend has received the Reports of the Select Committee. I have always found him a most reasonable Minister, and what I like more than anything else is that when he writes to me, so to speak, behind the scenes, his replies always have an individual touch. He has so much experience of industry and is so much on top of his job that I am always pleased when I know that he is taking up a problem and investigating it from top to bottom. I was particularly interested in the speech made by the hon. Gentleman who preceded my hon. Friend who has just sat down. It is rather curious that neither of us appears to know the name of the other's constituency. If I may say so, I do not think he put up a particularly good case against the Select Committee's Reports.
Mr. Colegate: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I did not put up a case against the Select Committee's Reports. I think they are interesting documents. My point was, rather, that it is a pity we cannot have them published with some of the evidence, or in any case with the Department's replies. They are given later I know; very often they come some months later.
Miss Ward: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I understood that he was speaking in support of the Government in case an attack was made from the other side of the House.
Mr. Colegate: No. It is not necessary to attack the Select Committee's Reports in order to support the Government. The Government welcome them.
Miss Ward: That was made perfectly plain by my right hon. Friend. I would make this observation on the remark of my hon. Friend about the length of time that the replies take. The Committee would be delighted if the replies could be forthcoming the next week. The length of time is the responsibility of the appropriate Government Departments and not of the Select Committee, and I hope that the Government will take note of what has been said. If I may digress, we have been waiting for a long time for the reply from the Service Departments to the Select Committee's report on the medical services for the women's Services. The Select Committee reported last March, and we have still not received the reply from the various Service Departments. Actually, the argument used by the hon. Member was very effective, from the point of view of the Select Committee, and I thank him for his intervention.
I should like to say a word about absenteeism. It is a very difficult matter to handle. One recognises that in these tremendously large factories, with a vast amount of green labour, the problem presented to those who are trying to control the labour is very difficult. I find a weakness in co-operation between one Government Department and another, and indeed that is one of the fundamental weaknesses of our whole war machine. Let me give one very simple illustration. Everybody has referred in very sympathetic terms to the problems of married women, for example to their problems of shopping, and looking after their children. Let us take the problem of war-time nurseries. Suppose my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour says that a war-time nursery ought to be established. He is dependent for his information, in relation to Royal Ordnance factories, upon information from the Ministry of Supply. Instructions go out to the local authority. It then becomes the responsibility of the Minister of Health. I have never found strong action taken by the Ministry of Health against local authorities, who are not prepared, without very great pressure, to establish these war-time nurseries. Therefore, in spite of the fact that both the
1094
Minister of Supply and the Minister of Labour believe that in certain districts war-time nurseries should be established in order to help women who have children and who have also undertaken responsible war work in the factories, they cannot help them, and it reacts upon absenteeism.
I am thinking now of ordnance factories in the North of England It is two years since the first attempts were made to establish war-time nurseries. I realise that there have been many problems and difficulties in the way of local authorities in setting up these nurseries, but I should feel much happier if the responsibility for action was vested in one Department. The whole tradition of the relationship of the Ministry of Health with the local authorities prevents such quick decisions as could be the case if pressure were exercised direct from the Ministry of Supply. It is not at all an effective piece of machinery at the present time, and all Government Departments would be very well advised to look at the divided responsibility on matters of this kind as between one Department and another. More adequate Governmental co-ordination would probably help in the solving of this problem of absenteeism.
Take again the shopping question. Into it come the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Labour, the Home Office and the local authorities. Again, we have divided responsibility. Until recently these rather individual problems of women have not been tackled with that sympathetic understanding of which one found traces in the speech of my right hon. Friend. But in fact he should not be called upon to consider relatively small details of that kind. I appreciate that he has vast and weighty problems to consider, vitally affecting our war effort. A Minister charged with the responsibility that he has should not have to consider for one moment details of that kind. I only wish that, somehow, some machinery could be devised which would give some power to somebody to take really effective action, so that we should not have this perpetual playing at ball between one Government Department and another. The, Government may not believe me, but I am sympathetic, when I write to the Minister on shopping and war-time nursery problems.
When my right hon. Friend is looking into the question of organisation of

1095
ordnance factories. I hope that he and his Parliamentary Secretary will try to decide that whoever has to look into the problems I have mentioned has the authority to settle them straight away. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the other side of the House referred very sympathetically to absenteeism. I know how complicated these problems are in relation to ordnance factories. I want to point out however that there have been factories built up by private enterprise, with a first-class system of organisation, employing green labour and with a comparable number of people as are employed in Royal Ordnance factories, but they have a lower percentage of culpable absenteeism. I cannot help feeling that it is easier for a decentralised body, with responsibility, to cope with the difficulties that arise, rather than for a centralised Government Department to do so.
Have my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary realised how very—"obstructive" is not quite the right word, but damping-down a governmental machine can be upon initiative inside factory life? I know there are some grand people inside the Ministry of Supply doing a full-time job, conscious of their responsibility and struggling to improve matters. On the other hand, it seems to me that the machine sometimes overwhelms initiative inside the Department. I should very much like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in headquarters organisation, he has taken the evidence that we have taken, and if he has come, on balance, to the conclusion to which we have come whether he has the power to put right the things that are wrong. That, in my own mind, is what I question. The whole gigantic machine of government is so vast and complicated that sometimes it impedes its own efforts. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary, who looks after the Royal Ordnance factory side, to accept responsibility and have full power to reorganise the internal machine.
The Minister said, with regard to absenteeism, that the labour management department of the Royal Ordnance factories has been charged with the responsibility of dealing with absenteeism. Here I would like to pay a tribute to some of the men and women who are engaged in labour management at the Royal Ord- 1096
nance factories. The Ministry of Supply have taken out of private industry some of the very best and most experienced labour and personnel managers, both men and women, and I have gained the impression, as I have gone round those factories, that they have not got jobs comparable to their experience. They are very experienced in the handling of people, but the usual channels of communication sometimes make life extraordinarily difficult for them. It is even difficult for Members of Parliament, who after all have free access to anyone they like to see, but the usual channels of communication for taking effective action inside the Royal Ordnance factories sometimes take a very long time to set in motion. Although my right hon. Friend has now charged the labour management side of the Royal Ordnance factories with the responsibility of an investigation into absenteeism, I should very much like to know who will be responsible for putting their findings into operation.
It is always very difficult and a little unfair to criticise machinery when one is not concerned in it, but I have gained the impression, and I know I am right without going into any very great detail, that labour management—and if I may say so the medical side as well—has not been properly integrated with the production side in the Royal Ordnance factories. As has happened in many other Government Departments, the whole policy of the Department has been to concentrate on production, and I believe that the superintendents have been told that if their production is up to the target figure it does not matter how much labour they use in reaching it. That is not the right approach, and I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend would agree with me on that. Efficient management is vastly important, and you can only get efficient management if due attention is paid to the human machine. Time and time again when people have been in a position to talk to me frankly and freely I have heard expressions of regret that Government Departments always concentrate on the machine and never on the human machine.
It would not be unfair if I said that part of the labour problem inside the Royal Ordnance factories is partly the result of lack of welfare, although I am glad to say there has been very real

1097
improvement lately. This lack of welfare is due to the fact that in the past the "Woolwich mentality" has been accepted by the Government as a standard. Those of us who are progressive in our views on the handling of labour are not very much impressed with the "Woolwich mentality." My right hon. Friend referred to the question of long hours, and expressed a very enlightened view which we all knew he held. Again I apologise, because I do not think that he ought to be bothered with matters of this kind, but has he ever, as an individual and as a matter of interest, investigated the Woolwich approach to welfare, the Woolwich approach to hours, the Woolwich approach to safety, or the Woolwich approach to medical work inside factories? I am not blaming the people who are responsible for Woolwich, but I am blaming past Governments, and past Houses of Commons of which I have been a Member, because we have never realised as we ought to have done the background against which the workers of this country ought to have been asked to make their contribution.
A great deal of lip-service has been paid by various Ministers to the effect of shorter hours. Only the other day in the Debate on factory legislation my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said that there would be a tightening up, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply said in all truth that the Government ought to set a standard. May I take one very small illustration, that is, the question of the employment of nurses in the Royal Ordnance factories? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a Parliamentary Secretary who is no longer associated with the Government, in excusing to me the fact that the Royal Ordnance factories were not paying the standard of wages which they ought to have been paying to their nurses, did so by stating that there were so few of them? I never knew that justice depended on numbers. I then turned to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and told him that I was surprised that he was using the Royal College of Nursing as a training ground for nurses in industry, while at the same time he did not subscribe to the standards and conditions under which they thought that nurses ought to be employed. I may say that the Ministry of Labour took action, and I am glad that there has been an improve-
1098
ment in the conditions of nurses in the Royal Ordnance factories, but the standard should have been set there for nurses throughout the country.
The standard with regard to hours also should be set by the Royal Ordnance factories. You cannot bring pressure to bear on private employers unless you can show your own example, because private employers have exactly the same problems of the lack of skilled labour in building up their war production, and, what is more, employers cannot exercise as much pressure on Government Departments as Government Departments can exercise on themselves. Therefore, I think that my right hon. Friend would do well reexamine exactly what is the position with regard to hours, and to learn also what welfare, labour and personnel management really mean in the factory. I am quite certain that if he has time to do that he will set the standard which he himself admits is the standard which ought to be put into operation by an enlightened and progressive Government.
In conclusion, I hope that we shall get our headquarters organisation right. I hope that when people wish to voice criticisms, those criticisms will be listened to. I am not at all impressed by the type of Governmental machinery that operates in this country at present, under which someone who may have a very wide experience of industry finds himself, as a temporary civil servant, in a Government Department, but unable to give the benefit of his experience to that Department except by working through about 10 other people who may not have as much experience. I know it is very dangerous for me, with my little knowledge, to express a view of that kind, but we are all trying to make a common contribution to the biggest cause for which this country has ever stood in the whole history of our civilisation. It is very frustrating to people who have never been used to the deadening effect of a machine to find that their ideas and knowledge can be thrust aside because those who are responsible for the running of the Department cannot somehow get over the difficulties that have grown up in this vast and gigantic machine.
We are all out for a common purpose, we all want to make a common contribution. I sometimes wish we could have more Parliamentary Secretaries who could

1099
undertake specific jobs and really see them through from the beginning to the end. I rather feel that the Parliamentary Secretary who deals with the Royal Ordnance factory side with a very wide experience should not be asked to undertake any other routine work, but should be able to concentrate the whole of his experience on the management of the Royal Ordnance factories. I cannot see why he should not have got all the evidence which was made available to the Select Committee. The Ministers have such a volume of work that it is difficult for them to attend to the detail, and I cannot help feeling that arising out of this Report of the Select Committee there is nothing wrong with the major policy; it is detail that is wrong, and we all know what a long time it takes to put small details right individually. I end by saying how grateful I am to my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has received the Report. It is very valuable to have experience on the Select Committee properly used. I am conscious of the responsibilities resting on individual Members of Parliament. It is a valuable asset if one can talk to people with complete frankness, if people can come along and say, "This is what is worrying us," if there is no question of giving away a superior or a subordinate, no question of protecting themselves against dismissal, if they can talk perfectly freely and frankly. Though perhaps the Select Committee's Report may have caused some consternation in the Ministry of Supply, I cannot help feeling that at the bottom of his heart the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary realise that we tried to make a very real contribution in the knowledge that once we get our machinery effectively organised, the sooner will come the end of the war.
Mr. Cyril Lloyd: My right hon. Friend's review of the position of the ordnance factories, and of this Report of the Select Committee, does, I think, make an opportunity for consideration of the work of the Select Committee itself. I have a feeling that the Select Committee itself is to some extent under judgment to-day, because the question arises whether the work they are doing is first of all useful to this House—they are the servants of this House—secondly, whether it is effective, and thirdly, whether it has,
1100
in the way in which it is presented to this House, a useful effect on the public at large. I feel that the methods of the work of the Select Committee are open to criticism in all these respects. We have an old-established method of examination of public accounts by the Public Accounts Committee, which proceeds with a very exact, dignified procedure but admittedly long after the events have taken place. At the other end of the scale we have Treasury control of expenditure. The House has seen fit to appoint the Committee with very wide terms of reference indeed, in such a form that it seems to me it is likely for a time to form a constitutional element of our Government. It goes on from Session to Session in a way which seems to suggest that it is to be overlasting. I am not sure how many Reports it has presented—this is the eleventh of this Parliamentary Session—but it has presented an enormous number of Reports, which are all used on the same endeavour, to serve this House.
I do not wish for a moment to be thought to be criticising the members of the Committee. It would ill become me to do so, but I think the House may sometimes stand back and look at this rather monstrous child they have brought into being, sometimes with alarm, sometimes almost with consternation. For one thing, it occupies the time of Members of this House to an extent that it practically raises the question of whether this House is the executive management of industry itself. All industry is working on behalf of the Government; a very large proportion of it is directly under the Ministry of Supply. If that is the true lay-out of industry to-day, the Ministry of Supply are expected to manage industry under a constant fire of criticism from a very large and influential Committee of Members of this House. I venture to think that that is not the way to get an enthusiastic and confident spirit into those responsible for running the great factories engaged on war work. The paralysing effect of the intrusion of criticism from this House is very well known and recognised outside, and everyone knows that the moment a shaft of criticism is directed towards any particular factory, whether it be private or Royal Ordnance factory, a tremendous commotion is created, which probably reacts very seriously on production itself.
Sir H. Williams: Can the hon. Member quote a single example where production

1101
has been adversely affected by any visit of any sub-committee of the Select Committee?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not wish in the short time at my disposal to get down to detail. I have a pretty wide knowledge of production throughout the country, but I do not intend to be led into the discussion of details and away from my main theme. My main theme is that my right hon. Friend indicated in his speech that if the House does not entirely approve of the methods of this Committee, these methods can be adjusted, probably by the House itself. I would suggest that if we must have a large body of criticism directed at Ministers, keeping them under constant fire, the procedure could at any rate be simplified, and that the fire might be withheld, or at any rate there might be some greater inter-collaboration between the Committee and the Ministries before a Report of this sort is put before the public. We must remember that these meetings of the Committee are held in private. People, whether they are servants of the Ministry or not, are examined in camera. I do not think the Ministry are consulted as to who the witnesses should be, or, indeed, as to what their case is. When the Committee, in all its force, propose to visit a factory, I believe that that fact is somewhat trumpeted abroad, and, naturally, considerable preparations are made.
Sir H. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is making many strange statements. These visits are never trumpeted abroad by the Select Committee.
Mr. Lloyd: I do not know whether the hon. Member would suggest that it is never known in one of these factories that the Committee are going to visit it.
Sir H. Williams: If it is known it is the fault of the Ministry, not of the Select Committee.
Mr. Lloyd: I do not want to pursue that point. My point is this—it is not strictly against the Committee itself. I am simply trying to suggest that a simpler and quicker method might be found of investigating and ameliorating the many complaints and difficulties which are constantly coming forward, not only in public but to every Member of this House. It must be remembered that the Ministry are operating industry on a
1102
quite unprecedented scale. No one who has been responsible for the operation of even the smallest industry can fail to know that in any operation a certain number of misfortunes occur. There must always be certain losses on development and certain delays in securing efficiency. If the ordinary experience of that kind is multiplied in proportion to the scale on which the Ministry are operating, I do not think it will be found that the inefficiency is out of scale. I feel that the Report itself justifies the point I have been trying to make, because the summary of recommendations comes down, from the production engineer's point of view, almost to a series of copybook maxims. I will not trouble the House with them all: let me take one or two. It is said that:
"Stocks of material and components should be accumulated in order to secure a proper flow of supplies."
Surely that is not a thing which it wants a heavy Parliamentary Committee to suggest to industry. Let me take the next:
"Designing staffs should pay more attention to ease and economy in producing the completed product, and no design should be accepted which has not been fully tested from the production point of view."
That is one of the most foolish recommendations which has ever come to my notice. Production means production in quantity.
Mr. Silkin: Is the hon. Member aware that the Minister has accepted that recommendation?
Mr. Lloyd: He has accepted it in general, but not in detail. Production in war means mass production. Mass production means months and months of preparation. Do the Committee really mean that before a design is accepted it must be put into mass production, and that then it must be seen whether it is successful or not? That would mean that its acceptance must await its production in quantity.
Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I am sure the hon. Member does not mean to be unfair to the Committee. I am not a member of the Committee. Does he not think that when they use the word "production" they mean, not mass production but production in the ordinary sense of the word?
Mr. Lloyd: I will read what the recommendation says:

1103
"no design should be accepted which has not been fully tested from the production point of view."
That may be capable of many interpretations, but to my mind it is at best a copybook maxim, which would be found written up in most of the drawing offices of this country.
Mr. Hopkinson: May I say from personal experience in my own works that I get any number of articles ordered which are almost incapable of being produced one at a time, far less by mass production?
Mr. Lloyd: I wish I could follow the argument of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) on that subject. I should enjoy it if he would come outside with me and discuss the matter. But for the moment I would press the point that this Committee in its work has such a wide field that it is neither up to date nor really performing the exploratory duty which I think the House hoped it might perform. If its functions could be simplified I think it would be more useful. As far as the Ordnance factories themselves are concerned, I welcome the report of my right hon. Friend, who has very properly stressed the difference between these factories and ordinary engineering factories. These factories have had to be built up with a different background. They are not in the true sense production factories at all, and they have many difficulties which are not common to the ordinary factory working on war production. They naturally, therefore, have to be staffed on empirical lines. There is no doubt constantly going on within the Ordnance factory range a gradual improvement in efficiency. I do not see why the Committee should question the fact that the Ministry are doing that work well.
I welcome also my right hon. Friend's general report on the achievements in the general war effort. It is desirable that we should have some means of hearing specific and obvious faults. I do not think that a Select Committee is the right method, because the most glaring fault one hears of is almost always the result of one useless man in a very large core of employment. If you use the committee method, so dear to democracy, the Committee produces the results of its investigation probably long after that man
1104
has been removed to some other sphere—and, very likely, has received his due meed of decoration. It would be helpful if the operations of this House in the critical sphere could be more simple and more quickly performed.
Sir Herbert Williams: I have just had—I will not say the pleasure—the amazement of listening to one of the most extraordinary speeches ever made in this House. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. C. Lloyd)—I have had his friendship for many years—but I do not think that in all the rest of his life he has talked so much nonsense as he has during the last 10 minutes. I wonder how many of the Reports of the Select Committee he has read. I will willingly give way.
Mr. C. Lloyd: I have not counted them, but I should think about 40.
Sir H. Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friend. He is the only Member of the House who has read such a large number.
Mr. Lloyd: Very likely.
Sir H. Williams: He spoke of factory people resenting the visits of the Select Committee. I know of no such case. For two years I was chairman of the Supply Sub-committee which had the function of watching the operations of the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Works and Buildings, and I found more than a welcome wherever we went.
Mr. Lloyd: I do not think I used the word "resent." I only suggest that the welcome of which my hon. Friend speaks might itself have interfered with production.
Sir H. Williams: Not a bit of it. We were always kept waiting at the entrance to Royal Ordnance factories, and they did not appear to expect us, as very little trouble was taken over our visit in a ceremonial sense. The visits to such works must necessarily be secret, and thus relate to things that cannot be publicised. But whenever we have visited a factory the actual arrangements have been made through the Ministry of Supply or Ministry of Aircraft Production or whatever Ministry is interested in the particular production. As to the idea that we were publicised when we visited factories, if my hon. Friend only saw what happened sometimes when a Minis-

1105
ter goes to a factory, he would find something very different. No special arrangements have ever been made for visits of the Select Committee. My hon. Friend does not like the verdict on this occasion, so he says, "Change the jury." I wonder whether my hon. Friend really wrote his own speech to-day. He talks about copybook maxims. If he devoted one-tenth of the time that some of us have devoted to this problem, he would know that these copybook maxims are not being carried out. The Minister of Production referred to the design of the Bofors platform. Why was it redesigned? Because of a visit that some of us paid to a number of factories where we received as witnesses certain people who are making this thing. We were told of the stupidity of the design in a factory not very far from my hon. Friend's constituency. What is the use of coming here and accusing the Committee of talking platitudes and all the rest of it when we find that these platitudes are not being given effect to? I remember visiting a Royal Ordnance factory in April, 1940, and seeing the design of the platform of another kind of gun so incredibly stupid that it made the works management weep.
Surely it is somebody's business to draw attention to these follies. My hon. Friend says that we ought not to do it. I hope that he will not make a speech like that again and talk about copybook maxims. It is the most disgusting speech I have heard in this House for many a long year from the point of view of the public interest. My hon. Friend wants no reform; he thinks that everything is lovely and that the Royal Ordnance factories are perfect. Anyway, I will not trouble the House any more about his speech. My right hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I have the profoundest respect, is asked to do what is an almost impossible job, so great is its magnitude, and he is to-day a little bit on the grill. In his defence—and I do not blame him—he attacked the 17th Report of last Session because something which it said does not agree with the nth Report.
Sir A. Duncan: Not attacked.
Sir H. Williams: Then my right hon. Friend drew attention to it generally. It may be a good lawyer's point that he used to make in the old days before he ascended or descended from the legal profession. There is severe condemna-
1106
tion in the Report about the hostels policy. It was in May of last year when some of my colleagues and I visited two Royal Ordnance factories in the North of England. We went with nothing in particular in our minds. We had one or two complaints in mind connected with the construction of the factories. We had nothing before us and no advanced information with regard to operations. There is no harm in saying what I am saying. Herr Hitler knows all about these factories. The bulk of them were started before the war, and I am certain that there were full reports in Berlin about their magnitude long before the war started. I want the House to realise what one of these places is really like. Imagine a fence of anything from 12 to 16 miles in length, perhaps, rather irregular or circular or a quadrangle, an unclimbable fence. Inside there was what was to be an electrified fence. It has never been electrified. We drew attention to that in our report and to the fact that they had wasted a lot of money, but we will forget all that as my right hon. Friend had nothing to do with it. What is there inside? There is not a factory as hon. Members understand it, but from 1,200 to probably 1,500 separate buildings, most of them rather small and separated from one another by huge banks of earth so that if one should blow up, it would not damage the rest. There were 40 miles of roadway on the site. If one of the superintendents tried to walk through all the shops it would take a fortnight. How could any human being manage such a place, sited in some rural area to get to which the workpeople had to travel many miles? The mistake was made in 1936. They ought not to have built them that size. Most of my right hon. Friend's troubles arose from the mistakes of predecessors. I do not know how anybody could decide to build a factory of the magnitude I have described to employ 45,000 on a three-shift system when it could not possibly be supervised effectively by any human being.
That is the fact which dominates this problem, and my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have no responsibility. It all happened before the Ministry of Supply came into being. We went on a visit to the place in the North of England to find out about things, and we had not been inside more than an hour before we realised that absenteeism dominated the whole situation

1107
from some points of view. We took a great deal of trouble and invited the works committee and everybody whom we thought could give us information to help us, and they all gave their information separately. Everybody knew that what they said to us could not go back to anybody above them. That was a great advantage. They had perfect freedom of speech. We came back and wrote the Seventeenth Report to which reference has been made. In that Report we said we wanted to see the rapid extension of the hostel system, but these hostels are now not wanted. On what evidence did we do that? We went to a great factory. My right hon. Friend knows it, and I do not need to indicate the place. It was designed to employ 45,000 on a three-shift system. At least that is what the superintendent and his colleagues told us. They were at that moment employing about 18,000. They were rather more conveniently situated with respect to transport than some of the other factories. They were near a main trunk road and a railway, and the general circumstances were rather good, but they realised that, if they were to have 45,000 people, they would have to take a large number of people from other parts of the country and have to house them in hostels. Therefore, in the light of the fact that this factory was going to employ, according to official evidence, another 27,000 people, naturally we recommended that hostels should be provided With the utmost expedition. What is the position at that factory to-day? I have not the precise information. My right hon. Friend referred to a factory employing 25,000, and I think we must be talking about the same factory. I think that that 25,000 is going to be reduced.
Therefore the situation described to us by officials of the Ministry 13 or 14 months ago, is now altered by the policy of the Ministry. Why has the Ministry changed its policy? Filling factories fill many thousands of shells, and we have not used a great many shells, and nobody could anticipate that. We were producing shells long before the war and we must have a vast store. That is obvious to anybody, and I am not disclosing any secrets. At some stage or another it was decided that it was not worth while seeking to extend the production of that particular article, so a decision was taken at some time by somebody that this fac-
1108
tory—and it is true of others—was not to employ 45,000 people but only about 20,000. When that decision was taken certain consequential action should have been taken that does not appear to have been taken. I do not know what day the decision was taken; all I know is that in May, 1941, there were to be 45,000, people employed. The number now employed, I believe, is 25,000, and it is likely to drop to 20,000. That is a complete change.
In our Report, in which absenteeism is dealt with, we also recommended the abolition of excessive hours of labour, on which I have been reporting now for two years. Excessive hours of labour have been the greatest curse of the whole matter; they have forced up prices, tired people, upset the whole balance of production and wrecked our wages policy. The first Report I was associated with, early in 1940, drew attention to this excessive overtime and all the rest of it, but everybody being afraid to say, "We will go back to more or less pre-war hours," because they thought somebody might point the finger of scorn at them and say they were not doing their bit, it was allowed to continue. If I had my way, I would go back to the 47-hour week to-morrow. People are now working excessive hours. You can reduce hours too much, I agree, but I think the 47-hour week in operation in peace-time industry, generally speaking, gave efficient results. All this overtime is wrong; it is demoralising, and it leads to profiteering in wages and waste. Here am I, rather a right wing Conservative, taking a view that ought to be a prerogative of the Labour party, but my colleagues and I have been convinced of this from the beginning. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Labour party is always right."] No, you want to go too far, and then you get into trouble
We recommended piece-work hesitatingly, because filling work carries with it an element of danger. It was quite obvious output was bad, but it was also obvious that the bulk of the work was not dangerous, so we deliberately recommended piece-work in this Report. Ultimately, the Ministry diffidently agreed, and they have been surprised to get a much bigger output, but they never assumed that unless they expanded the programme they would not want so many people. Between these reports I remem-

1109
ber receiving a written statement saying, "If we introduce piece-work, we shall not have enough components on which people can work." The feeling was that piecework must not be reduced because it would lead to a big output. That is on record, I think. I do not say that the Minister has seen it himself. That is one of the disabilities of our procedure—
Sir A. Duncan: Surely it must be relating to a specific case at a specific time?
Sir H. Williams: It does not matter; it was in relation to filling at a factory. If the effect of introducing piece-work was that there would not be enough components, it meant that some labour could be shipped elsewhere. That is quite obvious. Here we have the Ministry of Labour ordering all sorts of people away from my constituency, especially women, whom they call "mobile" women. That does not seem to me to be a polite term; I should hate to be called a "mobile" man, because I should not know what offence I had committed. As I say, the Ministry has ordered tens of thousands of people to places where they are not wanted. It must have been obvious months ago that the filling programme could have been accomplished with far fewer people. The Minister says that we have 42 Royal Ordnance factories, and I suggest that they have cost probably between£200,000,000 and£300,000,000. Some individual factories have cost as much as£12,000,000. There cannot be any secret about this; I am not giving away information to the enemy. About half that space will be idle, some of it on the filling side—
Sir A. Duncan: Not a half.
Sir H. Williams: Well, 45,000 people were to be employed in this factory; now there are to be only 25,000. Where are we? There is no escaping that fact. Take other parts of the country that I can mention. How many women have been needlessly sent from their homes? The Committee refers to one factory which wanted to get rid of 6,000 and another which wanted to get rid of 7,000, and I say that many tens of thousands of women have been torn away from their homes and sent where they are not wanted, causing grave social unrest. Make no mistake, the introduction of conscription for women was very unpopular in this country. I was one
1110
of those who declined to support the Bill for their conscription when it was introduced. I was horrified, because I thought it was a terrible mistake and totally unnecessary. Men are in a different category, but the conscription of women was a psychological blunder of primary magnitude. Women were driven into factories where they were not wanted, and when they got into hostels and it came to the week-end they went away and came back on the following Tuesday. They wanted to be dismissed. Absenteeism is, on Mondays, deplorable and it is now creeping into Tuesdays. The week-enders have gone home "fed up." It is the plain truth.
I tried to get figures for absenteeism in Royal Ordnance factories by a Question to the Minister of Labour recently, and his answer was that it was not in the public interest to print them. I say that it was to avoid disclosure of what is a primary blunder, a first-rate blunder. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Dudley has not come back. If he had had his way, it would have been impossible to have had this Debate to-day and to draw attention to these grave mistakes, involving the loss of many millions of pounds, both capital and current expenditure. In one lot of hostels I think the all-in payment was 22s. 6d. a week, and it was said that no girl earning less than 24s. would be charged rent and keep. So the girls, being Scottish or Welsh or whatever they were, earned 24s. and took a rest for the rest of the week.
Mr. George Griffiths: Perhaps they came from Yorkshire?
Sir H. Williams: Yes, no doubt Yorkshire as well. These girls, having worked for only a few days, had nothing to pay for board and lodging and so were left with their 24s. to spend. That was happening, but I am glad to say it has been brought to an end. It was a deplorable state of affairs. The Minister is not to blame in the slightest degree for the fact that these gigantic, elephantine factories have been sited in semi-rural areas, involving every kind of difficulty as regards transport and shopping, to which reference has already been made. In conclusion, I ask the Minister not to think I am attacking him; I have too much respect for the splendid work he has done. But he has a job so gigantic

1111
that he cannot keep an eye on it all the time. I hope that the result of this Debate will be a decision to give effect to the recommendations of the Report when the Government approve of them and that when that decision has been taken there will be follow-up by the proper organisation to make sure that results come from the decision.
Mr. Silkin: The Debate so far, and particularly the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, must have made it quite clear to the House that a Report of the kind now under discussion has a peculiar value not only to the House and to the country, but to the Department which is under consideration, because a Committee which is independent of the Executive, which is responsible to the House alone, and which is able to get evidence with a pledge of confidence, is in a far better position to get at the truth of what is taking place than any inquiry which a Minister himself might undertake. My right hon. Friend, in the course of his remarks, about which I make no complaint whatever, because I think he dealt with the subject in an admirable way, started by suggesting that some of the facts contained in the Report were not quite accurate. I listened very patiently and carefully to the rest of his speech to ascertain the particular facts about which he complained, and I am bound to say that I missed them. My right hon. Friend did not like some of the conclusions that we came to, but as far as my memory goes, there was not a single fact contained in the Report that he challenged, and if the Parliamentary Secretary intends to deal with the subject, I should be very grateful to know what facts are challenged.
I think it is fair to the sub-committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman, to tell the House of the great care that was taken not only in providing accurate facts, but in getting all possible explanations of those facts. The House might say that we took too much care, because in all we took evidence from 98 witnesses, of whom 40 were representatives of the managements, 36 representatives of the workers, and 22 headquarters witnesses; and may I say about the headquarters witnessess that, apart from some of those whom we saw locally, all the
1112
headquarters witnesses were chosen by the Department. If their evidence was not what it should have been, the Department is to blame and not the sub-committee. In addition to the large amount of evidence that we took, we received a considerable number of memoranda all of which were relevant to the inquiry. We visited 16 factories, which was a very good sample of the total of 42. Those factories were spread over all parts of the country, and we were in every region, the regions being the regions into which the Royal Ordnance factories were divided. Therefore, I am sure the House will agree that this was a very careful and comprehensive investigation, and I may claim that it was carried out in an impartial manner and without any preconceived views. The House may have its own opinions as to the ability with which the inquiry was conducted, but I hope there will be no two views as to the impartial manner in which it was conducted. In reinforcement of that, may I say that the sub-committee consisted of representatives of all parties who, probably, before the war could never have been induced to put their names to any single document, but who in this case were unanimous about the Report. Furthermore, the procedure was that the first draft was prepared by me, as chairman; it was accepted by the sub-committee with, certain minor modifications; and it was subsequently considered by the full Committee on two occasions and again, with amendments which did not affect the principle of the Report, they accepted it unanimously. Accordingly, I may claim that this Report does represent the fully considered view of the Select Committee after a very full and comprehensive inquiry.
I do not disagree at all with my right hon. Friend about the importance of the Royal Ordnance factories in our war production and the great part they are playing to-day. The Minister gave us a very interesting account of the work that is being done in these Royal Ordnance factories, and it was rather interesting to get the complete details that he gave us, because I had always been led to believe that it was contrary to public security even to state the number of Royal Ordnance factories in the country. My right hon. Friend came out glibly with this very secret information, and also told us all the things we are doing in these factories.

1113
If we had only known that it was all right to say it, we might have said something more in the Report. While I would not attempt to vary one word of what my right hon. Friend said about the excellent work that is being done in those factories, it is the business of the Select Committee to discover and inform the House of the weaknesses and inefficiencies which exist in those factories, some of which, I agree, are inherent in the rapid and indeed spectacular way in which the factories have grown.
But while it is the duty of the Select Committee to place these weaknesses and inefficiencies before the House, we should be rendering an ill service if thereby the true picture were distorted. It was a source of great regret to me personally to find that in certain quarters, including the Press, the particular weaknesses to which we thought it necessary to draw attention were emphasised, but on the contrary, the good work, to which also we drew attention, that is being done by the Royal Ordnance factories was either passed over quickly or totally ignored. I think it is fair to my right hon. Friend and to the Ministry which he represents that the House should have a true picture, in its right proportions, of what is taking place. In fact, as we said in the Report, there has been a very great improvement in the past year in the Royal Ordnance factories, since my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) reported on them, and possibly due to his report; and particularly in regard to the engineering factories, about which little is said in the Report, because, in fact, there is not very much scope for criticism, I think it right to say that some of the new engineering factories are among the most efficient in the country and that their costs are among the lowest. But we consider that by drawing attention to the deficiencies we are making the best contribution to the further development of these factories, and my right hon. Friend would be the last to say that they are not capable of further development. That is the atmosphere in which this Report was prepared.
I would like now, like my right hon. Friend, to say a few words about some of the specific matters dealt with in the Report. The first thing which my right hon. Friend mentioned was the question of redundant capacity, and may I say that I thought he was very kind to him-
1114
self in dealing with this question? He talked about the spare capacity constituting a necessary, valuable, and wise insurance, but nobody knows better than he does that one can pay too big a premium for an insurance, so big a premium as to make it perhaps hardly worth while insuring; and the premium that is being paid in respect of the filling factories, in particular, is 37 per cent. of idle capacity. The figure of 37 per cent. is very high indeed, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is his deliberate policy to provide that amount of spare capacity as an insurance, or whether it is not the fact that it has come about quite accidentally as a result of the lack of balance between the production of components and filling.
Sir Patrick Hannon: This is a very important matter. Was the figure of 37 per cent. redundant capacity spread over a period of time or was the investigation made in respect of a short period of time?
Mr. Silkin: Redundant capacity was gradually increasing, and it represents the situation at a particular moment. For all I know, the amount of redundant capacity may be slightly higher to-day, because that was the general tendency, but at the time the Report was published the figure was 37 per cent., and I submit that it goes far beyond providing a reason able insurance and that it was never intended to provide this spare capacity to meet such a contingency. If there is to be this spare capacity, why is it limited to filling factories and not extended to engineering and aircraft factories? I suggest that to have 37 per cent. spare capacity in filling factories as an insurance against the unknown is not really applying one's mind to the problem. My right hon. Friend should consider most carefully the recommendations made by the Committee in this respect, and the possibility of closing down, even if it is only a temporary closing down, one or more of the filling factories and transferring the labour. By that means he will attain a very valuable reserve of skilled personnel and skilled management, as well as of machinery.
Mr. MacLaren: Suppose the factory to which these people were transferred was blitzed?
Mr. Silkin: That is a contingency which we have to face all the time. It is hardly feasible that the whole of a filling factory could be blitzed, because in some cases there are over 1,000 separate shops, so designed that a hit on one would not affect the others. While it is only prudent to consider the possibility of a factory being blitzed, I submit that one can be too cautious in making provision for that contingency. My right hon. Friend then dealt with the recommendations regarding redundant labour. In my judgment, and this is purely my own personal opinion, I should think that some 20,000 to 30,000 unwanted persons in Royal Ordnance factories could be transferred.
Sir A. Duncan Sir A. Duncan indicated dissent.
Mr. Silkin: My right hon. Friend, is shocked.
Sir A. Duncan: I am shocked at the statement, because it is not a fact.
Mr. Silkin: There may be a difference of opinion on this.
Sir P. Hannon: We ought to have the figures.
Mr. Silkin: I made it quite clear that this is not in the Report. The Report states that a large number of persons could be transferred, and I am expressing my opinion that the number is something in the order of 20,000 to 30,000. Since the Report was made, a substantial number of persons have been transferred; in one factory 1,000 persons were removed—that is, in one factory only, which is not even one of the most important. I suggest that my right hon. Friend is not seized with the magnitude of the problem, and, when the joint survey takes place between himself and the Ministry of Labour, I have very little doubt, if it is done efficiently and carefully, that the figures I have mentioned will not be found to be an exaggeration. There can be no doubt that there is a redundancy of labour, but, whether it is of the order I have mentioned, or whether it is a smaller figure, it is a fact that a number of filling factories do not always carry out their programmes. This is due frequently to a shortage of empties; the copybook maxim, to which reference has been made, has not apparently been carried out. It is common sense to have a reasonable supply of empties if the filling factories are to be fully occupied. As I say, that
1116
has not been the case, and in practically every filling factory we visited we found they were unable to carry out certain items of their programme because of the shortage of components. It is a very important, if pedestrian, recommendation, and therefore it is as well to remind the Minister of these elementary facts.
Perhaps the trump card of my right hon. Friend was hostile. My right hon. Friend made great play in drawing attention to the differences between the Report made a year ago and the present Report. I confess there is an inconsistency, and that it is inconsistent to suggest a year ago that we wanted more hostels and to suggest to-day that we have too many; but it is quite conceivable that my right hon. Friend and his predecessor were, as a result of the Report presented a year ago, so active that they did not know when to stop. To-day we have four times as many hostels as we require, and, while my right hon. Friend may be congratulated on dealing so quickly with the criticisms in that Report, it does not exonerate him to-day for the over-provision of hostels for which we are now glad to find customers at any price. My right hon. Friend congratulated himself that 14 redundant hostels were to be taken over.
Sir A. Duncan: They have been taken over.
Mr. Silkin: Surely they were provided for the workers and not for that purpose. Undoubtedly a miscalculation was made in regard to the provision of hostels. We have set out in the Report the way in which the calculations were made. Someone worked out the number of workers who would be engaged in a filling factory; someone calculated the number who would be living at home within 12 miles of the factory; someone calculated the number of persons who would have to be brought in from outside; someone worked out the number of billets which could be found within a reasonable distance, and then, by a simple process of arithmetic, a calculation was made of the number of persons for whom hostels would have to be provided. I submit that on every one of these calculations someone has blundered. They have blundered over the number of people who would be employed when the hostels were finished, because they "failed to take into account the increase in efficiency which would take place in that period, and that therefore fewer

1117
workers would be required when the hostels were finished. It was assumed that workers who had to travel more than 12 miles would be willing to go into hostels, which was a fundamental error. There was an under-estimate of the number of people for whom billets should be provided, and there was a failure to take into account the question of whether the hostels would be popular, and whether people would be willing to live in them. I suggest that the calculation was made by some academic person sitting at a desk who may have been good at arithmetic, but was not good at anything else, and you got this extraordinary situation, that by that calculation you got provision for four times as many people as you really required. When my hon. Friend made his recommendation about hostels he suggested that they should be close to the works. Is it likely that they would be popular if people had to travel to their work and back? The case for a hostel is that you save a journey. If you have to make the journey all the same—and in some cases they are four or five miles from the factory—it might have been foreseen that people would not be willing to make the journey and that, if they had to make one they would rather live at home and perhaps, if necessary, make even a longer journey.
There is a number of other matters contained in the Report, and I am gratified to find that in the majority of cases the recommendations will be taken seriously and that they are either accepted in principle or will be carefully investigated. But it is remarkable to me that it should have been necessary in a Report of this kind for some of the matters to come under consideration. If investigation had not been made, the probability is that things would have been left as they were. For instance, you find that in a number of our factories each of the production Departments is carrying out its own inspection, and in certain cases you have three different inspection Departments each independently inspecting. It seems to me that that is a matter that ought to have been taken up a long time ago. It may be difficult to unify, but in one case it has been possible to get one production Department to inspect for the other two. Surely that is one of those obvious things that one Member complained of in our recommendations which have not been dealt with. The need for uniform methods
1118
and standards of inspection is an elementary thing. In fact, at different factories you get different methods and standards of inspection. A gun which might be passed in one factory will not be passed in another, and it is causing a good deal of confusion and delay. There is a fruitful line of inquiry for the right hon. Gentleman. If he will look at the high proportion of skilled men in certain factories as against others, he will find that it ought to be possible to release a considerable number, and knowing, as he does, the great need for skilled men in other industries, I know that he will not be diffident about releasing them.
One thing that struck all of us very much was the high quality of the superintendents whom we saw. They are carrying out a very difficult task, because they cannot possibly know what is going on everywhere in the factory. They have a good deal of administration to do, but they do their best, and, on the whole, they are a very competent and capable body of men. But we were shocked at the remuneration that they receive. Any man in outside industry doing a similar job would probably think himself underpaid if he got three or four times the salary. Surely a man responsible for the organisation of 25,000 workers is worth£5,000 a year, and they are getting£1,500. I think that is a matter that the right hon. Gentleman ought to put right somehow. It is to their credit that, in spite of this low remuneration, they are doing excellent work. One thing that struck us was that, in spite of their high quality, they were not getting the responsibility that they ought to have. For instance, we were told by one superintendent—though I believe it is a matter of some doubt whether it was correct or not—that he could not appoint a foreman without getting approval from headquarters. He certainly cannot appoint a shop manager without getting approva1. It seems very odd that you can trust these men with the enormous responsibility that they have and yet you cannot let them appoint a foreman, shop manager or assistant shop manager without having to get approval, and the Departments are not always very quick in giving it. In one case that was mentioned to us a foreman had been provisionally appointed and was doing the job, but the approval did not come through for between two and three months. When it came through the pay

1119
was retrospective, but, while they were waiting for approval, he was only getting his former pay. It is not very satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman might look at it again and see whether it is not possible to give this fine body of men a greater sense of responsibility than they have.
Sir P. Hannon: Did the hon. Member receive any definite complaint from the superintendents that they were not adequately paid?
Mr. Silkin: No, and that is very much to their credit. The question did not arise until they were pressed as to whether they were satisfied with their responsibility, but the fact remains that when they were pressed they had not the responsibility that they were entitled to. Then there are so many organisations inside the factory for which they have no responsibility at all. If a canteen is not satisfactory the superintendent is not in a position to deal with it. He can use his personality in improving it, but he cannot do more than that. He is not responsible for the canteen. He is not responsible, of course, for the hostels. But a superintendent should be king in his own castle and should be responsible for everything that takes place inside the factory, and that is not the position to-day. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he proposes to dispense with his recruiting organisation. I could never feel that it was justifiable, and it seemed to me to be a reflection on the work of the Ministry of Labour, and although the Ministry of Labour acquiesced, they were only acquiescing in their own condemnation, because surely recruiting is a matter for the Ministry of Labour, and it seemed to me they were admitting that they were not able to do their own job.
I am glad that attention is being given to the question of absenteeism. It is a very serious matter in the Royal Ordnance factories. If you could reduce it to reasonable proportions, you could dispense with thousands more workers. The right hon. Gentleman will not quarrel with that figure, because absenteeism in some places amounts to 20 or 25 per cent., not all of which is justifiable. Therefore, it is a very important matter to go into. I am not satisfied that it has been seriously gone into in the past six months. My right hon. Friend stated that there had been an inquiry in the last six months, but
1120
we were told that even the figures that were supplied were not comparable and that until quite recently the figures of absenteeism were not even properly looked at. Only within the last two months have the figures been looked at by somebody. The previous position was that the returns of absenteeism were sent to headquarters, but it appeared to be nobody's job to study the returns and only in exceptional cases was anything done. Even to-day, however, the returns from the different factories are not strictly comparable. Perhaps since the Report was issued my right hon. Friend has had more luck, but at the time when we were taking evidence that was the statement made to us.
Mr. Tinker: When the figure of 20 per cent. is given, is overtime taken into consideration? Have these men been doing overtime, and is that considered when they are absent on other days?
Mr. Silkin: It is women whose absenteeism rises to these astronomical figures. They are working a three-shift system, and there is no question of overtime. I am not going into the question why absenteeism arises. We all know many factories which cause absenteeism, but the fact is that it is very high in a number of filling factories.
The Report seems to me to disclose two fundamental weaknesses in the organisation of the Royal Ordnance factories. My right hon. Friend admits that the organisation is lopsided, but thinks that it is none the worse for that. I do not think one would seek out a lopsided organisation. The position is that there is no one person other than the Minister who is responsible for the organisation of the Royal Ordnance factories. There is one man, the Director-General of Royal Ordnance Factories, who is responsible for the engineering factories and for the administration of the fining and explosive factories. There is another Director-General, of equal rank, who is responsible for production in the filling factories, but not for maintenance and administration. There is a further man who is in charge of the explosive factories who is responsible for their production, but not for their administration and maintenance. We get a very blurred picture at times. There is a confusion of responsibility, and

1121
when we tried to ascertain whose was the responsibility for the alleged redundancy of labour in the factories it was difficult to ascertain whether that was a matter of administration or a matter of production. It seems to me reasonable that there should be one person whom we could go to and fire at who has complete responsibility for all the different types of Government factories. I recognised the factors which my right hon. Friend mentioned and that filling factories could be treated as separate, but here is a group of factories that are State-owned, and no one person is responsible for their administration and production. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to look at this and to appoint a person—he would have to be a very exceptional person and he would want finding, but I think he could be found—who should have complete charge of the production and administration of the Royal Ordnance factories.
The other weakness which it seems to me is responsible for a good deal of the trouble is that the labour division, which is responsible for hours of work, conditions, wages, canteens, hostels, welfare and so on, is not an integral part, as it should be, of the organisation of the Royal Ordnance factories. I recognise that the existing division is doing a certain amount of work in respect of privately-owned factories as well, but it has not the same responsibility for them as it has for the Royal Ordnance factories. Its position is* really advisory so far as the privately-owned factories are concerned. It has no executive powers of control over them, but it has a definite responsibility for the State-owned factories. The organisation would be considerably improved if there were a labour division inside the Royal Ordnance factory organisation. I recognise that that would involve the necessity of having a division outside which would be responsible for the labour activities of the privately-owned factories and perhaps that would not be altogether a tidy arrangement. Nevertheless, the advantages of having a labour organisation inside the Royal Ordnance factories, fully acquainted with what is going on and with the needs of the factories, as an integral part of the factories would be much greater than the disadvantages. These are the two main recommendations of the Committee. My right hon. Friend has promised that they
1122
will be carefully considered, and I know that they will be.
This Debate will have served a useful purpose if it causes my right hon. Friend and his Department seriously to shake themselves up and to look with fresh eyes at the work and the organisation of the Royal Ordnance factories. I think that they have been a little too inclined to feel pleased with what is happening—as, indeed, they have every justification for doing—and too little inclined to look at the weaknesses. These factories have already made a valuable contribution to our war effort, but potentially they are capable of immensely more. I am confident that if the recommendations contained in the Report are accepted and promptly implemented the House and the country will have reason to feel proud of their achievements.
Mr. Dunn: The hon Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) have given their experiences as members of the Committee on National Expenditure. The hon. Member for South Croydon painted a critical and sombre picture. The contribution of the hon. Member for Peckham appeared to me to be like the proverbial egg, good in parts and bad in parts. I do not come to the Debate as a member of the Committee on National Expenditure, whose job is more or less to defend the Committee's Reports. I come as a Member of Parliament who is acquainted with three or four factories of one kind or another and who, week in and week out, religiously makes it part of my business to visit those factories. The hon. Member for Peckham says that he has visited 16 of them. I speak as a constituency man and not as a member of that Committee. Speaking from my own personal investigatins—not uncritical, though at the same time wishing to be helpful to the war effort—I say that I come to this Debate in no sense critical of the Department at all. I come fortified with the knowledge that in my belief the factories with which I am personally acquainted are efficiently run. I have studied the recommendations of the Select Committee, and there is scarcely one of them that is not in operation in these factories. I think hon. Members who make it part of their duty to visit factories week in and week out

1123
and hear what both the managerial side and the workpeople have to say are entitled to express an opinion upon this Report. People sitting in London and making these reports examine the position from the standpoint of the whole country, but individual members are entitled to give their experiences about the factories with which they are personally acquainted.
On 3rd September, 1939, I gave my vote for the prosecution of this war, for it to be prosecuted as speedily as possible to a successful issue, and all my actions from then until now have had this background: Will what I am doing help the prosecution of this war to a successful issue? If I cast a vote in this House or speak in my constituency or in this House, I have always at the back of my mind this consideration: Will what I am doing help the successful prosecution of this war? I have tried to bring the people in my area to adopt the same outlook and take the same line of thought. I do not say that this Debate or the Report is intended to be critical of the Minister. I take the view that the Minister is doing a good job of work, and from my experience in the country I say that he is in as strong a position as any member of this Select Committee to make an assessment of our war effort at the present time.
I will give two experiences, the first a major one and the second a minor one—minor only in the sense that one factory is a large one and the other is a smaller one. Two years ago the site of that factory was green fields. The person who built the factory was a woman and not connected with Wimpey's or anyone else. I think she did a good job of work and made a great contribution to the war effort. The Minister made a rather cryptic reference to "green labour." We have women working in those factories who previously had never seen the inside of a factory, and now they are doing highly skilled engineering work. As I have said, two years ago the site was green fields, and now I believe it is a fact that the factory has passed its target figure of output. Therefore I have not a lot of sympathy with those who are so highly critical in one direction or another, because I feel it to be a reflection upon those whom I represent. More than 3,000 women, mostly miners' wives or daughters, have
1124
entered that factory and are doing highly skilled precision work, and in less than two years they have reached the target figure. That does not show inefficiency, or give any ground for criticism against those who are in charge on the managerial side.
Before that factory came into production I went to a Royal Ordnance factory to see the work which was being done there, and I am not ashamed to say that I felt very sceptical whether the women who were going into these factories, who had never seen a factory or a machine before—except, perhaps, a sewing machine in their own homes—would be able to do the job. I can tell the House now that not only are they doing the job but that in regard to absenteeism their record is a direct contradiction of what the two previous speakers have said. I have been amazed to hear some of the statements in this House. The Minister knows that when he paid a midnight visit to this particular factory the first thing he found was that the superintendent of the factory was on the job, although in my view he ought to have been at home. We examined the question of absenteeism. This was before the tightening-up of the machinery, before this recommendation was made. We found that the voluntary absenteeism at that factory, where nearly 4,500 people were working, was 1.56 per cent., and the over-all figure of absenteeism, including absence through sickness, accident, releases and all sorts of other causes, was 5.56. Therefore, I do not think we should be critical of the type of people of whom I am speaking. They have done a good job of work and made a tremendous contribution to the war effort.
I thought the Minister did not give the men and women in various parts of the country all the credit to which they are entitled for the work they are doing. Many of them have children to look after, others have husbands working in the pits or serving in various branches of the Services, and when absenteeism has been reduced to 1.56 per cent.—and it has remained stationary at that figure—I say we are entitled to claim for those women a word of praise even from the Minister, who knows that what I am stating is correct. I should have liked the Minister to say right out to the women, "You are doing a good job of work, and the country is proud of you."
Mr. Kirkwood: He has agreed to that.
Mr. Dunn: Yes, but I thought he might have used a little different language from what he actually did. I thought he desired to make the absenteeism a general thing. With regard to the smaller factories, the powers-that-be asked the people who are running one of these factories to step up their production, and they offered to step it up by 50 per cent. I am glad to say that in nine months this-small factory stepped up its production by, not 50, but 1,500 per cent. Such people are entitled to recognition in this House.
Mr. Culverwell: Will the hon. Member say what they were doing?
Mr. Dunn: They were doing highly skilled work with a special steel alloy in this small factory. In order that there should be no misunderstanding about it, I took the Minister to this small factory. It is not a Royal Ordnance factory in the usual sense; it was in existence before the war. In efficiency and management, the small factories make as important a contribution to the war effort as the big factories about which there is so much talk. In my view some of the big factories are far too large. The point is that this small factory is now producing at least 1,450 per cent. higher than it was asked to do.
The conditions prevailing in the administration departments of the Royal Ordnance factories are not quite fair and reasonable. It is true that, in the main, the women are now working eight-hour shifts and in many factories are working three successive shifts, but, on the administration side, girls and women are working very long hours indeed, while their pay is far too small. I say that from personal knowledge. When the Minister of Labour made an appeal for women, my own girl answered the call and went into the administration side of a Royal Ordnance factory. The hours are from nine in the morning till seven at night, on Saturday morning from nine until 12, and on Sunday from nine until five. Such hours are too long. The age of the girls is from 17 to 21. Were it not for the excessive overtime they work, and did they not live at home, the girls could riot maintain themselves in decency and comfort on the wages they receive.
Sir P. Hannon: Is the hon. Member drawing a comparison between those engaged on the administrative staffs and those actually working in the factories?
Mr. Dunn: Yes, Sir, but now I am referring entirely to the girls upon the administration side, and I say that wages on a basis of 27s. 6d. per week up to about 35s. for excessive overtime are not sufficient. I have already spoken to the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter. These girls are doing a good job of work which is reasonably highly skilled. They are grammar school girls who have been kept at school until 16 or 17 years of age. I agree with the hon. Member who has just interrupted that there is no comparison between their wages and the wages of girls on the production side. The girls on the administration side are underpaid, and I ask the Minister to look into the question. If the matter of hours cannot be got over, I ask him to look at the pay and enable these girls to live in decency and comfort.
I have already stated that I visit these factories once or twice a week, and I am annoyed every time I go to certain factories. I have to sign the book, and I do not object to that, because I think it is right. You could not have every Tom, Dick and Harry running over every Royal Ordnance factory; but I object to going cap in hand to some superintendent of a factory or foreman to direct me up and down a factory when I want to see what is taking place. As a Member of Parliament I have tried to make a helpful contribution to the running of factories, and I think it is a bit beyond the mark if I have to go and say, "Please can I go here, there or somewhere else?" I am not pleading for anything special for Members of Parliament, but if a Member of Parliament wants to see inside a factory and to know what is taking place, he should be at liberty, after signing the book and making the superintendent aware that he is on the premises, to look round the factory as he likes and form his own opinion.
In regard to superintendents generally, the hon. Member who has just spoken paid a rather high compliment to them. I support what he said. Never mind what criticism may be levelled at this Report, the superintendents I have met are an admirable set of people who are making a definite contribution to the war

1127
effort, and this House should be proud of them. The remuneration that they receive is inadequate. As to hostels, I have always shared the view that we should have built houses, instead of building hostels at prices which are fabulous in relation to their structure. We should have a national asset when the war is over if we had built houses, and the housing problem would not be so rampart as it is in some of these districts. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are in the wrong place."] I have made a plea over and over again for more houses to be built. In some of these districts we are herding people together, and it is a disgrace. All standards of morality have been broken down in some places, in consequence of the fact that hostels have been built round factories, instead of houses which are decent, comfortable and respectable for people to live in. I beg the Minister to look at this question of hostels and houses, and see whether something can be done. I have confidence in the administration of the Department, and I conclude by paying a tribute to the Minister and his staff. No one is working harder than he is. He visits the factories every week-end, and in my view he is more competent to judge the general position of the war effort than the Select Committee who have made this Report. I would therefore like to say a word of appreciation of the good work which the Minister has done.
Sir Patrick Hannon: I agree very largely with what my hon. Friend opposite has just said. During the last couple of years there has been developing in this House a supercritical faculty; committees are appointed to examine into administrations outside the House, and notwithstanding the exigencies of war and the stress imposed upon Ministers in the discharge of their obligations in the preparation for defence, there is too much criticism of the Ministers and of what they have had to do in connection with the war effort. Therefore, I am glad that my hon. Friend who has just spoken has borne testimony from his own personal experience, as I can bear from mine, to the work that has been done in the various factories throughout the country, where workpeople and managements are putting their best into the contribution they are making to victory. One sometimes forgets the magnitude of the task imposed upon those responsible
1128
for the organisation of those factories at the time their development had to be undertaken. If one looks back for a couple of years, the immense problem which had to be faced at the time because of our unpreparedness before the war can be realised, and, in looking at the heavy task that lay upon the shoulders of those who were called in to organise production, one must be a little tolerant and sympathetic, because the work had to be done in very difficult circumstances.
I would like to say at once, as one who has been in constant contact with the development of organisations for production since the war broke out and even long before it, one cannot pay too high a tribute to the Minister himself, and to those responsible to him, for the work which has been accomplished. I am delighted to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) as chairman of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, but there is more to be done besides having interviews with managements and workpeople. There ought to be some process of check upon the actual figures, and the circumstances at the moment ought not to be the guiding consideration in arriving at a report. One ought to be able to discover what were the processes of development before the investigation was made, and how the great productive organisations have come into existence. I am bound to say, with all due respect to my hon. Friend for the admirable work he has done, that I think he ought to have spent a longer time on an examination of the conditions which prevailed during the development and organisation of these factories. My hon. Friend has quite rightly called attention to the organisation of hostels, but what does he expect? When we brought great numbers of girls down from Scotland and the Border country—
Mr. Kirkwood: Shame.
Sir P. Harmon: —we had to provide them with accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) would make a mighty row in this House if he thought that girls were coming down from Scotland to the Midlands without proper accommodation being provided for them.
Mr. Kirkwood: I shall do that in a moment.
Sir P. Hannon: It is in the nature of things, in providing hostel accommodation for these workers, that sometimes there would be too much accommodation, but surely that cannot be made a complaint against the Minister or against those responsible to the Minister for the organisation and erection of these factories.
Mr. Silkin: Is it not a matter for complaint when you have four times as much accommodation as we really require?
Sir P. Hannon: I think that four times is rather an exaggerated figure to apply in this particular case. I have been to a good many of the shadow factories, and while I have found that the hostel organisation is admirable and in some respects more than absolutely necessary, I have always thought it was the duty of those responsible for the administration of the works to see that when girls came in accommodation was provided for them. I think it is far better to have additional accommodation available, rather than that girls should come into a new district, remote from their own homes, and not have proper accommodation provided for them.
All this gigantic organisation for war production was rushed upon the country in the atmosphere of a disturbed outlook, without any great knowledge of the consequences involved, and there must be a tolerant attitude to those responsible for this vast organisation. The whole of the country to-day, with all our splendid workpeople and efficient managements, is organised in working together for war production. I do not think that we in this House ought to be continually carping and criticising the effort that has been made. Those of us who have the opportunity from day to day of visiting our factories and of going among the workpeople see what energy, enthusiasm and loyalty they are putting into their efforts. I cannot help feeling how grateful we ought to be for what has been done in these fateful days. When I think of the great work accomplished by the Director-General of Ordnance and by his colleague who is responsible for the engineering side of the shadow factories, I cannot help feeling that this House ought to be grateful that we have public servants of that quality to undertake such great tasks when their services were called upon.
Of the Minister himself I may say this: I have been in this House for 22 years,
1130
and I have seen a great many changes. I have sometimes seen this House inclined to lose its head a bit, now and again I have seen the atmosphere surcharged with a little surplus excitement, and I have heard contributions to Debates which might have been better left out altogether. I feel that all through that time I have never known a great public servant throw himself into the administration of his Department with more foresight, energy, enthusiasm and constructive capacity than the present Minister of Supply, whose public career in this country is a credit to the profession to which he belongs.
In a Debate like this do not let us be carried away by an outburst of criticism. Let us examine the facts and coolly reflect upon the story of the past and of what has been accomplished by those responsible for the development of these factories. How little was known and how much had to be learnt in the process of their development. We should treat kindly, considerately and gratefully the efforts made by the officers in the various Departments of defence organisation and supply, who were responsible for building up, with great effect and in my judgment beneficent results, in the interests of the safety of this country, the productive organisation which exists to-day. Our hostels are a great accession to our war production organisation, and I would not like to leave the ladies who are in charge of these hostels—they have been carefully selected and are doing their duties admirably—under the impression that we like the suggestion made from the other side of the House that there is any danger to the morals of the people who occupy the hostels. My experience is that the wardens of our factory hostels are just as careful of the morals and the safety of our girls as any other person. I am prepared to defend these splendid women in charge of these working girls in any corner of the country at any time.
This Debate has served a useful purpose. I hope it will serve as a model for the House while we have almost day after day this long series of Reports by the Select Committee. We are not always carried away by the conclusions which these admirable colleagues of ours arrive at. There are perhaps occasions on which they are sometimes in a hurry to reach conclusions. Sometimes perhaps they have not examined the whole of the facts

1131
before they come to a decision. We Members of the House of Commons are entitled to examine and check for ourselves, and exercise our own judgment on the facts presented in this series of Reports. They are all valuable, all helpful, all suggestive, but not always conclusive regarding the administration of Departments in the public service. I hope that as a result of this Debate the Members of the House will make themselves more familiar with the immense work which is being done in these great factories throughout me country. You cannot visit one of these factories, go among the workpeople, meet the management, and cross-examine them if you like, without observing the vast effort which is being made to win the war by the magnificent co-ordinated effort of management and workpeople. Not the least interesting part of the story of these days to be told in the future is that in these great factories and from the central directing organisation at headquarters there is a co-operative effort of supreme moment and value playing its part in deciding the destinies of the country in the grimmest time through which it has ever passed.
Mr. Kirkwood: I will not detain the House long. I have no desire to join this mutual admiration society in paying tribute to the Ministry of Supply, but I would not be true to myself unless I paid a tribute to the Ministry, because I have had a good deal of contact not only with the present Minister of Supply but every other Minister of Supply we have had since this war broke out. I have gone with every Minister of Supply to different factories, not only in my native land, but all over England. My only complaint about that is that we have too few factories in Scotland, to the standing disgrace of the present Government. The Minister of Supply is not responsible for that, but the Ministry of Supply is responsible for the carrying-out of the work in the factories. My experience leads me to say that they have revolutionised production. We are beyond the wildest dream, not of lawyers but of engineers who have made munitions, who have had charge of munition workers, and who made records in the last war in the production of munitions. The present production is away beyond our wildest dreams. I have done all I can time and time again, and I have got
1132
many concessions, not only from the present Minister, but from every Minister who has been in the job. I have got them to dispense with managements when they have found that these were not satisfactory. That never happened before. It is only -now that we are producing men in charge of a Department like this who have the strength of character which enables them to decide. Formerly it was only the workers who were said to be at fault. Now, not only on one occasion but on several occasions we have succeeded in having the management displaced.
I would ask the country, not only the House—I am dealing at the moment with the shop stewards all over the country—to remember that it is not simply the workers who have been diluted, it is not simply the working engineer and his work that have been diluted. The managerial staff has been diluted. It is really marvellous what has been done, when you think of the factories that have been put up, huge factories, and I would say to my hon. Friend that I am all out for the big factory. It has always been the wee man, as we call him, who in the past and in the present has kept down wages. Do not forget that. It has always been the big employer who could afford, not only to pay good wages, but to give decent conditions. The small employer could not do it either as a shopkeeper or as an engineer. If the House would only consider what was presented to the Minister of Production or the Minister of Supply, they would recognise that it was a situation that was absolutely deplorable. The whole tendency up to the war was to retard production. In fact, a responsible Member of this House said that shipbuilding in this country was finished. I said in reply—and you will remember the incident, Sir—that if shipbuilding and engineering in this country were finished, Britain was finished, and that I did not believe a word of it. The result of that was an atmosphere and an approach—not of the worker, because all he has got is his labour power—but of those who were in control, those who had the say as to whether the work would he carried on or not, "No, we are going to shut down the shipyards. We are going to shut down the engineering shops."
No encouragement had been given to produce engineers and shipbuilders. With all due respect to miners and everybody

1133
else, this country cannot be carried on without shipbuilders and engineers. The best engineers were driven to America. Take my own constituency, which I know better than any other constituency, though I know many intimately, particularly those concerned with engineering and shipbuilding. Where did all the engineers of the leading shipyards come from in the past? The high school at Clydebank. I asked a managing director a year ago to find out how many of his shipbuilders, either in the shipyard or in the engine shop, came from the high school at Clydebank. The answer was, "Not one." The same thing applies all over the country. The reason is that the fathers had been so badly treated that it was not worth their while to send their boys there. I said, "Where are you getting them from?" The answer was, "From the poorest localities in Glasgow." That was not the result of the workers' action, but the result of the action of many individuals, who at the start of the war were in control of industry in this country. It was they who really carried out the policy of ca'canny, with no regard to what was to be the fate of this great British Empire. Their only concern was with their own little kingdom, and they were prepared to sacrifice everything for that. When the war broke out there was a scarcity of engineers. There was not only a scarcity of the actual working engineers or technicians in the trade, but there was an atmosphere created against the idea of being an engineer. When I went into engineering it was considered by young boys a great thing to be an engineer. But a prejudice was created against it, with the result that we have nearly lost the British Empire. That terrible situation was left to the Ministries of Supply and Production to tackle. I pay tribute to them, and to the present Ministers, for having done all that men could do in the most trying circumstances. In many cases they have had to attempt to get blood from a stone.
Individuals talk about absenteeism, and sit in judgment on my class. Only a week ago last Monday, I had occasion to go to the Sheriff Court in Glasgow, to see individuals sitting in judgment on workers who happened to have taken a day off, after working seven days a week. These workers just had a break from the monotony which is affecting Members of this House so much that they will be glad
1134
to get away for a long Recess. Think of the monotony in the workshop, where people have nothing else to think of from early morning to dewy eve, from the cradle to the grave, but their work. These people are hauled up before the sheriff for absenteeism. How many hours do you think the sheriff works in a week? The case in which I was interested was supposed to come on at 10 o'clock. The sheriff turned up at 11. A Member of this House who is an advocate, was on the job too, and he can bear me out. The court adjourned for lunch from half-past 12 until two. Then they came back, and the judge said, in my hearing, to the advocate from Edinburgh, "You will be wanting to get your train at four o'clock." They finished up at half-past four, and the case is adjourned until September. The authorities could have finished it in an hour. I am telling the House this in order that Members may know the type of man who sits in judgment on the workers because of absenteeism. It is such things as this which make it all the harder for the Minister of Production and the Minister of Supply, because they create a deep-seated antagonism against those who are in authority.
I ask the Minister of Supply to carry out the policy he is adopting at the moment in recognising the shop committees. I would also ask another thing, which is very important. I have asked him privately many times, and I am now going to ask him publicly. He is evidently a very powerful man. All and sundry are paying tribute to his great power, ability and ingenuity. The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) said enough to make him blush, as the hon. Member usually does. I am going to appeal to him, along the same lines as my hon. Friend has done. We do not want any hostels in my constituency; we want houses. Not one house has been built to replace those destroyed. We require a large number of houses, and we are not getting any. I would appeal to the Minister of Supply, and to the Secretary of State for Scotland and all his assistants. They inform me, and they inform my constituents as well, that they have done all that is humanly possible to get houses. I would now appeal publicly to the Minister of Supply, if he has influence, to use it to see that the folk I represent here get houses. Tribute has

1135
been paid to the Minister of Supply, and I hope that he will not let us down.
Shop stewards want me to get all they request me to get from the Minister of Supply. I know that the Minister of Supply cannot meet all their demands, but I hope that he will play the game by the men. A good many men in the workshops have not the enthusiasm in this war that they had in the last. I told Lord Aberconway, who wanted to know what was wrong, that the workers, rightly or wrongly, considered that there are employers all over the country whose only concern is what is likely to be their own fate after the war, and they are keeping their eye on how they can play the game so that their shipyards, engineering shops and their factories will be all right after the war. Unless the situation is faced very seriously by all concerned, we may lose the war, and if we lose the war, they will not have any shipyards, and the landowners will not have any land. I ask those who have influence with the powers-that-be to try and counteract that spirit which is abroad, so that we can give the workers an assurance in a definite form. In the last war our General Secretary, George N. Barnes, and Arthur Henderson, the Secretary of the Labour party, were both in the War Cabinet. They were two of the strongest men our movement ever produced. What was our fate after that war, after we had received all the promises and guarantees? I have these guarantees, some of them in the original, that even my union has not got.
But what was the result? In 1920 the wages of the engineers were less than the wages of the scavengers in the streets of London. Do you think the workers have such short memories that they will believe that after the war they will come back to a land fit for heroes to live in? This is the sort of thing they are putting up to me every day. A deputation left work at a factory and defied everything only last week to come and see me. They defied the authorities and the police, and they left their work. I want that sort of situation to be faced, and if the Minister of Supply is prepared to make some pronouncement along the right lines, then he will get the workers to work enthusiastically, and they will produce munitions far beyond anything that has ever been done before.
Mr. Amnion: I am sure we have heard with interest the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), and I hope that the Government and those responsible will take notice of certain safeguards that should be observed for the protection of workers after we have won the war. But, as my hon. Friend says, that is by no means settled, and we have to get the right spirit engendered in all our people in order to achieve that object.
It is worth while recalling that it is only three years ago since the Select Committee was appointed and that during that time they have issued no fewer than 51 published Reports, to say nothing of private reports to Ministers under the sanction granted by this House. Somebody has raised the question of whether or not it has been worth while, and whether we have not introduced some new constitutional feature into the situation. This is not new. A similar Committee was set up during the last war. As was pointed out at the inception of this Committee, the ordinary control of finance has now been removed from the House. This Committee has certain functions in that respect. It keeps an eye on finance and sees that we get a good return for our money. The Committee has no idea of carping and criticising but rather desires to keep up to the mark the work of the Government and to encourage, and, here and there, to help, the Government and the Departments where there are some possibilities of waste or some lag which would not in the ordinary way come under the purview of the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn) is not quite correct when he says that the Minister would be in a better position than the Committee to notice and to bring pressure to bear upon any grievances which might arise. In the first place it is much too large for the Minister himself to have everything under his purview, and, secondly, the Committee itself is able to get evidence which is quite free from any bias or fear of intimidation and the fact that it is given under a pledge of secrecy enables the Committee to get a good deal of information which is useful to the Minister himself. From that angle, that justifies—if any justification is needed—the Select Committee, and is its raison d'etre. The Minister has expressed his appreciation of

1137
the Report and has given rise to indications that the recommendations will be noted. One must be grateful to the Minister for such receptivity and resilience in his office at the present time. We only wish that that could be said of other Departments. The Minister's speech is an acknowledgment of the value of the Committee's Report; he himself admits that the Committee have made valuable recommendations and, although he questions some of the facts, no statements in support have been advanced. If there are inaccuracies, I hope they will be mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to the Debate.
I am sure we shall all agree with the Minister that the setting up of this great scheme of Royal Ordnance factories is a real miracle of industry. To start from nothing and raise an army of 300,000 men and women workers, a large number of whom have never previously been in this sort of work, is a feat of which any nation can be proud. All those concerned have every reason for gratification. It is fair to say to the Minister that some of the troubles mentioned have been a legacy left to him by others who have gone before. The figures are very impressive and I am bound to say I can see some reason in the Minister putting up a defence against some statements in the Report about factories and hostels. After all, we have to remember that had this been a shooting war in a greater sense than it has been up to now, all those spaces in factories would probably have been filled because there would have been a greater demand than there is at present for implements of war I have not the slightest doubt that that may also have had an effect on the hostels themselves. In addition we have to remember that a larger number of people had to be recruited originally because there was not much skilled labour. This was shown by the Minister when he said that only 7½per cent. of 300,000 people were skilled workers. People had to be brought in from offices and all sorts of places to do work with which they had not been previously acquainted. That, in itself, made for a larger army of workers than might otherwise have been necessary.
As time went on, people became more skilled, armaments piled up, the demand for them was not so great and so we arrived at the position we are in to-day.
1138
The Select Committee are rather calling attention to the fact that in spite of the alteration there has not been a recognition of the position that a smaller number of workers is needed and that there is a greater amount of space than is absolutely necessary. Even so, I am a little sceptical because I remember what happened in regard to shipbuilding. We had a lot of space, we gave it away and at the present moment we wish we had not done so. The same applies to skilled labour which, to a large extent, vanished. Although I support the recommendations of the Select Committee we must bear in mind that the public outside, particularly, were misled because the Press fastened on the more adverse criticisms rather than on a full survey of the Report and gave an exaggerated picture.
With regard to hostels there was—let us be frank—a miscalculation as to the numbers of people to be accommodated. Many of us were disappointed that the hostels were not used in the manner in which we thought they might have been used. We all know that workmen do not like eating on their job, however good the accommodation for them may be and that they have an objection to living on their job. Many of us remember the model estates at Bourneville and other places, when people preferred to live some distance away from work and paid bigger prices for inferior accommodation, rather than live in the accommodation provided for them. I suspect that the same kind of thing has operated here. Anybody who has worked with large bodies of men knows that those are factors which have to be taken into account and they were probably not taken into account by those who drew up these schemes and who were not acquainted with this human factor and reactions of working people.
I think the Select Committee has done a good service and one which is necessary. As I have already said, 51 Reports have been published to say nothing of the private Reports which went to Ministers. Yet this is the only Report which has been discussed by the House. Again and again Members have raised questions in this House, but these Reports poured out to them more information than they would have obtained, I think, in Secret Session. These Reports would have kept them in touch with all that is happening and placed them in a position to raise any

1139
questions they wished to raise. Certainly, it is an indictment of the House that, having all this material, we have waited until now before having a Debate, and it is a curious coincidence that the Debate should be on the Royal Ordnance factories. There have been plenty of Reports, equally critical, on industries run under private aegis which have not attracted the same attention.
Sir P. Hannon: And much more important even than this Report.
Mr. Ammon: I quite agree. I am pointing out that we have not availed ourselves of the opportunities and that now we are having a Debate on a Report that is not really of such vital importance as some of the other Reports may have been. It is true, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), that 37 per cent. of vacant space in the factories may be a very high premium to pay for insurance, but we must take into consideration certain factors which existed at the time when the staff were recruited, and we must also bear in mind that if and when there is an outbreak of what I may call, for want of a better term, the shooting war, we may be very glad to have this space held in reserve.
Sir P. Hannon: The hon. Gentleman will remember that when I put a question to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), he said that that was the percentage at the time he visited the factories, and that it did not extend over a particular period of time.
Mr. Ammon: That is so. There are also other factors to be considered. One hon. Member said that there was not a likelihood that all the factories would be destroyed by bombing. I do not know about that. We have enjoyed the advantage lately of a measure of quietude, but when I think of what happened in my constituency and when I read of what we have been doing to Dusseldorf, where, as far as one can gather, factories of equal dimensions have been completely wiped out, we may be very glad to have taken some precautions and to have this reserve. Having said some things that are rather critical of the Report, I feel bound to say that I feel that we owe a measure of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and those associated with him for the valuable work they have
1140
done and the tremendous amount of energy and enthusiasm they have shown in interviewing a large number of witnesses. The very fact of the Minister's acceptance of the Report indicates its value and the good effect it will have. After all, the value of the Committee's inquiries and the value of its Report is not to be tested by the material which they give us for criticising or attacking Ministers, but only by the help which they give us to see weaknesses and to build up where something needs strengthening. I am sure I can say, without fear of contradiction, as a member of the Select Committee from the very commencement, that that is the motive which has actuated the Committee all through. Never have I at any time heard any suggestion of criticism for the sake of criticism; the object of the Committee has been to face the facts, to bring weaknesses to the attention of Ministers, and by that means to help in the war effort.
I have only one word more to say, and that concerns the Minister's suggestion that it might have been better if he had had an opportunity of discussion with the Committee before they issued their Report. I must confess that I cannot think of anything that would be more likely to destroy confidence in the Committee. There would be some people, perhaps people who were evilly disposed, who would say that the Report was a faked one. The value of the Report lies in the fact that even Ministers have not the right to see or to know the evidence that is submitted and that officials from the Departments can give any evidence, knowing that it will be treated as secret and confidential. For these reasons, the Report is without fear or favour. It is in this way that the Committee can discharge the obligation which they have to the House and present an unbiased and fair Report. I am sure, much as it might help Ministers, it would, in the long run, be very inadvisable for Ministers to know in advance what were the decisions of a Committee and to have an opportunity to discuss Reports before they were published. We would be bound to think, human nature being as it is, that subconsciously the Minister might have some effect and influence on those responsible for producing a Report. I hope there will be no attempt to interfere in that way. At the same time I congratulate those responsible for the production of this Report,

1141
and not least the Minister for the breadth of character, and receptivity and resilience of mind he has shown, recognising this is an attempt to help and not an attempt to hinder and make his task more difficult.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Assheton): The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) has, as usual, exercised restraint and moderation. I am quite sure that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself have any complaints whatever to make about the general tone of the Debate; there may be one or two exceptions to that, but, broadly speaking, there is no complaint to be made. What are the principal charges made in the Report, which have been made again today, and which we have to try and meet? In the first place, it has been said that there is a great amount of surplus capacity and labour in the filling factories, and to a lesser extent in other factories, and that the amount of redundant labour and capacity is likely during the course of the next six months largely to be increased. I think it has been made quite clear by now that so far as capacity is concerned we may very well need all we have. So far this war has not taken a course involving an immense expenditure of ammunition—nothing like the immense expenditure of ammunition which took place in the war of 1914–18.
Perhaps it is not generally recognised that a certain amount of the standby capacity was laid down at the express request of the Service Departments to whom we are responsible. I think it ought also to be made clear that we are constantly having to make provision for certain contingencies which may take place, and for contingencies which it would be imprudent to refer to in open Session. In consequence of the turn which the war took, the demands which the Army made upon us for shells were reduced, but of course these demands may very easily be stepped up again. For example, there would have been a very different picture presented to the House to-day if the blitz of the winter of 1940–41 had been repeated during the last winter, and who is there here who is bold enough to say that we may not have to face such an attack again? I think the House should not forget that not only have we had to provide capacity to meet current demands, but we have had
1142
also to provide capacity to build up the equipment and the reserves which we did not possess at the beginning of the war. There is no doubt that this process of having to make up for past deficiencies has made the task before us very much greater than it would otherwise have been. Perhaps it is not clearly understood how excess capacity can very easily arise in a simple way.
Let me give an illustration. The new big 4,000-lb. bombs that we are now filling for the Royal Air Force are being used in place of smaller bombs, and a certain amount of the capacity for making those smaller bombs is, for the time being at any rate, not being used, simply because the capacity which was suited for building and filling the smaller bombs is not suited to the bigger bombs. I will give another example of excess capacity. Owing to the fact that we have not used some of our gun barrels as much as we had expected, and owing also to the fact that since the war began technical improvements has been such that the life of some of these gun barrels is three times as great as it was, we have undoubtedly had a surplus in this direction which no one could in any circumstances have foreseen. These are illustrations of what is constantly happening, and will continue to happen until the end of the war. Broadly speaking, we are very glad to have this surplus capacity and, if the hon. Member who thinks we have too much comes to consider the matter again at the end of the war, he may easily prove to have been wrong.
Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: If my hon. Friend is arguing that we ought to welcome having surplus capacity, he ought to deal with the fact stated in the Report that one factory is still recruiting labour.
Mr. Assheton: I am coming to deal with the question of surplus labour now. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) said it was his view that now there were 30,000 too many workers in the ordnance factories. We entirely refute that suggestion. I think the Select Committee must have misunderstood some of the evidence that was given them. They refer, for example, in paragraph 5 to one factory which already has a large surplus and is expected to release 6,000 workers by the end of the year. Owing to certain reductions in demand, and also to an increase

1143
in efficiency, a release of labour has recently been made possible at one of our factories to the extent of some 2,000 workers. At present this factory—I think it is the one referred to—is complaining of shortage of staff, and not of excess. I am sure the House will realise also that these releases cannot be made overnight. You cannot throw workers about from place to place as you can materials, and when releases are contemplated very careful arrangements have to be made with various Departments—with the Ministry of Labour, and the Ministry of Health in regard to billeting—in order to transfer these workers. And, of course, we want to make sure that they are being transferred to important war work. Arrangements have to be made with regard to rates of pay and the conditions under which they work. Therefore, it is always possible that there may be at one place or another a small surplus of labour during the period of readjustment. Again, it says in the Report, at the end of this paragraph:
"At another factory a surplus of 7,000 employees is envisaged."
If I am thinking of the right factory—and I have not had the advantage of having read the evidence so that I do not know for certain—I hope that between now and the end of this year we may be able to release about 5,000 workers from that factory.
Sir P. Hannon: Is the evidence which is taken before the Select Committee or the Sub-committees submitted to the Department?
Mr. Assheton: No, we are at the great disadvantage that we do not see the evidence nor have a full opportunity of replying to it. I hope that between now and the end of the year some 5,000 workers may be released from this factory. The factory is situated in a part of the country where there is a great demand for labour by the Ministry of Aircraft Production for their bomber programme. We have deliberately reduced our programme there in order to free labour in that area, because that will lessen the strain on the labour in the area and will enable us to put work into factories in other areas where labour is not so scarce. Rather than accept this as a criticism, I say that that is a very sound
1144
piece of constructive planning by the Government which we have carried out in collaboration with the Ministry of Labour. There may be occasions when workers temporarily have not sufficient to do. This may happen easily enough without mismanagement. A good example which occurs to me is the direct or indirect results which often occur from air raids or explosions to which unfortunately our factories are to some extent subject.
Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister agreed that there should be a joint survey with the Ministry of Labour. Is the hon. Gentleman saying in advance that nothing will come out of this survey?
Mr. Assheton: Nothing of the kind. I was going on to say that there are occasions when there is for a short time a surplus of labour, due possibly to some unfortunate occurrence such as an explosion or air raid. I should like to make another point, which is that in the factories, such as our filling factories, where they are working on three shifts in the 24 hours there is not the same flexibility of labour as in other factories which are working on a single or double shift and where overtime can be worked to get some extra work done. The three-shift system has great advantages in most ways, but it has that great disadvantage for which we have to pay. In answer to the interruption of the hon. Member for Peckham I would like to say this. The supply of labour in our factories is constantly under review, but, as my right hon. Friend has said, we have already approached the Ministry of Labour with a suggestion that the continuous review of labour which is going on all the time should be reinforced by a special inquiry and a special joint survey in each factory in turn. This joint survey will be begun as soon as possible and if it yields good results no one will be more pleased than the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Labour.
Mr. Quibell: That is an admission that the Select Committee are right in their Report.
Mr. Assheton: It is no admission whatever. All I say is that we are going to have this review, and if anything comes of it, so much the better, because we shall not be sorry if it is possible to find some more labour for other parts of the Government's programme.
Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: That was what the Report asked for.
Mr. Assheton: That is what the Report asked for, and that is what the Minister has offered. I want to rebut the suggestion which has been freely made in the Press and elsewhere as the result of this Report, and I think quite naturally made, that there is a large surplus of labour in Government factories as a whole and that the drive to get labour on which the Ministry of Labour is constantly insisting is unnecessary. We cannot allow such statements to go forward unchallenged, statements like that made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that tens of thousands of women have been taken into the factories who need never have been taken away from their homes, and that the registration of women was unnecessary. Statements of that kind are liable to lead to very wrong impressions, which impede the war effort and impede it seriously. The Report refers also to a factory where 3,000 miners are said to be employed. The Minister has already made it quite clear, and I want to make it clear again, that we have agreed with the Minister of Labour to release all the fit coal-face workers in our factories who are not of supervisory grades, and in so far as those face workers have not left our employment it is because they have apparently been found unfit, owing to age or some infirmity, to take up work again in the mines.
The next main charge which hon. Members have made to-day concerns hostels. I should like to thank certain hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) and my hon. Friend for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Sir P. Hannon) for what they said about our hostels, because the Ministry have done a tremendous lot to make these hostels attractive places in which to live and to make the workers happy. The charge we have to meet is the charge that we have got too many hostels. In the days before the war, when I was in business and before I entered the service of the Government, I was very familiar with the human but deplorable practice of "jobbing backwards," and the business of the hostels furnishes a prime example of "jobbing backwards." On the basis of the facts as they then were and of the most careful
1146
calculations which could be made, taking into account all the difficulties of transport, the difficulties of the blitz, and the difficulties of directing women, particularly young women, to work unless adequate provision had been made for them—in face of those difficulties—there was a sound case for building these hostels. As has already been pointed out, so sound was the case that it was reinforced by the Select Committee themselves in their 17th Report, although my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon has tried to point out that if the Committee had had the full facts before them at that time they would not have reinforced the decision of the Department.
It may be true that in the event some of these hostels have proved to be surplus to the needs of the Royal Ordnance factories, but I would remind the House that if there is an alteration in the course of the war and if there should be a great demand for shells it may very well be that these hostels will no longer be surplus but will be very much needed. Another point I should like to make is that when these hostels were built one of the matters taken into consideration—and I know this because I was concerned in it—was the fact that in the event of a blitz on certain towns in the North of England it would be very desirable to have accommodation in which the population of the neighbourhood could be housed in case of necessity. That was constantly in the mind of the Departments concerned, when these hostels were built. The fact that these hostels are there has proved most providential, because they are being used to-day for purposes which would have resulted, if the hostels had not existed, in a very considerable building programme. We have never been faced with greater difficulties in building than now, owing to the shortage of labour and materials. I deny that this was a remarkable miscalculation. If it was a miscalculation, at any rate it had the approval of the 17th Report of the Select Committee.
Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him, but I think he is a little too self-satisfied. Nobody is complaining because mistakes were made. Many of the reasons which he has given are perfectly understandable, and everybody can realise that mistakes might have been

1147
made. It is true to say that it was desirable to have accommodation for workers, but surely it is not true to say that it was desirable to build the accommodation without finding out whether the workers would occupy it. That is the real charge against the Government in this case; that they built these houses without any inquiry whether they would be occupied by the people for whom they were built. It is not a serious charge, and everybody understands.
Mr. Assheton: I should like to meet that charge. In 1941 the Select Committee had that view and the matter must have been considered by them, whether or not the people would live in these hostels. Moreover, this matter was freely discussed at the time with the Government and those doubts whether people would want to live in hostels or not were in the minds of all the people concerned; but certain decisions had to be taken. On the whole, I say the right decision was taken. I do not want to overstate the case, but I feel that some of the suggestions made with regard to these hostels have been going too far.
We have had many references to absenteeism. The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) made a very interesting speech. I know she will not expect me to be able to reply fully to that part of her speech which dealt with organisation, but she said some very sensible things; as she always does, with regard to absenteeism. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) also made some very interesting observations. There was a good deal of criticism about absenteeism. My right hon. Friend has already told the House that, far from having neglected the subject, as is suggested in this Report, we have been giving it the' most constant attention. This subject has been much misunderstood in the past. It is one to which I have been giving a great deal of attention since the beginning of the war, both in the position which I now occupy and in that in which I was previously engaged. I resent the suggestion that we are not taking much pains about it. I should like to tell the House that we have been watching it very closely indeed. I have the figures of absenteeism in every Royal Ordnance factory on my desk every Monday morning, and I watch them closely. I should
1148
like to tell the House what is being done about it.
I can divide the causes of absenteeism into two sets of reasons. There are good reasons and bad reasons. As everyone knows, good reasons for absence from work are that the worker is on holiday, is genuinely ill or has suffered some domestic calamity or mischance which prevents his going to work. All those reasons are included in absenteeism and in the figures which are quoted in this Report. In the Ministry of Supply we have been seeking, in the first place, to remove as far as we can the causes of absence, and secondly to keep a rather closer control over the causes of absence which amount to anything like truancy. I am happy to say that much progress has been made in the course of the last months, as the figures which I propose to give the House will show. Taking the whole range of the 23 engineering Royal Ordnance factories, the figures for casual absence in the last six months have been reduced in the case of men from 4.6 to 2.5 per cent. and in the case of women from 10.5 to 5.2 per cent. In the explosives factories the casual absence of men has been reduced in six months from 6.4 to 3.1 per cent. and for women from 19.5 to 10.8 per cent.
Mr. Silkin: Is the hon. Gentleman comparing a date in the winter with a date in the summer?
Mr. Quibell: What dates do those figures cover?
Mr. Assheton: I am comparing the figures for the last six months, which is the period I have been in the Department.
Mr. Silkin: With figures for a date in the winter?
Mr. Assheton: Yes, this is certainly comparing it with the winter, but the figures also compare favourably with those of a year ago. Figures for the filling factories also show considerable improvement, but they are less satisfactory, and as various hon. Members have pointed out this is due partly to the great size of these undertakings, and partly to the fact that a very great many of the workers in them have been quite unused to factory life, that they have sometimes very long distances to travel and that there is a great deal of fatigue attached to it. But even they show a considerable improvement. They

1149
show a reduction in casual absence in the last six months, for men from 12 to 4.6 per cent. and women women from 23.5 to 13 per cent. That is a great improvement, whatever anybody may say, and is certainly not accounted for by the time of year. We must remember that in these filling factories by far the greater part of the population is female, and it is inevitable, owing to domestic and other reasons, that absenteeism is higher among women than it is among men.
I hope the House will not think that my right hon. Friend and I are in any way satisfied, or that we are unconscious of the fact that we must continue to make the greatest efforts to do better still. We have been fortunate in having the goodwill of the trade unions and of the workers, and, given those two factors, I have no doubt that conditions will continue to improve. While we condemn strongly truancy of any sort, I am sure the House recognises the great difficulties with which the working population of this country has been faced, and the really gallant way in which both men and women have faced the difficulties.
Mr. Kirkwood: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask him whether it is not the case that the greatest amount of absenteeism is among women, and whether it is not the case, as far as the men are concerned, that many of them, through no fault of their own, have not been in the habit of working so regularly, because of unemployment? Thousands who formerly were always unemployed are now employed, and it was not their fault that they got into bad habits.
Mr. Assheton: Both the observations of the hon. Member are quite true. A great deal was said about hours of work, and I should like to tell the House that as far as hours of work in engineering factories are concerned—and that was the section of the Royal Ordnance factories which were criticised in that respect, because the filling factories are on three shifts of eight hours—there has in the last few months been a considerable reduction, and the figures have shown a reduction of between 10 and 12 per cent. The Minister has already told the House what his ambitions are for the next three months, and I have no doubt that they will be realised. I know hon. Members
1150
realise and appreciate that the question of reducing hours of work is one which has to be carefully dealt with, and negotiated with the unions in the particular factories, because a reduction of the hours of work is not always as welcome in the factories as one might think from listening to Debates in the House of Commons.
I wonder if I might say just one word about criticism. Criticism is so very different to the critics and to the criticised. Criticism was defined by Matthew Arnold as
"a distinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought."
Strictly speaking, the word means judgment, but it has come rather to mean unfavourable judgment and fault-finding. Perhaps owing to the very nature of their work the Report of the Select Committee is largely fault-finding. When the Report was published the general comment could not fail to have given the impression to the public and to the workers in the ordnance factories that the management was inefficient and incompetent. I beg the House to consider if they will for one moment the effect of that upon different sets of people. The effect on the management at headquarters is bound to be very depressing. Whereas they feel, and rightly, that their achievement has been considerable, and has been accomplished in spite of great difficulties, the impression given to the world, a world which does not read things very carefully, and is over-impressed by headlines and so on, is rather one of failure. After all, the real test is this: Have the goods been delivered? The answer is, "Yes." As my right hon. Friend has told the House to-day about the programme of the factories 98 per cent. of a very high target has been achieved in the first six months of this year, and we are going ahead of that, and will certainly achieve 100 per cent. during the year.
Then contemplate for a minute the effect on the workers. How can you expect good discipline and morale if the workers are encouraged to believe that those responsible for running the organisation are a lot of incompetent muddlers? How can you expect newly-engaged employees to enter with enthusiasm upon their tasks, which are nearly always unfamiliar and very often uncongenial to them, when they read in the newspapers

1151
that there is a gross surplus of workpeople in the factories—that there are 30,000 too many? Think of the men in the Services. What do they feel when they read about the organisation behind them which provides their equipment? Think of the effect upon our Allies, upon the general public and upon the employers whose workers have been taken away from them and, put into these factories. One cannot be surprised that there should be some resentment among those responsible when a picture is given to the public, which for good reason or bad gives so much blame and so little praise, when really great praise is due.
Mr. Quibell: Does the hon. Gentleman not think he should discharge the Committee?
Mr. Assheton: That is not within my function. The achievement is that we have over 40 great Royal Ordnance factories built and equipped, and provided with labour and management. Two or three years ago most of these sites were green fields. There was only a tiny nucleus of skilled management on which to draw, and by far the greater majority of these workers have had to be trained from the very beginning. In spite of this, the job has been done, the guns have been made and the shells have been filled. I am thankful that to-day the Ministry of Supply is being called upon to defend itself on the charge that it has done too much rather than too little.
Mr. Aromon: My hon. Friend must know the comment of the Committee in paragraph 14:
"Your Committee were impressed by the competence of the majority of Superintendents."
Mr. Assheton: I quite appreciate that. We were very glad to read it. I also appreciated the second paragraph, which said:
"Your Committee are glad to state that these hopes appear to some extent to have been justified, and in the last year, and more particularly within the last six months, substantial increases in efficiency and output have been achieved."
But the impression given to the general public is apt to be the impression which they gather from headlines in newspapers. One cannot blame the newspapers for quoting from the Report. When you see
1152
headlines, as I saw the day after the Report was published: "Orgy of Muddle," "Waste Disclosure," "Idle Floor-Space in Factories Alleged," and so on, you can see what impression is being created. I do not want the House to think that we are in any way complacent, or uncritical of ourselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are aware that there are many shortcomings. But I claim that there are few achievements in the history of the war which are greater than the building, the equipping, and the putting into production of these great Royal Ordnance factories. I should like to add to the tribute already paid to the Director of Ordnance Factories and to the Director of Filling Factories. These Royal Ordnance factories are a great national enterprise. The superintendents and all who work in them are immensely proud of their service, and of the great tradition behind it. I was in an ordnance factory last week which has a history going back to the days of Elizabeth, and which was taken over by the State in the time of Pitt, in the Napoleonic Wars. Incidentally, I talked to a foreman in that factory who had worked there 52 years, and who had lost only one hour in the last war and hardly any in this. These factories form a great national insurance in time of peace, and a great national asset in time of war. Great work is done in them, experiments are carried out, and one could only wish that more use had been made of them before the war.
Of course, there are faults in national enterprise, as there are in private enterprise. But when I see the enthusiasm, the energy, and the public spirit of those who are responsible at headquarters, whether professional civil servants or men drawn in from outside during the war, I can only feel encouraged and inspired, and I should like to pass on this encouragement and inspiration to the House. I have seen the work done in the factories. A great deal of it is done by women unaccustomed to factory life. They accept very cheerfully the hard life and the risks which they run from explosion and from air attack. This great achievement of the Royal Ordnance factories has not been accomplished without blood and tears, toil and sweat. There are many stories of heroism in this war which cannot yet be told. The stories of

1153
the Royal Ordnance factories are among them: the heroism of those who do their daily work amidst these risks, the heroism of those who experiment with new explosives. Let us, therefore, praise the management and the workers for what they have accomplished, and let us seek thereby to encourage them to greater efforts in the future. Let us give them confidence in the higher direction of the Department, by discounting some of the stories of incompetence and muddle which we have heard. If there are faults—and no doubt there are—we will do all in our power to cure them, but pray let us go forward on our task with the knowledge that we have the full confidence of the House of Commons and of the country.
Sir Ralph Glyn: Is my hon. Friend going to deal with the matter of the supervisory and production staff as he promised? I understood that he was going to say something about paragraph 26, which deals with the disproportion of supervisory staff to workers being one to five.
Mr. Assheton: There is one point I should like to make on inspection, and it is not whether there should be joint inspection for the three Services, but whether there is too large an inspection staff. Inspection staff, like the rest of our staff, has all had to be trained new, and as it gets better and more expert in its work it will be possible to do the work with less staff, and as workers get better in their work there will be need for less inspection, and which I hope we shall improve and be able gradually to reduce numbers.
Mr. Benson: I do not propose to keep the House long, but I think that this Debate has justified itself thoroughly, not because the Report of the Committee has disclosed faults, but because the Government have come out extraordinarily well. I feel, having listened to the major portion of the Debate, that the Government have had a fairly complete answer to the bulk of the findings of the Committee. Nobody anticipates that the enormous machinery we have is going to run like a small sewing-machine. There are bound to be defects. It may be true that the Report of the Committee is fault-finding. That is the purpose of the Committee. The
1154
astonishing thing is not that it has found so much fault but that in this enormous machine it has been able to find so little. Its job is to go through the whole process to find out what is wrong. It has reported on certain details. On the majority of those details the Ministry of Supply has justified its position and explained how these various defects and irregularities have arisen, and if you meet with a difficulty which is inevitable, it is not the fault of the Government Department, and it is no evidence of incompetence. Some people seem to grumble when the Government have an adequate reply to criticism. It seems to me a matter for rejoicing rather. I emphasise what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that these headlines and the continual spate of criticism thus poured out are bound to have a depressing effect in the country. Our foreign news is bad enough at the present time, but by enlarging the proportion of faults and mistakes and miscalculations we add to the depression. I feel that the Government have come out of this Debate very well indeed, and I am convinced that they would have come out of other Debates very well indeed also if they had been able to reply as freely and adequately as has the Minister of Supply.
Mr. Tinker: Are there any means by which some part of this reply can be given to the workers? Wherever I go there are complaints about the carrying-on of ordnance factories, and if the statements which have been made by both the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary would be distributed among the workers, it would have a good effect. After all, these adverse conditions have gone forth and are well known, and I was not aware that such an effective reply could be given to them. If these details could be given to the workers concerned, it would have a good effect.
Sir P. Harmon: Would it be possible to issue some printed leaflet so that the substance of the reply could be distributed throughout the whole country?
Sir A. Duncan: I will give consideration to these suggestions.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Horley District Gas Company, which was presented on 9th July and published, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Kidsgrove
1156
Gaslight Company, which was presented on 16th July and published, be approved."—[Mr. T. Smith.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order

  AERODROME CONSTRUCTION (WAGES RATES).
  AERODROME CONSTRUCTION (WAGES RATES).
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  Director-General of Administrative Services.
  Director-General of Administrative Services.
  Kitchen Waste (Collection).
  Kitchen Waste (Collection).
  Wood (Supplies).
  Wood (Supplies).
  Royal Ordnance Factories.
  Royal Ordnance Factories.
  Rubber Reclamation (Report).
  Rubber Reclamation (Report).
  Rubber Control.
  Rubber Control.
  DEFENCE (FINANCE) REGULATIONS.
  DEFENCE (FINANCE) REGULATIONS.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, SELECTION (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, SELECTION (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
  MESSRS. STANLEY TAYLOR MOTORS, LTD.
  MESSRS. STANLEY TAYLOR MOTORS, LTD.
BRITISH ARMY.
  Voluntary Aid Detachments.
  Voluntary Aid Detachments.
  Agricultural Land (Requisitioning).
  Agricultural Land (Requisitioning).
  SS. "AVILA STAR" (DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT).
  SS. "AVILA STAR" (DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (TOBACCO PRICES).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (TOBACCO PRICES).
  OMNIBUS SERVICE, HAINAULT FOREST.
  OMNIBUS SERVICE, HAINAULT FOREST.
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (BLACKOUT).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (BLACKOUT).
  ROAD PASSENGER SERVICES, LONDON.
  ROAD PASSENGER SERVICES, LONDON.
  WAR TRANSPORT (ROAD HAULAGE SCHEME).
  WAR TRANSPORT (ROAD HAULAGE SCHEME).
ARMED FORCES.
  Travel Warrants.
  Travel Warrants.
  Persons of Alien Parentage (Eligibility).
  Persons of Alien Parentage (Eligibility).
  TRAFFIC LIGHTS (RESTRICTED USE).
  TRAFFIC LIGHTS (RESTRICTED USE).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (MOTOR VEHICLES).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (MOTOR VEHICLES).
  BRITISH MANUFACTURE AND RESEARCH CO., LTD.
  BRITISH MANUFACTURE AND RESEARCH CO., LTD.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  Income Tax (Incidence).
  Income Tax (Incidence).
  National Income.
  National Income.
  Coinage (Copper).
  Coinage (Copper).
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST.
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST.
  SIAMESE NATIONALS, GREAT BRITAIN.
  SIAMESE NATIONALS, GREAT BRITAIN.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE SCALES, SCOTLAND.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE SCALES, SCOTLAND.
  GAS MASKS (PRESERVATION).
  GAS MASKS (PRESERVATION).
  "DAILY WORKER."
  "DAILY WORKER."
  SIERRA LEONE (WALLACE JOHNSON).
  SIERRA LEONE (WALLACE JOHNSON).
FUEL AND POWER.
  Mine-Workers (Wage Award).
  Mine-Workers (Wage Award).
  Coal Outcrop Sites (Reinstatement).
  Coal Outcrop Sites (Reinstatement).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  Northern Ireland and Eire (Smuggling).
  Northern Ireland and Eire (Smuggling).
  British Restaurants.
  British Restaurants.
  Bacon Industry (Concentration).
  Bacon Industry (Concentration).
  Potatoes.
  Potatoes.
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
  National Savings (News in Welsh).
  National Savings (News in Welsh).
  Shipping Position (Broadcast Commentary).
  Shipping Position (Broadcast Commentary).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  Ground Staff (Officers' Pay and Promotion).
  Ground Staff (Officers' Pay and Promotion).
  Service Footwear.
  Service Footwear.
  RAILINGS, REMOVAL (GLOUCESTERSHIRE).
  RAILINGS, REMOVAL (GLOUCESTERSHIRE).
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (VISITING FORCES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
HORLEY DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1942.

  KIDSGROVE GAS ORDER, 1942.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders be agreed to.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOLE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

INTERNATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION.
LORD DAVIES LORD DAVIES rose to call attention to the implications of the Atlantic Charter and the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, and to urge the necessity of establishing an Inter-Allied Commission before the conclusion of hostilities to consider these implications, and to submit proposals for the closest collaboration of the United Nations in post-war reconstruction through the establishment of an international authority; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Paper standing in my name. I need not remind your Lordships that we are now almost entering upon the fourth year of the war. Naturally our attention is concentrated upon the military measures of the United Nations, but one cannot help feeling that this development of our strategy and of opposing a united front to the common enemy should not be confined to military measures alone. That is why I offer no
196
apology for having put down this Motion. I believe that strategy in its widest sense includes not only military efforts in the field but also the progressive development of our war aims. It is the combination of the spiritual and the material forces which is essential to securing complete and decisive victory over our enemies. I need not remind your Lordships that this combination is described as morale. Napoleon's dictum was that the moral is to the material as three to one. Therefore these two things—the military effort and the development of our war aims—are complementary and should be conceived in an offensive and not merely a defensive attitude.
During the past year the United Nations have made considerable progress in the declarations of their war aims, and we have read two historic documents. First of all, in the Anglo-Soviet Pact there are several allusions to the common war aims of the Russian Government and ourselves. May I be allowed to quote just three paragraphs in that Treaty? In the Preamble it says:
"Desiring, moreover, to give expression to their intention to collaborate closely with one another as well as with the other United Nations at the peace settlement and during the ensuing period of reconstruction on the basis of the principles enunciated in the Declaration made on 14th August, 1941, by the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Great Britain to which the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has adhered:"
Then Article III says:
"The High Contracting Parties declare their desire to unite with other like-minded States in adopting proposals for common action to preserve peace and resist aggression in the post-war period."
That, I think your Lordships will agree, is a very important declaration on the part of the Soviet Union and on the part of the Government of this country.
The most important declaration of all, however, is Article 8 of the Atlantic Charter which has been endorsed by all the United Nations. I think your Lordships agreed some time ago, during the debate that we had on the Atlantic Charter, that this was one of the greatest steps forward which had been taken to enunciate our war aims since the beginning of the war, because not only does it lay stress upon defensive measures which will have to be taken, but it also sets forth the positive aims which animate the United Nations in this great struggle. I

197
would point out that the Atlantic Charter is not merely a unilateral declaration, it is a multilateral pronouncement which has been endorsed by all the United Nations, and so it differs from a some-what similar declaration made before the conclusion of the last war when President Wilson enunciated his Fourteen Points. The essential difference seems to me to be this, that in that case it was a unilateral pronouncement coming from the head of the Government of the United States whereas the Atlantic Charter has been endorsed by all.
There is another feature, I think, which these two declarations have in common—namely, that they are somewhat vague and nebulous in the proposals which they put forward. They are aspirations rather than definite proposals, and so one wonders what are the implications of those Articles. I cannot help feeling that the next step to be taken is the clarification of the implications contained in these Articles, especially in order to maintain the unity and solidarity of the United Nations. It is suggested, therefore, that steps should be taken towards this clarification, and to define precisely what the implications mean, before, and not after, the conclusion of the war. It seems to me that it is very much easier to secure a common measure of agreement now than it would be if you wait till hostilities have come to an end. We remember that there was supposed to be general agreement about the Fourteen Points but when, at the end of the last war, it came to defining what these points meant and to working out their implications, it was discovered that this unanimity no longer existed. There was a great deal of discussion as to what these points and the declarations that had been made really meant when it came to transforming them into actual results.
Your Lordships will remember that during the last war a number of slogans were used and vague promises made, and one cannot help feeling that in these days the people now demand something more practical and more tangible. They want to know how these promises and declarations are going to be implemented. We were told during the last war that it was a war to end war, we were told it was a war to destroy militarism and to put an end to the system of international duelling. We were also told it was a war to restore the freedom of the small countries that had been overrun. The two specific
198
instances were, of course, Belgium and Serbia. We were further told that the war was being fought to make the world safe for democracy, and, alluding to our domestic problems, we were told that this was to be a land fit for heroes to live in. I cannot help feeling that we are now fighting for very much the same principles and very much the same objectives as we were fighting for during the last war, but people are now becoming rather more sceptical than they were in those days. For that reason they are rather apt to look sceptically at slogans and declarations and aspirations unless they are also told how these things are to be really accomplished and what institutions will be necessary in order to implement them. That seems to me to be what might be described as the dry rot of morale—this horrible scepticism which has entered into people's minds; for, while I am sure the vast majority of people are prepared to recognize the good intentions of the Government, of the leaders of public opinion here and the leaders of the Governments of other Allied countries, they are anxious to know how these promises and aspirations are to be actually carried out.
There have been pronouncements by individual Ministers and leaders both here and in the United States, notably in the speeches we read a few days ago of Mr. Sumner Welles and Mr. Cordell Hull, and Mr. Eden and the Leader of this House, Lord Cranborne, in the debate we had the other day. In all these pronouncements the speakers showed that they realized the importance of clarification, and their speeches were really attempts to suggest clarification of the Articles of the Atlantic Charter. If I may be allowed to draw your Lordships' attention very briefly to some of the implications, I will do so not in order to elicit replies from the Government or answers to the questions which I shall venture to put, but merely by way of illustration to show how important it is that there should be some body set up—an Inter-Allied body—that will discuss all these points and reach some measure of common agreement.
May I for a moment venture to draw your Lordships' attention to some of what I call these implications? The second Article of the Atlantic Charter deals with the problem of territorial changes and

199
lays down the principle that there should be
"no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely-expressed wishes of the peoples concerned."
One naturally asks whether these changes are to be brought about by some sort of plebiscite, which has been one of the methods employed in discovering the wishes of populations concerned. This obviously needs most careful inquiry and investigation. There have been a number of plebiscites, some of them absolutely fictitious. For instance, the plebiscite which Hitler carried out in Austria was an absolute sham. Coercion and pressure were brought to bear and it was a complete sham and delusion. I believe the most successful plebiscite was the one carried out in the Saar where, your Lordships will remember, an international police force was dispatched in order to maintain law and order and prevent pressure and coercion being brought to bear upon the inhabitants of the Saar who were asked to register their votes. I believe that was most successful. But the whole subject is surrounded by all sorts of difficulties, and it would appear only sensible that an Inter-Allied Commission should inquire as to how plebiscites can be carried out in such a way that people can give a free and untrammelled vote. One of the experts on the subject is Miss Sarah Wambaugh, who has written a book about it. She was, I believe, actually on the spot when several of these plebiscites were carried out. She has given her impressions of the difficulties and her opinion as to how they can be overcome. That is one subject for investigation.
Then we come to Article 3 of the Charter. That has to do with the way in which peoples are to choose the forms of government under which they desire to live. The Article says that the signatories
"wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them."
One naturally asks what is going to happen at the end of what is described as the short-term or transitional period when the wish of the people will be ascertained. How is that to be done? Is it to be done by national assemblies, elected and summoned to draft the new Constitutions, or will the ad hoc Governments during the transitional period be entrusted with this
200
task? Will any reservation be made about the full assumption of sovereign rights? One cannot help feeling that that was one of the points which Mr. Cordell Hull had in mind when he made his speech the other day—that sovereign rights will be employed in order to secure what is described as the international mechanism to prevent future wars and to maintain co-operation between the nations. Article 4 deals with access to raw materials and one would like to ask whether that involves free trade and free access to raw materials everywhere. That in itself is a tremendous subject which requires to be most carefully investigated. Next we come to Article 5, which alludes to economic conditions, and one would like to ask whether the implications of this Article can be achieved through the medium of some world confederation, through the appointment of ad hoc Commissions to inquire into the various aspects of these economic questions, and whether the International Labour Office will be brought in with the experience and the knowledge which it has already accumulated.
Article 6 is very important because it has to do with preventing future wars. It says:
"After the final destruction of Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want."
That is a very noble aspiration and one naturally asks what sort of peaceful procedure there is to be for the settlement of all disputes, whether they happen to be juridical disputes or political disputes. We are told there is to be a police system. If so, how is an International Police Force to be recruited, armed, maintained and controlled? One would like to ask what is the meaning of "freedom from fear and want." Does that mean equality in the sight of the law, the right to work, the right to a minimum wage and a minimum standard of living, and if so, is there to be some new charter of the rights of man?
Article 7 is a very short Article, which says
"Such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance."
One naturally asks whether that means the freedom of the seas, and whether the

201
freedom of the seas can be construed in the sense that President Wilson himself interpreted it when he said there should be
"Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas outside territorial waters, alike in peace and war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenant."
I am afraid that in the past freedom of the seas has not been construed in that sense. It would be a great step forward if we could be assured by the noble and learned Viscount who, I understand, is going to reply, that Article 7 does mean the freedom of the seas in the sense in which President Wilson interpreted it. And coming to the last paragraph of all, Article 8, one would like to ask whether this implies a complete abandonment of the use of force under a permanent system of general security. The Article speaks of "the abandonment of the use of force." Or does it mean that in order to rid themselves of the crushing burden of armaments the peace-loving nations are prepared to pool their armaments for police purposes under the control of an international authority?
I hope I have said enough to show that all these questions ought to be investigated and that they should be investigated jointly by representatives of the Allied countries. That means the setting up of some Inter-Allied Commission which would carry out these investigations and this research. Now one cannot help feeling, also, that it must involve a considerable amount of time. Therefore, such investigation ought to be started as soon as possible because, after all, it means the preparation and the drafting of international legislation for the world for many years to come, and that, obviously, is a tremendous task. We do not want a repetition of what happened at Versailles, when these things were all rushed through in the course of a very few months, and when decisions were taken sometimes, perhaps, without that due deliberation and consideration which they should have had. With regard to the procedure, it is common procedure in our own domestic affairs in this country, when legislation is contemplated in regard to some specific subject, to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject objectively before Bills are drafted and legislation introduced. One cannot help feeling that the same principle really applies in the case of such important
202
matters as those to which I have alluded, the implications of the Atlantic Charter, in order, if possible, that the representatives of all the United Nations may be able to discover some common denominator of agreed policy and agreed programme which, of course, they can afterwards submit to their respective Governments before any action is taken.
Your Lordships will probably say this is a matter which concerns the Governments and nobody else, that it concerns only the Foreign Offices involved. After all, we must admit that Ministers in every Department of State have their time absorbed in trying to win the war. That is obviously their first duty, and obviously their first preoccupation. Therefore they have no time to examine these things objectively as they should be examined. Is it not sensible, therefore, that they should delegate this duty and this responsibility to appropriate persons who have the time at their disposal to study them, and if necessary to take evidence from bodies which have been concerned in these matters in different countries, and then to make suggestions as to how these matters and problems can be dealt with? At the moment, so far as I know, the only thing we have done is to give the Paymaster-General a general direction to inquire not only into reconstruction problems in the international sphere, but also into our domestic problems as well, and to make proposals for reconstruction after the war. One cannot help thinking that this is a tremendous load to place upon the shoulders of any one person or of any one Department. In the last war the domestic problems of reconstruction were dealt with by the Minister of Reconstruction, my noble friend Lord Addison, and they were separated from the international problems. So what I venture to suggest is that now is the appropriate moment to refer international problems, if it is thought feasible, through Sir William Jowitt, through the Paymaster-General's Department, to an Inter-Allied body which will be invited to study them and to make some definite proposals.
At the end of the last war, or before the end of the war, early in 1918, it was suggested that an Inter-Allied Commission should be set up at Versailles, corresponding to the Military Missions which were functioning there at that time, to deal with the post-war problems, and to work out

203
the implications of the Fourteen Points and the other pronouncements that had been made. It was also suggested, I think, that ex-President Taft, who at that time was Chairman of the League to Enforce Peace, in the United States, should be invited to come and take part in the discussions of this Commission. Unfortunately, however, these suggestions were vetoed by President Wilson at that time, and nothing came of them. But action was taken by the Foreign Office, which set up what was called the Phillimore Committee. Early in 1918, acting on a suggestion put forward by my noble friend Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, shortly after he became a Minister in 1916, the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Balfour, appointed a Committee "on the League of Nations." It was composed of the Chairman, Sir Walter (afterwards Lord) Phillimore, Professor Pollard, a constitutional historian, Sir Julian Corbett and Dr. Holland Rose, both naval historians, Sir Eyre Crowe, Sir William (now Lord) Tyrrell, and Mr. (now Sir) Cecil Hurst, legal adviser. The last three were important members of the Foreign Office, but the bearers of the first four names I have read out were persons who had no particular connexion with that Office and were called in from outside.
Under their terms of reference the Committee were directed
"to inquire, particularly from a juridical and historical point of view, into the various schemes for establishing by means of a League of Nations, or other device, some alternative to war as a means of settling international disputes."
and, if they thought fit, "to elaborate a further scheme." As your Lordships are aware, the Phillimore Committee entered with zest into the problems which had been set them. They examined all the proposals that had been put forward for the prevention of war, starting with Sully's Grand Design, and working down through the centuries, and at the end of it they submitted to the Foreign Office and afterwards to the Commission of the League of Nations, the Commission at Paris, their Report. That Report, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, will agree, formed the basis of discussion in the League of Nations Commission. I feel it would have been better had there been at that time an Inter-Allied Commission which would have secured a considerable measure of common agreement
204
before, and not after, the whole matter was referred to the Peace Conference in Paris.
Your Lordships will remember that in the debate the other day there was general agreement that there must be two periods after the war, a short-term period and a long-term period. That is also emphasized in the Atlantic Charter. The short-term period would deal specifically with the economic questions which are bound to arise at the conclusion of the war—the rehabilitation of the occupied countries, the feeding of starving populations, and so on. It would be concerned with immediate measures which will have to be taken as soon as the war is over. The long-term period must deal with the political machinery which is considered to be essential for dealing with the prevention of future wars. I cannot help feeling that the time has now come to make preparations for those two periods, and there must be some co-ordinating link between the Committees or Commissions which deal with them.
We are told that we cannot do that because the isolationists would be up in arms. I think it is probably true that they would be up in arms, but are we always to be scared of the isolationists? There are isolationists in this and other countries as well as in the United States of America. I was very interested to read a lucid speech delivered the other day by Mr. Archibald MacLeish, Librarian of Congress, at Cambridge, and perhaps I may quote a few words from The Times of 31st July last, which reported him as saying:
"Isolationism in America was dead; but old isolationists never really died; they merely dug their toes in in a new position. Where the old isolationism opposed the country's determination to face the war, the new isolationism opposed the country's determination to face the peace.… The isolationists were isolationists still, and still sought the insulation of their country—by which they meant the insulation of the status quo within their country—from the history of the time. If they must have war they would have a war which would alter nothing and accomplish nothing; a war which should have neither social effects nor political implications—a purely military exercise."
I do not think that we have to bow down to these isolationists, but we do have to face them, and we have to fight this new phase of the policy of appeasement, just as we had to fight another phase of it before we entered this war.
There is one last observation which I wish to make. If an Inter-Allied Commission does produce interim reports from time to time on all these implications of the Atlantic Charter, I believe that that will tend to strengthen the morale of the United Nations and, on the other hand, to weaken and undermine the morale of the Axis peoples. I was reading the other day an interesting little book published recently called Last Train from Berlin, from which I gather that the morale of the German people is gradually deteriorating. I believe that reports from a Commission such as I have ventured to suggest would hasten that deterioration. I therefore appeal to the noble and learned Viscount who is going to reply on behalf of the Government to consider this matter very carefully. The failure of the League of Nations has disillusioned many people, and what the common people of this and other countries want to know is how these promises and declarations which are incorporated in the Atlantic Charter are going to be implemented, and how the rule of law is going to be firmly established in the world. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the Motion before us says, in effect, that it is desirable to have an elaboration of the implications of the Atlantic Charter and of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty; in other words, my noble friend suggests that a more detailed peace policy ought to be agreed upon by the Government, and ought to be announced by them, so far as they thought it right to do so. I am in entire agreement with my noble friend in thinking that some further steps towards the formulation of a peace policy are extremely desirable, and I am strengthened in that view by a speech made on July 25 last by Sir Stafford Cripps, who spoke of the importance of "the interpretation of the generalities of the Atlantic Charter." That is really the same preposition as the proposition of my noble friend. It is, I think, very generally desired in this country that some such general statement should be made, and I have every reason to believe that it is very much desired in other countries also, particularly in America. I agree with my noble friend in thinking that it would have a beneficial effect in increasing the morale and the desire for victory of the United Nations, and in diminishing the desire to resist on the part of enemy countries.
206
I am bound to admit, however, that I am not quite satisfied that my noble friend's proposed machinery would be the best way of dealing with the subject, at any rate at present. He suggests an Inter-Allied Commission. Many of your Lordships have had some experience of international gatherings; I have had some, and others have had much more. I think they will agree with me when I say that an Allied gathering, whether it be called a Conference or a Commission, unless it has some very definite statement put before it, is not likely to reach any very useful results. I do not know anything more futile than general discussions on these subjects in an Allied gathering. It usually leads to speeches by people who are most anxious not to commit themselves to anything, and who therefore make very eloquent general observations which are pretty nearly valueless. Moreover, there are practical difficulties in my noble friend's proposal which I am not sure that he has fully considered. We have at present in this City, I am glad to think, a great number of eminent persons who are natives or citizens of Allied countries. But they are not really in the position to say completely what their countries want, because their countries are at this moment in the occupation of a foreign conqueror. Though it would be invidious to mention particular countries, I think that if anybody passed in review the kind of countries that we should wish to consult, the kind of people who would be available to be consulted, he would agree that very great practical difficulties would arise in forming any Commission that could be regarded as having any considerable international authority.
In addition to those objections, I think there is a preliminary that we ought really to cope with at this moment. The first thing that is important in any action we take is that we should know exactly what it is that we wish to put before the world as the proper settlement after the war—not in detail, I agree, but in general lines; and I observe that Sir Stafford Cripps in the speech which I mentioned agrees with that, thinks it is very important that there should be further interpretation of the generalities of the Atlantic Charter, and holds the view that the speeches to which my noble friend has alluded, the speeches of distinguished Ministers and others in this country and

207
in America, have been important steps with that object. I agree as to their importance, indeed I think that some of them at any rate are of the very first possible importance; but I cannot think they are enough. I should have thought we ought to be quite clear that there is working somewhere in the Cabinet, or in any other form of inquiry that may commend itself to the Government, a really formal elaborate investigation of the many problems which will arise in settlement of the peace after the war. We are told that the Paymaster-General is dealing with it. I understood on the last occasion when we discussed these matters that the Paymaster-General was engaged in an inquiry, particularly into economic and other similar questions. That is indeed a very important matter, and I hope that the inquiry is being pressed with all vigour. But we shall have to do more than that. We have to make up our minds what is to be the broad general nature of the peace that we are going to ask for: to put it quite shortly, what is the practical kind of answer we make to the German claim for a new world order, which they have put before the peoples of the world as their object in this war.
I confess that I think it is certainly a matter for the Government to consider, as my noble friend suggested, whether some kind of British Committee might not be constituted to investigate the matter. He referred to the precedent of Lord Phillimore's Committee, a very able and influential Committee, which certainly did admirable work, but only investigated, of course, one particular aspect of the question, and, if he will allow me to say so, never reported to the Commission and the Conference, but reported strictly to the British Cabinet. But if that was not thought a good plan in existing circumstances, I have sometimes wondered—if it is not too revolutionary a suggestion—whether this House might not appoint a Committee of its members to consider this question. We are fortunate in having as members of this House gentlemen who have a great deal of knowledge and experience in a great number of subjects which would come up for discussion in any international conference. I do not think it would be at all difficult for anyone to draw up the list of a Select Committee of this House which could give very
208
important advice and assistance to the Government on these questions.
I quite recognize the force of what my noble friend said, that during the war it is difficult for actual Ministers to find time to make really thorough investigation of these subjects, and some body or other ought to exist which would be able to present for the consideration of Ministers either a plan or some alternative plans on the subject. But I do not want to go into that at any length because I agree with Sir Stafford Cripps that the speeches which have been delivered have done a great deal to clear matters up. Sir Stafford mentioned six eminent persons, and I notice that five of them were Americans and only one was a British speaker. And he did say that the speeches of President Roosevelt, Mr. Cordell Hull, Mr. Sumner Welles, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perkins had all added a great deal to our knowledge and to our appreciation of the force of the Atlantic Charter.
I think personally that of all those speeches none can compare in importance with the one recently delivered by Mr. Cordell Hull. It was an immensely important speech, if I may say so without impertinence. It was delivered, of course, by one whom we should call the Foreign Secretary of the United States. It was delivered after consultation, as we are now informed, with the President; indeed, it has been stated in the American Press that every paragraph and every sentence was discussed between them. Its intrinsic value, as I think everyone who has read it would admit, is very great. It has not in fact been published anywhere in this country in full. I think that is very regrettable. But even in the extracts that have been published you can see of what immense importance it really was. And it is the more important because quite recently the American Ambassador has stated in public that this speech represents the views not only of Mr. Cordell Hull, it represents the views of the American Government. As I understand their Constitution, it is not always the case that a Minister who speaks in the United States speaks for the whole American Government, but in this case he did. His statements must be taken as definitely embodying the policy which the American Government approve. And not only so, but this speech—and I am going to draw attention to some of the things he said—has been very widely welcomed by the people of

209
the United States. Practically the whole Press, with the exception of one or two extreme insolationist organs, has expressed its approval of what he said. Therefore it does mean something—a great diplomatic event, to put it no higher than that—a great world event I should say—which we ought to consider most carefully in any action we are going to take in this matter.
I hope your Lordships will permit me to run very shortly through this speech—not the whole of it, but those parts which seem to me to make practical definite suggestions as to what our peace policy should be. In the first place, he lays down the principle that the price of peace is the acceptance of international responsibility. That is a very important statement, particularly by an American statesman, and no doubt it is very largely directed to American opinion. In other passages he does not conceal his judgment that America made a great mistake in retiring after the conclusion of the last war without taking part in the elaboration of the peace settlement. I think that is true of other countries besides America. I do not want to go into past controversies, but I think it is true it was not sufficiently recognized, either in this country or in other countries, that if you are to have any enduring peace settlement it must be at the price of undertaking international responsibilities. That seems to me a statement of policy by the American Government of the utmost importance.
The next statement he makes is that no internal progress—I think what he means by that is any progress in internal reform, in what we hear so much of as social and economic reform in this country—is practicable in any permanent way while there is a fear of external attack. He therefore laid it down that whatever great advance you may be able to make in internal reforms—and it is most certain that a great deal of attention will be devoted to that matter at the end of the war—that will not do by itself. You have got to have something more than that if you are to have any prospect of permanent improvement. You must have some form of established peace before you can hope for any form of permanent progress. That also seems to me a matter of vast importance for us to realize and consider, whether we accept it or not. Next—and this of course is also of the first importance—he says there must be an international agency to keep the peace, by
210
force if necessary. My noble friend suggests something of the kind in his Motion; he suggests the establishment of an international authority. He has the warm support, apparently, of the American Government for that proposal.
I hope your Lordships will recognize that it is a little difficult for me to speak on this subject without making what will only be a passing reference to what I, myself, believe to have been the very unfortunate policy we pursued in the interval between the two wars in not giving sufficient support to the international authority which had been brought into existence and which was, as I then thought and still think, the only hope for the maintenance of peace. However, whether that is true or not, here at any rate you have the judgment of the American Government that some form of international agency is absolutely essential if you are to preserve peace, and that agency must be prepared to act, not only by remonstrance or diplomatic means, but if necessary by force. I do not say the international agency is to be bound to act, but it is to have the right to call upon force for the maintenance of peace if it is to be effective for that purpose. Surely our experience on the outbreak of this war is clear enough support for that doctrine. For reasons into which I shall not go, we were unable, or thought ourselves unable, to utilize the international authority which had been brought into existence, and when the Germans finally decided to invade Poland, and we decided to support her, we had nothing to back us at all, according to the view that was then taken of our international position.
What did we do? We recognized immediately it was very undesirable that we should try and bear the whole burden of this war on our own shoulders, and we sought to obtain from this country or that country—from Poland itself and from other countries—some kind of support in our effort. We had France of course. We thought France was going to support us, and we tried to get others. What happened? There were no prior preparations for any such action. The Germans marched first against Norway and then against the other countries, Denmark, Holland, and Belgium, and having overrun them, taking each of them in succession, turned her forces on France and overran France. So it went on until she had overrun the very large portion of

211
Europe she at present occupies more or less effectively. We did not avoid international action by the course that was followed. International alliance in some form was found to be essential, but we had made so little effective preparation for it, or had been able to make so little effective preparation, that when the blow was struck we were forced to make our preparations at the last minute. That seems to me a completely satisfactory defence of the dictum of Mr. Cordell Hull that there must be created an international agency to keep the peace, by force if necessary.
In the next proposition to which I wish to refer he deals with the suggestion that this involves a destruction of national sovereignty, that if they are to be absorbed in one international body the various nations will have their national sovereignty destroyed. There was no question in Mr. Cordell Hull's scheme of any absorption, but there is undoubtedly some kind of obligation by which the countries that come into this arrangement would be bound to use their strength in support of the general object of keeping the peace, by force if necessary. He says—I think very ingeniously—that so far from this interfering with national sovereignty, it is the only way in which national sovereignty can be preserved—that coming to an agreement with one another to take such action will preserve national sovereignty, and will not in any way interfere with national sovereignty itself. I think that is also an interesting and very important, at any rate argumentive, proposition. It throws additional light on what he conceives to be a proper solution of our difficulties after the war.
He goes on to other matters, some of them of great importance. I wish only to mention them in passing. One is that he very strongly supports the existence of an international court, saying in substance—I forget exactly how he puts it—that the supremacy of the law is essential for freedom and for safety, and that therefore you must have an international court to expound and, as far as it is able to do so, enforce that law. He strongly recommends the international court being preserved and strengthened. The last practical proposal I came across that he is making is for what he calls the surveillance—supervision, I suppose—of the Forces of the aggressor nations,
212
nations that have shown themselves to be aggressive in policy. I entirely agree with him that there will have to be that supervision, but I do not personally think that is enough. He does not say anything to the contrary of that opinion, and certainly I think most members of your Lordships' House would say unquestionably that, whatever else we do, we must disarm the aggressive nations and keep them disarmed until it is quite clear they have abandoned their aggressive policies. I think that would be regarded as the minimum of what we ought to do in such cases.
No doubt as part of that system you will have to have surveillance, and that again is evidently to be carried out, according to Mr. Hull's conception, by international authorities. At the conclusion of this part of his speech he makes some general observations, not exactly recommendations. He utters a very impressive warning to those who think that the victory will immediately inaugurate a very extensive and beneficial reform of social and economic conditions. He does indeed strongly advocate a policy of social justice, he does indeed say that that ought to be pressed to the utmost; but he also says that it is not a thing that will come of itself. It will be the result of continued and very strenuous effort, and must flow from a recognition that individual interests, and even individual national interests, must be subordinated to the interests of the whole if you are really to build a new and more satisfactory system than that which has existed. Finally, he returns to what he argued with great force in the earlier part of his speech. The preface of all this, the foundation upon which all this must be laid, is victory; and therefore we must concentrate on winning the war.
I do hope—and I venture to address this aspiration to my noble friends opposite—some means may be found for printing the whole of this speech and making it available for the public. I do not wish to go into the details of how that ought to be done. I would be very glad to discuss it if any of the Ministers wish to hear me on the subject, which is very unlikely; but if they should wish it I should be delighted to do anything I can to help. I think it is so important a speech, such an immense landmark in the history of the policy of the United States and, as I think, the policy of the world, that we

213
ought to have the whole speech printed and made available. At present only a very small fraction has been printed. This is not a criticism of our Press. The Press took up a large part of its space to print what it did print, and in these days the Press could not be expected to do more, but there was still a great deal more which to me at any rate was quite unknown until I obtained an authorized copy of what Mr. Hull had actually said.
I make that observation and I make another observation to which I hope I may perhaps receive some kind of answer. I have sketched very briefly the kind of policy which Mr. Cordell Hull approves. I hope I have sketched it fairly; I have done my best. It seems to me a very important and a very pregnant policy, and I think the people of this country ought to know, as authoritatively as possible, if it can be in any way accomplished, what is the Government's attitude with regard to these proposals of Mr. Hull, or rather of the American Government. I do not ask, of course, that the Government should pledge themselves to accept every detail. I have not attempted to deal with a great many of the details, but, taking the broad policy which I think is a perfectly coherent, intelligent policy, as I have tried to sketch it, I think this House has a right to know, and the country has a right to know, what is the attitude of the Government with regard to that speech. I hope very much that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who I believe is to reply, will be able to say it is thoroughly favourable to Mr. Cordell Hull's speech, and that the Government accept it, but if they do not I venture very respectfully to say that the least they can do is to issue a statement comparable to Mr. Hull's statement saying what their policy is going to be.
My noble friend in moving this Motion made some observations about the importance of that from the point of view both of our people and of our Allies. I really have nothing to add. I entirely agree that it is of the greatest importance to both one and the other, and I believe our people, who are fighting magnificently, would fight even better if they knew quite definitely to what they might reasonably look forward as the result of the war. I can conceive a young man going into battle ready to sacrifice his life and saying to himself: "Well, I should do it with more confidence, more
214
happiness, if I felt that whatever happened to me I was going to prepare a better place for those who come after me." I believe that feeling is tremendously widespread and tremendously deeply felt in this country and in Allied countries, especially those countries which are suffering those incredible horrors that are going on, the horrors that we have been told are occurring in Poland and elsewhere. Surely we ought to be able to say to them: "Well, bear up; we recognize how horrible are your sufferings, but we are going to win and we are going to establish a new system in the world in which horrors like those you have suffered will never be allowed to recur." I think they are entitled to that, and I am sure it would be a great consolation to them if we felt able to assure them of that fact.
What about our aims? My noble friend Lord Selborne yesterday spoke, I think with great eloquence and truth, of the importance of propaganda in Germany. I am not going back on the discussion that took place on that particular Motion, but I believe the whole House agreed that it was of great importance that we should tell the Germans what it is that they may look for if we win, whether it is really true, as Goebbels and others assure them, that we are going to destroy them and submit them to the kind of treatment they have been meting out to other countries, or whether, after taking all possible precautions against renewal of their attack, we mean to proceed not to try to oppress or destroy them—in other words, get them to understand the Cordell Hull proposals. Surely it would be a great satisfaction to them to know what was going to happen and that, if they could get rid of and destroy their present misleading Government, they would really have a possible future to look forward to. I hope I have not expressed myself too warmly on this point, but I feel that there is a danger in every war that in the anxieties and excitement of fighting people should think fighting is the whole thing. That is not true and everyone in their hearts knows it is not true. What is really important is to know what will happen as a consequence of our victory. Our victory is only a step towards something much more important than the victory itself. Therefore I say we ought to make that as clear as we can. If we could really convince the world that we are out to defend the weak and establish an honourable and just peace, I am

215
sure our military effort would be immensely strengthened and that victory would be rapid and overwhelming.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, your Lordships had a full debate on a very similar subject two months ago on a Resolution placed upon the Paper by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, but I am sure you will not demur to my noble friend Lord Davies having put down this Motion for to-day because it is one of prime importance, and it is one that has already evoked a most valuable speech in addition to his own from the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, who speaks on this matter with a breadth of knowledge and an authority with which few of us can compare. With what the noble Lord has said I find myself in a very full measure of agreement, and I trust the Government will pay attention to his specific request that the speech of Mr. Cordell Hull should be made available to the nation in full. Indeed, I hope that other similar addresses made on behalf of the Governments of the principal Allied countries will be published by the Ministry of Information for public knowledge. The noble Lord expressed regret that no comparable reply had been made from this quarter, but it happened that the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Eden, spoke on the very same day as Mr. Cordell Hull, covering the same ground and very much in the same spirit. I hope the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack may be able to add something and perhaps to draw attention to the similarity between these two speeches made simultaneously on the two sides of the Atlantic.
My noble friend Lord Davies has given many years of incessant labour and generous resources in the advancement of the cause which he has been pleading to-day from no other motive than a philanthropic desire to be of service to mankind. I think he has the right to know that his work has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated by those who are labouring in the same cause though perhaps along slightly different lines. We shall all agree with what he has urged to-day that it would be disastrous to leave the post-war position to an expectation that a mere general good will among mankind, taught by the lessons of their own disasters, may bring about automatically a better state of the world. It would be fatal, I believe, if we were to
216
pursue straight away a policy of sweeping away all regulations and controls, expecting that the enlightened self-interest of the individual would work out in the universal welfare. There must be, after the war, a rational organization in some form both of political and of economic affairs; otherwise there will prevail an anarchy which will be utterly disastrous; and there would indeed be a danger that we may enter upon another period in the history of the world such as that which prevailed during the centuries when Roman civilization collapsed under the blows from barbarians in Germany and elsewhere.
I think the whole of your Lordships' House will agree with the main principle which the noble Lord advocates so tenaciously and with such persistence. We should agree also, I think, that the shape of the new organization must be considered in advance and that it should not be left to those who are in power at the moment of victory to decide just what political and economic institutions should be established. Those who win wars are not always the best qualified to construct the peace. The men who are most powerful with the sword are not always those who are skilful with the trowel. It is right that there should proceed this vast discussion which is now going on in most countries of the world as to what we should desire the post-war situation to be, that alternative plans should be prepared beforehand, and that in such preparation the Governments of the United Nations should participate. But when my noble friend asks your Lordships to agree to the establishment of a formal Commission, of the nature of a Royal Commission, to represent the Allied Nations, I confess I feel some measure of scepticism, just as does the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. Royal Commissions, the members of which are all citizens of the same country, are by no means always unanimous, but when you have a number of persons drawn from different nations the danger of disunion becomes all the greater.
The international conferences that have taken place in our time have all failed, unhappily, giving rise to so much disagreement that their results have proved to be futile. When the noble Lord speaks of a Commission being appointed to arrive at some common measure of agreement, it might possibly mean some measure of disagreement. I remember being told about an incident which is

217
alleged to have happened in Tangier. Tangier, like most towns of oriental character, had no names for its streets and, as it was under international government, it was decided to appoint a Commission representative of the States concerned which would decide upon the nomenclature of the streets. At the first meeting the Commission, so it is said, agreed with unanimity that the streets should be named after those who could be considered, again with unanimity, the most eminent figures in the history of mankind. Several months then elapsed and it was found that the Commission had only agreed on the name of one street, which was to be called Adam Street. It might well be that an International Commission dealing with these exceedingly difficult and complicated questions in which many various interests are concerned would not achieve that measure of speedy unanimity which the noble Lord desires.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has just suggested that it might be possible for some organization to be established for the formulation of our own proposals, and the Phillimore Commission during the last war has been suggested as a precedent. That may perhaps be advisable, but there would be great danger if such a Commission were to sit and arrive at conclusions, and to formulate them and to publish them before there had been the fullest consultation with the Allied Powers. Nothing could do more harm than the idea being spread throughout the world that Great Britain was deciding by herself what should be the future shape and constitution of the world. In the United States and Soviet Russia and in many of the smaller States there would be a feeling of resentment if anything were published which could be represented as being in the nature of a cut-and-dried scheme upon which British opinion had already, by itself, come to an agreement. The noble Lord's suggestion that there should be a Committee of this House appointed to consider the matter is an interesting one which I have not heard previously made. But that, too, is open to the same objection that I have just advanced, and, furthermore, it would be very difficult for such a Committee effectively to invite evidence or consultation from nationals of other Powers. However, it would be interesting to learn from the noble and learned
218
Viscount who sits on the Woolsack what the Government think of this proposal of a formal Commission. I confess I should feel some surprise if the Government were to say that they would welcome a step which would take that precise form.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:
My Lords, I do not want to interrupt but perhaps my noble friend would allow me to point out that the Phillimore Committee was not a Commission at all. It was a Departmental Committee which sat in secret and reported to the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office then reported to the Cabinet. Nothing was said about it at all until the Peace Conference met, I do not know if anything was said even as early as that. I am told that it was later.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I do not know whether the same procedure would be possible for a Select Committee of this House. I do not know whether the House would be satisfied to think that they had appointed a Committee which would sit in secret, arrive at conclusions which would not be published to the world and which might or might not—I do not know—be published to the 700 members of this House. However, this is a matter to be reflected upon rather than to be hastily agreed. Certainly it would be all to the good for Technical Commissions and Committees to be appointed here, and to deliberate upon particular aspects of the problems, economic and political, that will arise. There is every reason to believe that various inquiries of a private character are being made in that sphere under the general direction of the Paymaster-General, Sir William Jowitt, who has been charged with that particular duty, and also on behalf of the Foreign Office and other organs of the Government.
The only other observation with which I wish to trouble your Lordships refers to the final words of the Motion now before us. The noble Lord asks that the Commission that he desires should be appointed with a view to the preparation of measures for post-war reconstruction through the establishment of an international authority. The words "an international authority," rather suggest that there is to be a single authority which is to cover the vast field that would have to be covered after the war. I suggest that the matter is not so simple as that, and that perhaps the post-war pattern will

219
be a good deal more complicated than most of us now envisage. There may, in fact, have to be several kinds of organization for several different purposes—for example, with respect to disarmament and to ensure the continuance of disarmament and the availability of force, which, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, is an essential measure. It may be that one form of organization will be necessary for that alone, for the disarmament of the aggressors and to secure such conditions that the world may evolve in peace and tranquillity. That could possibly be best effected by alliances of the great military Powers and one such alliance is in fact, so far as this country and Russia are concerned, already in being by reason of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty. And other Powers would, no doubt, be prepared to collaborate, let us hope also the United States, when the time comes to arrive at final decisions.
With regard to organization for what may be called political purposes, already some of the lesser Powers have taken definite steps, as your Lordships will be aware. Poland and Czecho-Slovakia have already agreed upon the principles of a confederation between them. Yugoslavia and Greece have done the same. It is possible that these groups may attract neighbouring States and so add to their numbers. But these are not federations be it noted; they are confederations, which are quite different things. It may be that there will be several such confederations in different parts of Europe and different parts of the world, some or all of which may be linked together by some organization developed within them. That is not for us in this country to decide, it is for the countries themselves to decide. They are already moving in that direction and it may be that there part of the pattern of the post-war world will be found.
Furthermore, there is the League of Nations, which might cover the whole field and include not only the Allied Powers but also the Axis Powers, in order to deal with cultural and economic questions and perhaps minor political issues which may arise. There must be an international court, as Mr. Cordell Hull has clearly stated, for dealing with the juridical side; and although the juridical side is important it is only a minor part of the whole, for the problem is not only how to
220
determine what is International Law and how to enforce it, but also to secure that International Law shall be what it should be. You must have not only a court of law and a police force, but also a Legislature which is able to modify the law, before you can have a complete international system. Then the economic organs that are required must not be confused with any of those that I have mentioned. You may have to have economic organizations such as a Bank of International Settlements for dealing with the problems of international exchange, and for the organization of commerce and transport. Therefore we may find that "an international authority" such as is indicated in this Resolution will not by any means cover the field, and that the solution to the problems with which we shall be faced will be far more complicated and will have to be achieved far more gradually than by the setting up of some single organization at a given moment. It will have to be effected by stages. We have not reached the stage of precision, though it is all to the good that proposals should be ventilated and that opportunities should be given for the clarification of ideas.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, I desire to make only two points in this debate to-day. As a matter of fact, I had not intended troubling your Lordships with any observations at all. There is no difficulty I find, when one talks, for instance, to Service men from the Dominions and to those in this country who are engaged in the great conflict, in determining what they are fighting against internationally. There seems, however, to be some difficulty with regard to the question of what they are fighting for. I should therefore welcome a statement from the Government as to what we are fighting for, and it would be welcomed by the people who live in that part of the King's dominions in which I was born. I myself have a very clear idea of what we are fighting for, and an authoritative statement by the Government as to what we are fighting for would not conflict with what was said just now by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel.
There is no difficulty in understanding the implications of a treaty, but the Atlantic Charter is not a treaty. The Atlantic Charter is nothing more than the expression of hopes and aspirations on

221
the part of the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of this Kingdom. In the United States, legislation to enforce one portion of the declarations in that Charter can become effective only by the approval of a two-thirds majority of the Senate. I take it that that is the reason why there was a treaty with Soviet Russia but no treaty with the United States, because it was by no means certain that the result might not be the same as was found in connexion with the approval of the action of a former President of the United States in regard to the League of Nations. Nothing, in my judgment, could be more fatal, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just said, than the idea that we were undertaking, in this Kingdom, to draw up the terms of peace to be made with the Axis Powers. That would be resented not only by the overseas Dominions, which have equal status with this Kingdom, but also, and equally, by people in other lands who are associated with us in this war.
In fairness to the Government, that position must be kept in mind. I need hardly remind the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, with whose speech I was so much in accord, that in the last war the President of the United States—not the Secretary of State—laid down Fourteen Points as being essential, and those Fourteen Points were accepted by the world at large as aims to be attained as a result of the war. Those who are familiar with the historical side of the matter will recall that, when the Germans agreed to the Armistice terms, they stated that they relied on those Fourteen Points. Nothing would be more fatal than for us to make declarations regarding our views about the peace terms, and then to find our defeated enemies saying that they relied on the statements which we had made, statements to which we might not be able to give effect because they were our declarations, and not the declarations of all those engaged in this conflict against our enemies. I think that that is abundantly clear. In the declarations made by President Wilson, he was quite firm and clear as to what the objects to be attained were, and as to the methods to be used in attaining them; yet, when the Peace Treaty was finally drawn up, one of the complaints made by the Germans was that it disregarded the principles of the Fourteen Points, and it will be recalled
222
how strongly they made that objection on one or two occasions. In all fairness, that must be kept in mind when we ask the Government of one of the countries at war to take a step which might be, and would be, misunderstood by others of the warring nations associated with it.
The important point to keep in mind, however, is that the Atlantic Charter is only a declaration of hopes and aspirations on the part of the President of the United States, and that action by that great country, if it is to take the form of a treaty, has to be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, while, if it is to take place in the economic field, there have to be conferences and compromises between the Senate and the House of Representatives until conclusions are finally reached. There is always a danger of our position being misunderstood if the Government here were forced to take the view which has been suggested, for it would indicate to the world that we were going to determine what the peace terms were to be; and our Russian Allies, and other countries as well, are equally concerned with ourselves as to the terms of peace.
What has been said regarding the speech of the United States Secretary of State is highly to be commended, but it must not be forgotten that, while the Secretary of State expresses the view of the Government, he does not, under the Constitution of the United States, express the will of the American people, which can be indicated only in the manner to which I have just referred. We should be careful, therefore, not to attach too much importance to speeches made by public men in the United States with respect to matters of this kind. In this country the Prime Minister can bind the Government, and in binding the Government can bind the country, or else go out of office, in an endeavour to give effect to the conclusions at which he has arrived. In the United States that is not the case, and we must always keep that fact in mind when we are dealing with matters of an international character with which the United States is concerned.
For instance, within the next few weeks there will be Elections in the United States for all the members of the House of Representatives and for about one-third of the Senate, as well as for a consider-

223
able number of Governors of States. Undoubtedly, public opinion at the moment is very much concerned about the result of those Elections. Many of your Lordships will have read an article in one of the great journals of this country which pointed out that the Elections were engaging public attention to a very great extent at the present moment, and that, whether one liked it or not, the President of the United States must always be regarded as the head of his Party. In the nature of things he has to think in terms of his own Party; if he does not do so, he will be upbraided by his own supporters. That is the case even in time of war, as was pointed out by Lincoln in the 'sixties, when he was compelled to run an election in the midst of a war.
In those circumstances, I think it would be an extremely ill-considered act for the Government to do other than merely express views as to what we are struggling for. To say what we are struggling for is one thing; to say what we are going to endeavour to impose on somebody else is another thing. We can with great justice point out what we are struggling to do, and what our hopes and aspirations are, but it is another thing for us to say that at a Peace Conference, or anywhere else, we are going to insist upon this or that, when as a matter of fact we may not be in a position to make our views as effective as they are within this Chamber, for instance. When we meet to negotiate peace, it is obvious that we shall be only one of many countries, and not always, I dare say, the dominant one.
I associate myself with much that Lord Davies has said, and I should like to associate myself with what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said as to the great contribution which Lord Davies has made to the cause of peace. I would refer especially to his contribution in the country where I was born, where his books have been much read, and I think with great benefit to those who have read them. As for the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, no words of mine can express the admiration and regard in which he is held for the consistent course which he has taken in using every method which human ingenuity can devise to maintain the peace of the world. If there has been a failure to attain the ends which he had in view, I think it may be
224
attributable to a fact that we must not overlook to-day, and that is that under the Constitution of the great Republic that is associated with us in this war the President does not bind the people—not even the President.
Bearing in mind those facts, I venture to bring them to the attention of your Lordships that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack may not, by reason of the very strong arguments that have been adduced in favour of making a statement, make any premature statement that would have the effect of inducing our enemies to believe that in so speaking he was speaking for all those who are at war with the Germans; for, great as is the authority of this Kingdom and of the Government of this Kingdom, it is not greater than that of the Governments of the other communities that constitute the British Empire. In function and strength and power it is greater, of course, but it has no greater power than the other four Dominions of equal status to make statements that bind the world at large, and it certainly has not as great authority as two of the other belligerents that are associated with us in this war, considered in point of weight of material resources and of the forces they can put into the firing line to make effective our united efforts to achieve victory.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, we shall all agree that the question which my noble friend Lord Davies cut upon the Paper raises matters of the greatest possible importance, and the debate that has taken place, though not a very long debate, has included a series of speeches which, I think, must have impressed all who have been present—speeches which indeed have amplified and added to the topics that were raised by the question itself. My noble friend Lord Davies was good enough to say in the course of his very interesting remarks that he really did not expect that the spokesman for the Government would give cut-and-dried answers to all the queries which he raised. Indeed, if anybody were to attempt to do so that would amount to little less than announcing, on behalf of His Majesty's Government at any rate, not only the elaboration of our ultimate peace aims, but even of the methods by which it was hoped to arrive at the future government of the world. The noble Viscount, Lord

225
Bennett, has usefully warned me not to be led away by these seductive suggestions, and while I wish to make my contribution as well as I can in positive terms, I recognize the great importance of caution.
Indeed, the caution is all the more needed because these documents to which the question refers, the Atlantic Charter and the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, are of course international documents; and, while that certainly does not absolve either the Government or the Legislature or the people of this country from trying to form concrete resolutions about the topic, it does make it excessively dangerous to advance, without pre-arrangement, explanations and propositions that perhaps might be challenged. I recalled having read—and I looked it up before I came into the House—an observation made by the Prime Minister in another place when last September he returned from the United States with the Atlantic Charter. It was the first report to Parliament after that great achievement, and I copied out his words. He was at once asked, of course, for explanations and amplifications, and the Prime Minister said:
"It is a wise rule that when two parties have agreed to a statement one of them shall not thereafter, without consultation with the other, seek to put special interpretations upon this or that passage."
That, I am sure, we shall so far all agree with. That is not to say that there is not a process of further interpretation going on, not only, if I may be allowed to remind your Lordships, in the speeches made by statesmen abroad, but also in speeches made by statesmen in this country also. I hardly think that quite enough attention has been paid in the course of this debate to what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said on this subject, and I am going to call attention to one or two passages.
Here are these two international documents, each of them when it first appeared gathering the attention of the whole world. I do feel about them—and I think it will probably be a general feeling—that these two documents, the Atlantic Charter and the Anglo-Soviet Agreement, belong to that small class of documents which have the penetration and the power which partake of the nature of positive, masterly action. Whenever a collection of international documents is made in the future, going right back to the beginnings of time,
226
I doubt very much whether there will be any document which is recognized as having the possibilities of more permanent influence and importance than the Atlantic Charter and the Anglo-Soviet Agreement. Several passages in the Atlantic Charter have been referred to, and I will not delay by doing what I had intended to do and call attention to their significance; and while I agree that they are expressed in general terms—such things must be in general terms—I do not think I should entirely agree with the expression used by my noble friend when he described them as vague and nebulous. I think an honest reading of them gives them the most profound and definite significance. But I do not think any quotation has been made this afternoon from the Anglo-Soviet Agreement and I will, if I may, make one or two extracts to remind the House.
But let me first say, here confirming what was said by Lord Davies, that of course the most significant and the most hopeful feature of the Atlantic Charter is exactly this: it is not a unilateral declaration, it is really a pledge of co-operation; and co-operation, be it observed, not only in framing plans for peace but in carrying them out. If that is achieved, then no praise could be too high to give this document. Everything that has been said about the Atlantic Charter since then by American statesmen confirms the resolve and intention of the American Government to act in that spirit. I recognize very fully the important qualification mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bennett, which we must never forget, arising from the special structure of the Constitution of the United States; but these are very powerful men who are making these declarations and, as far as one can read, the effect of their speeches is exercising an enormous influence inside their country as well as outside it. In a word, Anglo-American co-operation now and hereafter constitutes the best hope for the world.
Now as to the Anglo-Soviet Treaty. It, also, is a most remarkable document, and a few passages from it are really worth quoting in this connexion. Consider one or two of its recitals. It recites the desire of Soviet Russia and ourselves to "contribute after the war to the maintenance of peace." It expresses the intention of the signatories to "collaborate"—there is the word again—"closely with one another as well as with the other United Nations at the peace settlement and during

227
the ensuing period of reconstruction on the basis of the principles" of the Atlantic Charter. In connexion with the quotation made just now by my noble friend Lord Cecil from Mr. Cordell Hull, let me remind your Lordships of the contents of Article III of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty. I need not say that I make this quotation without the smallest desire to suggest that Mr. Cordell Hull's declaration was not of immense importance on this question, but merely to show that it is in line with what has been said by others. Article III runs in these terms:
"The High Contracting Parties declare their desire to unite with other like-minded States in adopting proposals for common action to preserve peace and resist aggression in the post-war period."
And Article V says:
"The High Contracting Parties … agree to work together in close and friendly collaboration after the re-establishment of peace for the organization of security and economic prosperity in Europe."
I do not think that these are merely vague declarations. They are declarations in general terms, but their meaning is perfectly definite, an I it they are carried out, implemented in full effect, there are very good grounds for hoping for good results from the contents of these two great documents to which Lord Davies has referred.
Then comes the reference already made in this debate, especially by my noble friend Lord Cecil, to the recent speech of Mr. Cordell Hull. In order that I may not forget it, let me say at once that, after hearing his suggestion about giving that speech further publicity in this country, I took the opportunity of trying to communicate with the Foreign Secretary. I have been unable to hear from him personally, but I have heard from others in his Department, and I shall take upon myself the responsibility, which I think in the circumstances properly attaches to me, of saying on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we gladly accept Lord Cecil's suggestion, and we shall discuss with the Ministry of Information ways and means of making this most important pronouncement more widely known. It may be that some other statements should also be similarly quoted.
Returning to Mr. Cordell Hull's speech, I could not help wondering whether the Constitution of the United States, which leaves important members of the Execu-
228
tive to prepare their declarations and to emit them without the smallest possibility of their ever being invited to answer any question in the Legislature, on the whole contributed or did not contribute to the united policy of a country. At any rate, Mr. Cordell Hull enjoys that advantage, and there are occasions, I dare say, when some Ministers of the Crown in this country envy him his privilege. I should like to quote two passages which I have myself extracted, having read the speech in extenso when I first had the opportunity of doing so and having re-read it again to-clay. Certainly the American Secretary of State does put these things in the most powerful manner. Here is the first passage:
"No nation can make satisfactory progress while its citizens are in the grip of constant fear of external attack or interference. It is plain that some international agency must be created which can, by force if necessary, keep the peace among nations in the future."
And here is the second passage:
"There must be international co-operative action to set up mechanisms which can thus ensure peace."
I extract these passages, though in substance they have been already quoted to the House, partly because I feel that they are immensely important, and partly because it was with reference to these passages in particular that the Foreign Secretary in this country made a statement. It is only right that we should realize how very precise Mr. Eden's statement was. I know very well that my noble friend Lord Cecil had not the smallest intention of omitting it, but he did not give it much prominence. Mr. Cordell Hull's speech was on July 23 and, as one would expect, in another place questions were at once put to the Foreign Secretary as to his view of what Mr. Cordell Hull had said. These two particular passages which I have just read are the two on which the questions were based. The Foreign Secretary replied:
"As I have made plain on previous occasions—"
I think my right honourable friend was referring partly to a speech he made at Edinburgh some time ago which is well worth reading—
"it is the view of His Majesty's Government that international authority after the war will require to be backed by international force. We are in entire agreement with the United States."

229
I do not think that I add anything to the precision of that declaration if I repeat it here, but I am able, of course, to say, having had the opportunity of talking to the Foreign Secretary earlier in the day, that that is the declared and decided policy of His Majesty's Government.
There was an observation made by Mr. Cordell Hull which was referred to, though not, I think, quoted, which is important in this connexion. "International agency," I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Samuel, is not the same thing as an international agency," but one gets a very false conception if one supposes that what Mr. Cordell Hull or the Atlantic Charter or ourselves have in view is simply the sweeping away of national sovereignty and the substitution of some new, all-embracing, universal international force. That is not the conception at all. Mr. Cordell Hull in that speech pointed out that the Atlantic Charter does not propose to substitute international authority for sovereign rights and self-government. The conception is that sovereign rights and self-government will be preserved and made, as far as self-government is concerned, more authoritative and complete. The aim is not to impose, by a kind of reverse Diktat, international authority on the world after the war. The conception is not that we should aim at forcing upon as many people as possible the dictates of some international organ, but rather that we should aim at getting agreement between as many sovereign communities as may be, each of them, we trust, enjoying rights of self-government, so that as the result of consent, not as the result of externally applied force, this international authority is able to speak in the name of all well-disposed people. That is the conception, and in the same way I think you will find in Mr. Cordell Hull's speech that he uses language which shows he does not conceive of this international authority as being imposed by force, but rather as being in the nature of a cooperative unity which will secure that the wrong-doer is effectively repressed and that aggression is effectively checked.
The other passage which was also in Mr. Cordell Hull's speech, and about which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made reference on the same occasion, has to do with an international court of justice. May I be allowed here, because
230
I have known it a long time, to associate myself with Lord Samuel and Lord Bennett in saying that I know well how much disinterested and devoted labour Lord Davies has given to this particular aspect of the matter. Mr. Eden said: "His Majesty's Government are entirely in favour of the establishment, or reestablishment, after the war of an international court of justice." He did not develop that in detail, and I think wisely so, when he was invited, as is the fashion in the House of Commons, to say more about it. Replying to supplementary questions, the Foreign Secretary said, "My language was of set purpose guarded on these subjects" and it must be, for the reason mentioned by Lord Bennett and other reasons too.
If I may detain your Lordships for a short time, that is a branch of the subject in which I myself take the most intense interest, and I would like to say just a word about the functions and the conception of an international court of justice. I think a great many devoted reformers sometimes fail to allow for the necessary limitations under which such a court acts, and it is for that very reason that what you have to aim at is not one thing but two. One is the international court of justice, and the other is the international force, power, influence, which will, in case of need, bring about a better world. An "international court of justice" and an "international agency to keep the peace" are not really one thing; they are really two things. I do not think that any real benefit can be done to the cause of peace in the future by exaggerating the range that can be covered by an international court. It is very important to realize what it can do, but it is also very important to realize what it cannot do.
For example, an international court cannot take upon itself to make changes of frontiers. If you are to imagine an international court that existed for the last sixty or seventy years and asked it to award a decision as to whether Alsace-Lorraine belongs to France or to Germany, if the international court acted, as it would be bound to act, according to existing treaties, it would give a decision either one way or the other way according to the date when it was asked to decide. A court of justice, whether it is a municipal court or an international court, is not charged with the duty of altering

231
people's rights and awarding things to people who have not got them. It exists for the purpose of interpreting and applying impartially agreements which have been made, or the principles which lie behind the Common Law; and so in the case of an international court. An international court may perfectly well be asked—was asked after the Treaty of St. Germain—whether the Anschluss with Austria was consistent with the treaty of peace, or inconsistent with it. That is a legal question which it could decide. An international tribunal of the days long ago, at the time of the Alabama dispute, could be set up for the purpose of determining whether we ought to pay compensation for breach of International Law in connexion with that particular unfortunate episode. But you cannot appeal to Judges as judges for the purpose of determining what changes ought to be made in territory or the like.
It is manifest, my Lords, to no one more manifest than to a man who has now undertaken a little the discharge of a judicial office, that many matters of dispute, many causes of controversy in the world, are not necessarily settled to the general satisfaction merely by telling people what their existing rights are. A just judgment does not necessarily lead, even in the municipal sphere, to contentment all round, and the permanent court of international justice necessarily confines itself to deciding things that are susceptible of judicial treatment. I think myself, being a warm partisan of the whole conception of international justice, it would be most unwise to treat a court, however independent, as specially qualified to solve what are really political problems. Nothing is morely likely to bring the whole scheme of a permanent court into disrepute than the suspicion that distinguished jurists who sit on it concern themselves with anything except impartial judgment on the basis of the law as they find it. That is the fundamental reason, in my view (and I think Lord Davies agrees), why you do not get the whole way by talking about international arbitration or an international court. You want an instrument which Mr. Cordell Hull and the Atlantic Charter call an international authority whose duty it would be to keep the peace by the use, if need be, of force to repress the aggressor, and which would have wide enough functions to try
232
to adjust from time to time these disputes that arise betwen nations and neighbours, which at any rate, in spite of all the efforts made by the League of Nations, have not been successfully disposed of by that body. I think Lord Cecil, whole life-work for the League is honoured by us all, would agree that the weakest feature in the whole of the Covenant of the League was the Article which it was hoped would have the result of peacefully adjusting frontiers. It was an Article which could operate only if there was complete unanimity, including the countries on each side of the frontier involved.
This brings me to the last point which, after all, is the really essential point raised by Lord Davies. The question is how far these all-important matters, involved in the Atlantic Charter and the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, can be promoted by international consultation now. Let me first say that it must not be supposed that these topics, or some of them, are not already the subject of very close study by this Government, and doubtless by other Governments also. I noticed in the answer which the Foreign Secretary gave the other day in the House of Commons, that he said amongst other things, and he has confirmed it to me independently, this. "These things," he said, "are being examined and discussed." So I can say that, in respect of some spheres of postwar co-operation, unofficial exchanges of ideas between different Governments are already taking place.
But I have to say that in the view of His Majesty's Government the establishment of an Inter-Allied Commission suggested in this question would be altogether premature. All experience goes to show—and I think this was the point made by my noble friend Viscount Cecil—that the success of an international conference depends largely on a great deal of preparatory work of all sorts behind the scenes. You are likely to get into the most awful trouble if representatives of different nations are summoned to meet before there really is a programme of work to be laid before them. I think my noble friend Lord Davies, whose zeal on this subject we all admire, recognizes that we could hardly expect the heads of the great Governments at the present moment to devote much time to it. But how far can these matters be carried to a definite issue in the hands of subordinates? President Wilson's Fourteen Points were the

233
points of the President of the United States, nobody less, and when we are dealing with such tremendous issues as these, definitely involving great countries which in some respects are so far away from one another, at any rate in geography, as China, Russia, ourselves and America, is it a very practical plan to say at this present stage that you should constitute an Inter-Allied Commission to which delegates from the Governments might go? It seems to me it is not. I do not really think that it a very practical suggestion now to suggest that you should constitute a formal body which, if I understood my noble friend rightly, should take evidence on these matters from various countries.
But I now wish to put the other side. I entirely agree with my noble friend and others who have spoken—and here again I am speaking with the confirmation of the Foreign Secretary with whom I have discussed the subject—that these questions cannot be left without further development till the end of the war. That would indeed be a most foolish and fatal course. Their very complexity, novelty and difficulty are enough to show that that cannot wisely be left to happen. It must be before that. I have no more means than any of your Lordships of estimating how long the interval may be before the war comes to an end. Like the rest of you I am only interested in asserting that as far as we are concerned it can only come to an end in one way. But I think when we are considering the course of events a man would be sanguine to the point of absurdity if he supposed the result which we are determined ultimately to obtain was going to be obtained very quickly.
Here again comes in the wise advice of Mr. Cordell Hull. He did not propose any commission of this sort. On the contrary, he concluded this remarkable utterance of his by saying, what I venture with much less eloquence now to say myself, that the whole future of the world depends upon winning the war. If the war were not won no discussion about the future would be worth a row of pins. And, my Lords, at the moment when von Bock is hammering at the gates of the Caucasus, at the moment when Rommel and his highly mechanized army is on Egyptian soil, at the moment when Japan has spread her forces over so much of the Far
234
East, how can the leaders of the Allied Nations be called upon to devote their thoughts to an Inter-Allied Conference even on these important questions? I think that was in the Prime Minister's mind when, on returning from America after joining in signing the Atlantic Charter, he deprecated the too-great formulation of plans for after the war and said—I quote his words—''the end of the war is not in sight."
I would stop there if it were not for one observation made by my noble friend Viscount Bennett. He thought—and he speaks with great knowledge of what is passing in the minds of many of our best friends and fellow subjects—that there were many people, perhaps in the Fighting Services, still asking what we are fighting for. Is it not plain that this world-wide conflict with all its horrors and sacrifices is being fought with the double purpose of delivering mankind from slavery and of establishing a better world hereafter? Each of these two purposes supports and sustains the other. We remember how Cromwell declared of his plain, russet-coated captains that "they knew what they were fighting for, and they loved what they knew." That was so long ago that such a quotation no longer smacks of controversy, but at least it is true, I think, of everybody fighting in this country to-day. I would put it in a phrase which I read somewhere a day or two ago that "the United Nations are fighting to crush brute force, and to secure freedom for all mankind." The first of these purposes is in itself a task which is far, far, from having yet been achieved. It calls for every ounce of energy in every one of us. The immensely difficult business of planning for the future, the future for which we hope, is not being overlooked, and I feel that this debate reinforces its importance. But for the reasons I have given, reasons which I hope will commend themselves to your Lordships, His Majesty's Government cannot feel that the present situation makes the setting up of a formal Inter-Allied Commission appropriate at this time.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, may I be allowed to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the speech which he has just delivered? I cannot help feeling that all the speeches made in this debate when we read them in cold print in the Official

235
Report will be found to show that the speakers were really in favour of some sort of collaboration between representatives of the United Nations to elaborate the implications of the Atlantic Charter. My noble friend Viscount Cecil said that nothing useful could be done until a statement had been put before a Commission of this kind. As I tried to point out, the statement already exists. It is the agreement in regard to the Articles included in the Atlantic Charter. That is the basis for discussion in this Commission. He was quite right when he said the Report of the Phillimore Committee was a Report to our Government, not to the Allied Governments, but it did nevertheless form the basis of discussion in the League of Nations Commission which was constituted at Paris.
With regard to a point made by my noble friend Lord Samuel, from what he said I gathered that he rather feared the risk of what he called disagreement. I think we now realize that you never can get unanimity on every particular subject. All I pleaded for was an attempt to find a common denominator and the maximum agreement which could be secured. It is not a question of publishing a report. Obviously if this Commission was in being it would report to the respective Governments before anything could be published in the Press or to the general public. I think the noble Viscount also rather cast some doubt on what he described as "an international authority." He also pointed out, if I may be allowed to say so, the difficulty which would arise if there was only a law in force without some means of changing that law from time to time, so as to bring it in accordance with the requirements of the times. Therefore it seems to me that any authority must in the very nature of things become an authority, not merely an alliance, which, after all, is something as old as the hills. The Hivites, the jebusites and the Hittites all formed alliances and we know that there have been alliances throughout the centuries one after another. If we are going to be content with alliances I fear that there is not much hope for the future. I think that what my noble friend had in mind is some kind of international authority, a confederation of the League or a federation or whatever you like to call it.
236
I am greatly indebted to my noble friend Viscount Bennett for his remarks. He pointed out the dangers that might arise from any unilateral declaration or from any suggestion of what he described as dictating to other countries. The whole object of this Commission is to prevent any unilateral declaration, to prevent any idea of one country dictating to another. Agreement has been reached already to the extent of these eight Articles in the Atlantic Charter. The noble and learned Viscount who replied on behalf of the Government admitted that there are these other problems and questions which at some time or other will have to be debated and solved, and, therefore, it seems to me that my noble friend's speech was really in support of the Motion now before the House.
I will not take up the time of your Lordships any longer except for the purpose of thanking the noble Viscount once more for his reply. After all, the methods for the future government of the world, as he admitted, are tremendously important and cannot be allowed to remain unexplored. He said that he did not know when the war would come to an end. None of us do, but we remember that the end of the last war came very suddenly. Indeed it came before most people expected it would come. We were caught unprepared, and had it not been for the Report of the Phillimore Committee there would have been no document ready as a basis of discussion when these things came to be discussed a few months later. The noble and learned Viscount also said that the Atlantic Charter and the Anglo-Soviet Treaty are two historic documents. I am sure that we all agree that they are. But a little more than twenty years ago many of us thought that the Covenant of the League of Nations was an historic document which would help to produce peace and justice in the world. I think therefore that it is vital that we should make sure that this historic document does, and will be able to, carry out the intentions and aspirations of those who are joined in it. There are many other points one would like to refer to, but there are other Motions on the Paper for discussion. I therefore beg leave of the House to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOME GUARD CALL-UP.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD, who had given Notice that he would call attention to the apparent lack of system in the methods of selecting, and the manner of calling-up, compulsory recruits to the Home Guard; and also move for Papers, said: My Lords, a few months ago, under pressure from inside your Lordships' House and from public opinion outside, His Majesty's Government introduced conscription for the Home Guard. That conscription, after a commendably brief period, has now been put in to operation, but unfortunately it would appear that there has been little if any attempt made to co-ordinate the activities the Ministry of Labour and of that section of the War Office which attends to the affairs of the Home Guard in regard to the method of putting this conscription into practice. In passing, I may say that it seems slightly remarkable to some of us that it should have been considered necessary to have a ceiling, to use a technical term, for each Home Guard battalion, and to say that recruits in each battalion area should be enrolled only up to the limit of the ceiling. I remember how in the last war in, I think, every area, certainly in my own area, any man of a reasonable standard of health who was exempted from military service was only so exempted on condition that he joined the then volunteers which were the equivalent in the last war of the Home Guard to-day. It seems to me that it would have been well, if such a procedure could have bean followed again, as in my view, having regard to the ever-present danger of invasion, it is hardly to be tolerated that there should be such a thing as an able-bodied man in the country without some form of military training.
The main point I wish to make concerns the way in which this calling up is being carried out. It was originally stated, apparently officially, that the calling up was to begin with young men and to proceed upwards gradually. Despite this, in areas where I am convinced there must be quite enough young men to reach the ceiling for the battalions concerned, men approaching forty years of age, who are already fully employed, are receiving their compulsory enlistment notices, while younger men with far fewer responsibilities are apparently being left
238
untouched. The first question I would like to put is how is this choice of recruit determined, and what steps are taken to ensure that all available young men are called upon first before older men, who are probably engaged in much more important work, are called upon to be compulsorily enlisted? There seems to be a sad lack of liaison, because in my own area various lists were prepared by the companies, and sent in to battalion headquarters, of men whom we considered to be suitable for enrolment in the Home Guard, and these lists were sent to the labour exchanges; but we were politely informed by the labour exchanges that they could carry out all duties connected with compulsory enrolment very nicely by themselves, and that they had no use whatever for our lists. I think that that was a great mistake, and it could have been avoided if some form of organization had been insisted upon which would have correlated the activities of both sides.
Then there is the question of the way in which men are often told to report to Home Guard sub-units at a most inconvenient distance from their home or place of work. Apparently the labour exchanges simply go on the basis that a man should report at whatever town or village is shown as his postal address. That may work satisfactorily in towns and large villages, but in scattered country areas it does not work at all well. For example, in one case of which I know a man on a farm has been told to report at a village which is over six miles away, although only one mile away in the opposite direction is the normal meeting-place of a local Home Guard platoon, and three miles away, in the direction of the village to which he has been told to go, is the meeting-place of another Home Guard platoon. It would have been better had the labour exchanges consulted with local Battalion Commanders as to the areas which fall within each battalion area. We had drawn up long lists giving every address in our area, and these lists would have been invaluable to the labour exchanges, but they refused to make any use of them.
It may be said that these are small points. Perhaps they are, but they lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction, and, what is worse, to a great deal of paper work. Everybody knows how much paper work there is in the Home Guard.

239
Whenever a man is directed to appear at a place outside his own battalion area, the local sub-unit has to communicate with the platoon, the platoon with the company, and the company with the battalion and the battalion has to write back again and to communicate with the next-door battalion as well, and this other battalion has to go through the whole process down to its own sub-unit concerned. The result is that every one of these cases is going to mean a great deal of correspondence, and we have already quite enough paper to cope with in the Home Guard, without having any more when it is unnecessary.
These are admittedly matters of administrative detail, and I should hesitate to bring them before your Lordships to-day were it not for one other point, which I regard as being of very much greater importance. It is this: when a man is told that he has to join the Home Guard, and either he or his employer objects for other than conscientious reasons, who is to give the final decision whether that man is to be enrolled or not? On that subject there exists the most complete confusion. Some labour exchanges take the view, particularly with regard to agricultural workers, that if they deem a man suitable, and the country agricultural committee have no objection, the Home Guard Commander must take that man. The local labour exchange, however, has absolutely no knowledge of the conditions of the man's employment or residence, and in some cases the county agricultural committee also know very little.
Let me again give an actual instance which has happened in one of the companies of my own battalion. A man on a farm in a remote area has been directed to attend at a certain place. There are two men of suitable age on that farm, and the other has been a sergeant in the Home Guard for a considerable period. It is a scattered area, and that sergeant is the only man who is able to drill and instruct both the already existing sub-unit and the new recruits who will shortly join. If the man whom it is new desired to compel to join that sub-unit in fact has to join, then, if he is to attend a sufficient number of drills to make him efficient—and, if he does not, there is no point in his joining—the sergeant will have to absent himself from an equal number of drills in order to look after the stock on the farm. The Company Commander,
240
therefore, does not wish to take this man, because by so doing he would impair the efficiency of the local sub-unit. The labour exchange, on the other hand, say that because they have decreed that the man is eligible he must be taken. Who, I ask, is to decide?
A few days ago I spent a considerable amount of time with the Adjutant of my battalion considering the list of men supplied by the labour exchange whom it was proposed to direct into our ranks. I would mention in passing that so excellent has been the voluntary enrolment in my area that I do not think there is any chance of my being able to get the number of conscripts assigned to me, because men suitable for the purpose do not exist locally in sufficient numbers. We checked over the roll, and decided to take all the men except two, on whose physical condition it was necessary to have a medical report. One of the men strongly objected to being enrolled, on the ground of his agricultural work. We do not agree that his objection is valid, because on a farm only a few hundred yards from his own is a tenant whose position, as far as farm labour is concerned, is even less favourable than that of the man who objects, but who has been a member of the Home Guard since the beginning, and is now a non-commissioned officer. The result is that we are not disposed to agree with the objection; but is it right that the decision whether a man should or should not be taken into the Home Guard should be left to the arbitrary choice either of the local sub-unit commander, who may possibly have a prejudice in favour of or against the man, or to the completely ignorant decision of the local labour exchange official?
I submit that there ought to be some form of independent tribunal for each zone, consisting, perhaps, of three members, of whom the Chairman at least would have to be a civilian, and such a tribunal would be able to decide these appeals. The position at present is leading to a great deal of dissatisfaction, as well as to an increasing amount of the paper work to which I have already alluded. If this state of affairs is not remedied, it means that many men who do not wish to enter the Home Guard, hut who are compelled to do so, will do so bearing a certain amount of animus against their immediate superior officer, to whom they will ascribe, and probably correctly, the decision com-

241
pelling them to enlist. I suggest that, in these circumstances, it would be very much better if the whole system could be reviewed, and some form of organization set up whereby the labour exchange would know beforehand where a man ought to report. I also suggest that some tribunal should be set up to near appeals. In an organization like the Home Guard, where local circumstances vary so very greatly, not only between zone and zone, but between town and town, and company and company, there must always be a certain amount of confusion and overlapping, but this particular form of confusion is avoidable. I submit that it could have been avoided in the past and can still be avoided in the future.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, speaking of quite a different part of the country, I want to endorse what my noble friend has just said. There seems quite definitely to be a necessity for tightening up the machinery for deciding who is to join the Home Guard and who is not. In the battalion of which I am a member this sort of thing is going on: A request was made for lists to be sent in, and lists were sent in, They were, as far as I know, completely ignored and the curious thing is that of the men whose names were sent up as those of men who were to join the Home Guard, in three cases that I know of the men had been members for a very considerable time, and one of them was even an officer. I make that point as showing the necessity for considerable tightening up of the machinery.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the suggestion made in the Motion moved by the noble Earl and in the speech to which your Lordships have just listened is that there is an apparent lack of system in the method of selecting and calling-up compulsory recruits to the Home Guard. Let me deal first of all with the question of selection. It is important to remember that the Home Guard represents a part-time service, and that men called up for the Home Guard are, speaking generally, already doing a full-time job in some other approved work of national importance. It is most important to remember that fact. It is necessary to make in each case a very careful estimate as to where the balance of advantage lies before directing a man from work that he is doing, and that may be recognized as of vital national importance before you take him
242
away from that and direct him to the Home Guard. For example, some men are already giving part-time in civil defence. And there are other questions, such as medical fitness, questions of conscience and of hardship, which have to be considered, and these matters have to be referred to, and are dealt with by, special boards. If a man establishes his claim, on the ground of hardship for example, no further question of selection arises.
But the question that remains after this matter of allocation is settled is whether in the national interest he should be directed to the Home Guard or not. On the one hand, there is the vital necessity to maintain production at its highest possible level, and every man taken away from that vital side of our national effort means a weakening of the process of national production. On the other hand, it is necessary to ensure that the Home Guard should be kept up to the highest possible strength. The question is not therefore, as the noble Earl would appear to imply in his speech, the simple one of whether compulsion should be applied or not. There are many factors that have to be taken into consideration, and the question becomes sometimes very complex.
In regard to exemption, about which the noble Earl spoke, it is necessary to say that workers in specific industries, which I will not delay your Lordships by reciting, have been given temporary exemption. A certain section, therefore, of those not in the Home Guard are engaged in other work for the moment vitally important, and they are therefore exempt. The noble Earl has referred to lists which Home Guard officers were good enough to draw up of men who, they thought, should be compelled to join the Home Guard. The noble Earl said it was perhaps a small point. I submit that it is not a small point that is involved here, but a major and very important point. The answer to the criticism of the noble Earl is that the Government could not in any event surrender to any outside body or person the responsibility of deciding who ought to be directed to enrol and who ought not. The principle involved does not apply only to the Home Guard, but to all forms of compulsory service and, as in the case of men called up for the Army, the Government must have and retain the sole responsibility for

243
deciding, in the light of all the known facts, which men shall be directed to the Home Guard and which shall not. Therefore the suggestion that the local officers of the Home Guard might be entrusted with this duty is one which the Government at least are not able to accept.
Then there are other difficulties. Lists have been drawn up by the Government of men more or less eligible for this service, but the Government have to remember that a man cannot on principle be taken into the Home Guard if, in the emergency of a sudden invasion, he could not by reason of his civil employment he mustered for that service. For example, ambulance drivers, coastguards, police, doctors and others have to be available for the supreme necessity, should that arise, and that has to be taken into account. There are other safeguards against men in key positions being required for Home Guard purposes. It an employer feels, for instance, that the national interest would be prejudiced by the taking away of one of his workmen, or many of his workmen, he could make an appeal to the National Service officer, and he can also appeal in the end to the Government Department concerned.
The War Office makes provision within the Home Guard organization also to meet the needs of a man's civil employment. But there are those immediately "musterable" (if I may use such a word) on invasion and those who cannot immediately leave their work. Quite clearly the question can only be decided by the Government themselves or their responsible agents. The question of selection is difficult undoubtedly, but only one exception to the general rule that the youngest should be taken first, can be made—that is to say, if a young man is due very shortly to be called up to the Armed Forces, it is inadvisable to have him for a very short period in the Home Guard. So far as the Government know, that would not be popular with the Home Guard authorities themselves. That is another of the complicating issues that have to be faced. The numbers called up depend on Home Guard requirements, and these differ in different areas. In some areas the demands are not so heavy as in others, and older men may not even be required in these areas. In other areas the need is very great, and every man capable of serving is expected to respond.
244
These are the difficulties. I have not attempted to give your Lordships the details of the machinery, but I have said enough to indicate that they are, of necessity, elaborate and complicated. The machinery is not haphazard. It falls in proper sequence, and it is rather refreshing to hear that there is not enough machinery available, because the general criticism in these times is that the machinery is far too elaborate. The procedure adopted is, as I have said, systematic. It provides for things to be taken in proper sequence, and we cannot see any stage in the procedure that could be cut out without serious trouble arising. I have tried to show that there is no simple rule of compulsion to the exclusion of other considerations. The issues involved are variable and urgent, and only those who have responsibility for the organization of the total national effort can know just what these issues are, and what should be done adequately to meet them.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before we leave the subject, may I respectfully say to the noble Lord that all he said would have been relevant to the occasion if it had been stated before the Lord Chancellor, from his place here, defined the new Government policy? All that the noble Lord said is completely at variance with the new policy announced from this place. My noble friend referred to men who are "musterable"—a new word, a very valuable word, a very good and useful word—in the event of invasion. Until the Lord Chancellor spoke here, and made his epoch-making declaration restoring the old law, you might have said some were "musterable" in the event of invasion, which is what we are talking about, and some were not. But now we know—and I beg the noble Lord to make a further statement on behalf of the Government because I am sure he did not realize it when he spoke—that all are "musterable," everyone. Standing just here, the Lord Chancellor said on behalf of the Government that His Majesty's Government expect that every stout-hearted man, in the event of invasion, will do his utmost to overcome the enemy, whether be belongs to the Civil Defence or any other Force. They are all "musterable."
It is a sad thing about this business of government, it is such a ponderous machine, so slow moving, that one half

245
does not know what the other half is doing. What must my noble friend really say to this House in view of the new declaration by the Lord Chancellor? He should reply to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, "Well, of course, the question of compulsion for the Home Guard is a difficult one, but we all realize, in view of the new decision, that we must take every step to train every man to arms, of whatever age, young or old, rich or poor, as was the law of this country until, unfortunately, some Quislings said otherwise when this war began." I appeal to my noble friend to make it clear to the House that every effort will be made to see that every man in this country shall be trained to arms for, unless they do that, they will obviously fail in their duty to save a man from his own folly in confronting an invader of the soil of this country without being taught to use a weapon. I beg my noble friend to make that clear. I support my noble friend Lord Mansfield in what he said, and I hope my noble friend Lord Snell will say now, here in this House—the matter is not one of small importance—that the Government are going to see to it that every man is trained to arms since they have told us that every man is bound to fight on the day.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I shall not take any credit for the use of the word "musterable." I wish to say that at once. But I would ask the noble Lord to consider this. It may be quite true that everybody, in an emergency, must give the best service he can to the nation. But who s to decide what is the best service he can give—the local Home Guard officer or the responsible agent of the Government? Is a Home Guard officer to be empowered to call from his duties a coastguard? Is he to be free to call a doctor who may be very urgently wanted? Is he to be free to call a policeman who may have to direct and control civil order? These things must be decided by the responsible Government representative. The whole of our democratic life is involved in that matter. I only have to say to the noble Lord who has just spoken that the Government are not asleep on this matter. They know quite well what the issues are, and what is required, and, within the complexity of the subject, they are doing their very best to secure that the highest possible efficiency is maintained. Every one of
246
us has of course a duty to resist the enemy, but there are many essential civilian jobs which have to be carried on to the very last moment and even perhaps all the time. I only make these observations in response to the noble Lord, without any immediate authority from the Government
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I must confess to a feeling almost of bewilderment inasmuch as the noble Lord's reply has been, as far as 95 per cent. of its contents are concerned, totally irrelevant to anything which I mentioned in the course of my speech. If the noble Lord will pardon my saying so, he really cannot have listened at all to my remarks, because he said I had made a suggestion that the Home Guard officer should be empowered to have the responsibility of deciding whether or not a man was to be compelled to enrol. It will be within the recollection of most of your Lordships that I spent several minutes saying how I objected to this as being entirely invidious and likely to lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction. One statement made by the noble Lord was that there were special boards which had been set up to hear appeals from those who were dissatisfied. All I can say is that if these special boards exist they have been so admirably concealed that this is the first occasion, as far as I am aware, anyone has ever heard of them.
The noble Lord has not replied in the very least to my main question which was this—who has the final decision as to whether a man is compulsorily enrolled or not? That is the most important thing I want to bring up here to-day. We have heard absolutely nothing about that. All we have had apparently is a Departmental reply dictated by someone in the War Office who did not know what I was going to say, very naturally. I suggest that it would be extremely advantageous to His Majesty's Government and the War Office representatives if they would consider the points I have made point by point, and on some suitable occasion give a direct answer to them, because I must confess that I am totally dissatisfied with the answer that I have received to-day. Naturally there is no question of a Division now. At the same time I must say that I hope this matter will be very carefully considered. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FLEECE COLOURING.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD asked His Majesty's Government if they are aware of the great loss of wool caused by the useless practice of colouring the fleeces of sheep with indelible dye, usually yellow; and whether they will make an order prohibiting this wasteful procedure. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the question I now raise is a small one, but in these days when economy of material is so important it has, I think, a certain weight. It is desirable that the imports of this country should be limited to the greatest possible extent. It is also desirable that the utmost possible use should be made of everything we can produce here. For years past there has been a growing and unfortunate tendency to dye sheep for the purpose of shows. It is not my intention to take up your Lordships' time with the pros and cons of this question. The pros are few to my way of thinking, and the cons very numerous, but the result has been that a great many sheep each year have their fleeces rendered permanently unsuitable for industrial purposes owing to the fact that the dye employed upon them is of a non-soluble character.
Furthermore, a great many sheep are marked by a red or blue mark, usually on the shoulder or rump. In this case only a small portion instead of the whole fleece is affected, but the result is equally serious, if not more so, because the number of sheep so marked is very much in excess of the number of those whose fleeces are entirely bare. The net result is that every year many tons of wool are completely wasted. Surely that is undesirable at any time, and completely inexcusable at the present time. I beg His Majesty's Government, therefore, at least for the period of the war, to consider making an Order in Council rendering it illegal to apply any dye to the fleeces of sheep which is of a non-soluble character —that is to say, which cannot be washed out by the use of some agent which, while removing the dye, will not damage the quality of the fleece.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, I
248
am aware that the colouring of the fleeces of sheep is not uncommon and that dyes are used which cannot be removed in the process of scouring. I am informed, however, that, whereas the noble Lord says the wool is a complete waste, it is not actually wasted, but it is greatly depreciated in value and the wool can be used only for an inferior type of cloth. The farmers of this country have been consistently advised against colouring the fleeces of their sheep with indelible dyes, and the Ministry of Agriculture have also, through publicity, urged them in every way not to continue this undesirable practice. From the information at present before them, however, there is no need, so far as His Majesty's Government can see, why they should introduce an Order prohibiting the dyeing of these fleeces because the amount of wool affected is not considered to be sufficient to warrant that course being adopted. It is hoped that the farmers' good sense will respond to the publicity which has been given to this matter.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the noble Duke's reply, may I ask him if he considers it satisfactory that at the present time even the smallest amount of wool should be wasted seeing that in his reply he has admitted that a number of farmers are still continuing this harmful practice?
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I can only say in reply that I wish to make it clear that the wool in question is not wasted but is made into slightly inferior material.

A.T.C. CADETS TRAVELLING EXPENSES.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD also had the following question on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, if they are aware that the Air Ministry has informed the Scottish Education Department that the travelling expenses of Air Training Corps cadets may not be defrayed from public funds, although various education committees have willingly up to now met such expenses; if it is realized, that this decision will gravely affect the progress of the Air Training Corps in the remoter districts, where the great majority of the cadets cannot afford the cost of travelling between their homes and the usually far-distant training centres; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the matter will be reconsidered.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the question I am now going to bring up is one, I think, of considerable importance. I must apologize to your Lordships for appearing so frequently on the Order Paper to-day. The only reason for that is that it is so difficult for me to obtain sufficient time to come here from Scotland, and when I do come I must make the most of my opportunities in your Lordships' House. When that invaluable institution, the Air Training Corps, was set up, local authorities were asked to cooperate, and this I think has been done with the greatest unanimity and alacrity. In my own area it was found that there is no way in which the expenses of the cadets who were attending courses, often many miles from their homes, could be met. Travelling expenses are often heavy. Sometimes cars have to be hired to take the group from a village to their classroom, and sometimes cars again have to be hired to take them home because there were no 'buses owing to the limitation of numbers available for that purpose.
Until recently my own county continued this without any demur, but gradually more and more small places asked for the facilities to be extended as more and more flights were set up in various parts of our area. Eventually the education committee came to the conclusion that the burden was becoming a little heavy, and they therefore asked the Scottish Education Department if they would represent to the Air Ministry that as this was a national service it was only fair that the expenses of the cadets attending training should be met by the Air Ministry. A reply has now been received by the Scottish Education Department from the Air Ministry that they regret they do not consider that the travelling expenses of Air Training Corps cadets should be defrayed from public funds. The Scottish Education Department apparently interpret public money as meaning not only money under the direct control of the Treasury but also money at the disposal of the local authorities. They seem to decree that it is therefore no longer admissible for county councils and education committees to provide the necessary money for the travelling expenses of these cadets. I am not quite certain myself whether this interpretation is correct, but I wish to suggest to your Lordships that neither decision reflects very creditably upon the Air Ministry.
If it is still possible for local authorities to spend money in paying for the 'bus fares and other travelling expenses of the air cadet's training, it obviously follows that the cost will bear more heavily upon scattered areas than upon densely populated urban areas. As the A.T.C. is universally regarded as of such great value and as we constantly hear from highly-placed Air Force officers how very much they esteem it, it is hardly fair that the Air Ministry should seek to put what ought to be a national responsibility upon the shoulders of local authorities. If no public funds of any kind, not even those under control of local authorities, may be expended in this way, I would suggest that the position is really intolerable. It will mean that in many scattered areas, particularly in Scotland, Wales and the forth of England, many cadets will be unable to continue their training because the great majority of them come from homes in comparatively humble circumstances and cannot afford to pay week by week the sums involved for travelling. Otherwise the people in those areas who still have a little spare cash or are willing to stint themselves will have to put their hands in their pockets and establish a private fund for paying expenses which should be met by His Majesty's Government. I shall be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, if he will state what is the actual position. If it is that the Air Ministry are unwilling to take responsibility, I would ask him to reconsider this, and if it is that no public funds are to be considered available then I must warn him that after the Recess there will be a Motion on the subject which will be pressed, if necessary, to a Division.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD SHERWOOD): My Lords, the point which the noble Earl has brought up is one which apparently is not clearly understood and therefore I must detain your Lordships for a short time while I explain the reason for the present policy which has been recently reviewed and re-affirmed. That policy is that Air Training Corps units can pay from their Air Ministry grants travelling expenses in the case of collective travelling of cadets when they move from their normal place of duty to some other place such as on a visit to an R.A.F. station or for travelling to camp. On the other hand

251
it is not the policy to pay the travelling expenses of cadets travelling individually from their homes or place of work to their normal place of duty The prime reason for this—and I think your Lordships will agree with me here—is that it would be out of accord with the spirit of the Air Training Corps to pay normal travelling expenses. In undertaking service of this kind a cadet joins with the idea of service and not for payment. Once you create in a Cadet force the idea that everything has got to be paid for by the State, you will do great harm to the Cadet Corps.
There are other points which I should mention because I think they should be realized by people who bring up hard cases. One is the administrative difficulty. To pay these expenses would add enormously to the paper work of the administrative side, and that is one of the things about which the Home Guards have complained. There is also the question of cost. It is very easy to say that this is a very small matter and would amount to very little. What would the cost be? Suppose one cadet in four received payment for travelling and that the average payment was 2s. a week. That would bring the cost up to a figure of £250,000 a year with the present number of cadets. The total grant we now get for the A.T.C. is under that figure. The matter of course would not stop there because the principle would have to be made applicable to Sea Cadets and Army Cadets and to all other organizations similarly placed.
The noble Earl brought up a question about which there seems to have been some misunderstanding in Scotland. It is a point I would like to make clear. It is true that payment of expenses may be made to boys attending part-time voluntary classes arranged by the local authorities. Local education authorities are allowed, if they wish, to pay expenses in cases where the distance to be travelled is long and the boys cannot afford to pay their own. The local authority can do exactly as it wishes. The system of paying travelling expenses for educational classes is not obligatory on a local authority, nor is it universal, and it is not the Air Ministry's intention that educational authorities should be debarred from making these payments if they wish simply because some of the boys attending
252
the classes are members of the Air Training Corps. There has been some misapprehension about this and action has been taken to clear up the misunderstanding which occurred in Scotland. I do not think the problem is as serious as the noble Earl has suggested. After all, we want these cadets and we can only be judged by the number that we obtain. During the last year 200 units have been formed and of these 32 are in Scotland. I think the answer to this problem is to form more units so that they can be closer together and the cadets can get training without having to travel too far. It would strike a serious blow at the voluntary system if boys went into the Cadet Corps not in a spirit of service but feeling that everything would be paid for.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of that reply, while I am glad to learn that there has been a misapprehension and that local authorities will still be able to pay, I would ask my noble friend if he is aware that in Scotland, as well as in many parts of England, there are great distances to be covered by, these cadets, that local centres are far too small to justify the establishment of local units, and that if this pettifogging parsimony is continued by the Air Ministry it will certainly mean the loss of a considerable number of potentially valuable cadets? Is he also aware that the payment of travelling expenses has never been considered as invalidating the voluntary status of anyone? And is he further aware that this attempt on the part of the Air Ministry to shift on to the shoulders of local authorities a responsibility which should be a national one is hardly worthy of us in time of war?

THE BEVERIDGE REPORT.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Southwood, I beg to ask the question which stands in his name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they can now name an approximate date for the completion of the Beveridge Report, and if they propose to publish the Report or only their conclusions thereon.]
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies I wish to make

253
just one point. Industry at the present time is being invited and pressed by the Government to express its views in regard to the Report already issued by Sir William Beveridge, and an effort is being made to send an answer embodying what industry thinks it ought to say to the Government on the subject. Now I wish to point out that the recommendations are very complex. Take one very small illustration, that of compensation for accidents. A great number of accidents are compensated for in one industry and practically none in another. Therefore, on that account alone, the interests of different branches of industry are very diffuse and very complex, and a good deal of attention has to be concentrated in order to secure some definite view from industry in connexion with the proposals. A suggestion I wish to put to the noble Viscount is that in the event of the Government coming to any conclusions for submission to Parliament, those conclusions should be put in the form of proposals and not as definite conclusions. Industry would then have a further opportunity of expressing its views thereon, before the Government were definitely committed to any proposals.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Portal, I rise to answer the question which has been asked on behalf of my noble friend Lord Southwood by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. It is intended to publish the Report, the completion of which is expected in the autumn. In regard to the observations made by my noble friend Lord Gainford, I will make it my business to inform my noble friend Lord Portal what he has said.

CIRCULAR TO MOTOR REPAIR SHOPS.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY asked His Majesty's Government whether their attention had been called to a circular issued to the motor vehicle repair shops by the Minister of War Transport (Gen. A 1/6), which appears to contravene the policy enunciated in this House by Ministers on recent occasions. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the question which stands in my name is to draw attention to a circular which has been sent to me by a very dis-
254
tinguished officer holding high command in the Home Guard. This circular was brought to him by an officer on his staff who happens also to be a garage proprietor. With your Lordships' permission I will summarize its contents in order to explain why I am asking the question. Before doing so, however, I would like to take the opportunity of apologizing to the Minister of War Transport for the shortness of the notice which I have given.
This circular is headed Denial of Resources to the Enemy. It has been issued to the motor vehicle repair shops and it starts by laying down that:
"Motor vehicle repair shops are a valuable national asset"
and, addressing the owners, managements and staffs of such establishments, it goes on to state that
"if the country is invaded you should in no circumstances destroy your premises, plant, equipment or stores (other than petrol about which separate instructions have been issued). These will all be wanted when the enemy has been driven out."
The pamphlet then goes on to recognize that equally these establishments might prove a valuable asset to the invader for "repairing and servicing his motor transport and armoured fighting vehicles." So it lays down certain measures which are to be taken, if possible, for hiding
"any delicate or valuable machinery or parts of such machinery which could not be easily replaced and which he could readily destroy or carry off."
It puts upon the managers of garages and their employees certain duties—upon the managers that of deciding when to take these steps and upon the employees that of knowing what they have to hide. Then after they have hidden these things they have to hide themselves so that it cannot be possible for them to be forced by the enemy to help to bring the garages into working order again.
This has all got to be arranged before the enemy reaches the shop. Steps have to be taken when it appears that the enemy is likely to do so. Now this is a very difficult question. To ask a manager of a garage to decide when he has time to carry out all the measures which are laid down, and when there is time also for him and his men to get out before the enemy reach their shop, is to set him a puzzling problem. How can he be expected to know the military situation existing on the

255
outskirts of the town in which his establishment is situated? But the whole crux of the circular is contained in an instruction in capital letters which states: "On no account destroy anything." It is a plausible document, but I would ask whether the policy it lays down is a wise one or one likely to be effective. If it is wise, is the responsibility for carrying out the instructions placed upon the right shoulders? Again, if we do leave these undamaged shops to our enemy, is he likely to do the same for us when we drive him out, and give us this means of expediting our advance? In the lavatories on the Italian railways before the war there used to be notices asking passengers to leave the premises in the same state in which they found them. I suggest that we should borrow some of these notices and put them up in our garages for the enemy's edification. I am sure the result would be exactly the same in both cases.
I suggest that the circular should embody the much more robust policy that has recently been laid down in your Lordships' House by the Lord Chancellor and by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire. There is no scorched earth policy about this circular. There is nothing but simple and touching faith in what the enemy will do, and, apparently, a failure to appreciate the rapidity with which events may develop if invasion should take place. In the last war we failed to destroy some harbour works on the Belgian coast because we thought we might require them later on. They remained a thorn in our side for the rest of the war. Is it really necessary in the event of invasion to leave the machinery in these garages in any sort of state in which it could be put into working order by the enemy? Supposing he were to invade the south coast and occupy a considerable area there: if you had destroyed all the repair shops and their contents in that area he would be in difficulties because he would have to bring all the materials for repairing and servicing his transport arid fighting vehicles over here by means of ships. We, on the other hand, would have the whole of the resources of the rest of the country at our backs.
Yet we have this order, "On no account destroy anything." I suggest that the circular ought to end by saying: "If time does not permit the adoption of the measures recommended, on no account
256
should anything undamaged fall into the enemy's hands; everything should be destroyed by the readiest means available, and these means should be thought out beforehand." A good deal can be done with a heavy mall on boring machines, and explosives can lift boring machines and lathes out of their seatings. This should go on until the enemy enters the door, and then there will be something better to use a mall on!
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I do not apologize for addressing your Lordships a second time, because this subject is similar to that to which I have already referred. My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has left out one salient point, which shocked him So much that he asked me to support him. It is a point which involves the same pestilent doctrine against which I have already protested, and which I will cal the "rabbit" doctrine. There is a paragraph in this document which deals with what is to be done when the enemy comes. It says that on no account are these things to be destroyed, and then it deals with what the man himself is to do, and the statement is, "keep out of the way." The proper thing to do, of course, is to get a big spanner and try to hit the enemy over the head with it. It is an extraordinary thing that this ponderous machine should go on working on the lines of the "rabbit" policy, while the "lion" policy, advocated by the Lord Chancellor, never gets a hearing. This is a very bad case of the continuation of this pacifist, Quisling policy which obsessed us at the beginning of the war. A citizen of this country who asks what he should do if the enemy approaches his garage is not told to use his utmost endeavours to overcome the enemy, which is what the Lord Chancellor told him, but to keep out of the way. This must be put right. I do not apologize for keeping on about this, because I and others will not rest until we have extirpated this foul doctrine of pacifist, Quisling cowardice, which obsessed us until the Lord Chancellor swept it away.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Leathers is unfortunately not able to be present to-day, for reasons which have been given to the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and which I think he understands. The answer which my noble friend would have given on the matter of the circular to

257
which attention has been called is that this circular was issued by my noble friend's Department after consultation with the military and with the other Government Departments concerned. He is not aware that it conflicts with general Government policy in any respect.
With regard to the remarks which the noble and gallant Earl has made about the circular, I suggest that the emphasis there is on the need to keep the shop in operation as long as possible, and to avoid precipitate action. The circular issued by the Ministry of War Transport lays on certain interested and responsible individuals definite responsibilities, and tells them how and when to discharge those responsibilities. It emphasizes that nothing should be destroyed, but gives detailed instructions as to how certain important machinery in motor vehicle repair Shops can be rendered useless by the removal of certain small but essential parts. The management is advised to hide these parts, arid the plant can be put into working order again in a very short time if the locality is not in fact invaded by the enemy. I am only able to give, as my noble and gallant friend will realize, an individual interpretation of the effect of this, but I think that that would be the answer of my noble friend Lord Leathers, had he been able to be present.
LORD MOTTISTONE: What about the man keeping out of the way? The man is told to keep out of the way, and that is directly at variance with what the Lord Chancellor said.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) BILL.
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I promised the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I would give him certain information. I have now obtained information from the Departments concerned regarding the numbers of applications for loans and grants for the reconditioning of rural cottages. As the noble Marquess surmised, by far the majority of people prefer a grant to a loan. In England and Wales only 78 out of 23,693 applicants
258
have asked for loans, and in Scotland the proportion is even smaller. The fact that the conditions specified in Section 3 of the Act of 1926 do not apply in the case of a loan, as distinct from a grant, is not, apparently, a sufficient counter-attraction. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed

NATIONAL SERVICE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CLEARING OFFICE (SPAIN) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1942.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the

Borough of Surbiton;

Urban District of Pickering.

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