Sitting of 14 July 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

DEATH OF A MEMBER.
Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:
I regret to have to inform the House of the death of John Jagger, Esquire, Member for the Borough of Manchester (Clayton Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SOUTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords.]
  Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords.]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTION.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    Discharge Leave.
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that soldiers sent home on 28 days' leave, pending discharge from the Army, are provided with National Health and Unemployment cards, so that in the national interest they may obtain civilian work without delay?
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The leave pass of a soldier who goes on leave pending discharge is endorsed "free to take up civil employment." He can therefore register for employment as soon as his leave starts. Arrangements are made for issue during
    1054
    the leave period of a regular unemployment book, and in the meantime if he secures work he can obtain an emergency card from his local employment exchange.
    Mr. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a Peebles soldier was offered work of national importance on the railway but was unable to start because he had no cards and there were no means for him to get them?
    Sir J. Grigg: This information is given on the authority of the Minister of Labour, and I cannot answer questions about individual cases.

    Officers (Relegation to Unemployment).
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties of officers reverted to unemployment under A.C.I. No. 422, who have appealed to the Army Council against the decision, and are for a period unable to accept civilian employment, and equally are not in receipt of any pay; and will he consider modifying the regulations so that their pay shall continue until their appeal has been decided?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am sending my hon. Friend full particulars of the case which has given rise to his Question. With regard to the general principle involved, I would refer him to the answer I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) on 7th July.

    Identity Documents.
    Sir Reginald Clarryasked the Secretary of State for War under what regulation a soldier's identity documents must include the birthplaces of his father and mother and what useful purpose do these serve; whether he is aware that, in the case of a soldier with a parent born in an enemy country and captured by the enemy, this information makes the situation more serious for the soldier; and whether, in view of these possibilities he will favourably consider any application made by a soldier for omitting the names and birthplaces of his parents from his identity book?
    Sir J. Grigg: The requirement that a soldier's parents' nationality at birth should be entered on his documents is of long standing. Its purpose was to ascertain a man's eligibility for service. I am,

    1055
    however, aware of the risk referred to in the Question and am considering an alteration of the present practice which would remove it.

    Soldiers' Balances.
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make arangements that when men in the Army are informed by the paymaster that they are in debt, they can ascertain the cause of the debt?
    Sir J. Grigg: Soldiers are not told directly by the paymaster, if they are in debt, but through their company commanders, to whom particulars of the state of their men's accounts and the reasons for any debts are conveyed on individual forms. If a soldier disagrees with the rates of pay or the balance given on this form, the company commander is instructed to return it to the paymaster giving the reason for the disagreement. Arrangements have been made to get the agreement to their balances once every three months of soldiers serving at home and the same procedure will be extended to those abroad as opportunity offers.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that sometimes a soldier cannot ascertain the reason why he is in debt, although he has asked for the information, that the Army authorities say that they do not know and that they cannot find out?
    Sir J. Grigg: I daresay accidents hap-pen in the best regulated families, but that is not in accordance with Regulations.
    Mr. Strauss: If I forward some cases, will the Minister be good enough to look into them?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir.

    Education Scheme.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied with the Army Education Scheme and its organisation; and what steps are being taken to improve it?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am satisfied that much valuable work is being done under the Army Education Scheme, and I know that those concerned are continually seeking to make improvements.

    Withdrawn Poster.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for War why the educational poster entitled "Look Ahead, In War Prepare for Peace," has been withdrawn; and at whose request this was done?
    Sir J. Grigg: This poster was withdrawn at the request of the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, who thought it undesirable at the present time to direct soldiers' attention away from the immediate urgency of the war effort.

    Checking of Passes and Saluting.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for War why men are stopped by the military police so often and asked for their passes, in view of the check that there is at headquarters; will he stop this and also issue an order to abolish saluting except when on duty?
    Sir J. Grigg: The purpose of this checking of passes is to detect absence without leave, and I am not prepared to order its discontinuance. With regard to the last part of his Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on 14th October, 1941.
    Mr. Smith: The Minister will be aware that the cream of our manhood is now serving in the Armed Forces, but is he aware that they resent interference of this kind which is constantly taking place, and in view of that will he reconsider his reply?
    Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. Unfortunately absence without leave still exists in the Army, and this is the best way of checking it.
    Mr. Smith: Is the percentage of absence without leave sufficient to warrant resorting to the continuation of this practice?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir.
    Sir H. Williams: Has the Minister ever known a good soldier who objected to saluting, or a good officer objecting to acknowledging a salute, even though he has to do it 30 times more often than a man has to salute?
    Sir J. Grigg: That is an expression of opinion.
    Mr. Thorne: How does it do any good if I salute the Minister?

    Tank Board.
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will recall a senior officer, not below the rank of brigadier, who has had recent practical experience of tank warfare and place him on the War Office list of representatives on the Tank Board, in addition to the present representatives or in substitution for one of them?
    Sir J. Grigg: In addition to the normal liaison arrangements between the War Office and overseas theatres, I am arranging that a senior officer shall come home to report on the present campaign in North Africa. Information relating to battle experience is coming to the Tank Board regularly from all sources.

    Territorial Commanding Officers.
    Mr. Reakesasked the Secretary of State for War how many Territorial commanding officers have been removed from their commands, whilst serving at home, since the Territorial Army became merged in the Army; how many have objected; the number granted an inquiry and the number reinstated in their commands; how many, other than Territorial officers, have been promoted to commands vacated by Territorials; and will he give an assurance that the arbitrary removal of Territorial commanders will not be used to impair the efficient and democratic tradition of the Territorial Army?
    Sir J. Grigg: I could not give the facts asked for without an expenditure of time and labour on research which I could not justify. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative.

    Military Personnel (Civilian Work).
    Mr. William Brownasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will authorise Whitley committees in mixed War Office establishments comprising civil and military personnel to discuss and make recommendations on the more effective use of man-power in these establishments, including the question of how far military personnel engaged on clerical work could be replaced by civilian personnel?
    Sir J. Grigg: One of the functions of Whitley committees is the improvement of office machinery and organisation, and any suggestions made on those committees will receive every consideration.
    1058
    But the question of the proportion of military and civil personnel in mixed establishments is one of policy which must necessarily be laid down by the War Office and is outside the scope of local Whitley committees.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware there is widespread feeling in all branches of the War Office that an immense number of military personnel, trained at some cost to the State, are being, for all practical purposes, wasted on civilian work which might easily be performed by men over military age or by women?
    Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member will forgive me if I give the same reply that I gave before to a similar Supplementary Question, namely, that I am aware that the Civil Service Clerical Association hold that opinion, but I am not aware that the opinion is widely held throughout the branches of the War Office.
    Mr. Brown: If the Whitley committees may not discuss this matter in stations of the War Office, will the Minister tell us how we can get it ventilated and save this inordinate waste?
    Sir J. Grigg: When I was in another capacity in the War Office, this matter was widely ventilated, both inside and outside the War Office, and was gone into with great thoroughness.

    Missing Personnel, Far East (Dependants' Allowances).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement regarding the payment of allowances after 31st July to the dependants of men captured at Singapore?
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the continuation of dependants' allowances of prisoners of war or missing in Singapore, Malaya and Burma?
    Sir J. Grigg: In the continued absence of information from the Japanese Government it has been decided that, unless death is previously reported, the allowances now being paid to the families and dependants of personnel missing as a result of operations in the Far East shall remain unchanged during the next three months. The position will be kept under review.

    Lady Margaret School.
    Colonel Arthur Evansasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the conditions under which the former girl students of the Howard Garden High School, Cardiff, are now studying are most difficult; and whether he will arrange for the military authorities to vacate the Lady Margaret School, which is now used solely as a billet for men who would be employed in the docks in the event of an air-raid, and thereby station the military nearer their place of duty and at the same time enable the senior girl students to pursue their studies under reasonable conditions?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am aware of the purpose for which this school was requisitioned and of the difficulties which it has caused. Unfortunately, however, I am not yet in a position to say that the premises can be released.
    Colonel Evans: Has the Minister caused inquiries to be made as to whether suitable premises are available in Cardiff where the military could be billeted, in order that the education of the senior girls can be continued at the original place?
    Sir J. Grigg: As this particular case has been the subject of considerable pressure from my constituency, I think obviously the answer is "Yes."

    Malaya (British Prisoners, Information).
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any fresh information to give with regard to the names or numbers of British troops captured in the Malayan campaign?
    Sir J. Grigg: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 24th June, we have received some lists of names of United Kingdom Service and civilian personnel captured at Hong Kong. These lists continue to come in, and the number of names notified to this country up to the present date is about 2,500. I have no further information about the full list in respect of Malaya, which the Japanese are expected to send by the first exchange ship.
    Mr. Granville: According to the Press a ship is expected to arrive shortly in this country. Can the Minister confirm or deny that, and will he take steps to make available whatever information he may
    1060
    have through the local branches of the Red Cross and W.V.S. organisations so that they can pass it on to relatives and dependants?
    Sir J. Grigg: With regard to the second part of the Question, I have already done that. In regard to the first part of the Question, I cannot give an answer without notice.

    Coastal Raids (Warning).
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet devised a system of warning to be given in the event of any attempted raids on coastal areas of this country?
    Sir J. Grigg: In the interests of security, no further information on this subject can be given.

    Guns (Libya).
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Prime Minister what steps were taken, after it was learnt that the Germans were using in Libya the 88-millimetre gun in 1941, to provide the British Forces there with a suitable equivalent?
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I regret that it would be contrary to the public interest to give information on this subject.
    Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that "the public interest" means that nothing was done?

  SCOTLAND.

    Maternity Accommodation, Glasgow.
    Mrs. Hardieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the Report of the medical officer of health for Glasgow that the demand for indoor accommodation for confinements is increasing and is very difficult to meet; and, in view of the high rate of maternal mortality in Scotland, will he take steps to ensure that further accommodation for maternity is included in new hospital services?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I have seen the Report referred to. The aim of the Government's hospital policy is to secure that hospital treatment shall be available to every person in need of it: that certainly includes adequate provision for maternity cases. In the meantime expec-

    1061
    tant mothers in Glasgow may be admitted to emergency maternity homes outside the city, set up under the Government Evacuation Scheme, in which there is at present vacant accommodation.
    Mrs. Hardie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many young married people cannot get a house at all but have to live with relatives or in single rooms? Can something be done to press the immediate provision of this necessary accommodation?
    Mr. Johnston: I think the latter part of my answer makes it clear that in these cases provision can be made for maternity accommodation.
    Mrs. Hardie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are only 300 beds for evacuees?
    Mr. Johnston: There is vacant accommodation now which is not being applied for.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many authorities in England believe that the decrease in maternal mortality is relative to the increased accommodation for confinements?
    Mr. Johnston: I cannot answer questions about England.

    Milk Supply, Glasgow.
    Mrs. Hardieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the increase in the number of cases of suspected tuberculosis amongst infants examined on entrance to Glasgow schools, he will have an investigation made into the quality of the milk supplied in the city?
    Mr. Johnston: I have no reason to believe that the milk supplies to the city of Glasgow are the cause of any part of the increase in suspected tuberculosis. The cases in question are of suspected pulmonary tuberculosis, which is not generally due to bovine infection conveyed by milk.
    Mrs. Hardie: Will the Department control the new milk scheme which comes into operation in September?
    Mr. Johnston: I think so, but Glasgow is one of the best cities in the country as far as pasteurisation of milk is concerned.
    Mr. Thorne: Will there be any difficulty in having children suffering from tuberculosis being educated in the open air?
    Viscountess Astor: Surely most tuberculous children in Glasgow and elsewhere have open-air education?
    Mr. Johnston: I should like notice of that question.

  FUEL AND POWER.

    Farms (Coal Stocks).
    Major Braithwaiteasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make arrangements so that farmers in isolated districts can secure their coal supplies for the winter now?
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Stocking for the winter is being encouraged so far as supplies permit, and local fuel overseers have been instructed to give favourable consideration to applications for licences from isolated premises such as farms where long haulage is involved.
    Major Braithwaite: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many of these places are quite impassable in the winter and that it has been customary to get fuel into the farms and the villagers' cottages during the summer months, and that it is imperative that definite steps should be taken before it is too late?
    Major Lloyd George: That can be done in the cases to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers by application to the local fuel overseer.
    Major Braithwaite: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to see that the local overseers do something instead of talking about it?
    Major Lloyd George: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell me of cases where local fuel overseers are not doing it.
    Major Braithwaite: I certainly will.

    Petrol Allowances.
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties of magistrates in rural areas attending to their duties on account of the reduction in petrol supply; and whether he will give sympathetic consideration to applications from magistrates for additional allowances?
    Major Lloyd George: I am not aware of any general difficulty in this respect. Attendance of magistrates at their courts is recognised as justifying a petrol allowance where other means of transport are not available.
    Mr. Summersasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what action he proposes to take in connection with the issue of supplementary petrol allowances in the Nottingham division in view of the widespread dissatisfaction at the present practice in this respect; and whether he is prepared to consider the appointment of local panels of selected individuals to whom appeals may be sent by those who consider unwarranted hardship and interference with production results from the decision of local divisional officers?
    Major Lloyd George: As regards the first part of the Question, I am not aware of any such widespread dissatisfaction. As regards the second, I regret that I cannot entertain my hon. Friend's suggestion, but would refer him to the reply I gave on 30th June to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Donald Scott).
    Mr. Summers: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not willing to institute some court of appeal in such cases, will he issue instructions that more attention is paid to individual cases rather than to broad categories of professions, which bear no relation to individual circumstances?
    Major Lloyd George: If an applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the divisional officer, he can, of course, make a further appeal for a request to be submitted to a higher authority. We have, however, begged people not to make these appeals unless they are satisfied that they are absolutely essential.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this is not confined to Nottingham but is widespread? All Members are receiving considerable correspondence on the question.
    Major Lloyd George: Of course I am. It is bound to be widespread if privileges are taken away. I know that there is inconvenience with regard to the petrol allowance.

    Coal Merchants (Licences).
    Mr. Ammonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the recent in-
    1064
    struction in the Fuel and Lighting Order, dated 1st July, means that all licensed coal merchants have to renew their licences?
    Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. The registration of merchants already licensed is continued under the new Order. They will receive new certificates from the local fuel overseers.

    Coal Supplies, London.
    Mr. Ammonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that, in some of the Metropolitan boroughs, coal merchants complain of lack of supplies and that the local fuel overseers consider the outlook for the coming winter worse than the last;and whether he can give any assurance that the necessary supplies will be forthcoming?
    Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend-knows, from the recent Debates in this House, that supplies of coal for domestic purposes are less ample now than in the past, and I cannot give an assurance that supplies will be forthcoming on such a level that difficulties will not arise. It is for that reason that I have already launched a vigorous fuel economy campaign, in the hope that voluntary savings in fuel consumption will make unnecessary the imposition of compulsory rationing. At the same time steps are being taken to make further improvements in the arrangements for distribution, so as to ensure that the available supplies of house coal are shared as fairly as possible between all classes of consumers.
    Mr. Ammon: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that, for very small consumers and those with little accommodation, rationing is necessary, otherwise we shall have the tremendous difficulty that we had last year, and nothing will lower the morale of the people more than being cold?
    Major Lloyd George: I am aware of those difficulties, and everything that can be done will be done to see that this class of consumer gets its requirements.
    Captain Duncan: Will arrangements be made to let this Chamber set an example in fuel economy? There are 240 lights burning at this moment.
    Viscountess Astor: It is the case also in small rooms. In the ladies' room lights are left on.

    Electricity Charges.
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will discontinue forthwith the principle of charging for electricity used for domestic purposes on a flat rate plus a small charge per unit, because it encourages people to increase consumption and penalises those who are economical?
    Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 23rd June to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate). I do not agree that the system has the general effect suggested by my hon. Friend, since the more one consumes the more one pays.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that people who burn a small amount of current pay Is a unit? Can he not see his way to charge a flat rate in the circumstances?
    Major Lloyd George: It is possible for the consumer to go back on to the flat rate. I cannot agree that the more you use the less you pay.
    Sir William Davison: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that great confusion has been caused in the public mind by receiving information that they get a cheaper rate if they burn a larger amount? I had letters yesterday from two people asking, "What are we to do? We are urged to be economical, but we are told that we get it cheaply if we use more."
    Major Lloyd George: I think the hon. Gentleman is mixing up two things. The Question refers to a flat rate plus a small charge. The consumer pays a flat rate, which is agreed upon, and gets his units at a smaller price than he would otherwise. But it remains true that, the more he burns, the more he pays.

    Railway Trains (Electric Lights).
    Mr. Douglasasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps have been taken to prevent waste of electricity by the use of electric lights in trains during broad daylight?
    Major Lloyd George: The provisions of the Waste of Fuel Order issued on 26th June would apply to waste of light in trains.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that on a recent
    1066
    day there were scores of lights burning in brilliant sunshine on Southern Railway trains?
    Major Lloyd George: In some of these coaches the lights can be put on by the passengers themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I have done it myself. In certain coaches it is possible to put on the light oneself, in which case- the passenger is liable for waste. In other cases, whoever is in charge is responsible. I am looking into the matter closely.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that in electric trains the carriages make their own lights?

    Rationing.
    Mr. Purbrickasked the Minister of Fuel and Power approximately how many officials will be required to carry out the scheme of rationing fuel; what will be its cost; and how much extra coal does he anticipate' will be saved by compulsory rationing as compared with voluntary fuel saving?
    Major Lloyd George: On staff requirements I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 14 of the Annex to the White Paper of 3rd June, Cmd. 6364. The cost of the staff in the first year would be about £750,000. The rationing scheme is designed to save 10,000,000 tons of coal; there can as yet be no basis for an estimate of the saving that will be achieved by voluntary economy.
    Mr. Purbrick: Will that be added to the cost of the scheme?
    Major Lloyd George: Of course, if the money is spent, it is bound to be, but the point is that the savings which would accrue would be of far greater value to the nation.
    Mr. Levy: When does my right hon. and gallant Friend propose to start the propaganda for economy in the consumption of fuel, because up to now it has been non-existent or inefficient?
    Major Lloyd George: I am afraid that my hon. Friend neither listens nor reads.

    Lifts (Unnecessary Use).
    Captain Gammansasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the waste of power due to the unnecessary use of lifts in public buildings and blocks of flats; whether he is pre-

    1067
    pared to issue an order forbidding the use of lifts upwards between single floors and the use of lifts downwards except in high buildings, and in cases of age or physical infirmity?
    Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend's suggestion is under consideration.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    Shirts.
    Mr. Parkerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to see that all cricket and other sports shirts are in future produced with short sleeves so as to economise in unnecessary use of material?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Arrangements are being made for the continued production in adequate quantities of short sleeved shirts, but it is not intended to prohibit the production of long sleeved shirts, which may be used for other purposes as well as for sport.

    Auxiliary Territorial Service (Clothing Coupons).
    Mr. Molsonasked the President of the Board of Trade for what purposes clothing coupons are issued to members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service, who receive a full free issue of all necessary clothing, when none are issued to serving soldiers; and whether they can be used for the purchase of civilian clothing?
    Mr. Dalton: The 10 clothing coupons issued annually to non-commissioned members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service are intended for the normal replacement of handkerchiefs, dressing-gowns and slippers, which do not form part of the Service issue of clothing. Although non-commissioned ranks in the Army receive no coupons, they can obtain handkerchiefs without coupons on presenting a chit from their commanding officer.
    Mr. Molson: Are the coupons intended also to be used for civilian clothing for use on leave?
    Mr. Dalton: They are intended to be used for the purpose I have stated in my answer. This question has been the sub-
    1068
    ject of discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and me, and it was the view of the War Office that this is an essential requirement of the A.T.S.
    Mr. Molson: That being the case, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that these coupons are used for that purpose and not for other purposes?
    Mr. Dalton: That would be administratively very difficult.
    Viscountess Astor: How on earth could he do that?

    Post-War Industry (Art and Design).
    Mr. W. Brownasked the President of the Board of Trade the personnel of the Committee on Art and Design in post-war industry?
    Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I think the hon. Member must be referring to a Sub-Committee of the Post-War Export Trade Committee, and with his permission I will circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister satisfied that this sub-committee of the committee is doing any useful work, or is it an alibi for the continued existence of a Department whose functions have otherwise disappeared and which ought to be abolished?
    Mr. Johnstone: I am satisfied that the committee is doing extremely useful work.
    Following is the list:
    Members:

    Sir Cecil Weir, K.B.E., M.C. (Chairman.)

    Sir Kenneth Clark, K.C.B.

    Mr. H. Clay.

    Mr. T. A. Fennemore.

    Mr. E. W. Goodale.

    Sir Charles Innes, K.C.S.I., C.I.E.

    Miss A. Kilroy.

    Mr. D. H. Lyal, C.M.G., M.B.E.

    Mr. Francis Meynell.

    Mr. John Rodgers.

    Lord Semphill, A.F.C.

    Mr. E. Sieff.

    Mr. Josiah Wedgwood.

    Mr. A. G. White.

    Mr. Robert Wilson.

    Mr. J. H. Devine (Secretary).

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    Condensed Milk (Children).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is now able to make a statement as to the result of the consultations with his Department's medical advisers regarding the supply of condensed milk without the surrender of points to children, including premature infants, on medical grounds?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): As a result of the consultations referred to in my predecessor's Reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) on 13th May, and in the light of advice received from the Special Diets Advisory Committee of the Medical Research Council, my Noble Friend has decided that there is no necessity for any special arrangements to be made for the issue of condensed milk for infants as he is satisfied that an equitable and at the same time more economic distribution of the preparation can be best achieved by consideration of individual cases of an exceptional nature which will be limited to children under 12 months. All new applications if supported by medical evidence will in future, therefore, be considered by the Special Diets Advisory Committee. All permits which have already been issued will, however, continue in force for the period for which they were granted.
    Viscountess Astor: Surely it is not good for premature infants to have condensed milk?
    Mr. Mabane: If the noble Lady will read the Answer, she will find that the point is covered.

    Sugar (Gifts of Jam to Hospitals).
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will reconsider the request of a lady, who applied to him on 16th June, for an allocation of sugar to enable her to continue her gifts, amounting in the past two years to 7,000 lbs. of jam, to King Edward VII Hospital at Windsor, No. 5 Canadian Hospital at Taplow and the Chalfont St. Peter Cottage Hospital?
    Mr. Mabane: The case in question has been carefully considered. While appreciating the charitable purpose of the lady's activities, I regret that it is not in the public interest to make special allocations of sugar to individuals for the purpose of supplying certain hospitals and Service canteens with jam outside the rationing regulations. The lady has been advised that it is possible for the hospitals to be supplied with jam made from her fruit through the agency of the local Preservation Centre, which operates in accordance with rationing regulations.
    Sir A. Knox: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why, in the first instance, this lady's letter to the Ministry of Food, which was dated 16th June was not replied to until 7th July, so that in the meantime hundreds of pounds of soft fruit went to waste; and does he know that this lady has been asked by the Washington Hostel and other American organisations to supply jam to them and that if she has to refuse them jam it will cause an unfortunate feeling, in view of the kindnesses we have received from Americans?
    Mr. Mabane: In regard to the first part of the Supplementary Question, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I discussed this case with him and saw the lady, and that is one reason why the letter was delayed. I should like to have notice of the second part of the question.

  VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.
  Sir John Mellorasked the Prime Minister whether he will explain the divergence of policy between the War Office on the one hand and the Admiralty and Air Ministry on the other with regard to mobile members of the Voluntary Aid Detachment?
  Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will shortly be making a statement to the House on this subject, and perhaps my hon. Friend will await the announcement of the War Office proposals.
  Sir J. Mellor: In view of the anxiety which the proposal of the War Office has caused, would my right hon. Friend say why the War Office has seen fit to make this proposal whereas the other Services have not?
  Mr. Attlee: It is in view of the anxiety that my right hon. Friend is to make a statement.
  Sir J. Mellor: Will the Secretary of State for War deal with the attitude of the other two Services?
  Mr. Attlee: I will consult with my right hon. Friend on that point.
  Earl Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as I understand, there was an undertaking given across the Table by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that before he made any public announcement on the subject he would receive a deputation representing all parties in the House? Will the Deputy Prime Minister call my right hon. Friend's attention to this matter, which is of some importance, for we ought to have an opportunity of seeing him before he makes a statement?
  Mr. Attlee: I understand that my right hon. Friend is receiving a deputation.
  Miss Cazalet: Will the Directors of the three Women's Services be consulted before a decision is taken?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    War Damage (Advance Payments).
    Mr. Storeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the War Damage Commission now advises claimants for advance payments under Section 8 (3) of the War Damage Act, 1941, that they have the option of proving their title to the property by submitting their title deeds to the Commission instead of only informing them that they can furnish such proof by obtaining a certificate of title from a solicitor upon payment of a fee.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir, I have sent my hon. Friend a copy of the letter now sent to claimants.

    Government-Built Ships.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the decision outlined in a recent White Paper, Cmd. 6357, whereby shipowners may purchase Government-built ships, will be held to commit the Government in respect of the post-war organisation of the shipping industry?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The decision announced does not commit the Government in any way as to the post-war organisation of British shipping.
    Mr. Daggar: Does not the right hon Gentleman consider it important that we should not enter into an agreement by which the nation builds ships and then hands them over to a private company?
    Sir K. Wood: That is another matter.

    Interest-free Loans (Death Duties).
    Sir George Broadbridgeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether sums lent to the Exchequer free of interest are available on the death of the lender for the payment of Death Duties?
    Sir K. Wood: Sums lent to the Treasury free of interest are immediately available on the death of the lender towards the satisfaction of any Death Duties chargeable on his estate. All that is necessary in such cases is for the Treasury Certificate for the loan to be sent to the Controller of Death Duties (or the Registrar of Death Duties in Scotland) who will obtain the amount required from the Bank of England. If the Death Duties payable are less than the amount of the loans the balance will, if desired, be paid to the executors at any time after the grant of Probate or Confirmation of the Will.

    Income Tax (Children's Allowance).
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to amend the law so as to prevent a deduction of Income Tax being allowed, in respect of a child, to a parent who makes no contribution to the child's maintenance?
    Sir K. Wood: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but as at present advised I do not consider that any amendment of the law is called for.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is not this a shocking and demoralising waste of public money; and will the right hon. Gentleman say why this matter has not been dealt with before?
    Sir K. Wood: I shall be glad to confer with my hon. Friend, but it is felt that it would be a waste of labour to have officers making inquiries into millions of cases in order to pick out the isolated cases in which parents have not contributed.
    Professor Savory: Would it not be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apply the same regulation to children as is now applied to wives, because a wife must be maintained if the husband is to get the Income Tax allowance in respect of her?
    Mr. Higgs: Is it not the case that many children have been evacuated now for nearly three years and have been supported by the State and that the parents are still receiving Income Tax allowances in respect of those children?
    Sir K. Wood: I will examine this matter, but I would point out to my hon. Friend the answer I have just given.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is it not a fact that the bulk of these cases really concern working-class children?

    State Pensioners.
    Mr. W. Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to announce proposals for relieving the position of pensioners from the Civil Service, the teaching profession, the prison service, the police and the local government service?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 18th February to my hon. Friend the Member for County Down (Dr. Little) (Volume 377, OFFICIAL REPORT, column 1801).
    Mr. Brown: I beg to give notice that in view of that very unsatisfactory reply I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

  MALTA CONVOYS (LOSSES).
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to make any announcement regarding the number and tonnage of merchant ships lost in course of the two recent convoys to Malta?
  Mr. Attlee: It would not be in the public interest to give the details for which my hon. Friend asks.
  Mr. Stokes: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that I put this Question down at his suggestion? Will he explain why it is possible to give such minute details of the naval losses and yet the Government are not willing to give any
  1074
  information, although rumours are widespread, about the merchant shipping losses?
  Mr. Attlee: I certainly said that my right hon. Friend could put down a Question, and I have given him the answer.

  BRITISH OFFICIALS, UNITED STATES (ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. Bartlettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the maximum allowance for subsistence and entertainment payable to British officials in the United States of America; and is he aware that some officials cannot afford to accept appointments in existing conditions, while others are placed in a position of such financial inferiority to the Americans with whom they have to deal, that the effectiveness of their work is seriously diminished?
  Sir K. Wood: The maximum rate of Mission allowance payable to British officials serving in the United States, other than those treated as being on diplomatic or consular service, is $11.50 a night for the first month and $10 a night thereafter. This is the rate for married officials, the corresponding rate for single men being $9.50 a night for the first month and $8 a night thereafter. These allowances, which are untaxed, are intended to cover reasonable additional expenses incurred by such service. Entertainment allowances are not normally made to individuals, but sums have been allocated for the purpose of entertainment to various Government Missions in the United States. The Mission allowances were recently reviewed on the spot by a senior official sent from this country. I do not consider them to be inadequate, and I cannot agree that they in any way hamper the making of appointments or the effectiveness of the work done by our officials in America.
  Mr. Bartlett: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that some officials are unable to go and that these rates seriously hamper the work of the officials in the States?
  Sir K. Wood: No, Sir; I would be glad to confer with my hon. Friend on any matter he would like to bring to my attention.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does the marriage allowance which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned apply only if a person has his wife with him in the States, or does it apply anyhow?
  Sir K. Wood: I must make inquiries.
  Mr. W. Brown: Is the Minister aware that there is among all classes of civil servants in the United States who are sent from this country a deep feeling about the inadequacy of these allowances and that those of us who have been there recently know the complaints to be well justified?
  Sir K. Wood: I do not think the sums I have read out can be regarded as inadequate.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    Public Relations and Press Officers.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that the Press and publicity agents attached to certain Government Departments, who are paid out of public funds, will not be used in any way to further the personal prestige of the Ministers concerned and that the practice which has been followed by certain Ministers in appointing their own paid publicity agents to fill these posts will be discontinued in future; and whether he can give an approximate figure of the total cost for 12 months of these staffs throughout all Government Departments?
    Sir K. Wood: The functions of Public Relations Officers and their staffs may be described as the promotion of a proper understanding of the work of the Departments by the general public, and it is to this function that their work is devoted, and with this in mind that such appointments have been made. As regards the last part of my Hon. Friend's Question, I would refer him to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) on 21st May last.
    Mr. De la Bère: Should there not be an end of the efforts at public expense to manipulate the public mind instead of legitimately informing it? Is it not very undesirable that a small Ministry of Information should be set up in each Government Department, thus adding enormously to the cost, and definitely manipu-
    1076
    lating the public mind to the disadvantage of the general public interest?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. As regards the first part, I would suggest that he should study the answer I have given.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about these Departmental manipulators of the public mind? They are absolutely a scandal and an outrage.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that some Cabinet Ministers refuse to have a public relations officer—have all got them?—and is it not true that it has done them all more harm than good?
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not the case that this practice is a very unworthy one and one which involves a loss of dignity?

    Civil Servants (Armed Forces, pay).
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many civil servants serving with the Armed Forces are receiving civil pay under Treasury circular T.C. No. 13/39?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The number of such civil servants eligible for the receipt of the balance of their civil pay as at 1st April, 1942, was 106,850. Of these a number, which cannot be specified, receive no balance because their Service pay exceeds their civil pay.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

    Film, "Next of Kin."
    Mr. Summersasked the. Minister of Information whether it is intended to show the film, "Next of Kin," in America; and, if not, why not?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): Up to the present we have not had any offers for the distribution of this film in America. Any offer that we do get will be considered on its merits.
    Colonel Arthur Evans: Is it not a fact that there is a film division in the Ministry of Information, with its representative

    1077
    in America, to deal with problems of this kind; and may I ask whether the official concerned has taken any steps to see that this film is exhibited in the United States of America?
    Mr. Thurtle: We are expecting advices on this matter very shortly from our friends in America.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Why cannot the Ministry of Information take the initiative in some cases and try to get this film distributed without waiting for orders?
    Mr. Thurtle: This film was not made for us but for the War Office, and we are acting solely as distributing agents.

    Enemy Propaganda.
    Viscountess Astorasked the Minister of Information whether he will take steps to counteract the German propaganda addressed to the Fighting Forces in the Near and Middle East based on false accounts of statements made by the honourable Member for Plymouth (Sutton Division)?
    Mr. Thurtle: My hon. Friend is not the first Member of this House to become a victim of mendacious propaganda by the enemy. I think the experience of most Members has been that such lies have been ineffective, and that efforts to counteract them after they have been spoken usually play the enemy's game by drawing special attention to them.
    Viscountess Astor: Has any other Member of this House been singled out in communications to the Army, Navy and Air Force prison camps, and even misquoted by Goebbels himself, and is it not the fact that this is really having a bad effect among those prisoners? The hon. Gentleman knows that I have never even thought of saying the things attributed to me.
    Mr. Thurtle: I think my noble Friend may have been a special victim in this respect, but she is paying the penalty of Parliamentary fame.
    Mr. Cocks: Could not this state of affairs be definitely avoided if for the remainder of the war the noble Lady preserved an iron silence?
    Mr. De la Bère: My noble Friend should listen more and talk less.

  FIRE WATCHING (BUSINESS PREMISES).
  Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction created by the recent regulation which defines the payment for fire-watching of business premises; and does he propose to remove the cause of this dissatisfaction?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): Subsistence allowance is intended to cover additional expense incurred through fire-prevention duties, and there is therefore no justification for its payment where a man performs those duties in premises situated in the building where he lives or in adjoining or neighbouring buildings where premises therein are included in joint arrangements. My right hon. Friend is therefore not prepared to modify the amendment on this subject recently made in the Business Premises Order.
  Mr. Taylor: But does my hon. Friend not consider it very strange indeed that the payment of 3s. a night should be made to one business man who is the owner and not living on his business premises, but is residing close to the place where the watching has to be done, whereas another man who is living on his own premises is not to be paid? Does it not seem paradoxical?
  Miss Wilkinson: I think if the hon. Member looks at the explanation he will see that the situation was gravely abused. Some employers living on their premises put themselves and their families down as fire watchers, although they never left their beds, and yet claimed the 3s., and we therefore decided that a business man watching his own premises was in no different position from a member of a street fire party watching his own house, among others, and he does not get any subsistence allowance.
  Mr. Taylor: But does not the hon. Lady see that where a payment is not made, a business man need not leave his own premises to go fire watching?
  Miss Wilkinson: If he is watching his own premises and is at the same time part of a street party watching his own premises he must do exactly what that party does. The whole scheme has been

  1079
  that a business man is in no different position from an ordinary householder if his own premises are included in the group that is being watched.

  SERVICE WOMEN (VOTING FACILITIES).
  Miss Cazaletasked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to make a statement with regard to facilities for voting for women in the Services?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the question to which my hon. Friend refers, but the importance of the matter is fully recognised, and it is hoped that it will be possible to make a statement at an early date.
  Miss Cazalet: If I put a Question down next week, will my hon. Friend be able to answer it?
  Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend will be more certain of getting an answer if she puts down her Question in a fortnight's time.

  AGRICULTURE.

    War-time Allotments.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, with a view to encouraging expenditure upon the latest methods of culture upon war-time allotments, it is intended to extend the period of tenure to that of five years after the end of the war?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the announcement that was made on 26th February, 1940, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. I may point out that many holders of war-time allotments have had two to three years' occupation of their land, and unless in exceptional cases the land is urgently required for some other purpose, they are assured of undisturbed possession at least until the end of the war period, which may be some time after the actual cessation of hostilities.
    Mr. Adams: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the information which he has given me, may I ask whether he is
    1080
    aware of the very strong demand for a further extension of time after the war, and whether the Ministry will consider the matter?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry have constantly in mind doing the best they can for wartime allotmenteers.
    Mr. Stokes: Would not a tax on site values put this matter right?
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Does not this Question relate to a scheme which may never come into operation?

    Women's Land Army.
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture the present employed strength of the Women's Land Army?
    Mr. T. Williams: It was 40,662 on 30th June, the net increase in employment for that month being the record figure of 4,419.
    Sir P. Hurd: How many more are required to fill the demand?
    Mr. Williams: As many as we can possibly get.
    Sir P. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, despite the official assurances given, members of the Women's Land Army are still being refused admission to the canteens of the Young Women's Christian Association and similar organisations?
    Mr. Williams: Approval in principle only has been given to the admission of members of the Women's Land Army to canteens operated for the Services by voluntary organisations. Before admission to individual canteens is granted, the Land Army is required to submit a detailed list of all canteens in England and Wales to which admission is desired with figures showing the number of volunteers employed in the vicinity and likely to use the canteen. The list has necessarily taken time to complete but has now been submitted.
    Sir P. Hurd: What is the reason for this elaboration of officialism? Could not this matter have been simply and directly settled?
    Mrs. Tate: Why do the Ministry say on the one hand how much they value the work of the women in agriculture and,

    1081
    on the other hand, inevitably and always create disabilities for those engaged in such work?
    Mr. Williams: The Ministry do value the work of the Women's Land Army and are not responsible for the decision of the Women's Services with regard to whether members of the Women's Land Army should go into their canteens or not. With regard to the first Supplementary Question, the time occupied before a decision is reached is due to the detailed information——
    Mrs. Tate: And to red tape——
    Mr. Williams: —required by those responsible for making the decision.
    Mr. Bartlett: Who is responsible?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mrs. Tate: Who is responsible?
    Viscountess Astor: The Prime Minister.

  INDIA.

    Sind (Situation).
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any further information regarding the Hur disturbances in the Province of Sind; and whether, in view of the military importance of communications through this Province, adequate steps have been taken to guard the railways?
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): Since the introduction of martial law on 1st June, considerable progress has been made towards bringing a very difficult and dangerous situation under control. Day and night running on the railways has been resumed, and special measures are in operation for the protection of trains, which have suffered no untoward incident since the derailment of a mail train in May. Military columns assisted by air reconnaissance have made extensive sweeps through affected areas and as a result many well-known Hur leaders and some 2,000 Hurs and dacoits have been arrested and brought to trial by special tribunals. A large number of weapons has been seized. The morale of peaceful inhabitants and of the subordinate administration has improved and the general atmosphere in the towns is better. With the arrest of their leaders,
    1082
    the Hurs are breaking up into small gangs and tending to move out of the present martial law areas, and fresh measures to deal with this situation are in hand. The States of Bahawalpur, Khairpur, Jodhpur and Jaisalmer, which border the affected area, have given full co-operation. The Armed Forces engaged, including States troops, have been operating in excessively difficult conditions of country and climate, but have suffered very few casualties. The situation is in hand, but much remains to be done before the civil administration can resume responsibility for the maintenance of law and order.
    Sir A. Knox: Is not this rising merely the result of a long period of bad government in the Province of Sind?

    Viceroy's Council (New Defence Member).
    Major Milnerasked the Secretary of State for India the scope and functions of the newly-appointed Defence member of the Viceroy's Council?
    Mr. Amery: The content of the portfolio allotted to the new Defence member of the Governor-General's Executive Council includes the following subjects:

    (i) All questions concerning Defence which involve the co-ordination of policy and action between the Civil Departments of the Government of India and the work of the War member.

    (ii) War legislation, including the Defence of India Act and Rules made thereunder.

    (iii) Demobilisation and post-war reconstruction as far as the Defence Forces and Labour Forces are concerned.

    (iv) Man-power, including the administration of the National Service (European British Subjects) Act, but not including recruitment to Defence Services.

    (v) Amenities for and welfare of troops.

    (vi) National Defence Council.

    (vii) Cantonment administration.

    (viii) Acquisition and control of land for Defence purposes.

    (ix) Co-ordination of petroleum supplies.

    (x) Prisoners of War.

    Major Milner: How do these functions differ from those put forward by the Lord Privy Seal, and do they include recruitment for the Army?
    Mr. Amery: They do not include current recruitment for the Army, except the application of the National Service (European British Subjects) Act. In reply to the first part of the question, it includes one or two matters not included in the Lord Privy Seal's proposals, more particularly cantonment administration, military lands, the directorate of prisoners of war, and the National Defence Council. On the other hand, one or two items are not included which are, with one exception, included in the portfolios of other Indian members of the Executive.
    Major Milner: Who will be responsible for recruiting? Will that be one of the functions of the Commander-in-Chief?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, the War member.

  RAILWAYS (POST-WAR POLICY).
  Sir William Davisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether the Government have under consideration any scheme for the nationalisation of the railways after the war; and whether he will give an assurance that this House will be consulted before any decision is arrived at on this subject?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Sir Arthur Salter): A preliminary survey is being made of the post-war transport problem, including the position of the railways. Before any proposals for future

  Numbers of men and women students entering Training Colleges or University Training Departments in England and Wales in each of the years 1939, 1940 and 1941.

  1939.

  1940.

  1041.

  Men.

  Women.

  Men.

  Women.

  Men.

  Women.

  University and University College Training Departments

  906

  808

  631

  787

  507

  775

  Post Graduate Training Colleges

  2

  55

  2

  48

  —

  52

  Two Year Training Colleges and Domestic Science Training Colleges

  1,186

  3,676

  1,250

  3,576

  717

  3,568

  TOTALS

  2,094

  4,539

  1,883

  4,411

  1,224

  4,395

  policy are formulated, full opportunity will be given to all interests concerned to express their views, and, of course, no such change as my hon. Friend refers to could be made without the approval of Parliament.
  Sir W. Davison: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the recent statement by the President, at the Conference of the National Union of Railway-men, that the Government have already decided that there will be no private ownership of the railways after the war?
  Sir A. Salter: I have not seen that statement, but it was not made by a representative of the Government and does not represent a decision taken by the Government.
  Major Petherick: Will the Minister bear in mind that it would be considered a serious breach of faith, if, during a period of semi-political truce and under a coalition Government, long-term plans were made for the alteration of our economic structure after the war?

  TEACHERS (TRAINING).
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the President of the Board of Education the number of men and women students, respectively, who entered the training colleges in England and Wales in each of the last three years?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): As the answer consists of a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  Mr. Harveyasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is able to give an estimate of the number of additional teachers who will be required to make effective the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 years; and whether he is taking steps to secure an increase in the entries to training colleges?
  Mr. Ede: It is not possible to give the estimate asked for while so many factors remain uncertain, such as the date appointed for raising the age to 15, the maximum size of classes prescribed for older children, the number of vacant places in individual schools, and any redundancy of teachers in individual areas. The Board have taken such steps as they could to stimulate entries to training colleges, but, in view of the urgent demand of other forms of national service, an increase in the number of such entries is not to be expected in present circumstances. Dr. McNair's Committee is considering the questions of the future supply and training of teachers.
  Mr. Harvey: Will there not, in any case, be a very large increase in the number of teachers required? Is it not true that unless steps are taken soon to get those teachers the result will be an indefinite postponement of the raising of the school-leaving age?
  Mr. Ede: The answer to the first part of that question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative.
  Mr. Stokes: Does not this mean that the Government have given up all idea of raising the school-leaving age?
  Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister not aware that the training of a large number of women for teaching is already proving a serious obstacle to getting the right number of women capable of leadership in the Women's Auxiliary Services?
  Viscountess Astor: Is there anything in the world more important than the education of our young people after the war?

  EMERGENCY HOSPITAL SCHEME (FORMS AND RETURNS).
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware of the cumbersome character of the administration of the Emergency Hospital Scheme necessitating a multiplicity of
  1086
  forms and returns; that Form E.M.S. 105 is required to be made out in quadruplicate whenever a patient is admitted, transferred or discharged; that one copy is retained by the regional hospital officer in respect of each movement, forms being required both from the transferring and receiving hospitals, necessitating the receipt and storage of thousands of forms weekly in the regional offices; and, as the depleted senior medical staffs have not time to devote to the clerical supervision required, he will cause a review of these operations; and
  (2) whether he is aware that the Ministry have recently instituted a complicated record form for the medical notes of patients admitted to chest centres; that forms must be completed in triplicate and typed separately; that a recent draft weekly return for war-time day nurseries had to be submited in triplicate asking for information under 27 different heads; and whether he will take steps to cut down the size and number of these forms?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): It is the constant effort of the Emergency Hospital Scheme to restrict its forms and returns to the minimum necessary for conducting so considerable a service effectively, and for meeting Service requirements, keeping relatives informed and ensuring proper treatment of patients. The form E.M.S. 105 is a simple form used, with carbon copies, for Service and Police cases and civilian casualties. It is the main means of recording the admission and movement of such patients, of informing relatives had Service authorities and of enabling proper allocation to special treatment to be followed up. The form for certain chest cases referred, to applies only to a small number of specialist cases, enables the medical case notes to be kept on more uniform lines and so helps in continuity of treatment when patients are moved, as well as enabling specialist treatment methods to be observed and improved. I am making inquiries from the Regional Offices about the return for war-time nurseries to which my hon. Friend refers, since no such return is required centrally.
  Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that in the judgment of medical officers of health who are handling the Emergency Medical Service, this is a fair illustration

  1087
  of bureaucracy run wild, and that in their judgment it could be cut down by some 75 per cent. and yet have the same efficiency?
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend has said that this is a simple form; will she have a copy placed in the Library so that hon. Members could see such a unique object?
  Miss Horsbrugh: I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend about that.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (ACOUSTICS).
  Mr. Higgsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he is aware of the improved acoustics in the Press Gallery since loud speakers were installed; and will he consider extending the system to the Chamber?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part, I would remind my hon. Friend that, as I indicated in my reply of 22nd October to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor), absorbent tiles have been fixed in the windows for the specific purpose of improving the acoustics on the Floor of the Chamber. This was done on the recommendation of officials of the National Physical Laboratory, who considered all possible alternatives. It is not at present considered that existing conditions are such as to call for the extension of loudspeakers to the Chamber.
  Mr. Higgs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this position it is almost impossible to hear half the replies of Ministers to Questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up"]—and that we often miss half the speeches, and would he give further consideration to the fitting of loudspeakers behind us at any rate?
  Mr. Hicks: I heard what my hon. Friend said.

  ALIEN DENTISTS.
  Mr. Harveyasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the increasing need for qualified dentists, especially in view of the calling
  1088
  up for military service of civilian practitioners; whether he has had any communication with the representatives of the dental profession with a view to making use, as a war-time measure, of the services of qualified refugees who are at present not permitted to practice; and, if not, whether he will take steps to see that better use is made of these qualified dentists in view of the arrangements already successfully made for the war-time employment of qualified foreign doctors?
  Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the need for making all possible use of the dental man-power "available in the country and the question of facilitating the employment of alien dentists with registerable qualifications has recently been discussed by my Department with the Home Office, the Board of Education, and representatives of the dental profession. The School Medical Service probably offers the best scope for the employment of these dentists and a memorandum was issued to local Education Authorities on this subject in April last by the Board of Education. Permission to practise could not be given to dentists not possessing registrable qualifications without admitting a standard lower than that required of British applicants. This course has obvious objections and is not, I might add, contemplated in the case of doctors by the Medical Register (Temporary Registration) Orders, to which my hon. Friend refers.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Captain John Granville Morrison, for the County of Wilts (Salisbury Division).
  CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1942).
  Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted for the Service of the year ending 31st March, 1943 [by Command];referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 99.]

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milne reported from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, pursuant to the Order of the House

  1089
  (19th November), That they had addressed a Memorandum to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the War Cabinet.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill, without Amendment.
Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Bill, Bilston Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

PENSIONS (MERCANTILE MARINE) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

  PRODUCTION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following Departments connected with Production for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, namely:—

  Class X., Vote 19, Office of the Minister of Production (New Service)

  £10

  Class X., Vote 11, Ministry of Supply

  £10

  Class X., Vote 2, Ministry of Aircraft Production

  £10

  £30."

  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): The last Debate on Production ended on 25th March, and therefore three-and-a-half months have elapsed since the whole matter was put under review. I think the Committee would wish to know how those three-and-a-half months have been spent. I would like to give an exhaustive account of production over the whole field, but my difficulties are that in doing that I may exhaust the Committee long before I have exhausted the subject. I will therefore confine myself to the three main sections of the subject which I think are of the greatest importance—first of all, the suitability or quality of the weapons which we now manufacture; secondly, some account of the organisation which I have set up; and thirdly, as far as it can be given, an account of the volume of production, and how production is getting on.
  1104
  I put the suitability or quality of the weapons first, because I think it is on that subject that the Committee is most concerned. What steps are taken to get the practical lessons gleaned from the battle field back to the supply Ministries, where the design engineers, the development engineers and the production engineers can work upon them; what arrangements are there for new developments?
  First of all, let me discuss aircraft, because I think that in the air technical development is, more than in any other element, the dominating factor in the fortunes of war. There are two representatives of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, the Controller of Research and Development, who is an Air Force officer, and the Chief Scientific Adviser, who is a world-renowned scientist, who are members both of the Air Council and the Aircraft Supply Council. Similarly liaison, and it is more than liaison, is maintained with the Navy by the residence in the Ministry of Aircraft Production of two senior naval officers and staff. In this way there is a constant interchange of technical operational knowledge on the one hand, and technical design and research on the other. I think that we have some reason to be proud of the results, and I claim that the aeronautical industry in this country leads the world in adapting itself to the changing conditions which air fighting brings. I am quite convinced that that lead in the air—and I am talking now particularly of quality—with which we started, has been maintained.
  Let me turn to the Army requirements. What steps here are used to bring tactical information into the factories? There are two parts of the organisation. The General Staff has, of course, a constant stream of tactical information from the battlefields and from the operations of our troops on manœuvres in this country. That tactical information is sifted and applied to any technical problem, and handed into the Ministry of Supply. That is not all. The second part of the organisation is that highly qualified scientific observers have been formed into operational research sections which are on the battlefield. These operational research sections report direct to the commander-in-chief in the theatre in which they are operating, and direct to the Ministry of Supply, and whatever may have been the

  1105
  case in the early part of the war, this particular marriage between tactical lessons and production practice now works satisfactorily. New enemy equipment, as soon as it is captured is, after a preliminary investigation, of course, sent home to see what lessons can be learnt from it. On this particular subject there is also a Weapon Development Committee under the D.C.I.G.S. from the War Office, and it includes officers from the Ministry of Supply, and the Chief Scientific Adviser of the War Office is a member of the Committee.
  Mr. Silkin: How long has this scheme been in operation?
  Mr. Lyttelton: It is very recent.
  Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman say at what stage the mechanical engineer enters into this? So far we have had design engineers, research engineers and operational engineers mentioned, but what of the mechanical engineer who deals with the production side?
  Mr. Lyttelton: That comes after design or alteration of design has been passed over to the Ministry of Supply, who then deal with the matter from a mechanical aspect.
  During a recent Debate I gave a lot of information, past information, about tanks and guns. I think it is very easy to gain a wrong impression from comparing one piece of British equipment with another piece of German equipment. A correspondent called me to task because I had mentioned the 25-pounder as being a very successful gun against tanks in the open. I said it was a slower firing gun. Its rate is 8 rounds per minute compared with the 12 to 15 rounds of the 3·7. He said that I should have mentioned the fact that the 25-pounder had a lower muzzle velocity than the 88 mm. gun. I might well have done so, and I might have gone on to a discussion of the 3·7, which is a comparable pre-war gun, and also in large production. I think that some light might be thrown on the subject of artillery if I gave just another three calibres of comparable weapons. The Germans have an anti-tank weapon of 37 mm., and that corresponds to our 2-pounder. The German weapon throws a projectile of 1.9 pounds compared with
  1106
  the 2.4 pounds projectile thrown by the 2-pounder. The diameter of the 2-pounder is 40 mm. Next in the range is the 50 mm. German anti-tank gun, and that compares with our 6-pounder. The 50 mm. German gun throws a projectile of four-and-a-half pounds compared with the 6¼ pounds projectile thrown by our 6-pounder, so that the 6-pounder is a more powerful gun than the 50 mm. German anti-tank gun, and is strictly comparable. Both are designed as anti tank guns. [Interruption.] I think that the range of the 6-pounder will compare favourably with that of the 50 ram.
  Lastly, there is the 88 mm., about which we have heard so much, and the comparative weapon in British equipment is the 3·7. Both these guns are high velocity anti-aircraft guns. There has been some suggestion that the 3·7 cannot be used in an anti-tank role. On the mobile mounting exactly the same as the 88 mm., it can be used very effectively. Neither gun is an ideal anti-tank gun, because they are not low enough, but when either of these guns gets a good target of tanks the effect will be devastating. These are exactly comparable Weapons.
  Mr. Hammersley: Have we any 3·7 guns capable of antitank role?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, we have very large numbers of them—[Interruption]—also in Libya. [An HON. MEMBER: "Used as anti-tank guns?"] I cannot say what part they have taken in the battle except that they have been used; but there are large numbers of them, and they can be used in an anti-tank role, like the 88 mm. I do not think that in the field of artillery we have any reason to be afraid about our equipment as compared with that of the Germans. I had a curious confirmation of that yesterday when I was speaking to an artillery expert who had been captured at Sidi Omar, and who had been in conversation with the German commander of an 88 mm. battery. This battery had knocked out several of our A tanks, and this officer said to the German, "You had a good gun." The other said, "Oh yes, but I prefer the 3·7. I was on the wrong side of it in France."
  Turning to tanks, I do not propose to go into the past history which I ventilated largely in the last Debate, but I want to

  1107
  try and give the Committee some assurance that we are making the right tanks now and are going to make the right tanks in the future. First, we sent to the United States a Tank Mission, and it did very good work. That mission fixed the tank programme and allotted to the United States on the one hand, and to the United Kingdom on the other, a programme of manufacture. [An HON. MEMBER: "When was that?"] It went out in March. So if there are any mistakes—and I do not think there are—in the foresight which we are showing towards this tank problem, the programme is one which has been made by the United States and by ourselves. It is a carefully considered programme. Moreover, the tanks that are actually coming out of the production line now will have the necessary fire power for to-day's battle and the new types which are designed to be made in the United States and this country, give us a reasonable assurance of that superiority which is required for victory.
  Before I leave the general subject of quality I think I must plunge into a technical subject, and that is the difficulty caused by the pull between mass production and flexibility. This is the constant production problem with which we are faced, because mass production and flexibility are opposite terms. One is the antithesis of the other. The strategist would like to feel that in any theatre of war he is going to have the right weapon available at once, and the tactician requires that tactical lessons should be translated into steel in a few minutes. But the production engineer requires something different. He requires to have types very steady, if possible, and one of the reasons why this is particularly so in this country is that we are using diluted labour to an extent that has never been attempted before. If you dilute your skilled labour, it means more elaborate tooling of your factory, and, again, elaborate tooling is the enemy of flexibility.
  It is no good burking the fact that your constant production problem is there; and the greatest ingenuity must be used in striking the right balance between volume production on the one side and flexibility on the other. The tooling for a heavy bomber costing we will say £100,000 would be £2,000,000 and for a 6-pounder
  1108
  gun, worth probably £1,200, it may be £200,000. You have this very elaborate tooling, and all these tools have to be designed and put into the production line before you produce one thing. It is absolutely necessary to stress that there is an irreducible minimum between the moment when design is, as engineers say, frozen or fixed, and the moment when you can produce the first one off the production line. We cannot reduce that. What we can do is by constant study to try to get the maximum flexibility which is consistent with volume.
  Before I leave the matter of quality, may I say that there have also been suggestions that the scientific organisation is faulty? The Lord President of the Council and I are at this moment investigating it, but I would like to say that I think the scientific work which is being done is of a very high order. I do not for a moment say that it cannot be improved, but when this matter has been looked into before, it has been found that the scientific organisation has reached a much higher point than is generally supposed. My hon. Friend the Junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Prof. A. V. Hill) is a member of a committee which deals with this particular subject, and the last report in the hands of the Government was from that committee just to the effect that I have stated—namely that notwithstanding these criticisms, the scientific organisation has reached a high state of efficiency. The Committee should also know that there is no branch of the war to which the Prime Minister devotes more personal attention than this and the country should know that it owes him a very great debt for the way in which he has inspired scientific bodies to experiment with new weapons and to invent new explosives and new means of waging war. There are many things in which we are a great deal ahead of the world, at the moment.
  Now I turn to the organisation which I have set up, and I will try to keep my remarks on this matter as short as possible, because I have made, at various times, statements dealing with the organisation, and I do not want to weary the Committee with repetition. Nevertheless I think some general recapitulation would be an advantage. The staff is divided into several sections. The first is the Joint War Production Staff; the second dealing

  1109
  with raw materials and for convenience I here include allocation of machine tools; the third is the Industrial Panel and Industrial Division; the fourth deals with regional organisation, and the fifth is the section which deals with industrial information. The Joint War Production Staff has been at work since the beginning of March. It represents the three Services. It has sailors, soldiers and airmen on the staff, with my production staff, and they are at work continuously. Very little work is done in committees, and the top level committee meets very occasionally.
  This staff is the central planning organisation of production, and it works out problems which involve many Departments, or which involve policy which is above the power of any one Department to solve. Its main task, I suppose, expressed broadly, would be to give the right proportion of the national effort to each of the three Services and to civilian requirements. At this moment is the balance between expenditure on merchant shipbuilding, on the naval programme, on aircraft and on Army requirements correct? In 1940 we had to have aircraft or die. In 1941, with the entry of Russia into the war, the emphasis became more on tanks. In this year, with the mounting production of both the United States and this country, we have to look to the means of transporting those weapons to the country where they can fight the enemy. Therefore, recently, the Joint War Production Staff, with the approval of the War Cabinet, have given a higher allocation of raw materials to the merchant shipbuilding and naval programme, and are at this moment, in the course of arranging with the Minister of Labour for the transfer of certain skilled labour, which will be followed by raw labour, into the shipyards to bring this particular branch of our national effort into its correct perspective. This matter of shipbuilding, again, is closely linked up with the United States shipbuilding programme, which is one of the most fascinating—almost fantastic—industrial achievements that can be imagined. Mr. Kayser, director of the Boulder Dam, who never made a ship before, is now turning them out at an almost unbelievable rate. You can see the superstructure of a ship, with the captain's shaving glass, and the carnations, and everything else, being lifted in like a child's toy. Some-
  1110
  body says, "What is missing?"; somebody else says, "The bows are"; and then they are lifted in, to make the thing complete.
  The next subject is the Raw Materials Division and the Machine Tool Control. This, again, I can deal with fairly quickly. This part of the organisation is charged with the allocation of the machine tools, with the fixing of the import programmes for all raw materials. This, too, has to be closely interlocked with the raw materials programme of the United States. This allocation follows the plan fixed by the Joint War Production staffs; and there are officers in this section dealing with the conservation of raw materials, which now, with the massive programme we have, has to be very closely looked into if raw materials are not to become one of the limiting factors over the whole field. One of the ways in which economy can be secured is by cutting down their consumption drastically, and then getting substitutes to replace, perhaps in smaller quantities, some of the things which have been taken away. The changes in the course of the war have made violent changes in our whole raw materials situation. Rubber is an instance. We do not consider at present that we should make synthetic rubber in this country, because there is no saving in shipping unless the synthetic rubber is derived ultimately from coal. The present method is to extract oil from coal first, and then to use that oil for the manufacture of synthetic rubber. Our policy is to concentrate the production of synthetic rubber in the United States.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Will not that require more ships than if we made it here?
  Mr. Lyttelton: No, there will be a less use of shipping space in that way.
  Sir H. Williams: Not if you make it from coal?
  Mr. Lyttelton: You have also to take into account the raw materials used in constructing the plant. That is a long subject. Perhaps the account would work out if the war lasted three years, but would show a debit if it lasted for two. Our considered policy is that the synthetic rubber should be manufactured in the United States, where, among other

  1111
  considerations, it will be manufactured out of range of enemy bombers.
  I should like to deal with the regional organisation on the same lines as I have dealt with the raw materials and machine tools part of our organisation. The Citrine Report was first submitted on 1st May. It was considered by the Government and, in the main, accepted by "them, except for one matter to which they have since agreed, that matter being the appointment of the vice-chairmen of the regional boards. I must say that the old regional boards did very useful work, and we owe a great deal to them. At my request, they continued their work until the new boards were constituted. In appointing the regional controls, my office was in very close touch with the Trades Union Congress and the employers' federations and I have reason to believe that the appointment of these men was readily acceptable to both the T.U.C. and the employers' federations. I have very high expectations of the contribution which the regional boards can make in regard to our production problems, and these expectations, I think, are shared by the House and by the Select Committee. We have reached a point in our production where we cannot look for much more help from getting more labour into our industries. We have to rely on greater productivity from our existing resources. It is not a matter of absenteeism or of harder work, but of better, more detailed, planning, greater use of our machine tools, and better adjustments of loads.
  The last subject is the most important of all. The load is now maldistributed in many cases. That is inevitable. We are going to try and put that right through the regional organisations. I was in a plant the other day which was making 100 medium-sized products for the electrical industries. If the number, by re distribution, could be reduced to 50, there would be an increase by 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. in the production of that plant, without the addition of a single machine tool or a single worker. The other question is that of getting the complicated jobs done by those firms with special skill, and releasing the simpler jobs to the smaller plants, where skill is necessarily less. Another problem is that of firms with big names getting too many
  1112
  orders, while the less well-known firms get too few. That sounds a simple matter, but the problem does occur. In all these matters it is local knowledge that is required, and local enthusiasm. We want the personal touch between the regional organisations and the district committees and the various plants.
  Major Braithwaite: Have the regional boards directional authority, or can they only make suggestions?
  Mr. Lyttelton: No, they are not merely suggestional boards. The right of appeal from the decision of the Regional Controller by the individual controllers to the Supply Ministries exists, and must exist from the constitutional point of view. Nevertheless, since the regional boards have started, the whole of the contracts given by my Department, the Ministry of Aircraft Production, the Admiralty, and so forth are all the same. It is an absolutely agreed basis, and I think it will work very well. If it does not, some other arrangement will have to be made.
  The Industrial Division is the next subject with which I want to deal, and I will do so very shortly. This division is mainly concerned with co-ordinating matters between the headquarters of the various supply Departments on special subjects. It has recently produced a scheme for the repair of motor vehicles, which has been approved by 10 Departments. It is concerned with the electricity supply industry, water supplies, hand tools, contract and costing procedure, the co-ordination of inspection, and subjects of that sort. The Industrial Panel is composed of very well-known industrialists on a part-time basis, and they are not in any sense a court of inquiry or a coroner's inquest. They are a body of industrialists who can be called upon by any Ministry which has some particularly difficult industrial problem to solve. At this moment, the panel are engaged upon, and will shortly finish; a report upon the dilution of labour in the shipyards; and they are conducting a very wide inquiry, at the request of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, into the time taken in changing from one type of aircraft to another and are suggesting means by which that interval can be shortened. That was done at his request. I might also mention that this panel was not set up by me only. It was set up by the

  1113
  Minister of Supply, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Aircraft Production. It is a joint effort to help to solve some of the more difficult industrial problems.
  And, lastly, the last part of the organisation is that part dealing with industrial information. It is very necessary that we should have some focus, some policy by which all the various production bodies should publicise what they want publicised and that we should disseminate the information in a co-ordinated way. There is another part of the subject to which I attach particular importance. That is the dissemination of technical skill. I recently came to an arrangement with the Minister of Labour by which the "Ministry of Labour Bulletin," which is, I think, universally regarded as an excellent publication, will be expanded by a production section prepared by my office. This production section will not deal with exhortations or propaganda; it will deal with technical ideas. I am going to ask every plant engaged on Government work to keep, if I may express it so, a suggestion book in which all the ideas coming from workers or managements are entered, and I am thinking—I am taking advice on the subject at the moment—of a national system by which special recognition should be given to these ideas, because we want ideas, and if we get them we will acknowledge them and see that they are recognised not only by publicity. I think that we shall get great benefit from such a system.
  I must refer shortly to my visit to America. It resulted in the formation of the Combined Production and Resources Board, which I regard as the most important recent step in production, and I must give the reasons. It makes the production of these two countries one. There is a common pool from which each nation can draw in accordance with a prearranged plan. That plan is a strategical plan laid down by the Combined Chiefs of Staff, but once it is laid down there ceases to be a British requirement or an American requirement. There only is an Allied requirement, and that requirement is not related to the establishment, as the Army term goes. It is related to an actual operation of war, to a particular date, to a particular force allotted a particular task in a particular theatre, and
  1114
  this is a matter of very great importance. There is no question that our Forces of equal strategical importance in any of these plans with those of the United States receive the same priority as they do all down the line, from finished munitions down to raw materials with which to manufacture them. The task of following up these requirements, which is done by various missions, is enormously simplified and expedited, because the whole organisation now has what you may term a master document on which the exact priorities can be determined.
  But there is more than that in the Combined Production and Resources Board. Through it we can do three things. First of all, we can save shipping, secondly, we can save skill and plant, and thirdly, we can exchange technical information. How do we save shipping? I think it is better to give a perfectly simple illustration. The United States will manufacture clothing for our troops in the Middle East, and we shall manufacture clothing for the American troops in Great Britain, a saving in shipping. This, of course, could have been done before if America had been in the war and we had had this Combined Board, but it has really come about now. The equivalent in shipping is the saving of one voyage from here to the Middle East or practically that equivalent for every ship that is engaged in the traffic.
  Earl Winterton: Do we not get clothing from India?
  Mr. Lyttelton: A lot of clothing comes from here. Mr. Harriman, who has been dealing on the American side with these matters in a very broadminded way, is personally watching all these possible re-routings and savings of shipping. It is going to extend to certain weapons, to Army equipment, to aircraft and so forth. It cannot extend over the whole field of weapons. That is quite clear, and it requires a great deal of good will and hard work by the military authorities—and I may say it is getting both—to make proper use of one another's weapons. That is another way in which shipping will be saved, and there is a great range of other things. We require rolling stock in this country and in the Middle East. We shall manufacture our own rolling-stock in this country, but that will cause

  1115
  a certain fall in the production of weapons of war. That reduction in weapons will be replaced by the United States, who will at the same time relieve us of making and shipping rolling-stock to the Middle East and to the Persian Gulf. That is another way in which the thing works. I do not think that I need say anything about the saving in skill and in the use of plant by concentrating in the country most appropriate to the manufacture of this or that article. The rubber instance is perhaps an example.
  With regard to the exchange of technical information, I again think that, between the United States and ourselves, this is a matter of prime importance. I spoke the other day of the great ingenuity and resilience of mind which is displayed by American engineers in this field, but I would not like the Committee to think that engineers here are not constantly conducting researches both into means of easing production and into the simplification of design. I would like to give some actual instances. An important machine-gun component took 2½ man-hours to manufacture and by ingenious re-design that 2½ man-hours has been reduced to six minutes, and a great economy in material has been made. Perhaps the money value that has been saved has also some significance. It amounts to £220,000 for 100,000 machine guns, The Bofors platform, which was a foreign design, took 1,000 man-hours to manufacture, but redesigned it now takes 230.
  Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it was re-designed?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I am afraid I cannot give the date. It was some time ago. I think the re-design is at least six months old.
  Mr. Ammon: Is the new design not being made?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I am not sure when that started. I think it is more than six months old. The 2-pdr. barrel originally took 193 man-hours and the far larger 6-pdr. is now, by re-design and so forth, being manufactured in 72 man-hours. Again, the Sten gun, which is by far the cheapest and most rapidly produced weapon of conventional design, is another instance of the ingenuity which has been displayed. Components of aero engines taking 8¼ hrs now take three, and in a
  1116
  standard aeroframe we have reduced the material by 25 per cent. and the time by 75 per cent. Nevertheless, I still think that the United States are ahead of us in simplification of design and in substitution of materials. That is not a statistical piece of information; it is just my opinion. We have organised the exchange of technical information between the two countries. We have nothing to be ashamed of; indeed, in many things we are far ahead of the United States and in saying that I give some weight of course, to the fact that we started before they did. But in such matters of the dilution of male and female labour we are far ahead of the world. The control of raw materials—a most important part of the war—is carried to a much finer point here. We also lead the world in quality of fighter aircraft, we make the fastest heavy bombers, and in the very wide field of radio detection I think we can claim to be very much in advance of anybody else in the world.
  Mr. Woodburn: In case the Minister's statement gives a wrong impression about the ability of British engineers to design for mass production, which is as efficient as any in the world, is he not aware that British engineers are doing at least equal to anything that America is producing, but that there is conservatism by other engineers who will not adopt their methods?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I know there are mass production engineers in the United States, Englishmen—and Scotsmen as well—who have attained great eminence there. One of the reasons why it is impossible to organise mass production on the same scale is not that given by the hon. Gentleman but because it would be impossible for military reasons. When I was at the Willow Run plant, Mr. Henry Ford said to me, "We have not begun here; there are only 15,000 men in the plant, and we shall have 75,000 to 100,000 when we are in production." [Interruption.] I think all the information about the Willow Run plant has been published in the technical Press in the United States. It is quite impossible to get anything like that concentration in this country.
  Now I want to touch upon our volume of production and how it is coming off. It is coming off well. It is very difficult to get figures in a shape in which they mean anything. Obviously, individual figures cannot be given, and there is a

  1117
  natural impatience with index numbers. But I have given the matter a good deal of thought, and I think the best thing I can do is to give the long-term and short-term trends. If we take aircraft by structural weight and take January, 1941, as 100, by 1st July, 1941, the index number had gone up to 152; by January, 1942, it had risen to 191, and in June, 1942, to 244, representing nearly two-and-a-half times the starting point of January, 1941. If we look at warlike stores, taking again, January, 1941, as 100, production had risen to 153 by 1st July, 1941, to 216 by 1st January, 1942, and to 289 on 30th June, 1942. Production between January, 1941, and June, 1942, has nearly trebled.
  I could pick out one or two other items. For instance, guns—2 pounder and upwards—are now producing at the rate of 60,000, and that includes no aircraft cannon. The production of armoured fighting vehicles since January, 1941, has nearly quadrupled, so I think we may say that our volume of production is satisfactory. It will grow; the trend is steadily upward, but there is above us, not a peak, but a plateau where we shall be limited by the amount of labour we can put into our industries and the amount of raw material available. We have now reached the point of mobilisation of our people where we cannot look for increased production. We cannot look for increased production by building new plant, because we cannot afford the raw materials or labour; neither can we increase production by cutting down civilian use. Already we have imposed great hardships and sacrifices on our people, and gladly have they undergone them. But we can, out of our existing resources, improve production by better planning, design and openness of mind.
  I ask the Committee to believe that I will never be satisfied in these matters. I am sure things can be improved. I am not concerned with the amount of criticism directed at me—I thrive on it—but I ask that some praise be given to workers and managements in the many hundreds of factories in which a really prodigious job is being done. That is where you should give your praise. Since the recent Debate there has been a great deal of pessimism among workers as to whether their efforts are properly recognised. I hope
  1118
  for nothing better than a bouquet of nettles for myself, but I trust a better tribute will be paid to the workers and managements in our countless factories all over the country who are making such a notable contribution towards production.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: Before my right hon. Friend sits down will he tell the Committee what progress is being made towards production by the advisory committees which have been set up in works?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I take it my hon. Friend means the production committees. I cannot say they are universal, but they are almost universal, and I have seen their notable contributions to production.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Let me make it quite clear in the first place that our movement stands by all its previous declarations in regard to the organisation and ownership of the supply industries. I heard frequent interjections, when some of my hon. Friends were speaking in the last Debate, about our attitude in the past. Well, I ask any Member of this Committee to look up the speeches that we have made on this question since 1936. The situation to-day, however, does not warrant dwelling upon that aspect now, nor can we afford to do it. We are reviewing our production efforts at a very opportune time. The Minister has given a good report of his visit to the United States and on the steps taken to bring about the synchronisation of our joint production effort and the utilisation of our resources. I have always been friendly towards America. I remember in 1936 putting a series of Questions on the need for improving our relationships with the United States, and being subjected to opposition from certain quarters of the House, but I want to remind the American people, as a friend, that the people of this country have now been straining themselves for three years. The establishment of a second front somewhere in Europe is now an urgent matter, and production is the key to that question. We shall require an overwhelming superiority in equipment, and, therefore, during the course of this Debate we should devote ourselves to being as constructive as possible in order to stimulate the Government and the people of this country and America so that production

  1119
  can be speeded up as rapidly as possible. In his American report, the Minister said that we have now set up a Combined Production and Resources Board, and he went on to say that we have also a common pool. That is good news, and it will be welcomed by all freedom-loving people throughout the world. It will sow seeds of concern, which will bear fruit, in Germany, Italy, and Japan. I want to ask the Minister whether these arrangements include the Soviet Union and our other Allies, and whether they will include, when necessary, our potential Allies.
  The Minister has now had a few months' experience as Minister of Production. I want to ask him a few questions, to which I would like to have unequivocal answers. Has he the power that he should have? Has he inquired into the mistakes that have been proved of the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aircraft Production? Is his organisation satisfactory? Has he the staff to enable him to carry out the Ministry's work in the way in which he thinks it should be carried out? Is nothing allowed to stand in the way of securing the accelerated maximum output? I emphasise that question. Are all the machine tools being run for the maximum time without any regard to postwar considerations? Are the machine tools being run on sites where they will produce the best results in the national interest? Is the raw material allocated to bring the best results?
  The Minister said that an investigation is being made into scientific organisation. I welcome that statement, as will all those who have been giving consideration to this matter. Based upon intimate contact with some of the most competent people dealing with these things, I have for many weeks been putting a series of Questions, to the Secretary of State for War in particular. The Replies have been very disappointing, and not only the Replies, but the tone of the Replies. But in a situation of this kind we must not be discouraged even if we obtain insolent answers in a democratic institution. There is too much at stake. Some of us have been stressing for months the need for a central scientific directing council. I have not time to go into that matter now, but I have here some notes which I propose to hand to the Minister.
  1120
  I hope he will be good enough to have them typed out so that he and the other Ministers responsible can give consideration to them. Is the Joint Production Staff functioning efficiently and to the satisfaction of the Minister? The Minister is assisted by the Planning Group. Have they already studied the lessons to be drawn from Libya? Have they asked for a reliable officer to fly home in order that the lessons of Libya may be applied to the design of equipment and the modification of types in production at the present time? Last Friday, the following advertisement appeared in the newspapers:
  "Wanted: Work of National Importance. Plant and machinery available for sheet-metal work, spot welding, electro-plating. Willing to extend or adapt plant."
  This is an indication that there is still need for inquiry into why machines should be standing idle, and why it should be left to individual firms to decide whether they should extend or not. I would like the Minister to go into that matter. Is it correct that there are only 36 capacity clearing centres in the country? Have we organised on the basis of the best geographical production areas, and not only on the basis of the geographical areas? When are we going to insist on the pooling of technical information, the pooling of production methods, jigs, tools, and gadgets—which can only be brought out and perfected by the people directly engaged in every-day production—all of which, in the aggregate, can have a big effect on output? I would like some attention to be given to the problem of overstaffing in some firms and under-staffing in others. I would like the Minister to consider whether post-war considerations are not being allowed to affect overstaffing in some firms. Here we have a potential supply of managerial, administrative and supervisory staffs, composed of research workers, draughtsmen, pattern makers and process and rate men. The men hesitate to move when they have an opportunity to move. I do not blame the men, I do not blame the firms too much, because there are reasons for this hesitation. I believe that post-war considerations are being allowed to play too big a part in these questions. Therefore, the Government ought to consider making an inquiry into whether I have stated the facts; and if they are facts—and I know they are in certain directions—consideration should be given as to how the Gov-

  1121
  ernment can give the firms and the men satisfaction with regard to their future security. If the matter is considered on that basis, I am convinced it will be a big step in the right direction.
  Works councils and production committees have been set up throughout the country, in spite of opposition from certain people who are now claiming publicly to be supporting them. These are steps in the right direction. But the councils and committees are not yet functioning as efficiently as the employers and the workpeople desire. I suggest that the time has arrived when an educational campaign should be conducted throughout industry in order to deal, first, with the employers, secondly, with the managerial staff, and thirdly, with the workpeople. There is as yet too much "I" about production, too much "we," instead of looking at the question from the point of view of national needs. In addition, there is reluctance among all grades in industry to accept responsibility. These times are the test for management, and, therefore, an educational campaign is required in order that the representatives of the workpeople, the managerial staff and the employers can be brought to see the necessity for being prepared to accept greater responsibility. I believe this would be a step towards further increasing production.
  I was pleased to hear that the Minister has at last given national recognition to the need for a Suggestions Committee. I know scores of people who are as good and competent as anybody can be, but they have not the social position, the social status, the necessary education, to enable them to develop in the way that many people have done; nevertheless, within the limits of their own experience, directly engaged on production, they have made many suggestions which enabled British industry to become as efficient as it was in the competitive world before the war. It is good that the suggestion committees are to be given national recognition. In addition, the Minister is proposing to give recognition in some concrete form, and this again will be a big step in the right direction. There are great possibilities for increasing production by improving jigs, tools and gadgets. Men engaged on everyday operations can make suggestions for simplifying design, and when the Minister makes his statement to industry, I hope that he will encourage them to do so. I should like
  1122
  the Minister to consider carrying out a campaign to stimulate greater enthusiasm. At football matches great enthusiasm used to be shown, and Steps should be taken to whip up the same enthusiasm to improve our national effort.
  During the last 20 years, during the best time of my life, this country has been too apt to take a complacent attitude with the result that we have been left behind in certain directions by other countries. I am convinced that great steps could be taken to increase output by encouraging individual initiative and individual interest and by emulating methods such as those adopted in the Soviet Union in regard to improving piece-work and other methods. I have an example of this from a wall newspaper of one factory. The atmosphere in that factory is as good as it possibly can be between workpeople and the managerial side. When the management go through the factory there is an atmosphere of respect and confidence. They are all engaged in bringing about the maximum output in the national interest. These are steps which could be taken, and I hope more of this will be done. I propose to hand this paper to the Minister for his consideration.
  British democracy has great achievements to its credit, and I am glad to hear the Minister give the recognition which is due to the workpeople. I emphasise that our people should be made more achievement-minded. Take the Lancaster bomber. From every point of view the Lancaster bomber is the finest bomber in the world, but there are thousands of people employed in manufacturing the smallest parts who have never seen one, owing to the division of labour and the sub-division of labour. So far as the engineers are concerned, this war did not start in 1939 but in 1938, and they have been engaged on manufacturing the smallest parts for 12 hours a day. A few months ago I visited at 7 o'clock at night one of the largest factories in this country. One of the managerial staff took me through the die-casting section, and perspiration was flowing off the faces of the people engaged on that work. I saw a man and his wife and his wife's sister all working there as hard as they could, and the representative of the management asked me whether I know the secret of this. He told me that a few months ago these people were engaged on manufacturing parts to enable planes to fly blind,

  1123
  and they knew whenever a bomber went over to Germany or to any other part of the world, it was largely because of the results of their work. That is stimulating pride, interest and achievement, and making the workpeople achievement-minded. I suggest that the time has arrived when workpeople should be given a tonic by taking them to see finished products. Let them see a Lancaster bomber. Anyone who knows anything about aeronautical production cannot help being aroused on seeing a Lancaster bomber, in the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was aroused when he saw the "Queen Mary" and "Queen Elizabeth." I realise that it may not be possible for all the workpeople to see the finished product, but I suggest that their representatives should be taken to aerodromes and that pilots should be invited to visit the workshops. Such action would be a great tonic to the workpeople.
  After nearly three years of war we have had the report of the Committee on Regional Organisation. Some of us have stressed the importance of this from the beginning of the war, and we have got a little tired of talking about it. Nevertheless, it has come at last, and it should result in a great improvement in regional production organisation. Much, however, will depend on those who are to operate the regional machinery, and on Tuesday we were disappointed when the Minister announced the names of the Regional Controllers. It is time we recognised that the competence, efficiency and dynamic qualities required in war-time are not to be measured by the social status of an individual. Merit should be the basis for the promotion of both men and women. One of the best scientific engineers I know, and one of the most virile men I know, is at present directing operations in Iran. Had that man been still living in England, he would have been too young to have held such a responsible position.
  We should be producing more by employing arc-electric welding. In the days when this country was short of a certain anti-aircraft gun, the carriage was not acceptable unless it had been rivetted, and it was nearly two years before the authorities were convinced that a welded carriage was not only satisfactory in every respect, but could be more cheaply and
  1124
  more quickly produced. As a matter of fact output increased as much as three or four times. There are too many responsible people in the graveyard of custom, and that is a typical example. The Germans are mass-producing submarines at the present time, and they are employing arc-electric welding processes.
  The Minister made no reference to our organisation and production plans in India. In India we have teeming millions and a country of great resources and great possibilities for production. If production was organised as it should be, it would save shipping space and would speed up the delivery of supplies to quarters which may still become war zones. I hope that between now and the closing of this Debate the Minister will give attention to this problem.
  Are we sure we are adopting the right policy in regard to shipbuilding? The shipbuilding industry is far too conservative. Arc-electric welding methods have not been introduced to the extent that they should have been. Are we utilising our materials, industrial capacity, time and labour to the best advantage? Let me quote a leading and competent American engineer. Mr. Grover Loening, a leading aeronautical engineer, comparing the carrying capacity of a slow freighter to the largest American plane, says that 15 planes could carry as much in a year as an average 11,000 ton steamer between the United States and the Red Sea. The difference in time is enormous. The American Army has ordered cargo planes which can transport light artillery, and even reconnaissance cars. Has consideration been given to using a fleet of Douglas 54's and Curtiss C46's for that purpose, the jigs and tools already being there? I put a series of Questions to the Secretary of State for Air with a view to bringing out who was responsible for our policy with regard to dive-bombers. He replied:
  "As I informed my hon. Friend on 20th May last, dive bombers were ordered in July, 1940."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1942;col. 1032, Vol. 380.]
  I put a Question another day with a view to bringing it out more in the open, and I got an ordinary pre-war Civil Service Answer. From some of the Answers given to constructive suggestions made in Questions with a view to helping our war effort,

  1125
  it is evident that some people are not aware of the serious situation that we are in. I have a report here which states that big concentrations of shipping were caught by United States dive-bombers, which sank two large aircraft carriers, at least one cruiser and seven destroyers, and damaged many others. After attacks by waves of dive-bombers an aircraft carrier rolled over and sank immediately. The second was bombed and attacked with torpedoes and set on fire from end to end. Why have we not admitted this in the House and in the country in general? The feat accomplished by the American dive-bombers was a great feat, and we should make amends for our shortcomings as soon as possible. The same thing applies to our men in Tobruk. They were dive-bombed at 2 p.m., according to a reliable report which I have here. We should plead with the Americans to increase and accelerate the output of their dive-bombers and send us over thousands of the new Curtiss Hell divers as quickly as possible.
  The Minister rightly paid a great tribute to Mr. Kaiser, who is doing a remarkable work in America, but we have our Mr. Kaisers, who have not been allowed to do in this country what he has done. Vested interests in too many instances have stood in the way of the British Mr. Kaisers bringing about the results that he is doing. This is an engineers' war and a war of machines. Is there an engineer in the War Cabinet? Is there an engineer among the supply Ministers? Is there an engineer on the General Staff? Do the General Staff accept the advice tendered to it by the engineers? I have documentary evidence to prove that they do not. I know that great steps have been taken in the right direction during the past few weeks. Mr. Weekes, whom I do not know, is, I understand, a very fine type of man and an example of the kind of man some of us thought should have been brought into the War Office long ago. Is there still that conservatism in the War Office preventing developments of that kind taking place? Let me quote from the "Manchester Guardian":
  "Looking back on the Debate on our deficiencies in Libya, one must be struck by the amount of information we gave away. Some things, especially about our difficulties with tanks, it would probably have been better not to advertise so freely. Now that they are exposed, the questions arising from them should be pressed farther. Evidently no lessons were learned from Spain or from France in 1940.
  1126
  The enemy had the more heavily armoured and strongly gunned tanks. He had the heavier anti-tank gun. This at once takes some of the blame for defeat from the generals in the field and places it on the generals who choose our weapons. They have extremely little excuse. But the thought will persist that two years of intense national effort, complete Government powers and a willing people should have been able to produce something better. The Ministry of Production must enlist the best scientific and technical help and break through the muddling methods that seem to have afflicted the War Office and the Ministry of Supply in planning new weapons."
  There have been, and I have found by visits to certain Departments there still are, too many in high places with the bow and arrow outlook. Lord Beaverbrook on 1st July explained the system that determines responsibility. Here at least we have an acknowledgment of where responsibility lies. According to this statement, the War Office is responsible for tanks. The Prime Minister once wrote of generals fighting machine guns with the breasts of gallant men. For 20 years we must have neglected the development of the tank, for we had 6-pounder guns in our tanks in the last war. Are we increasing our tank units as quickly as possible? Have we all the available productive capacity on the output of tanks? The Russians have produced the Voroshilov 40-ton tank. They claim that it carries more shells than any other.
  Here we are, the leading industrial and engineering country in the world, and yet we have been left behind. These facts are an indictment against the people who have been in charge of our tank development. We invented the tank. I remember how with pride we used to drive the tanks. When we landed in the Army of Occupation at Aix-la-Chapelle, Duren and Cologne, the Germans came for miles around and stood admiring our tanks. There must be some guilty men somewhere, many in high places. For 20 years they have preferred to strut about with spurs on instead of encouraging mechanical engineering. Tanks have revolutionised, quickened and mechanised warfare and led to machine warfare, only limited by the resources and productive capacity of the nation. Machine warfare demands quick production, quick changes, quick movement and quick men. I hope the Minister will have regard to that. I doubt whether we in this House are really reflecting the dynamic movement to the extent that we should.

  1127
  If I had more time I should like to deal with the lessons which have been drawn from the Soviet Union. Stalin has given instructions for infantry to be trained in tactics of tank extermination, creating an army of tank destroyers. I have here a secret document, which I propose to hand over to the Minister; It is not a Secret Session, and, in spite of the discouragement of some of the most competent engineers, and of me, I do not propose to give the details of this to the public for fear that Germany, Italy and Japan make use of them. But I am convinced that, had this been proposed in the Soviet Union, it would have been adopted long ago. It reminds me of the Prime Minister's experience in the last war. For years he had to fight the War Office in regard to the introduction of the tank. It was not until 1917 that the War Office agreed to the development of the tank in the way the Prime Minister intended. His experience in the last war has been the experience of some industrialists with regard to the developments in this. Here is monumental evidence of frustration and procrastination. This is a concrete example of the point I am bringing up.
  In a war of this kind we can only meet steel with steel. Germany has mobilised her steel industry on a mechanised steel basis, and we will have to do the same. We cannot meet steel with the bare breasts of men. We can only meet tanks with superior tanks. We have done that with our aircraft, which will well bear comparison with any aircraft in the world. We have not done that yet with mechanical appliances used by the Army. The Prime Minister gave us something to be concerned about when he said on 2nd July:
  "On the 13th June there came a change. On that morning we had about 300 tanks in action, and by nightfall no more than 70 remained … All this happened without any corresponding loss having been inflicted on the enemy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1942;col. 594, Vol. 381.]
  We should find out the explanation of that as soon as possible. Was it faulty mechanism?. Were we outgunned? Had we the mechanics ready to do small adjustments to things like magnetos, carburettors and oiled plugs? Some of us who have had experience of this kind of thing know how easily adjustments can be made. I had an example of this a few mornings ago. I was on a bus, and at
  1128
  every stop the conductor signalled the driver on by kicking the bus. I asked him, "Is that your bell? "He said," Yes, I have had to do it since five o'clock, and I am still kicking the bus about." After a while a service man got on the bus, and within half a minute he had the bell ringing. What applies to that bell can apply to magnetos, carburettors, plugs and many other small adjustments which a relatively skilled man could make on a tank in no time. This brings out the need for the Army Engineering Corps which at last has been decided upon. Necessity is the mother of invention. The workers in this country have a saying that a lesson dearly bought is a lesson well taught. Are we going to apply that to Libya? Are we going to apply the lessons of Libya as soon as possible? Our engineers could apply them if they were allowed to. We need to move with extreme speed in adaptation of types in production, on changed designs where required and on concentration on new and improved types. Colonel Guderian wrote in a book just before the war:
  "Four weeks drum fire, a four months' pitched battle and 400,000 casualties gained for the British in 1917 a strip of land nine miles by five miles. At Cambrai with 400 tanks and the loss of 400 men they obtained the same results in 12 hours."
  Lieut.-General von Metzsch, a German general, said in 1932:
  "It was not the genius of General Foch that beat us but General Tank."
  I hope that we will apply the lesson to be learned from that. We evidently have not done it to the extent we should have done in the third year of the war. The Government should make another appeal to the British and American people and the lovers of freedom throughout the world to increase output and to expedite deliveries in order that we can have overwhelming superiority in equipment as soon as possible. Our people have made a great contribution in the world battle for freedom. We can and must increase output by better organisation. We can still improve the efficiency of management, welfare work and transport facilities in particular. The engineering industry has produced remarkable results during the past four years. The British people have slaved for victory for three years. We have produced the weapons and equipment that we have been allowed to. We have built a powerful Navy and a great Air Force, and we have shipped

  1129
  huge supplies to our noble Russian Allies. That has won the admiration of peoples throughout the world, and we have great potential Allies in all parts of the world, Some of us saw the other night the film "The Young Mr. Pitt." The Government should see it and learn the lessons of history which are to be drawn from it. I do not remember the exact words of Pitt, but they were something like this: "Believe in your cause if you are to convince and rouse others." They conquer who believe they can. Victory will not come of itself. We must have improved organisation and greater output.
  Mr. Granville: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) has made a speech which can in no way be referred to as a sedative. Like so many speeches he has made in the House, it will be a stimulant to the Government's effort. The House always listens to the hon. Gentleman with great interest, particularly on the subject of production, and I hope that the Minister of Production will give heed not only to the practical suggestions which he has made, but to the spirit behind the speech. We have had a statement from another Minister of War Production. The right hon. Gentleman has been in office four months, and I hope he will not show any resentment of criticism or of questions which may be put to him. The right hon. Gentleman must be patient, because some of us have had to be patient on these questions. When he was President of the Board of Trade, then Minister of Supply, and later in charge of our preparations in Cairo, many Members on this side of the House were asking and demanding a war production Minister and an allied war production council. With the United States, I take the view that if this House had exercised its authority we should have had a Production Minister 18 months ago. I also take the view that if the Prime Minister had used his enormous influence we might have had in the days of cash-and-carry and lease-lend, a production council with the United States.
  Following the visits of Mr. Hopkins and preceding the visit of Mr. Nelson, whom we welcome to this country, the Minister of Production paid a visit to America. Some of his statements when he got to America sounded to me rather like those of an industrial Christopher Columbus. He has found, what some
  1130
  people were saying a long time ago, that you cannot have a grand strategy without a grand production, and that you cannot knock out Mark IV panzers with Trans-Atlantic noughts. The Prime Minister has recently paid a visit to the United States and with President Roosevelt made a statement referring to "the coming operations" which "will divert German strength from the attack on Russia." That is extremely important. The Government, through a statement of the Lord Privy Seal, are also in some way committed to a second front, and, according to the newspapers, now Russia is beginning to ask when it will happen. Presumably the decision to be made will have to be referred, first, to the production of weapons and, second, to the shipping to get the weapons to the theatre of war.
  We have had several Debates on production and on supply and on the Ministry of Aircraft Production, but what the public really want to know, bearing in mind the lessons of Libya, is whether the vast productive effort of this country and the United States of America is turning out weapons of the same striking force and fire power as the weapons which we may anticipate that the Nazis will use against us on some potential second front. Presumably large numbers of Allied troops would be engaged in any such operation. Can we have an assurance from the Minister of Production that they will be equipped with weapons equal to those used by the enemy? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke asked whether we had learned the lesson of tanks and guns and equipment, and I would reinforce his appeal. I believe that the public may forgive Libya, but if we sent vast numbers of troops from this country and the United States into great battles in the future and it were found that failure to learn the lessons of the past had not given us absolute equality in weapons with the Axis forces, then such a culminating inferiority in armaments would never be forgiven by the people.
  As I have said, much depends upon shipping. The great mass of production in the United States of America which has been referred to by the Minister must be transported to the Far East, to the Middle East and to Britain, and the great production in this country has to be transported to Russia and to the Middle

  1131
  East. First we have to produce the right type of equipment—the right armour, the right gun, the most up-to-date weapons; secondly, we have to get all that stuff to the various theatres of war; and, thirdly, we must get it there in time. A letter in "The Times" recently set out this problem of Governmental responsibility better, perhaps, than it has been stated in this House:
  "War as we see it to-day is a conflict of systems of organisations on the grand scale. We command the human material, the resources, the readiness to offer every sacrifice of both. But the initiative and the impetus to organise these elements in terms of war winning can only proceed from the centre. Granted that time was needed to overcome great initial handicaps and shortcomings, it is disquieting to realise how little progress had been made in doing so at the date, significant for success or failure, of the Libyan battle. It is still running against us. The success or failure of future campaigns is being determined now. Is even now an organisation which can engender victory evolved at the centre? It is on this we had hoped for encouragement and remain, after all the dialectical triumph of last week's Debates, without reassurance."
  That, I think, states exactly the problem before us in this Debate. I have never believed that democracy can be as tightly organised as is the totalitarian industrial system under the Nazis. On the other hand, I know that there are those who say that the Germans will make more mistakes than we shall, and that the outcome of this war will show that the Nazis have made more mistakes than are made under a democratic system. I do not know which point of view may be right, but I am convinced that at this climacteric of the war there is only one policy for this Government and the Allied Powers to adopt, and that is a policy of speed. We must have absolute speed in the present situation. There has been a great deal of wishful thinking and complacency, engendered by the Ministry of Information and all the back-door stuff sent out to the Press in this country, but we are up against hard facts to-day, and if we are not to be too late there must be more speed, The Germans had two years start.
  I have read the Debate upon Libya, and the speech made by the Minister of Production shows that he seems to believe still that production in this country began in 1938. It had begun in 1935 and 1936, and more than £1,500,000,000 was spent. Nevertheless, the Germans had two years' start, and in connection with this vital
  1132
  question of shipping it should be pointed out that they are operating upon internal lines of communication, whereas we have to send our armaments a long way round to reach the scenes of operations. Their industry, too, is organised with flexibility. The Nazi industrial and general staffs realise that he who can act quickly and produce tanks and guns embodying the lessons of the latest battle starts the next one with a great advantage. Their economic general staff and their operational planning staff work together in close contact and are also in close contact with the actual battlefield.
  The Minister of Production has set up an organisation, but I wish to ask whether he is absolutely satisfied that he has secured close co-operation between production and operational planning and the actual experience of the battlefield. To the ordinary citizen who has no special knowledge of the problems of production the test above all others, is how long it takes the lessons of Libya, or the Atlantic, or the Russian front, to get through to the factories in this country and to materialise in the form of modifications of design and the production of new and improved types of weapons. Have the Nazis a great advantage over us in that respect? Have they shorter red tape lines of communication from the battlefield to the offices of the designers and to the factories and then, after production from the factories back to the front line? Have they considerable war advantage over our present industrial democratic set up? I should like to ask, further, whether these lessons of the battlefield get through to the factories in America as well as to those in this country, because that is a very important point. Could the Minister also tell us whether he has an organisation, a War Production Council or whatever you like to call it, which does not depend upon constant trips across the Atlantic by the Ministers concerned or upon a mass of paper work but which can give industrial and strategic decisions quickly on the vital questions which determine whether our troops are to fight their battles with equality of equipment against the enemy? In addition, where is the Allied War Production Council actually going to function? In Washington or in this country? At this vital stage of the war, although we might not be able to get a united Allied command, which was the turning point of the last

  1133
  war, have we, in order to face the ruthless Nazi war machine, an Allied combined organisation, for co-operation between industry in this country and industry in the United States? After the right hon. Gentleman's experience in Cairo, where he was for nine months, he must know that a small but well-trained Army with up-to-date equipment and perhaps with a few surprises in the shape of new weapons or new inventions used for the first time in battle, and fighting in full co-operation with other Services, can outfight larger numbers of men with inferior weapons.
  The right hon. Gentleman occupies a position of enormous responsibility. We have had endless Debates in this House on production, but the crucial point is simple. All kinds of appeals are made to the workers to work harder. I believe they have responded splendidly in the past. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the weapons being produced in our factories are up to date, efficient and give effective fire power against the enemy? Can he give an assurance to factory managements and workers that they will be working night and day upon improved types of weapons? There must be some high starred priorities. We read in the newspapers about a new tank being tried out in the North of England. Has it been made clear to production committees which are the highly starred priorities? If the production committees, managements and workers of factories in this country are told which are the vital priorities needed for Russia or for our Forces, they will give the Minister the backing and the production that he requires.
  I would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. We have been sending Press reporters to the front line. I listened to the Minister's detailed description of the various committees and subcommittees set up in order to get the right contact between the Services, the battle-front, the producers and the scientists and technicians. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) suggested that we should send Members of Parliament to the battlefront, as well as war correspondents. There may be something to be said for that, but why hot send to the battlefront the designers and production engineers? I am told that the Germans use transport
  1134
  machines to put their designers and production engineers into the battlefront where they can see tanks being tested, not at some Army testing depot but actually on the battlefield. I suggest also that we might exchange more production engineers and technicians with the United States and with Russia. The more Allied- minded we can become in these matters the better it will be. I am glad the Minister of Labour has just come in. I want to ask whether the views of the real production experts are heard at the top. I do not believe this is the kind of war which will give you the production which is required if you have capital and labour sitting round a table. You need a different type of industrial organisation. You have young men who were trained in continuation and technical schools, but very likely they are the young men who can organise efficient production and can take short cuts for the removal of bottlenecks. In the appointment of regional committees and other committees are we certain that these younger elments in production can have their views heard at the top where production problems have to be settled, and that the views heard are not merely those of representatives of employers federations and of trade unions? Can the Minister of Production give an assurance that on all the Councils of the supply departments the men in control are the production men and not the financial controllers? Is there still delay in fixing prices and checking contracts? Now that the Minister of Aircraft Production is here—
  The Minister of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): I have been here for a long time.
  Mr. Granville: I would call his attention to the need for a transport plane. I know the arguments for and against it, and I know the difficulties. I would make a suggestion to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Stirling bomber was designed originally as a civil prototype for the purpose, I believe, of carrying mails and passengers across the South Atlantic. It has a considerable range. I shall not mention in public where it is made, but has the Minister considered turning it into a transport-carrying plane? Would it not be possible to give the production of a transport machine, based on the Stirling civil prototype, to another unit of production other than the unit which is pro-

  1135
  ducing the Stirling military bomber? Would it not be possible to turn some of the Wellingtons and Whitleys, with their famous reliability, into transport-carrying machines, similar to the old Bombay? The Under-Secretary of State for Air knows all about these problems, and I hope that he will give us a satisfactory answer on this subject. I would ask the Minister of Aircraft Production for an assurance that we have not put the whole of the aircraft production in this country and the United States on to big bombers, to the detriment of Army co-operation machines and of torpedo-carrying aircraft. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that on this question of torpedo-carrying aircraft the Admiralty have a fair allocation of factory space for the purpose not only of producing new machines but of improving old types?
  I would like to ask the Minister of Production whether he can give the Committee an assurance that he has not lost sight of the particular problems of propellers, engines and auxiliary equipment and their relation to the main production. Can the Minister of Aircraft Production in his reply tell us something about new fighters? I realise the difficulty, but could he give us some assurance on that question? Is he satisfied with the performance of the Typhoon and the Tornado? I understand that the German Focke-Wulf fighter has a special performance in climb and at bomber level, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that this is being taken care of.
  Finally, I would again emphasise the necessity for speed. Even at this hour, I beg the Government to be bold, and to try and concentrate their production on the new types and designs which will be comparable to the types which our soldiers will have to fight against in future battles. I would ask the Government to mobilise all the production they can possibly concentrate on these new and effective designs. This is not the occasion on which to go into the problem of whether the 2-pounder gun should continue to be used in tanks or not; such problems could perhaps be discussed more adequately in Secret Session, but speed in getting new types and new production to the battle field, speed, and speed again, should be the policy of the Government and of the Allied Powers. I hope that to-day we
  1136
  shall receive an assurance from the Government that the vast series of noughts which have been given so much publicity—trans-Atlantic noughts, as I call them—and the great production of this country, when finally assembled and taken by shipping to the theatres of war, will not only not be obsolete, but will be modern weapons, so that we may be sure that the British and American soldiers, when they go out to fight in the great battles of the future, will be given every chance to achieve victory.
  Mr. Higgs: I have listened with very great interest to the speech of the Minister to-day, and it strikes me that he has a very complete idea of what is happening in production from the head of his Department down to factory level. But all is not right; the Minister realises that. We have now been talking production in this House for three or four years, and certainly we have achieved something. It would be a disgrace if we had not, for this nation at present is doing nothing else but produce war materials and food. I was very pleased to hear the figures given by the Minister, but we expect figures of that description, we expect increases, and we have got to have them. Our results are nothing to be proud of.
  The Ministry considers that to get efficient production the Government must interfere in detail of control, and I take the liberty of referring to a pamphlet written by Sir Alfred Herbert which appeared in the "Machine Tool Review" some six or eight months ago. It is written by a man who has proved his worth in industry; I am not referring to him as the only man who has achieved success in industry, but am just giving him as a typical example. He has built up a huge business, he has saved the turret lathe industry for this country, and, during the last war, he was Controller of Machine Tools. When he held that position he was trusted Now he is running his own business, and he is dictated to by the Government and by Government officials in exactly the same manner as any upstart firm knowing nothing about the industry at all. More freedom must be given to those people who have proved themselves and are capable of running industry. I would like to read a paragraph from this pamphlet to show the sort of instructions

  1137
  which industrial concerns receive from time to time from Government Departments, It runs like this:
  "When goods are or were invoiced by a registered person who, in relation to the supply of those goods, is or was the agent either of the supplier or of the person to whom or to whose order the goods are or were to be supplied, the supplier shall be deemed to supply or to have supplied those goods to the agent, and when the goods are supplied to or to the order of the person to be supplied, the agent shall be deemed to supply or to have supplied them."
  That is not a typical example of what we receive, probably it is an extreme case, but my point is that we should never receive instructions of that description. Yet those are the people who are telling industrialists like Sir Alfred Herbert how to run their businesses.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: May I interrupt my hon. Friend for a moment? He knows perfectly well, both he and I being engaged in day-to-day work on these matters, that we do not pay the faintest attention to that sort of tosh.
  Mr. A. Edwards: Is the hon. Member aware that those silly communications received by Sir Alfred Herbert are received from his own employee, who at present is the dictator referred to in the Department?
  Mr. Higgs: I could not answer that question; I believe they are received from Government employees who are now dictating to Sir Alfred Herbert how to run his business.
  Mr. Edwards: His own employee.
  Mr. Higgs: Not his own employee, a Government employee.
  Mr. Edwards: The man is his own employee. He is now dictating to his own boss.
  Mr. Higgs: I am not sure of that point.
  Mr. Edwards: I am.
  Mr. Higgs: I suppose he was no good in his own organisation, and therefore he got rid of him.
  Mr. Edwards: No, he is going back when the war is over.
  Mr. Higgs: We will wait and see. If Sir Alfred Herbert was in charge of a Government Department, he would be
  1138
  trusted, but as he is in charge of a large industry, he receives the same control and dictation as anybody else. What does he have to contend with? There are special inspectors, factory inspectors, the Minister of Labour, progress inspectors for the Admiralty and munitions supply, performance inspectors and costings inspectors, and many others as well, and no one Department co-operates with another. The reason why the industrialist is successful is because he has control of all his departments and co-ordinates them. That is the difficulty with Government control. The fear seems to be that the industrialist will make a profit. It would be far better for the country if the industrialist was permitted to make a little more profit. Give the capable man a little more incentive, more control of his business, and I am convinced that we should get more efficient production. We are using these men who have proved their worth in industry. There is not sufficient confidence entrusted in the man who has proved his capability.
  On simplification, the Minister to-day referred to the reduction in price of a certain gun. This reduction in price is being published in every technical paper throughout the country in the last month or two. The price to produce a Bren gun has been reduced from £2 8s. to 2s. 3d. I say that it is an utter disgrace that we have ever manufactured the part at £2 8s. if it can be produced for 2s. 3d. There is nothing clever in it. Reductions of this description should not be possible if there were efficiency in the industry. The Minister of Production received a memorandum from the Institution of Production Engineers giving that and other typical examples. I have had personal experience this year of drawings over 30 years old from the Admiralty. We have to make electric motors to them to-day. Has no improvement taken place in the electric motor in the last 30 years? If we want to get anything altered, we might lose the contract altogether. Government organisation is slow; it is difficult to avoid that; therefore delegate greater powers to those people who do know how to do what is required. We have heard from the Minister to-day about the marvellous result in shipbuilding by Mr. Kaiser, I think he said. If he had been hindered in the manner in which the industrialists in this country have been,

  1139
  he could not have got the work done. It was freedom—a certain amount of freedom delegated to him—that permitted him to get that job done. Then in this matter of costings, it is always a question of "What profit you are making?" never "What price can the job be produced at?"—two very different things.
  Price investigation in order to reduce costs of production is very necessary, but the Government have never investigated the cost with that object. It has always been "What profit is the firm making?" A man must have some reward for his labour, whatever his work in life. If he does not get a money profit, give him some honour for doing it. There is a great fear on the part of some hon. Members of a firm making a profit, in peace-time as well. It is a great honour to a firm to be able to make a profit in peace-time; I do not say that that point holds good to-day. I came across a switchboard the other day, a panel of which cost £2. It hurt me to see them being made, hundreds of them, because I knew that they could be made for 2s. if a specification was altered from a certain insulation to steel. A man to whom I spoke said, "We are making these things, but it hurts me. My Income Tax is paying for this job." Yet one cannot get Government Departments to alter these specifications. Leave specifications to half-a-dozen of our leading industrial firms, and we shall get some results without this constant interference and interruption.
  With regard to the delay in decisions, it is impossible to get a straightforward "yes" or "no" from a Government Department. I have never seen it or heard of it. It is always qualified with, "subject to further investigation," or "provisionally," or something of that kind, playing for safety all the while. One can play to safety far too much and get nothing done at all. The industrialist spends threequarters of his time making decisions. He makes some wrong ones, but the proof that he has made a majority of decisions right and made them rapidly is that his business is successful. A quick "Yes" or "No" will be a deciding factor as to whether a problem is dealt with successfully or not. Another difficulty we get is the delay in obtaining agreement between
  1140
  various Departments. I suppose a number of hon. Members have had some experience of trying to put up a building recently. I quite agree that the Government should be very cautious about giving permission for extensions for buildings. I support their attitude in that direction, but one has to get about four or six Departments to agree. The major Department having agreed, the minor Departments could hardly refuse, but they have to be consulted, Time is taken to get the building value, then to get the construction agreed to. It has to go to the Ministry of Works and Planning, and if they give their sanction, there are the materials to be obtained. Their agreement does not sanction materials. Then we have to go to the local authorities for permission to erect. Simplification is what we need. The Government do not seem to understand the word. Complication is the only one which seems to be understood.
  On the subject of industrial unrest, I am sorry to say that it is greater than many hon. Members in this Committee appreciate. I think it is due to some extent to the weak treatment of the transgressors both by the Government and the works managers and industry as a whole. To take the question of late arrivals. I know a certain firm in Birmingham who, because of the blitz, relaxed the time of arrival. The result was that until the new summer-time came into force late arrivals were getting there half-an-hour and three-quarters of an hour after starting time. The firm made a bold decision; it was not the Government but the individual management. They said, "We will lock out everyone who is more than five minutes after starting time." They took that decision and locked everyone out who was more than five minutes late. The result, I heard last week, is that no one arrives late; no one goes in the shops late. If that can be done by one Birmingham firm, it can be done by other firms, but it should have the support and encouragement of the Minister of Labour. I believe that, with the Government backing up industry, timekeeping could be very greatly improved. Managers do not always set a good example by arriving at a reasonable time. The soldier who is late does not get any consideration, and in war-time people in industry should be put on the same basis.

  1141
  I am pleased to see the Minister of Labour here. Can he say why absenteeism is at its lowest on paydays, and at its highest on Saturday mornings? There is a ramp in doctors' notes. I have half-a-dozen here, which I will refer to. Here is No. 1. I cannot read the signature, which is filled in in pencil. I have an objection to a doctor's note being filled in in pencil, and I will tell the House the reason in a moment. As for No. 2, there is no indication who issued it. It is filled in in ink, but there is no proper signature. No. 3 says, "The bearer attended here to-night, and is able to follow her employment." What is the good of issuing a note if the bearer is able to follow her employment?
  The Temporary Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman ought not to pursue that line of argument. The Estimate under consideration is not that of the Ministry of Labour. Only questions of priority of labour come under the Ministry of Production.
  Mr. Logan: On a point of Order. Has the hon. Member any right whatever to bring medical certificates to this House? Who has any right to give medical certificates to an hon. Member?
  The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of Order.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Is not a doctor's note a certificate of disorder?
  Mr. Higgs: These notes were handed to me by my own employees. They are firsthand information. Someone has discovered that only 4 per cent. of all the engineering firms in England employ more than 500 people each, and that two-thirds employ less than 50 people each. A lot of publicity has been given to that statement lately, and it is assumed that the larger unit is more efficient. I do not agree with that. Efficiency does not increase with size. It is up to the Minister of Production and his assistants to allocate the work that is most suitable to particular firms. Who would think of giving an order for a battleship to a firm employing only half a dozen people? In the same way, one does not want firms employing thousands of people to be given orders for percussion caps. Efficiency is often fostered by personal relationship. In
  1142
  peace-time, small firms are the nation's goodwill. Some firms grow and expand, which proves their efficiency. I cannot appreciate the importance which is attached to this argument that the large firm is the more efficient. Our production is great, but it has got to be greater. The Minister has a big job, and he knows it; and I hope that this Debate will give him further hints and ideas. As one backbencher, I wish him luck.
  Mr. A. Edwards: I am glad that the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) brought out in the way he did the question of the silly communications that manufacturers receive. I interrupted him in order to show how much more stupid it is when the gentleman who is supposed to be dictated to is dictated to by one of his own employees, who has been seconded to the Ministry for the war, and will go back to his job when the war is over. It shows that our criticism should not be directed primarily against the gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite, or against their assistants in the Departments, but against this silly system, which makes fools of men who are anxious to do a good job. The men who send these silly communications are not in any way responsible for them, any more than the man who is responsible for machine tools was to blame for that silly communication to which the hon. Member referred. When we have these Debates, we know that the Ministers go back to their Departments and that they are tied hand and foot by the silly regulations which exist. They would like to do something, but it is almost impossible. I have taken part in many Debates on production, but I have yet to know of any serious change being made by a Minister in Civil Service methods. I have seen people victimised in the Departments because they have complained. This makes people inside the Departments, who know what is going on, afraid to open their mouths; and they become very depressed. Many of them leave the Departments, and go back to industry, where they can do much more efficient work. I have a report here of something that was said by one of our best-known scientific writers, only last week. He said:
  "There are cases where ideas are considered for four months before a decision is given—four months, when in two weeks a Continent may be lost!"

  1143
  How true that is. How tired many of us are of discussing serious matters with the Departments, and seeing weeks and weeks, months and months, pass, with nothing done; not because the Ministers do not want to do anything, but because they are tied by the rules, and cannot do anything. In the last debate on production, I gave some figures, and, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour had occasionally challenged Members on that side for not giving him details, to allow him to investigate, I gave some figures, and begged that they might be followed up. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply took a great deal of trouble in following up statements that I made. I made, on good authority, a statement about the number of people with nothing to do in one Department. The Minister asked me to see him the following day. He handed me a document, remarking that it was a private document, but that I had better see it. He said, "I do not think it fair for you to make those statements without checking up on them." I said that I would withdraw it if what I had said was wrong. But his own document confirmed everything that I had said. He could not have read it.
  In connection with another statement I had made, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury demanded that I should quote a certain document which I had merely referred to. I said that if the facts were denied, I would quote. After a little time I gave my quotation, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not deny; but, with his usual sophistry, he excused his own Department. I said that the Department was overloaded with people having nothing to do. I will go so far as to say, as the Minister of Aircraft Production is here, that it is the view of many important people in that industry that, if the Department were wiped out, the result would be a considerable increase in production. This is not said in a jocular manner at all; it is a very serious matter. It is felt that the Department does not help but does very much to hinder the production of aircraft. How can it be otherwise? I talked this over with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I thought that, coming fresh from another Department, he would do
  1144
  something about it. He has not an engineer within reach in his Department.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Would not the object that the hon. Member wishes to achieve by sacking the Minister of Aircraft Production easily be obtained by sacking half the boards of the aircraft firms?
  Mr. Edwards: I am willing to adopt any alternative method that the hon. Gentleman cares to put forward so long as we can do one or the other. I am satisfied that the Ministry is almost redundant, and I was proceeding to make a few remarks to substantiate that claim. Here is a purely engineering and production proposition, and the Minister has not among his high officials a competent engineer to advise him. He has an Advisory Board, but how often are they listened to? How often, when they tender the best advice, is that advice accepted? I believe that the highest paid engineer in the Department has £1,400. Is it likely that a man with £1,400 will be competent to tell people who have built up large industries how to do their own job? That is what these officials are endeavouring to do. One of the most famous engineers in the world—and we are not lacking in skilled engineers in this country—has produced a very remarkable piece of machinery which I believe has been accepted by the Government as being as nearly perfect as possible. Not long ago one of the Minister's officials went along and told him how to improve it. Just think of that engineer being told how to improve what is well-nigh a perfect piece of mechanism. There was a little remonstrance, and I believe that the official had to climb down. But these things do not make sense. I do not believe there is an engineer on the Air Council. Why do we keep the only people who really can do the job well so much in the background? It is several weeks since I discussed this matter, and I thought that I might have had a further discussion or something might have been elicited on this occasion, but the Minister has apparently done nothing whatever about it.
  There is another matter to which he ought to give his attention. The aircraft industry in this country is positively controlled by a small group of people. The Minister of Aircraft Production has done his best to change that, but the fact remains that this small group of people—this ring—have deliberately kept other manufacturers out of their charmed circle by

  1145
  their doubtful methods. I will not give the Committee any details—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that what I am about to say now is the fact—but there was a very important development in aircraft production recently. Only one company proved itself capable of being able to do the job that the Department wanted, but the ring came along and tried to take it entirely out of its hands and to manufacture the thing themselves. It was only the intervention of the Minister himself that enabled that particular company to get a square deal and eventually to receive a fairly substantial order. The Ministry of Production is almost entirely dominated by the ring, who will not allow anybody else to do these jobs. It is a very dangerous thing at this stage of the war. If the Minister does not do something drastic, this matter will have to be the subject of very serious discussion in this House.
  I am given to understand on very good authority that the important consideration now is not so much one of large-scale production, because we might find ourselves before very long producing on a very large scale some machines which are obsolete. You will always get obsolete machines from an obsolete mentality. Are these people looking ahead to see what we may have to meet from the enemy and preparing plans and offering advice to the Government? The particular proposal to which I refer has been turned down by the Treasury. It is not the first time that very important developments have been turned down by the Treasury. The Minister of Supply knows that there have been cases in his own Department. This Committee should take notice that the Treasury have the right to interfere in certain cases, but once a production Department has satisfied itself that it wants a certain thing in the interests of winning the war, the Treasury ought not to have the right to step in. This has happened on more than one occasion and is a very serious matter indeed. I think the Minister knows to what I am referring. I shall be glad to give him full details of the proposal which has been turned down by the Treasury. Two years hence we may find ourselves still fighting a war and still seriously in need of machines which the Government have been urged to get into production at the present time.
  Why is it that the Minister has surrounded himself with chartered account-
  1146
  ants? I believe that one of the important appointments on the Ministry of Production staff was that of a chartered accountant. Why should you put chartered accountants into jobs which are essentially production engineers' jobs? How can they make suggestions? They become the tools of the Department, and within a few weeks they themselves conform to all the rules and regulations. Even if they have the capacity, they do not have the opportunity of exercising it. They become the slaves of the Department or become so disgusted that they go out. [Interruption.] I have the greatest respect for chartered accountants. I have no doubt that they are doing a very good job, but I want them to stay in their own sphere. I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply has had a lot to do with the steel industry and that very few people in this country have as much knowledge of that industry as the hon. Member. He has some justification for his appointment, but very few of the chartered accountants have any justification.
  The Admiralty buy millions of pounds' worth of produce and manufactured goods which are vouched for by men who have to rise from the ranks and have special training for this job. When I inquired into their remuneration, I found that a fully qualified man received £4 10s. 0d. a week, and that he was the only man who could say to the Admiralty, "You are getting value for your money." On inquiry we found there were not enough chartered accountants to do the work. I had in one of my companies a young man who was a high-class accountant, although not a chartered accountant, and I said to him, "They need accountants at the Admiralty. If you insist on joining up, go there." Well, instead of letting him do an accountant's job, 12 months was spent on turning him into a very moderate mechanic. When he was trained there was a demand for labour, and 5,000 of these people, who had been trained as engineers, were released. But did they put them on to work as engineers? No. A dozen men I know were put on to unskilled work, alongside girls. I will say that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour had them quickly removed when his attention was drawn to it, but that is the mentality of this machine. Do you wonder that we get

  1147
  hold-ups, bottle-necks and that kind of thing? I have a friend who is a real chartered accountant, and he tells me that he spends his life in the Army diddling soldiers out of their legitimate allowances. It is not necessary to have chartered accountants to do this sort of work. They should not use all their ingenuity and training for this sort of thing.
  I could ask a lot more questions and make a lot of suggestions, but if Ministers answer the questions already put to them, they will need the rest of the time of the Debate. However, I do ask some Minister to tell us at what point and in which Department a single thing has been done to alter the Civil Service machine to free those who want to get on with production in this war. Has there been any occasion when there has been a change in procedure? The committee I worked on tried to find some changes, and I had great hopes that when the right hon. Gentleman came to office he would do something about this terrible Frankenstein monster which is throttling us and destroying the nation. There is not a Minister who has had the courage to say, "This is obsolete and I will do something to change it." No Minister dare get up and say that in his Department he has taken hold of the Civil Service machine and attempted to bring it up to date. The Committee is entitled to know in which Departments and to what extent this is being done.
  Professor A. V. Hill: I hate being a bore but I realise that sometimes one has to be if one wants to get things done. The point I have made again and again had, I thought, been made clear, but the Minister of Production has so completely misunderstood what has been urged about our higher technical control that although I had not intended to try to catch your eye, Sir Dennis, I felt bound to do so. The need on the technical side—the qualitative side, as the Minister called it—is to provide for some high level, some central body to see that the scientific and technical resources of our Departments and the country are properly and effectively used. In the Departments there is no question that good work is being done. That is not the point. The question is whether our scientific and technical resources are being effectively used as a homogenous whole, as they should be. We have committees and
  1148
  advisers, but the question is whether advice is taken or whether advisers have authority to get done the things they advise.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production and to the presence there, as he said, of one of the most famous scientists in the world in his field—I presume he meant Sir Henry Tizard—as a member of the Air Council. But the question is not whether Sir Henry Tizard is on the Air Council; it is whether he has any authority on the Air Council or the Council of the Ministry of Supply, whether his advice is taken and whether his influence there is really effective. The question is whether he is continually thwarted in what he wants to do, whether he continually finds his efforts there fruitless. It is still true that strategy depends upon tactics and that tactics depend upon weapons. The man who knows about weapons and tactics should be able to have some influence upon strategy; because it is certain that most of those who deal with strategy, know nothing whatever about weapons. This might seem to be outside the domain of production; but it is not, because the three subjects of production, strategy and technique are inevitably mixed together. The question is not whether Sir Henry Tizard is there or not, but whether his advice is able to have the effect on strategy it ought to have.
  We heard from the Minister about the operational research sections in the battlefield. How long have they been there? We have heard that enemy equipment may now be examined by experts. How expert are most of the examiners? I know of a case in which a demand was made for a certain piece of equipment. This demand was made on the authority of the staff in the battlefield and it was passed back home. Here, fortunately, there was a technical officer who knew that it was based on a complete misapprehension and the order from the General Staff for that particular piece of equipment was cancelled. But that demand would never have occurred, had the people who had been examining that piece of equipment in the field been adequately trained on the technical side. The Minister told us, too, of the Weapons Development Committee under the Deputy-Chief of the Imperial General Staff. That, as he admitted, is a very

  1149
  recent affair and we must remember that there is no technical branch of the General Staff which goes out beyond the War Office into the Army and formations to ensure that the Development Committee is properly fed with technical information from the battlefield. We hear of things being handed over at a particular stage to the Ministry of Supply: that misses completely the point of these criticisms. You cannot divide the thing into one lump here and another lump there. Things have to be done with continual contact between the different departments—operations, production, and technique.
  The Minister referred to a report of a committee of which I am a member and said that the committee reported that our scientific and technical organisation was—I forget the exact words—in good order. That report was written 16 to 17 months ago. The committee in question was instructed by the Prime Minister at the beginning that it was not to "meddle with our innards." That is to say it was not to examine organisation dealing with the central direction of the war. It had no authority to examine the organisation at the top. It dealt only with the scientific work in the Departments, and I think that those who know what is going on in Departments know that very much of it is good. Our complaint is not about what is happening tactically in the Departments, but what is happening strategically in the use of all the work of all the Departments together. As for the comment that this committee said that all was good, I may say that the then chairman of the committee is entirely in agreement with me now as to what needs to be done, and that other members of the committee are of the same opinion.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Why has the committee not made a report, then?
  Professor Hill: The committee is not able to report, according to the Prime Minister's instructions, "on our innards."
  Mr. Lyttelton: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but surely the terms of reference of the committee would enable it to make just the report which he says it is not making?
  Professor Hill: If the Minister will look at the terms of reference of the committee, he will see that it is entirely forbidden from making such a report on the organi-
  1150
  sation of the higher direction of our scientific effort. It has never reported on the organisation at the higher level, but if it were asked to do so, I have very little doubt of what its report would be.
  My right hon. Friend did not refer to the research and development side of work in the Admiralty. No doubt he will know that the First Lord set up a panel some 16 months ago to examine the working of the establishments in the Admiralty connected with research and development. Perhaps he knows that the chairman of that committee is the man who is in charge of the staff in the establishments which might be criticised by the panel. Does my right hon. Friend regard that as an effective way of getting a report which will really tell him the truth about the effectiveness of the working of those establishments? It is, I insist impossible to get accurate information about Departments by asking the Departments themselves. They will inevitably cover up their boobies and hide their failures. The only way to get it is to have some properly constituted authority, with technical knowledge, centrally placed, that can insist on getting the information that it wants. If my right hon. Friend knew the state of affairs in certain establishments he might regard more benignly the need of a central organisation to see that they functioned more effectively.
  My right hon. Friend spoke about the missions in the United States. He admitted that there are a very large number of these missions. There are. That is one of the troubles. There is no properly organised central agency for bringing together the work of all the missions, and there never will be as long as we trust to Departments individually to send their missions, not in contact with one another and not co-ordinated with each other's activities. If we had this central technical direction it would be easy to attach to it a central information bureau from which scientific and technical liaison could be conducted, not in order to prevent Departments from having their own missions, but at least to keep these missions in touch with one another, so that people at the centre would know what they all were doing.
  Finally, my right hon. Friend spoke about the pessimism induced in workers by complaints about the products of their efforts. We sympathise very deeply with

  1151
  the workers, but would not the workers themselves be the first to resent any suggestion that we should hide up errors in order to save them from the disappointment of knowing that their efforts were wasted? Why not do something more positive than that to allay the apprehension of the people who are working so hard and with such devotion for the country? If we find that there are 122 defects in the Mark IV tank, it is better not to attribute them to 122 separate causes. Probably they are due to a single cause. All of these troubles on the qualitative side of our production, and in the operational use of the products of our production, have not got hundreds or thousands of separate causes corresponding to the hundreds or thousands of failures. They have probably a single cause, or at any rate a very few causes. That is the way the human mind works: we look for single causes for a large number of different effects.
  I am convinced there is a single cause for these many failures. I believe that if we had a central organisation which would watch over Departments, which would see that the activities of two different parts of the same machine, for example, the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Air Ministry, or the Ministry of Supply and the War Office, were as well co-ordinated as they should be, these defects would be largely got over. But the body which will watch over these things and see that they are well ordered and critically examined must be outside the Departments, for otherwise it will inevitably, as was remarked to me to-day, adopt the attitude, "Be a good chap and do not say anything about it." We must have some body at a higher level than that which will insist that these things shall be critically examined and their defects put right.
  Mr. Horabin: My hon. Friend the Junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Professor Hill) has made a very strong case for what I would call a Ministry of Efficiency. It does appear to those of us who have followed these things that there is need for a body of the sort referred to by my hon. Friend, independent of all other Departments, to watch over the matters about which he has spoken. But what I am concerned about primarily is the func-
  1152
  tions of the Minister of Production. My right hon. Friend has made a very reassuring statement. At last, tanks very much like those of the Germans in quality are to be produced; we have operational scientific sections working on the battlefields; the world is to be a very much better place in the future. But I wonder. It is not our fault if we regard with suspicion these assurances given by the Minister of Production. After all, in 1940 several of us were making criticisms and expressing doubts about the way in which the production machine was working. Of course, the Government promised vigorous action at that time and promised that things would be all right in future; but when it came to the campaigns of 1941, again there were failures in the field. In 1941, criticism of production was far more strident. At that time we were pacified by changes in the membership of the Government on the production side. But once again, in 1942, the changes and promises that had been made to us were belied, and we were faced by defeats in the field.
  What has been happening consistently during this war is that the Government are always securing tremendous victories in Debates—and they are going to procure a victory to-day—but the critics have always been proved right by what has happened on the fields of battle. If there is one thing upon which I can congratulate the Government, it is the effectiveness of their propaganda. If we could have hurled speeches at the enemy, Hitler would have been defeated long ago; if propaganda were an effective weapon on the battlefield, Rommel would have been driven out of Libya by Lord Beaver-brook's brochure on tanks, and the film of troop-carrying gliders shown on the screen would have made an effective contribution towards the same end. What I am concerned about is what is wrong with our production. Something is wrong. To get at what is wrong I go back to the points which the Government have made.
  Every time the Government justify their production situation by saying that Germany started preparing for this war long before we did; that it is this tremendous quantity of munitions which she is now using on the battlefield, and that, therefore, we cannot be in the same position as Germany. Quantitatively we cannot, but surely qualitatively we should have been in a better position than

  1153
  Germany, because we started to design and produce our weapons long after Germany was committed to her designs? The thing which has gone wrong—and this was referred to by my hon. Friend the junior burgess for Cambridge University—is that the Government have failed to plan production properly at the centre. They have failed to get the Service experts, the scientific experts and those experts with an understanding of the latest industrial methods to combine to produce weapons which would have given our men qualitative superiority on the battlefield. So it is that during this year we have passed from defeat to defeat due everytime to the one thing—that we have failed to produce qualitatively the tanks, the anti-aircraft guns, and the anti-tank mines we ought to have.
  Colonel Llewellin: Is the hon. Member referring to aircraft as well?
  Mr. Horabin: I am not going to speak about aircraft. If we accept the Government's explanation that they have been producing the wrong type of equipment for the Army, we then come to their next defence, the defence made during the Debate on the War Situation when we were told that we could not produce the right equipment during 1940–41 because the whole of our productive capacity was used up in producing these wrong weapons. In other words, we could not afford to use part of that productive capacity to produce the right weapons because we had to put something in the hands of our soldiers who were without weapons. I know that the Minister said something about the difference between desert fighting and close fighting, but if it did come to fighting in enclosed country, the relative inefficiency in weapons would be just the same as it is in the desert.
  It misrepresents the facts to say that we had no productive capacity available. Industrialists and workers know there was a tremendous amount of capacity going to waste during 1940 and 1941. A census of machine tools was taken in the Autumn of 1940, and to that census query a card was attached asking industrialists, who had special machine tools which were urgently required, to say what capacity was available. My information is that at that time, in 1940, in one month, some-
  1154
  thing like 2,000 firms offered the Government something like 600,000 hours of idle capacity. If that is so, it is equivalent to work on these machine tools of 12,500 men working 50 hours a week. It is a very substantial production. A similar thing happened when the return was sent out in 1941. If my information is correct, something like 1,000 firms offered 250,000 hours of unused capacity on these machines. The men and the machines were available, and it is not a question of shortage of labour. I suggest that the failure to start production on these new weapons—I am not saying they could have been mass-produced—was not due to shortage of capacity but to the failure of the Government to organise effectively the use of the capacity we already had.
  In the Debate a fortnight ago the Minister justified the time it took to get weapons into production. I wish he could find out what Russia has been doing in the matter, and I wish he would find out what America has done. He dealt specifically with the causes of delay in production on the 6-pounder gun. He said that the War Office had placed the first order in September, 1940, and then added, and this is the thing I quarrel with, that the development and production of the 6-pounder gun happened to have been an outstanding industrial achievement. But was it? Is the Minister referring to the gun ready for firing, complete with two spare barrels, or is he referring to the gun barrels only? Is he aware of the severe bottle-neck in respect of recuperators? One firm of contractors could not produce any at all, and all the others were behind schedule, Does he know of the variations and alterations made in the design, and the consistent modifications which took place in the design of these recuperators? In view of that does he seriously call this an outstanding industrial achievement? If it had not been for this we should have had a larger flow and many more of these guns would have been in Libya.
  What about the bottle-neck in small arms ammunition? Last September I raised this question again during the Debate, and, as far as I know, nothing whatever has been done. There are still serious shortages and serious bottle-necks in the production of small arms ammunition. We have heard a great deal about the tremendous flow of munitions which

  1155
  we are to get from America and which we are to make ourselves. It has been referred to to-day, although it is true the Minister did not to-day talk about a Niagara of production. The thing which alarms me is that the Minister, in making comparisons, made them with American production and not with German production. I want to ask a blunt and straight question. We have heard a great deal about the overwhelming superiority of the industrial war potential of the Allied Nations, as compared with the Axis. Has that any real basis in fact? In other words, are the Government basing this statement about the overwhelming superiority of the potential of the Allied Nations upon their optimistic assumptions, or on the results of a cold-blooded examination by their economists and statisticians? Sternberg showed before the war that it was going to be a very close thing.
  What is the position? Nazi Germany has organised her industrial machine for years to produce war material, and it is tuned up to 100 per cent. Long-distance bombing has not scratched that machine. In addition, the Germans to-day have the whole of the industrial potential of Europe—Czecho-Slovakia, Holland, Belgium, France and all the rest of it. Besides that, of course, there is Italy, for what she is worth—and she is worth something—and there is Japan's tremendous production. Germany has immobilised a substantial part of the Russian potential. Having regard to what has happened, I am sure that the superiority of the potential of the Allied Nations is dangerously small, and it may well be that the boot is on the other foot. I am not saying that it is, but it may well be. Therefore we must use the potential that we have for all we are worth. We must not waste a single ounce of it. It is our duty to focus the attention to the country and the Government upon the defects in our productive machine at home, and we must not be seduced by optimistic talk of the hopes of production from America. That production may come—I am not criticising what the Americans are doing or doubting their word—but we should be acting foolishly if we allowed ourselves to be seduced from our criticism of things here at home.
  We have now come to the crux of the whole situation. We have to bring the
  1156
  maximum strength of the Allied Nations against the enemy. Russia, a tremendous part of the war potential of the Allies, is now being attacked. Are we going to allow Hitler to play his own game in destroying us one by one, or are we going to intervene? In the March Debate the theme of my speech on production was that we should be faced by the necessity of a second front, whether we wanted it or not, this year and that we should build up the reserve of equipment which would be necessary for forming that front. Obviously the Minister was thinking on the same lines because he said:
  "I can assure the House that the relentless pressure of time and the sense of urgency are uppermost in my mind and that for two reasons: first, that we are about to see a new campaign starting and we must take our proper part in it.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1942;col. 1850, Vol. 378.]
  If that did not mean that he was contemplating the situation which exists at the present moment, I do not know what it means.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Those particular words referred to the opening of the campaign in Libya which has since taken place.
  Mr. Horabin: The campaign that was due to open at that time was the campaign in Europe. Now the crisis is on us. The time, in the Minister's words, has now come for us to play our proper part, not for the sake of Russia, but for the sake of the people of this country. What has been happening? The last five months, five of the most vital months of the war, have been eaten away by inaction at the most critical point, that is, in the organisation of the central direction of production. At the beginning of February Lord Beaverbrook was appointed Minister of Production. Straight away the Production Executive, which at that time was the only central organisation of production, was paralysed. We were waiting while Lord Beaverbrook worked out his own scheme. He appointed the Citrine Committee to go into the question of regional organisation. That immediately paralysed the regions. The new Minister of Production, after some delays which were unavoidable, said on 21st March that he realised the urgency of these problems, yet the paralysis continued and it was only on 1st July that regional controllers for the Ministry of Production were appointed. A Ministry of Production has been demanded again and again from all sides of the House. It was demanded

  1157
  before war broke out, and one of its greatest advocates was the present Prime Minister. When he gave us, under the pressure of criticism justified by events, a Minister of Production, he took care that there was not a Ministry of Production, and all that we have been given is a facade behind which the Supply Ministry carry on their tug of war, and things go on as before. The Prime Minister has defeated his critics once again and has produced inaction in the organisation of production at the centre for something like five months.
  The Minister has dealt with the organisation of his office. I will touch on only one side of that—a very important side—the progressing of contracts. It is true that the Citrine Committee made very tentative proposals about the progressing of contracts. The Minister should have formulated his own proposals, so that delays in deliveries of components would be brought to the notice of his Planning Department by the Production Directorate at the moment they occurred. The Planning Department, then, would be able to establish priorities in the light of the urgency of relieving bottlenecks, and this would have dictated the allocation of shipping and the types of tools required and given the industrial section something to do instead of playing about with additional factories without work, they would have been able to consider the problem on a broader basis. The regional officers should have the right to go into factories and report directly. If Departmental officers report on the work of their Departments they cannot give a proper report. They must cover up their Departments. As I understand it, the Planning Department is not getting any view of those bottlenecks at all. All it is getting is target figures from the Supply Ministry of the estimated rates of delivery, and it then checks those estimated deliveries with the actual deliveries to the Armed Forces. In other words, it does not see that deliveries are falling down until they are delayed. It does not check them when the bottlenecks begin to show themselves. Now we have a Minister of Production. In my view and the view of many other people this Minister is not capable of carrying out the functions of a Ministry of Production as we understood it. That means that the five most critical months
  1158
  of the war have been taken away from us by the Prime Minister and handed over to Hitler.
  Mr. Woodburn: I feel very sad at the picture of unrelieved gloom which we have had from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin). No one in his senses would say that a war organisation which involves anything up to 20,000,000 people can be worked without mistakes and blunders. It is easy for any of us to become a champion picker of holes in the war machine. Such a picture as the hon. Member has painted gives the country a wholly distorted view of the situation. I am not proposing to be wholly complimentary in my remarks, but I wish to keep my sense of proportion.
  I can speak with some little knowledge of the subject. Apart from my personal experiences, I have been perhaps the longest continuing member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure which has been investigating war production. Taking my view back to the beginning of the war, I can say without hesitation that the picture is one of steadily improving efficiency. Progress has not been as quick as we would have liked, but there have been tremendous industrial achievements In the case of one aeroplane, for example, the production time of thousands of hours has been brought down by one-half within the last year. To depict things as getting steadily worse, or getting no better, is to mislead ourselves and the country. I hope, therefore, that the little information I can give will cheer up even the hon. Member for North Cornwall a little, and that he will not feel so pessimistic.
  Mr. Horabin: A victory or two would.
  Mr. Woodburn: There is no guarantee that we must gain a victory anywhere. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that Germany had six years to prepare before we started. That is a tremendous gain. If there is any crime involved in our position to-day, it certainly does not lie at the door of the present Government, because there is no major weapon being used in the field that was designed by the present Government. No major weapon could have been designed and mass produced since they came into office. The actual process of preparing

  1159
  machine tools, building factories and creating plant takes longer than the whole time this Government has been in office.
  Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend mean to say that since this Government has been in office it has not had time to produce a tank equivalent to the German Mark IV?
  Mr. Woodburn: A tank is not a weapon; it is a vehicle for carrying weapons. The point is that no major weapon is being used that has been designed since this Government came into office.
  Mr. Levy: Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman has said that during the time this Government have been in office no improvement has been made or attempted in any weapon in any shape or form and that we are manufacturing pre-war weapons?
  Mr. Woodburn: I said nothing of the kind. Some Members may not be familiar with the process and I will give an example from America. An American aircraft designed for mass production, in 1938 was not actually brought into mass production until 1940–41, Therefore, America, with all its capacity for speeding up production, cannot produce anything in the way of industrial miracles by quickly getting over the almost insuperable difficulties that have to be overcome before there can be mass production.
  Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the last war we got some of our machines out in two years?
  Mr. Woodburn: I am certain that no mass production of aircraft, if the design of a new engine is included, ever took place in two years in the last war. If the hon. and gallant Member is talking about putting new wings on to another engine, I will agree that it could be done.
  Sir M. Seuter: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the history of the Sunderland Company he will see the time it took to get out the Sunbeam engine.
  Mr. Woodburn: It must have been an adaptation of an existing engine. Otherwise, there must have been phenomenal luck. The designer may conceive what he thinks will be an ideal engine, and it may be decided to lay down millions of
  1160
  pounds worth of machinery for its production, but when produced it may be found that it does not work as the designer thought it would. So, much labour, time and expense have to be wasted therefore and the machinery altered. That has happened since this Government came in.
  Mr. Hopkinson: The hon. Member has made a remarkable statement about producing new weapons. Will he tell us on what authority he based that statement and where he got his knowledge?
  Mr. Woodburn: There is the alternative, that if we depart from the ordinary process——
  Mr. Hopkinson: How does the hon. Member know?
  Mr. Woodburn: From experience and knowledge. The proper way to design a machine is to build a prototype and see whether it fulfils what the designer has conceived. If it does, you can start designing the machinery for its mass production. You may, however, cut out that preliminary process, but in that case you take the risk of losing all the preliminary work. That means that you may do more damage than good. The point is that that has been done in some cases since this Government came in and they have been successful in producing right off the drawing board. In other cases they have not been successful and there have been expensive failures both before and since the war in this regard. As tens of millions of pounds can be wasted by a mistake in this way the Government have to be rather careful. The hon. Member referred to recuperative blocks and the Government are charged with not improving the design. If they do not improve designs they are condemned for failing to do so, and if they do improve designs, they are condemned for making alterations in production. So that the Government must be condemned either way. I have in my knowledge a case in which a recuperative block which was occupying valuable drop forging capacity was redesigned, with a saving of 35 per cent. in time of production and 60 per cent. in material.
  It is the conservatism of some people who do not want to make alterations that keeps production back. In making alterations we have to weigh up the pros and cons. I was pleased that the Minister finished his speech by giving signs of som

  1161
  dissatisfaction with things as they exist. I gathered from the early part of his speech as he skipped lightly over his subject that, having tipped his wand here and there, everything was delightful and satisfactory and he was pleased with it. Therefore, I welcome the fact that there was some divine discontent in his mind, and that he recognised there was something still to be put right, because there are a great number of things which are far from being as good as they ought to be.
  The field is so vast that it would be unreasonable to expect the Minister of Production, who has been surveying it only for a short time, to be acquainted with the enormous scope of his task. Therefore, I am sure this Committee will be able to give him some guidance on some of these matters. What disturbed me was his choice of examples to show what had been achieved. For instance, he referred to the Sten gun. The Sten gun has received great publicity in the last few days, but, so far as we can judge, it has never been used on any mass scale in warfare. I would like to know why it had so much publicity. Are we frightened to surprise the Germans with a new weapon? Must we give them notice of it months beforehand, so that they will know what is coming and will be able to devise a similar weapon, because, as sportsmen, we do not like to take advantage of them? It seems to me that the first people to know about any of our new weapons should be the Germans, when they find them being used against them, and not the general public here.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The gun had fallen into the hands of the Germans during a commando raid.
  Mr. Woodburn: That only makes things worse. It is equivalent to our action in sending a few tanks against the Germans in the last war, thus allowing the tank to be disclosed to the enemy before we were able to use it in mass numbers. In other words, we have sacrificed the value of a new invention for the sake of allowing a few commandos to stunt it. The greatest value of the gun has gone. It was the same with the 6-pounder gun. We publicised it and talked about it until the Germans must have thought that we had thousands of those guns on the field. I take it they made great preparations to meet the 6-pounder, and must have been more surprised than our own soldiers
  1162
  when they found it was not there. If there had been less talk about weapons and greater application in the production of them, it would have been much more satisfactory from the public point of view.
  Again, the Bofors gun. The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it shows how little he knows about its history. I have had an intimate connection with it. The record there was not a case of going from efficiency to greater efficiency but of putting a stop to the most blundering inefficiency that has taken place in this war. Curiously enough, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the platforms. A firm that was making the platforms had never dealt in millimetre sizes before. The design of the gun was in millimetre sizes. They ordered steel to within the nearest inch in size and then put a planing machine on it and planed away the metal, thus making the platforms weaker in order to get them down to the exact millimetre size. This stupid rigidity in specifications and the fear of firms to propose any alteration results in many hold-ups. It is not a thing which ought to be mentioned in public, but I merely give that as an example to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should keep the Bofors gun out of the list of his prize exhibits.
  While it may not be right to criticise this Government for the weapons which we have to use now, and right to criticise the past Government for the weapons we have not got for use now, because other weapons ought to have been in existence, yet this Government may be subjected to criticism over the unnecessary delays which have occurred since they came in. I should like to get a balance in these matters. The hon. Member who spoke about 1940 seemed to forget there was quite a war on in that year, and that any number of the bottle-necks were caused by lucky bombs hitting certain places in this country or sinking ships which were bringing us machine tools and other apparatus. Even if the Government had possessed all the genius that he would wish them to show they could not have made any difference to that situation. He spoke about 12,000 men being unemployed, I think the Minister of Labour will confirm my statement that one factory with 5,000 workers who had been brought together from every part of the country was stopped because the stuff it was waiting for had

  1163
  been destroyed. Such cases are bound to occur in present circumstances. I should say, so far as I can judge, that the greatest problems have arisen not because of the lack of Ministerial desire to put difficulties right or Ministerial inefficiency in putting them right, but are the outcome of a multitude of trifles which have been a cumulative handicap upon our production.
  Look at the firms in this country. Only 4 per cent. of them employ more than 500 people, and 66 per cent. employ fewer than 50 people. The administrative task of getting into communication with all those firms, organising their capacity and linking them up, is so tremendous that the Ministry would naturally like to do everything through the 4 per cent. of the big firms who employ 66 per cent. of the labour. They would like to make the big firms the parent firms. But this has led to great inefficiency, because while big firms are efficient in the work they do they are not necessarily the most efficient firms. Many of the big firms have a kind of superstructure of administrative staff which itself brings about delays. A great value of a small firm with 500 workers or less is that it is usually under the direction of the owner or of a managing director who has a personal connection with the workers and who works as part of the organisation. There one gets the personal interest of the man in charge, one who knows the whole of his workers, and there is no doubt that under that system we get an efficiency which can never be achieved by any other kind of organisation. It would be extremely disadvantageous to sacrifice that efficiency, and I think the Government lost something in not recognising that fact and in continuing to think that because a firm employs 5,000 or 10,000 workers it must be more efficient than a firm employing 500.
  Our engineering industry has been built up on the basis of highly specialised skill. Many of these firms have specialised skill and can work more efficiently, perhaps, than any other organisation, and I think more use should be made of them. One thing that happens is this: Suppose there are 100 firms making fuses and the time comes when we have made too many fuses. Nobody seems to think ahead and arrange for the firms that are making fuses to transfer to some other form of production. Hold-ups of that kind are
  1164
  extremely annoying. Then there is general untidiness in the staff work. For instance, I have to-day had a complaint concerning a number of iron fitters from Falkirk who were transferred to England to do certain work. When they got to England they found that the work was not available for them, and they were then told that they could go into the Army. This information has come back to the unions in the area, and the complaints from these men create a feeling throughout the district that there is looseness and inefficiency in the arrangements. The staff work in the transferring of workers should be done in such a way as to make it intelligible to the workers who are being transferred. They should see that things are being handled in a businesslike way. I hope that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Production will note the fact that this sort of loose ness does more harm among workers than all the speeches of pessimists or others who may suggest that this country is going to lose.
  The question which the Government have to answer is whether they have designed new weapons which will be required to win the war. Are new weapons required, and have they designed them? Are these designs being carried through into production in the most effective way? We do not want to hear the details about the weapons, but we should like to know that something is being done in the matter. That would give more assurance to the country than talking as though the weapons now in existence were the last word. There is a looseness between design and production. I put a Question to the Minister asking when the mechanical engineer was called in, in these questions of getting new weapons. The designer and the operational man may sit down and draw the most ideal picture of the ideal weapon, built in the most ideal way, but they may never ask the man who has to make it whether it can be made in that way. When the plans go to him, he has to start all over again and break them down in such a way that the article can be manufactured. I ask the Minister to look into this matter. The man with the fancy ideas in the designing shop may never consult the man who is to produce the thing designed.
  This is not a new gap in British industry. It existed long before this Government came into existence. It

  1165
  always is likely to exist in an industry where there is a drawing and design office who never ask the works how their designs are to be produced. The production engineers should be sitting around while the other two people are discussing design. A great deal of work would be saved if you had the ideas of the production engineer as to how the weapon might be efficiently produced. There is a good illustration of this matter. An engineer designed a cradle for a gun. It was all built up and constructed. Along came somebody else who showed quite easily that by bending the steel the cradle could be made in one piece without all the unnecessary construction. It is difficult to get ideas across. No doubt there is justification for the complaint that it takes a long time for a new idea to be adopted in Government Departments. What liaison is there—this is the job of the Minister of Production—between the chief design officers of the Admiralty, the Air Force and the Army, particularly between the Army and the Navy? Do they consult each other and adopt each other's perfected methods of breach mechanisms and of obtaining the best results? Do they ever consult together at all? Have they ever met each other? So far as I can judge, they work in watertight compartments quite separately from each other and never take the slightest notice of what is going on next door. That is a great disadvantage. There ought to be the minimum variation in specifications of all kinds. I am not satisfied that the spit-and-polish attachments to all kinds of weapons and machinery of war have been got rid of, and I am certain that great simplification can still be effected.
  The Minister referred to the labour difficulty. If labour has been exhausted for industry, I agree that you have to make more use of the labour you have got. That can be done by getting rid of unnecessary designs, taking skilled labour into the places where it is required, in the tool rooms; in repair places, fitting and other operations can be done by unskilled people. I am not satisfied that the spare labour of this country has been exhausted. I see that there are a number of luxury ladies who still have a dilettante existence, although they are obviously capable and able women.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is now getting beyond the scope of this Vote.
  Mr. Woodburn: Many of them could be brought in, to serve in some way in the production machine. I am sure that if that were put to them, their patriotism would make them do it.
  The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to take notice of what I said. The subject of the duties of the Minister of Labour is entirely outside the scope of this Debate.
  Mr. Woodburn: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, and pass from that point. I end by saying that the Minister of Production has made a great step forward in co-ordinating three committees. It must be difficult, when he has no executive function, to carry out the work. I am satisfied that the real cause of complaint is in many of the little things rather than in any big and serious deficiency. I would make the constructive suggestion that he ought to have a body of capable production engineers on his staff, and when a real problem is brought to his notice he could pin it down and get personal responsibility of the person who is to blame. If every obstacle of this kind were removed from the path of production, the flow of production would be improved. There is still too much committee work. Committees are not effective in executive work, where you must have personal responsibility as far as possible. Somebody must have the responsibility of doing the job, and if he does not do it you know whom to remove. If you have a committee you get lost in argument about it. Committees can settle policy at the top.
  Mr. A. Hopkinson: It seems to me that one of the main reasons why these Debates on production seem to come to very little in the end is that the House of Commons is apt, as we have seen, to devote itself to all sort of piffling little details instead of discussing, as it is better qualified to discuss, the main principles involved—in this instance the functions of the Minister of Production and the method of exercising those functions. I would remind the Committee at the outset that the Ministers of Production, Supply, and Aircraft Production inherit a certain amount of that slimy trail to which I referred a fortnight ago. Therefore, it is as well at the outset that we should realise that the Minister must not be hauled over the coals without consideration. After all, the Ministry originated

  1167
  in response to ignorant popular clamour, and nothing else. It was a very good shout and slogan: "Let's have a Ministry of Production." It suited Lord Beaverbrook just at that time to be Minister of Production, and in due course the Ministry was formed and Lord Beaverbrook was appointed—and we had the utmost difficulty in getting rid of him.
  Sir P. Hannon: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for a Member of this Committee to make a reflection of that kind upon a Member of another place?
  Mr. Hopkinson: I made no reflection of any sort. I said that we had had the utmost difficulty in getting rid of him. That is not a reflection upon Lord Beaverbrook but a reflection upon a much more important person. I think the Committee will agree that no proper consideration was ever given to what functions that Minister should perform and how he should perform them or what powers he should have. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate might possibly welcome, even from an outsider like myself, a few suggestions or considerations to bear in mind in making his Ministry function effectively, which I am afraid he is finding rather difficult just at the present moment. It is admitted that the function of the Minister of Production is really to be the chairman of an expert staff planning production. Just as in operations, strategy and tactics we have the Committee of Chiefs of Staff presided over by a chairman, so in the same way I think there is room for a committee of the chiefs of an industrial staff, also presided over by a chairman whom we know as the Minister of Production.
  A better analogy perhaps is that of the organisation of the Committee of Imperial Defence which was set up some years before the war. That organisation was based very largely upon sundry minutes by that remarkable authority on those matters, the late Lord Haldane. If I remember rightly, the whole basis of the arrangement was that the Committee of Imperial Defence was a committee of such immense power and prestige that it was impossible for anybody except the Prime Minister to be chairman of it. In actual fact, it was a physical impossibility for the Prime Minister to be an effective chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and therefore he
  1168
  appointed a deputy known as the Coordinator of Defence, who should have been—although he always failed to be—Deputy Prime Minister for Defence, and not a Cabinet Minister in the ordinary sense of the word The Prime Minister who appointed Lord Caldecote to that position had, I think, the intention in his mind that the Co-ordinator of Defence should be Deputy Prime Minister for Defence and therefore an effective chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The whole thing broke down because Lord Caldecote did not regard himself as anything more than a Cabinet Minister.
  In the case of the Chiefs of Staff Committee and of the Ministry of Production, surely we have a similar difficulty to meet. Production is now a matter of such immense importance, and affects every phase of our lives to such an extent, that the chairman of a real Board of Production must be a man as powerful as the Prime Minister himself so far as his functions are concerned, and therefore he must hold, as it were, a limited power of attorney from the Prime Minister, to whom alone he should be responsible for his actions, and should not have to justify himself to the whole of the rest of the Cabinet. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this proposal, if he has not done so already, because I cannot myself see his being in a position to exercise the functions which we mean him to exercise unless he has a position of that sort. We cannot have a Minister of Production in a position where, having taken rather drastic steps with regard to one of the Supply Ministries, he has to justify himself to the whole Cabinet. He must justify himself only to the Prime Minister, who has given him a limited power of attorney and whose business it will be to justify the Minister's action to the Cabinet or, if he cannot, to dismiss the Minister. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that and see whether something of the sort could not be arranged.
  The next point is the composition of the committee over which he has to "preside. Fundamentally, the trouble with production has been this: Production hitherto has been in the hands of men who knew nothing whatever about the subject. You need only go back into the history of the various Ministries concerned. I see the Minister of Supply is

  1169
  here. The Minister of Supply has a great reputation in industry, but by what did he make that reputation? Not by producing things, but by preventing things from being produced. That was where he made his reputation; the formation of cartels and other devices, in accordance with what we call the "new economics," which consists of creating a famine so that prices go up and then saying, "How prosperous we are!" That is how the right hon. Gentleman made his reputation. As to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Production himself, I doubt whether the activities in which he made his reputation really helped our industrialists to get on with their work. I have a suspicion, for instance, that when I pay £300 a ton for tin on Monday, £270 on Tuesday, and £350 on Wednesday, the peace-time activities of the right hon. Gentleman may have something to do with it. I assure him it does not help production.
  We have then got to this position: that we should have a general staff for production, a Board of Production if I may call it that. I think the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee would agree that the selection of the actual persons to put on that Board is of the utmost importance. I cannot conceive that any useful object of any sort would be achieved by putting on professional economists, chartered accountants, women, and trade union officials. After all, what do they know about production? What does a chartered accountant know about production? I know it has become customary for firms who do not know how to run their own business to allow a firm of chartered accountants to run it for them. I do not do that. The chartered accountant is a paid servant of mine, and he would be shot out of the place if he tried to run my business, because he is totally unfitted for it. His job is to tot up figures and tell me what those figures amount to. The thing is too serious to play with. We must treat this matter of production seriously; to put on trade union officials to plan out production, to put on a woman just because she is a woman, or to put on professional economists——
  Mrs. Tate: Surely the hon. Member will not dispute the fact that women at least do know something about production?
  Mr. Hopkinson: We are talking about the composition of this Board, of from six to ten people, and I challenge the hon. Lady to inform me of some woman who is superior, and who is known to be superior as a producer of engineering works, to the half-dozen men who could be found for the job. It is perfectly obvious that women are put on these boards just because they are women. In the same way Sir Walter Layton is put on to production just because he is Sir Walter Layton. What does he know, what can he know, of production? It is a thing you have to live with for years and years before you know anything about it. I have been in it 45 years myself, and I do not know the first principles yet.
  Having selected a board, how is it to function? Surely in this way. In war every decision as to ultimate objects must be a political decision, and must originate from the Prime Minister. Therefore the Prime Minister and his Cabinet must lay down what are the ultimate objects to be attained by warlike operations. Having done so, they approach the Chiefs of Staff with a view to finding out what military operations are necessary to carry out those political objects. It is for the Chiefs of Staff to say whether the military operations which are required can be carried out with a reasonable chance of success and consequently of achieving the ultimate political object. If the Chiefs of Staff say it cannot be done, in an ordinary Well-governed country the Prime Minister would change his political strategy, but if on the other hand they 3ay it could be done with a reasonable chance of success, it is their business to make their plans, and having made their plans, to ascertain what long-term and short-term production will be required to provide the necessary material for the operations contemplated.
  The Chiefs of Staff Committee having ascertained what material they need, it should then be their business to go to the Minister of Production and give him their programme, and ask him to fulfil it for them if it can possibly be done. His 3uty, after consulting with his experts, is to return them an answer as to whether what they ask is possible or impracticable, and what modification must be permitted if, within a certain time, he is to produce such and such work. Again, this is all very elementary, but it seems to me to be

  1171
  the natural thing to do. The Minister of Production has given the Chiefs of Staff a definite opinion and promise of production of certain things within a certain time. Upon that the whole of the major strategy of the war may depend. Is the Minister to be left in a position where, if he finds that one of the supply Ministries is breaking down hopelessly, he has to wring his hands and cry, "Unfortunately we cannot carry out what we have undertaken to do. The military operations cannot be proceeded with and the ultimate political object cannot be obtained."? I say that it is absolutely essential that he should have within his power, such as the Chiefs of Staff Committee should have, a direct limited power of attorney from the Prime Minister himself. Otherwise, he cannot possibly be an effective Minister of Production and he cannot possibly give undertakings to the Chiefs of Staff Committee such as I have outlined.
  Obviously, he acts on the advice of his Board of Production, and he will be in a hopeless position unless every single member of that Board is a man of such reputation that people will believe in him and trust him. It has been said, I believe with a very great amount of truth, that the British Navy was built up out of the threats of resignation of the Sea Lords, and the reason we could build and maintain the British Navy through the peaceful days of the 19th century was that on every Board of Admiralty were the Sea Lords, each with his resignation written out in his pocket, ready to be slammed down on the table if politicians stood in the way. I should like to see the Board of Production as powerful as the Sea Lords of the Board of Admiralty used to be. They can only get that power by being men who are known to deserve it. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman—I know he cannot himself carry out these changes—to bear them in mind. But the Board will be utterly useless if he allows it to carry any passengers. He has to clear the decks and throw overboard all the passengers and get down to brass tacks. We have never faced up to production yet, and we do hope, perhaps we do not all expect, that the right hon. Gentleman may succeed where everyone else has obviously failed.
  Commander King-Hall: I am sure that the Committee will be
  1172
  grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the Debate back, if indeed he has not brought it for the first time to a broad survey of the Ministry of Production. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) will forgive me if I remind him that the Board of Admiralty were technically politicians, not naval officers. That is why they were able to resign. Had they been officers, they would have been court-martialled had they resigned, so they had to be made politicians, which seems to indicate that even politicians have their uses. With regard to another aspect of his speech, I was a little disappointed—because one can always rely on the hon. Member to take an original and broad view of the subject—to find that he still seemed to regard production solely from what I should call the strictly material point of view. He was criticising the fact that trade union officials or women might be appointed to committees in connection with production. I can see that the primary purpose of appointments of that character is on the psychological side of production, because those concerned have special knowledge of classes of persons engaged in production. I should be out of Order were I to try to discuss the question of the supply of labour to the production Departments, but I think I am in Order, however, in discussing an aspect of the production problem not mentioned by the Minister. I recognise that obviously, as he himself said, he could not hope to cover more than a section of the field of his activities. The aspect I wish to discuss is what I think is officially described as publicity in industry for the stimulation of production, which is certainly one of the important aspects of his job.
  Before I come to that, may I also support strongly the remarks made in a speech by an hon. Member in which he pointed out that it was perfectly easy for anyone to pick out isolated examples and paint a gloomy picture, and make out that everything was absolutely wrong? I entirely agree with him. We must try to take a balanced view of this production situation. Of course, we have made mistakes, but so have the enemy. If we could imagine a state of affairs in which a Debate like this could take place in the Reichstag, what play the critics could make of the fact that the German Government had all the powers it wanted since 1936, but even in those circumstances it had forgotten

  1173
  all about radiolocation. Yet the towers were there on the Straits of Dover, visible for all to see. They could say that the Luftwaffe had apparently overlooked the 8-gun fighter, and so on and so forth. It would be easy to paint a distorted picture on their side. If one wanted to make a case that things were worked very swiftly in our production system. I could give the Committee instances of some extremely rapid and decisive actions that have been taken. I can mention one, now that I am no longer connected with the Department concerned, which was all done in half-an-hour's conversation in 1940. There was urgent need for small armoured cars for aerodromes belonging to the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Four hundred light armoured cars were ordered over the telephone, and the thing was fixed up in 25 minutes. It is true that the official Treasury machinery for doing this kind of thing ground forward on its task, but the contract only arrived in the office six weeks after the first car was outside the building and when the other cars were on the way to where they would be needed in the event of airborne attack. After a few months the military authorities, seeing that these were good little cars, expressed a desire to have them, and in 30 minutes' conversation they were handed over to the Army without any fuss. All this was done with the acquiescence and knowledge of civil servants in one of the Supply Departments. It would be as mischievous to suppose that this is typical of speed as it is mischievous and depressing to have the kind of speech made by my hon. Friend over there who I thought was going to burst into tears every moment because of the shocking state of affairs.
  On this subject of publicity in industry for the stimulation of production may I remind the Committee that it used to be said that the important factor in war was the man behind the gun? I suggest that we have to enlarge that definition, to include the men and women behind the machine tools. The Minister said that he did not mind bricks being thrown at him, but that he hoped there would be some praise for the work the men and women are doing in industry. If the workers are to receive a proper tribute, the Press and the country at large must have adequate information. I have often been around the night shifts, and
  1174
  have seen remarkable things. I have also noticed the remarkable lack, in the past at any rate, of any publicity arrangements, by means of which information about what is taking place in the factories may get out to the public. I remember one night watching a woman who was making 400 components a day, by working two machines, when the best man in a very, large factory had never been able to make more than 360. I have been struck by the work of what might be called the unknown heroines in the industrial field—women with four, five, or six children, who, in some incredible manner, work through the night shift, and at the same time look after their children during the day and get food and sleep. I do not know how they do it. A lot of things are happening on the industrial front which would make a magnificent story if put out on the lines of "Bomber Command" and other such publications. We need an industrial booklet of that character.
  On this psychological aspect of production, two conclusions emerge: there; must be a machine of some kind to put across the policy, and we must decide what kind of policy we want to put across. I will not detain the Committee about the nature of the machine which is required, because something is happening, but it has taken a long time for any organisation to be set up on this question of publicity or propaganda for industry as a whole. Industry must be treated as a whole, because the problems are common to the whole of industry. The question of Income Tax, which had a bad effect on production, was common to Ministry of Aircraft Production factories, to Ministry of Supply factories, and to others; and it should have been tackled long before it was. If we agree that there should be a policy, I would suggest one principle which should underlie that policy. I will put it very briefly, as other hon. Members wish to speak. The policy should be to make the workers feel that they are part and parcel of the Fighting Forces in this war. The more we can do to eliminate the idea that there is any real distinction between the man or woman behind the machine tool, or in the transport services, or in the mines, or anywhere else, and the men using the weapons, the more successful we shall be.
  How are you to do that? There is a great variety of ways. An important point

  1175
  to concentrate upon is that of giving the workers as much information as possible about the use which is to be made of the weapons they are producing. I have often been shocked to discover people making small components who do not appreciate that what they are making is an effective part of some important weapon. Another important thing is to arrange visits from men in the Fighting Services. That is a particularly good way of bringing the factories and the Fighting Services together. There should also be the reciprocal process, of visits by factory workers to the fighting stations. There is not nearly enough imagination shown in these matters. Officers who have made tours of the factories, and who have had the most wonderful receptions, have found that certain incidental expenses occurred, which they have had to meet out of their own pockets; and one could hardly imagine the difficulty that there is about getting any special grant made. It is not that the Treasury is unwillihg to meet the expense, but there is no regulation which permits it to be done.
  The next point is that We must look ahead. The publicity Department of the Ministry of Production must be looking ahead for problems of psychology in exactly the same way as the technical experts are doing for new weapons. They must be thinking what kind of mental problems will be troubling the workers in the winter months—such problems as transport and the difficulties of women workers in shopping. There is another important point. I have not the slightest idea whether there will be a second front of not, but I am certain that if there is not a second front, or something that rather resembles one, some sort of explanation must be given to the people in the factories. I say that without committing myself to any opinion on the merits of that much-disputed question."
  Finally I warn the Government that it will not be able to go on much longer avoiding saying something more definite about post-war Britain and what we are aiming at, for this is something about which shop stewards and other people are asking questions. I see, Colonel Clifton Brown, that you are looking at me and thinking that I am getting out of Order. But production may be held up because the Worker says, "I am being urged to do
  1176
  this and that, but I remember what happened after the last war, and perhaps we shall be disappointed again." I submit that there is an organisation being set up in the Ministry of Production to deal with this propaganda question, which will be paid for out of the Vote we are discussing to-day; and that I am in Order in discussing it. In the long run, wars are lost and won in the hearts of men. That is where the decisive battle is fought. I recognise that the Minister in his review was unable to cover all fields of what he has to do, but I want an assurance that he is attaching to this question of morale and the psychological aspect of production an importance equal to that of any other side of production.
  Mt. Stokes: I find myself very much in agreement with the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) in his examination of the production triumvirate. I have always been astonished that the whole of the organisation of production, which is essentially highly skilled and technical, should be left in the hands of what the hon. Member roughly described as an industrial diplomat in the Ministry of Supply, a lawyer—no doubt a very able one—in the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and a man as the chief of the Ministry of Production who had a marvellous reputation before the war for restricting output. In view of that, it seems not at all surprising that we had to listen to the kind of speech we heard from the Minister to-day. I disagree with the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs), who congratulated the Minister on his speech and said that he showed a complete grip of what he was talking about. The right hon. Gentleman is comparatively new to this House, and I also know, being of a timid disposition myself, of the difficulty of speaking in these abnormal circumstances, but surely we really were treated to one of the most depressing accounts I have ever heard from a responsible Minister of the Crown after nearly three years of war. He gave a lot of figures which mean nothing if you analyse them. He told us the 2-pounder gun fired a 2.4 pound shell which was interesting, though no doubt correct, and he finally failed to give the comparative weight of the shell of the 88 millimetre German gun and the 3·7 British gun. He got on to tanks and really did not tell us anything at all. At one moment my blood very nearly froze

  1177
  in my veins when, speaking of the great efforts which we all know our American friends are making, he referred, at this serious stage of the war, to the fact that the carnation for the captain's buttonhole was in its right place as the bridge was lowered on to the ship. What a thing for a Minister of the Crown to say in a Debate on the situation in which we find ourselves to-day.
  I have not as much time as I had hoped in which to develop some of my arguments, and I shall confine my remarks in the main to three separate subjects. The first thing to which I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Production and the other Ministers of the two Departments concerned is that it is still astonishingly difficult for producers of equipment, and no doubt producers of weapons, to make contact with the users. Our industrial and commercial safety in peacetime lies in the fact that we are faced with competition in our methods of keeping ourselves up-to-date. We have somebody against us who is prepared to supply the user of the particular machinery with something better if we are backward. It is of fundamental importance, if we are to get the best out of our industrial production, that the users of industrial equipment should be allowed to obtain contact with the actual users of the equipment in the various Services. I have been round the country and have seen expensive equipment being absolutely wasted. I have seen thousands of pounds' worth of equipment being used when far cheaper and simpler equipment could be used to do all the things required on these particular jobs, and yet we as producers are not allowed to get into touch with the men who have to use the goods in the Services, but have to deal with a whole series of mechanically incompetent people who really do not know what it is they are ordering, ox now it is to be used or the effectiveness of the different designs. Merely because of that awful block in the way, there is a most appalling waste. I could give numerous examples to the Minister, but I will merely ask that that barrage should be got out of the way and that we should be allowed to get into touch with the people actually using the weapons and equipment. I am glad to get that point off my chest, as it has been there for some time.
  1178
  I am sorry that the Minister is not now present, because I propose to make a large number of extremely rude remarks. He has just come back from America, and, from the very vague reports we have had, his visit appears to have been a success. I would ask the Minister and the Government not to place the whole of their faith in what America is going to do for us. The only bright spot in the Minister's speech was that America was going to be able to do marvellous things. While I recognise—and I know something of their industrial production—the gigantic efforts they are making now, do not forget that the Americans are slow starters, whatever else they are. A good deal has been said about the Lease-Lend arrangement. In September of last year Alistair Cooke, writing in the "Daily Herald," said:
  "After a year of publicity and promise only 75,000,000 dollars of tanks, etc., delivered against 7,000,000,000 promised."
  In October John D. Biggers in America said:
  "The combined efforts of the present programmes of the United States and Great Britain, if properly synchronised, would out-produce the Axis by mid-1943."
  I should like to hear—I do not know whether it would have to be done in public or in secret—a far wider exposition of the steps that are being taken jointly by the Minister and his opposite number in America to co-ordinate the joint production of the United Nations. We were not told nearly enough about it today. The Minister, I am bound to admit, gave me a most horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach. It is more than likely that the Americans will be turned on to produce all the wrong things. That is what has been happening in this country. America is capable of a most gigantic production effort, but for goodness sake let the responsible people see to it that they are turned on to produce the right weapons and not the wrong weapons. The whole object of production is to see that the most efficient, up-to-date and modern equipment is put into the hands of our fighting men.
  I want to speak about tanks. We have been told all sorts of strange and untrue things about the equipment in Libya. The Prime Minister has told us that our weapons were "ample," which in its broadest sense means that they are good enough for the job as well as numerous.

  1179
  At least, that is what the nation understood when the words were used. We have been told that they were "equal" at least on two occasions if not three, and finally in the Debate the other day that they were "adequate," and at the same time in another place Lord Beaver-brook referred to what had gone on at the Ministry of Supply when he was there. We were strongly urged by the Prime Minister to read that speech, and for once in my life I took his advice. I read it, and I was not amused. It seemed to be one of the most muddled statements I have ever read by a person who ought to know something about the difference between diameter, calibre, weight of shell and size of gun. I defy any competent man who knows anything about engineering and gunnery—and I know more about the latter than the former—to find anything which makes sense in certain of the passages in that oration dealing with gun calibres and weight of shell. We knew about the German Mark IV tank before the war. My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn)—heaven knows what was in his brain—told us that this Government was entirely forgiven or exonerated for failing to produce in two-years something equivalent to the weapons the Germans were now using. As far as I understand him, all the faults were with previous Governments and that is about the same, carried to its logical conclusion, as saying that the Government would only be to blame if we do not have adequate weapons for the next war.
  Mr. Woodburn: I confess that it must be my fault if my hon. Friend did not understand. The point was that this Government was being indicted in connection with the weapons being used now. The point I made was that the Government should not be held responsible for the deficiency in weapons being used now because these were designed before the war started. They can only be held responsible for any delays which take place in production.
  Mr. Stokes: Well, I can only say that I think Parliamentary Private Secretaries make extremely bad advocates. This war has been on for nearly three years now, and everybody knows that the present Prime Minister, who was First Lord of the Admiralty in the early days of the war,
  1180
  became, in effect, Minister of Defence shortly after the turn of 1940. We were calmly told in the Debate last week that nothing was done in this matter until July, 1940. Why should that be? I have my own reason to give at the end of my speech, but I do ask this: I want some kind of assurance—and Parliament, too, ought to insist on an assurance—that the right kind of weapons are being produced now. Nothing of this sort was said to-day by the Minister; all he gave us was some "airy fairy" reference to the fact that everything at the end would be lovely and that output was colossal. I should not feel comfortable if I were sitting in a British tank with a 2-pounder gun with an effective range of 600 yards, or an even bigger tank with a 6-pounder gun which has an effective range of 1,200 yards, taking on a German tank with a 13 or 14-pounder gun with an effective range of 2,000 yards. A Minister who has no better to tell us than that, stands condemned, and the Government stand condemned, and the sooner those responsible get out the better. I want to know who was responsible for nothing being done from the period September, 1939, to July, 1940, and who has been responsible for apparently doing nothing from June, 1940, to the present time to bring out something equivalent to the German Mark IV tank. My conclusion on this subject is this—
  Sir George Schuster: Does the hon. Gentleman know precisely what is the thickness of the armour of the German Mark IV tank?
  Mr. Stokes: No, I do not.
  Sir G. Schuster: Well, I advise the hon. Gentleman to inquire.
  Mr. Stokes: I can answer the hon. Gentleman if he likes, but I will not quote the person who told me, because we all know what happens to such people once their- names are disclosed. I have been told by the people who use these tanks that the 2-pounder gun shell will bounce off the front of the German Mark IV tank. What the thickness of the armour of the German tank is I do not know. I am interested in what the people who operate our equipment say when they come back. I say it is a great mistake to hand over the production of weapons to the Ministry of Supply; it ought to be in the hands of the people responsible for their use.

  1181
  see the force of an argument for a Ministry of Supply for overcoats, trouser buttons, gas masks, etc., but we shall never get our weapons to the standard of efficiency required unless the people responsible for their use, distribution and effectiveness are in control. I fail to see how you are to get effective weapons out of a Department which is influenced largely by political reasons. Ministers are much more interested in giving great figures of production to the Cabinet than driving home the fact that the stuff we want should be really effective. So long as that situation endures, we shall not get the right stuff.
  Now I want to say a word or two on a parallel subject—the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I am terrified that we shall hear soon the same dreary tale in connection with aircraft as we have heard about tank production. We know that the Battle of Britain was won by the guts of the young men who flew our aeroplanes and by the technical qualitative superiority of our equipment. At that time we led the world in fighters. Can the Minister of Aircraft Production assure us to-day that that technical lead has not been lost? The Minister of Production said to-day that we still have that lead. I deny it; I think he is wrong, although I take it that the Minister of Aircraft Production knows more about this particular job than his right hon. Friend and may perhaps be able to-give an answer when he winds up the Debate. I would like to know whether we have fighting aeroplanes which are as much better than the German Me. 109 F/G and the Focke Wulf 190 as our aeroplanes were superior to the Germans in the Battle of Britain. I am told by the people who ought to know and by pilots themselves that this is not the case, that German aircraft have caught us up and that there is one reason for this, and one reason only. At the time of the Battle of Britain, when Lord Beaverbrook happened to be in office, all technical development was stopped, it is suggested. If that is so, then it really is tragic. I have it on good authority—from which, again, I will not quote but I know many pilots—that that stopping of development has put us behind. We have the right to hear from the Minister of Aircraft Production to-day whether I am right or he is right. He should tell us, either in Secret or in Public Session, whether we have something
  1182
  which is still ahead of our enemies, as we had in the Battle of Britain. Many people believe that the Ministry of Aircraft Production, which has 6,000 officials and employs over 55,000 people, is altogether redundant. I would like to see the production of aeroplanes go back again to the Air Ministry so as to ensure that our technical advantage is maintained or restored.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Air Ministry itself or the Secretary of State for Air acquiesced in this stopping of development or, if they did not acquiesce, did not make a protest? Is the hon. Gentleman's statement true or false?
  Mr. Stokes: We shall hear that from the Minister. I am not responsible for the conscience of the Secretary of State for Air or for that of any other Minister, past or present. All I am saying is what I believe to be true. It is no use our coming here with soft soap or soothing syrup. I am told on good grounds that the best thing that could happen would be to put the Ministry of Aircraft Production back with the Air Ministry for the production of aeroplanes and that, quite definitely, owing to the cessation of technical development, we have lost the lead we had. No matter what the Minister now says, time will prove that right or wrong.
  My contention is that our production has never been right. We produced the wrong tools in the main, largely because the central control of the war is wrong. There has been no comprehensive strategy—and strategy controls the weapons you produce. The speeches I have listened to to-day make me believe that the movers of the Vote of Censure recently were more nearly right than the rest of the House of Commons. I ask the Minister to examine his own conscience and see to it that things are put right now and that we do, with the minimum possible delay, get the right and the most efficient tools into the hands of our fighting men.
  The Minister of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): In reply to a Debate, I usually try to answer the great majority of the questions put to me, and I regret that on this occasion, perhaps because of one interruption or another, the time at my disposal is rather shorter than I would like. It was refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and the

  1183
  hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) say that my Ministry should be wound up. I was surprised to hear this said by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough, because he made no suggestions for putting anything else in its place, so that, as far as I could gather, although he has advocated quite different policies in the past, he would in war time leave the whole of the aircraft industry without any form of Government control. But the hon. Member for Ipswich put the matter on a different ground, which was that he could not trust me, because, after all, I am the man responsible for providing the quality of aircraft that our pilots need to do the job. I can assure the hon. Member—I can assure the whole Committee and the whole country—that in saying that he was absolutely wrong. There is no man in a responsible position who would deny our pilots the best possible aeroplanes that we can produce, To supply them will be my policy as long as I am Minister of Aircraft Production.
  The point which the hon. Member for Ipswich made was that in 1940 all technical development was stopped. As a matter of fact, that is not true. I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry at the time and, from my own knowledge I can say it is not true. It is true to say, however, that at that time, for very good reasons, Lord Beaverbrook, who was then Minister, laid more accent on quick production than on future development; but when one realises that we were then faced any week with the outbreak of the Battle of Britain, that we had to get every ounce that we could ready for that battle, and that largely because of the efforts of Lord Beaverbrook at that time, we succeeded in that task, I think it will be agreed by all that that was the right line to take. But while taking that line, technical development did not stop, and I say that as a man whom the Committee knows and who was in the Department at the time The next point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich, and also by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) was whether we still had planes coming out that are as good as, or better than, the German planes, particularly fighters. I quite agree that the fighters are the class in which we have to keep superiority. There are two new German planes, and we know a great deal about both. The
  1184
  newest plane that is now coming out of production is better at nearly every height than those new German planes, and is as good as them at any height. For the greater part of the heights—because machines vary in performance at different heights—the newest planes that we are now producing are superior to those new types of the enemy. I am very glad that I can stand here and say that quite affirmatively to the Committee.
  Sir M. Sueter: Can the Minister tell us about torpedo aeroplanes for the Fleet Air Arm? Are new types being brought out and are they in production?
  Colonel Llewellin: Another hon. Member asked a question concerning them, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to do so, I will deal with that matter later in my speech. The hon. Member for Ipswich then implored us not to put the whole of our faith in what America is going to do for us. I can assure him and the Committee that we are not doing that We shall still have to produce in this country, at any rate as far as aircraft are concerned, the great majority of our needs. America's effort will come in to supplement our own. Let nobody in the factories, whether managements or workers, think that our own efforts can be in any way relaxed because we have talked about these large figures of American production. We shall want everything that we cap turn out from our factories in this country. Let that be quite clearly understood.
  The next point which the hon. Member for Ipswich made, and which he said he had been wanting to get off his chest for some time, was that the industrialists were not allowed to get near the users of their products. I assure him that is not the case in the aircraft industry. To take one well-known instance, the makers of the main number of our fighter engines, Rolls-Royce, have an extremely good organisation, and we encourage then) to visit every squadron which is using a Merlin or any other type of Rolls-Royce engine. They are continuously there, and they are in extremely close touch, and so are a large number of the other aircraft industrialists. The main big bomber producers, the main fighter producers, continuously have people with the squadrons which are using the products of their factories.
  Mr. Stokes: The point I was making did not refer to aircraft, but to aerodrome equipment.
  Colonel Llewellin: Some of that may come under the Ministry of Aircraft Production, but some may not; if there is any article of aerodrome equipment which the Department orders from the hon. Member's firm and he would like to go to see how that equipment is being used on any aerodrome, I can assure him that I will secure from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air the necessary facilities for that visit.
  The Debate was started by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), and we all recognise how sincerely he always speaks, and what good points he made in his speech in this Debate. He asked whether machine tools are being used to the fullest advantage. On the whole, they are, but here and there, quite obviously, they are not. In some factories we still cannot man the machine tools for the two or three shifts that we would like. As soon as we can do that, we shall do it. As a matter of fact, in the aircraft industry we are now manning the critical tools—and by critical tools I mean the ones which are extremely difficult to get—I should say, in every case, for three shifts practically the whole of the 24 hours. There must be some minutes for a few intervening meals. The hon. Member asked whether raw materials are properly allocated. I think they are In my early days at the Ministry of Supply, I happened to start the allocation system, and it has gone on being improved by me. I presided over that Committee when I was at the Minstry of Supply, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, when I was at the Ministry of War Transport, and over one meeting during my very short tenure of office at the Board of Trade and one meeting in my present job, until, having done my hundred meetings, I retired. The Minister of Works and Planning has now taken on that job.
  I think the system is working extremely well. It is operated through the controls. Bulk allocations are given to Departments. Very often their users are definitely cut down by the central machine, but, of course, they have the right of appeal to the Minister of Production and the controls allocate the materials according to the central direction
  1186
  given to them by that committee. My hon. Friend made two comments on aircraft production. He said he would like people to know more about the achievements of the machines they make. I am all in favour of that suggestion. We are doing it to a considerable extent, and we have done it not only in this country, but in the United States as well. We know that where we can show them the achievements of the things which they are turning out, it encourages the workpeople, and that naturally they like to know. We also started at our Ministry visits of pilots to the factories, and that has been a great success. I will see whether the point of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) can be looked into on the question of officers being out of pocket when they go around; they do such a lot of good by these visits that certainly they ought not to be out of pocket as a result especially when, normally, they give their leave or their rest time to this very valuable and important work.
  The hon. Member for the Eye Division asked whether there was close co-operation between strategy and production, and how soon the lessons learned were brought into effect. Of course, there is the closest link between strategy and production under the new set-up made by my right hon. Friend. In regard to the lessons learned, my Ministry have some technical Air Force officers out in the Middle East. They have been there throughout, and they report back immediately to my Controller of Research and Development, himself a distinguished Air Force officer, and an extremely capable man, on the operational results of fighters in distant fields, and we are always in the closest touch with the Air Force Commanders-in-Chief at home. We have people from our Department continuously having meetings at their headquarters. I myself frequently see them. I spent one Sunday flying with the Commander-in-Chief Fighter Command, piloting the aeroplane. It was quite a small plane, and there was not much room for the two of us. We visited 14 squadrons and spoke to the flying personnel in those squadrons. I think that is a good thing to do—to keep in touch with the actual users of your goods. The hon. Member also asked a question which I cannot answer by giving any date. He asked how long the modifications or a new type took to get into production. It just

  1187
  depends what the modification is: some are quickly and quite easily done, and others, of course, take a considerable time to bring into the production line.
  The hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) said alterations to specifications were impossible to achieve from Government Departments. That is not so. We have local technical committees of which local representatives of my Ministry and the representatives of firms are members, and they deal with modifications which come from operational use and modification suggested to ease production methods. A firm's representatives can always suggest those modifications and talk round the table and, if they will not weaken the machine and so make it less airworthy for its job, such modifications are always incorporated in the machine. With regard to the others, some may concern mere frills, and we try to cut them out, but where the Air Force needs improvements to make the machine better, either from the point of view of safety to the pilot or of fighting efficiency, we incorporate them. The hon. Member asked whether the weapons produced in this country are of the best types and whether the workers could have an assurance that they are building those types. With regard to aircraft, with which alone I am dealing, we are of course still making some machines which are not the newest. I refer largely to trainers and machines of that sort. They are quite good enough for their job. They are just as important as fighters and bombers and reconnaissance machines, because we must train our pilots. They are sometimes long dated but it is better to go on producing them if they are efficient for their job. With regard to the rest of the machines, I think we have the best bombing aircraft in the world.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) asked me about torpedo-carrying aircraft. We have some, and we have a new type coming out for the Fleet Air Arm. We are also equipping machines, built for other purposes, to carry torpedoes. If you can do that, it is a very good thing because, when you want to use the machine as part of the Coastal Command, it will go out armed with its torpedoes. When you want to use it as part of the Bomber Command it can go out and bomb Germany, or something of that sort.
  Mr. Leslie Boyce: Will they carry 21-inch torpedoes?
  Colonel Llewellin: Some will and some will not.
  Sir M. Sueter: Are we in touch with the Americans in the matter of torpedo-carrying aircraft and do we exchange ideas with them?
  Colonel Llewellin: We have a very close link with the aircraft industry in America, and on the Joint Aircraft Committee in the United States the head of my mission over there and the head of the Air Ministry mission sit together. They know all the Americans are doing and we tell them all that we are doing. I was also asked whether we are turning the Stirling into a transport plane. The Stirling was not built as a transport plane. It was made to the Air Ministry's specification as a bomber. As a matter of fact, we have tried conversion of one of our bombers into a transport plane. The order was given on 24th March and the House will be glad to hear that it is flying to-day.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Has the Army ever at any time applied for them?
  Colonel Llewellin: It would not be the Army that would apply for transport planes. The Air Force operates any plane that has an engine in it and it would be for the Air Ministry to apply for transport planes.
  Mr. Bevan: I will alter the question. Has the Air Ministry at any time applied for transport planes? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now talking about the conversion of bombers into transport planes. Has the Air Ministry at any time, at the instance of the Army or of its own initiative, ever applied for transport planes?
  Colonel Llewellin: I think the question of transport planes has been discussed to a certain extent here before. We have a limited aircraft-building capacity in this country from the point of view not only of factory space, but of man power, materials, machine tools and all that goes to make it up, and so we can either build transport planes or bombers. That is what we are really faced with in this country. At the moment we are building large quantities of bombers and—I think there is no secret in this as it has been talked about for some time—we have no

  1189
  large transport planes in production in this country. There are, however, good transport planes in production in the United States, and it is far better to order where we can get them ready-made than to start to jig and tool in this country for a new type of transport plane. We are taking the precaution of seeing whether we can convert—using a great number of the same parts—one of our existing bombers into a transport plane which does not need all the jigging and tooling that the others do.
  Mr. Bevan: I give notice that I will ask this question again to-morrow because it has not been answered.
  Colonel Llewellin: That is a matter of opinion. I would like to thank the Committee for the reception they have given me, which as usual has been extremely courteous. I want in my concluding words to make this point. A lot of hard things are said about managements and a lot of hard things are said in the Services about some munition workers. Taken on the whole, however, both managements and workpeople in this country are doing a great job of work, at any rate in the production of aircraft. That applies particularly to the vast number of women who have come into our aircraft industries who never worked in a factory before in their lives. It is the great work that they are doing which has enabled us to be free in this country from day and night bomber attacks. It is their great work that enables us to bomb German industries. It is their great work that has, to a large extent, freed the pressure upon our shipping. It is their great work that has enabled us to put up such a good fight by the Royal Air Force in Libya—because let nobody go away under the impression that the Royal Air Force has not put up a great fight against the enemy attacks there. It is the great work of the people in the factories which has also helped us to send large quantities of aircraft to Russia. I should like to take this opportunity publicly of thanking all those in industry who do that good work. I am sure we can rely on them to go on producing these good planes in the same quantity in future months.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—(Major Sir James Edmondson)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  BANKING AND INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]
  Mr. Frankel: Some little while ago I asked a Question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which read as follows:
  "Whether, in the appointment of the Committee to examine the banking and insurance industry consideration was given to the desirability or otherwise of making the Committee independent of the interests concerned; why the Committee is substantially composed of persons representative of those interests; and whether he will now consider giving a better balance by adding representatives of those employed in the industry."
  The gravamen of the Chancellor's reply was that the Committee was expressly designed to conduct an independent investigation and not to be a body representative of the interests directly affected, whether employer or employee. He added:
  "Those interests will, of course, be given ample opportunity to express their respective points of view to the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1942;col. 1816, Vol. 380.]
  I am sorry to have to repeat what I have had to mention on more than one occasion in this House, but a little later I addressed to the Chancellor a Question in which I asked:
  "Why the Committee appointed to conduct an independent investigation into the banking and insurance industry and not representative of the interests directly affected includes amongst its ten members a director of the Equity and Law Life Assurance Society, a director of the Legal and General Assurance Society, a director of the Fine Art and General Assurance Company, and a former secretary of the Prudential Assurance Company; and whether, in view of this fact, he will reconsider his decision not to appoint a representative of those employed in the industry."
  It is interesting to notice the difference in the second reply which the Chancellor gave. He said:
  "It was essential to find men of wide business experience and I see no reason to alter the composition of the Committee. None of those who have undertaken this urgent work

  1191
  can be justly described as representing the interests of the institution directly affected simply on the grounds that among their many preoccupations they happen to have the connections to which my hon. Friend refers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1942;col. 638, Vol. 381.]
  To-day the Chancellor is not here, apparently, to reply to me, although I gave him notice that I intended to raise the matter.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I take his place.
  Mr. Frankel: It is rather mysterious to me that business people, about whom the Chancellor knows so much more than I do, can apparently be directors of companies and not representative of them. I think that in old crime books directors were sometimes referred to as "guinea pigs." Does the Chancellor mean that these directors are guinea pigs and that is why they are on this Committee? In that case why should they represent this country on a Committee of such importance? I ask for a very simple thing. As those interests are represented, I ask that employees should also be represented. Not only are they not to be represented, but apparently they are not to be heard in evidence except by writing. There is an organisation called the National Federation of Insurance Workers, who are affiliated to the Trades Union Congress, and a body comprising the national organisations in the insurance industry called the Insurance Unions Joint Consultative Committee, and they meet under the auspices of the Trades Union Congress. The officials of this body were asked to meet the officials of the Board pf Trade and to discuss the question of the concentration of industry in an informal manner. They reported on the setting-up of a committee to investigate the question of the release of man-power in insurance offices and banks, indicating that any committee set up would be independent of the industry. The peculiar thing was that on the publication of the name of the members of the Committee, the person involved here wrote to the Board of Trade asking whether my organisation would be called to give evidence. He says:
  "I am still trying to fathom whether the reply I received came from the office of the Industrial Insurance Commissioner, informing me that this committee did not propose to
  1192
  call individual organisations to give evidence, but were asking the National Federation of Insurance Workers to submit a memorandum."
  I submit seriously that in these days this question is even more important than it would have been in peace-time, as we are trying to get the confidence of employers and employees in this country. The latter seem to be more important in these days than the former.
  I suggest to this House and to whoever is to reply to me that the matter cannot be left in this way. Within what power this House grants me or lets me have, I will press the matter even further. I expect to get an unsatisfactory reply, but I hope I am wrong in that expectation. We must give to employees, for the sake of the morale of industry, a greater opportunity of stating their points of view and of adding the weight of their undoubted knowledge of these matters than they have been given in this country up to now. It is to carry out that purpose that some of us have been elected to this House, and we are trying to pursue that purpose in some way. Through the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply to me, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to note that we shall not rest until these matters are put right and until employees as well as employers are given some say in very important national affairs, affecting this country not only during the war but for many years afterwards. I hope that the reply I get will be an enthusiastic and encouraging one, although it might not agree to all that I said.
  Sir Stanley Reed: May I respectfully submit one or two general considerations arising out of this proposal? I read the hon. Gentleman's Question and, the answers to them very carefully, and I have listened very care-fully to the brief address which he has lust given. I would point out that there are other considerations of broad general policy than; those which he has put before us I do not know whether his remarks apply in any way to Lord Kennet, who may—I do not know—be connected with insurance or banking companies. I do not know Lord Kennet personally.
  Mr. Frankel: May I put the hon. Gentleman right upon this point? Lord Kennet is a director of the Equity and Law Life Assurance Society.
  Sir S. Reed: He may be that, or connected with a dozen banks. It does not affect my argument, and I do not know him personally. I had the good fortune to work under him on one of the most important questions of the day, that of Indian currency and finance, where he was Chairman of the last Commission which inquired into that matter. The amazing ability with which he extracted from every witness the maximum which that witness could give, and the way he summed up in a Report of admirable clarity the conclusions of that inquiry, give me such complete confidence in him that whether he is chairman of one insurance company or a dozen, or of one bank or a dozen, I say that I know no man in our public life more qualified to conduct an inquiry of this character with great ability, complete independence and absolute impartiality.
  Mr. Frankel: I do not deny that.
  Sir S. Reed: There is another aspect of the matter to which I did not refer. I think that my hon. Friend has rather misconceived the position of a company director. When the director has large interests outside, he does not necessarily become tied to the particular interests of that company, but he brings into the control of that company a wide general knowledge of finance, currency and so on which is of great value in the direction of the organisation. Further, because a man is a first-class man at drawing a policy or in running a current account at a bank, I cannot agree, whatever may be our respect for him in those capacities, that he is therefore necessarily qualified to express an opinion upon the higher organisation. In other directions, too, we are running off the road in thinking that because a man is a first-class mechanic or an admirable man at a capstan lathe, he is therefore qualified to direct a great arid complicated engineering enterprise. In this case, the qualifications of the chairman and others who are taking part in this inquiry are such as to earn them my complete confidence, and I think they are entitled to the confidence of the House.
  Mr. Frankel: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether he agrees that the employees ought to be represented?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I will be as brief
  1194
  as my two hon. Friends have been on this subject. The hon. Gentleman, who has raised this point twice in Questions, perhaps did not fully appreciate that this inquiry is directed merely to the question of ascertaining what steps, by some form of concentration or otherwise, can be taken to secure the greatest possible release of man-power. This is not a great, important Commission to go fundamentally into these topics.
  Mr. Frankel: Is it not important?
  Captain Crookshank: It is important from the point of view of man-power.
  Mr. Frankel: That is of primary importance these days.
  Captain Crookshank: Of course it is, but I wish the hon. Gentleman would let me finish my sentence. This is not one of those great important inquiries into the whole field of banking, insurance or industrial insurance, but it is an important Committee dealing with the practical steps which may be taken to get more men, if possible, out of these various institutions and organisations to help the war effort. Therefore, it is not quite in the same sphere as some of the committees and commissions whose work we discuss in this House. That was made clear in the first instance when my right hon. Friend gave an answer in May. He then pointed out that the Committee, which consisted of a chairman and nine members, would act in three panels, one dealing with banking and allied business, the second with ordinary insurance, and the third with industrial insurance. The next thing which happened was, as my hon. Friend points out, that he himself at the end of June asked a Question as to whether consideration had been given to making the Committee independent of the interests concerned. My right hon. Friend said that it was expressly designed to conduct an independent investigation. Then my hon. Friend made a little independent investigation on his own, apparently, because some fortnight later he put down another Question asserting—quite rightly—that of the 10 members three were directors of one or other of the insurance societies and one was a former secretary of the Prudential.
  Therefore he tried, as he has tried to do in what he said to-day, to show that the Committee were therefore no longer independent. I think that there is a great

  1195
  weight to be attached to what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) said, that one must not necessarily assume that because a certain person has some interest such as that of director in a company he is necessarily the representative of that company. But I would like to take the matter further, and to inform my hon. Friend about these particular panels, and perhaps he will then think that the situation is not quite so grey as he first thought.
  Mr. Frankel: I think it is black.
  Captain Crookshank: The Chairman is Lord Kennet, and he is a director of the Equity and Law Life Assurance Society, but I am quite certain that no one who knows Lord Kennet or the great work he does during the war to help the Government, and indeed of the great position he holds in the country, having occupied important offices of State, including that of Cabinet Minister, and now being a distinguished member of the other House, if someone suddenly mentioned to such a person or even to my hon. Friend without notice or his expecting to be asked, the question who or what Lord Kennet is, his reaction would not be that he is a director of the Equity and Law Life Assurance Society. That is just one item in Lord Kennet's make-up, if I may use the phrase, and he is not and cannot be described, I think, as being in any sense of the word as a representative of the insurance world. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend wishes to interrupt, I will make way for him, but running comment is very difficult. That is the Chairman of the Committee. There are three panels. There is a banking panel consisting of Mr. E. H. Lever, Sir Robert Witt and Sir William Wood. This was, in passing, one of the objects of the Ministers concerned in setting up this Committee, because it has not been set up only by my right hon. Friend. The Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend have set up this Committee. After very long consultations and very careful discussions as to who should be put on, part of the plan was to have these three panels and that on each panel there should be a well-known and capable solicitor.
  Having said that as a preliminary observation, I pass to the banking panel, consisting of the three gentlemen I have
  1196
  named. Two of the gentlemen about whom my hon. Friend asked questions are among these three, because Mr. Lever was at one time General Secretary of the Prudential, but there again he has passed from that sphere to the extent that he is chairman of Richard Thomas's now, and a director of a number of collieries, steel and tin-plate companies, and again could hardly be called a representative of the insurance world. Sir Robert Witt is a director of the Fine Art and General Insurance. He is the senior partner in a very important firm of solicitors with wide interests. Sir William Wood is President of the London Midland and Scottish Railway. There is the panel. I admit that two members of it are directors of insurance companies, but its function is primarily to investigate the banking side of the question—the man-power and woman-power in the banks and the allied industries, if that is the right phrase. They will be joining in as a whole Committee at some stage no doubt to draw up a report, but so far as these two directors are concerned they are looking at the banking side of the problem.
  Then we come to the ordinary insurance panel. There we have Mr. F. H. E. Branson, Mr. J. C. Burleigh and Mr. G. Cunliffe. Again there is a solicitor in Mr. Branson, who is a director of the Legal and General Insurance Company and is a director of certain trust and property companies. Mr. Burleigh is a chartered accountant, and Mr. Cunliffe is a director of British Aluminium and various other companies, and a member of the industrial and Export Council of the Board of Trade. These three gentleman are going to look at ordinary insurance. I will concede the point that Mr. Branson is a director of the Legal and General Insurance Company, but he is also one of the best-known solicitors in London, and it is for that reason, and not because he is incidentally an insurance director, that he was invited to serve. The third panel is the industrial insurance panel. There again, we have a solicitor, senior partner in a very important firm, Mr. Garrett; Sir Felix Pole, of Associated Electrical Industries, and Mr. Davies, formerly manager of the Cooperative Wholesale Society Bank. They are looking at industrial insurance. There is no director of an insurance company on that panel; but, of course, Mr. Davies was formerly a director of the C.W.S.

  1197
  Bank. But he was not included in the indictment of my hon. Friend, although I suppose, on my hon. Friend's argument, he ought not to be a member of the Committee either——
  Mr. Frankel: I never used the word "indictment."
  Captain Crookshank: —because of his banking connection. But I am very glad that he is on it. That is the composition of the Committee, and those are the three panels. Although my hon. Friend was no doubt justified in bringing the question before the House——
  Mr. Frankel: Why are there no employees on the Committee?
  Captain Crookshank: I hope that he does not think there is anything dreadful about the composition of this committee. It was set up to be, not directly representative of the interests of either employers or employees. I hoped—although it was a very vague hope in the case of my hon. Friend—that I might have satisfied my hon. Friend, because although these three gentlemen were, among other things—certainly not as to one of their greatest interests in life—directors of insurance companies, that did not affect the question. Put it the other way round. If the insurance world had been asked to nominate three representatives of their interests, which is what my hon. Friend alleges——
  Mr. Frankel: I am not alleging anything.
  Captain Crookshank: What he suspects, then. My hon. Friend must be a lawyer, because he does not say anything about himself at all. If we had asked the insurance world to nominate three representatives, I should have been extremely surprised if they had selected these three gentlemen. It would have been far more likley that they would have recommended the nomination of one of the chairmen, one of the managing directors, or one of their officials. But, in point of fact, they were not asked. These gentlemen were selected by my right hon. Friend because of the qualifications they had, and the fact that they were directors of insurance companies was not a matter of paramount importance in the choice. I know that my hon. Friend will not be satisfied, but I hope that he will acquit us of any in-
  1198
  tention of "packing" this committee. I am certain that if we had wanted to put on direct representatives of these industries, these three gentlmen would not have been nominated. But they are three gentlemen in whose judgment we have every confidence.
  May I just say this in conclusion? Let us put the best construction we can on these matters, and not the worst. Let us assume that very busy men, having a great many other things to do in war-time, having accepted the Government's invitation to do this work, will do it in the best interests of all concerned, that they will sift the evidence given before them and present a report which will enable us to get a few men and women out of these industries for the war effort. There is just one other point about the evidence. Of course, they will take evidence from both employees and employers—there is very little question about that—but, in fact, I understand that one of the big unions, representing one or other of these interests—I do not know which, as, of course, I am not a member of the Committee—has already given evidence.
  Mr. Frankel: Written or verbal?
  Captain Crookshank: I cannot say. It is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Committee as to how it calls for evidence, and no Committee has ever been set up by the Government with directions as to how it is to conduct its affairs or call evidence. The fact remains that they will call evidence from both sides of these various industries, and, in fact, one of the larger unions has already done it. While I am sure my hon. Friend is not satisfied, I hope he will be content to let the matter rest to see what sort of report is produced, and when the report is produced I am sure that he will be one of the first to congratulate the members on what they have done and to thank them for their work.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has missed the whole point of my hon. Friend's argument. These committees are to deal with man-power, and not man-power among directors of banks and insurance companies, but among the employees of the companies. He really cannot get away with the argument that he has put forward just now. If these bank clerks and insurance workers were

  1199
  as strongly organised as the miners, the textile workers, the engineers and the railwaymen, the Treasury would not dare to treat them as they have treated these people in the banking and insurance industry.
  Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member overlooks the various panels which have been set up by the Board of Trade. I repeat that the President of the Board of Trade is one of the three Ministers concerned with the appointment of the Committee. Every panel set up by the President of the Board of Trade was really a one-man panel with an adviser of the Civil Service, and there was no question of any representative of the employees at all, in spite of the strong trade unions referred to, such as the cotton operatives and so on.
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. That is the case when you deal with the concentration of industry, but when you deal with man-power, he is wrong. The trade union in the distributive trades have a say as to the man-power to be secured from that industry. I have only one word to say to him on that score. The people employed in banking and insurance have not been recognised by the banks and insurance companies at all, as have the workers in other industries. The whole trouble arises from that fact. These directors will not work with the organised employees, and I regret that the Treasury have seen fit to agree in principle to the employers' attitude towards organised labour in the banking and insurance industries.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  Utility Goods.
  Utility Goods.
  Retail Trade Committee (Report).
  Retail Trade Committee (Report).
  Co-operative Societies (Prices and Bonus Payments).
  Co-operative Societies (Prices and Bonus Payments).
  THEFTS OF BICYCLES.
  THEFTS OF BICYCLES.
  UNEXPLODED BOMBS.
  UNEXPLODED BOMBS.
  ROYAL NAVY (LEAVE, CIVILIAN CLOTHES).
  ROYAL NAVY (LEAVE, CIVILIAN CLOTHES).
HOUSING.
  Essential Repairs (War Conditions).
  Essential Repairs (War Conditions).
  Durham County (Statistics).
  Durham County (Statistics).
  CANCER (METHODS OF TREATMENT).
  CANCER (METHODS OF TREATMENT).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  Milk (Consumption Statistics).
  Milk (Consumption Statistics).
  Eggs (Small Poultry-Keepers).
  Eggs (Small Poultry-Keepers).
  Oats (Surplus Stocks, Scotland).
  Oats (Surplus Stocks, Scotland).
  LONDON REGIONAL PLANNING.
  LONDON REGIONAL PLANNING.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  Ministry of Works and Planning.
  Ministry of Works and Planning.
  Committees (Secretaries).
  Committees (Secretaries).
  PAPER ECONOMY (SMALL-SIZE CHEQUES).
  PAPER ECONOMY (SMALL-SIZE CHEQUES).
  OVERSEAS NEWS BROADCASTS.
  OVERSEAS NEWS BROADCASTS.
  INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE (OVERSEAS PAY).
  INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE (OVERSEAS PAY).
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (MAN-HOURS)
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (MAN-HOURS)
  AGRICULTURE (DEMONSTRATIONS).
  AGRICULTURE (DEMONSTRATIONS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  Pharmacists.
  Pharmacists.
  Improvement Suggestions.
  Improvement Suggestions.
  Distinguished Service Order (Awards).
  Distinguished Service Order (Awards).
  Non-Combatant Officers, Middle East.
  Non-Combatant Officers, Middle East.
  Dependant's Allowance.
  Dependant's Allowance.
  Requisitioned Property (Ground Rent).
  Requisitioned Property (Ground Rent).
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
FUEL AND POWER.
  Colliery Fireman's Appeal, Lanarkshire.
  Colliery Fireman's Appeal, Lanarkshire.
  Coal Deliveries (Industrial Consumers).
  Coal Deliveries (Industrial Consumers).
  Miners (Release from Armed Forces).
  Miners (Release from Armed Forces).
  Hired Motor Cars and Taxi-Cabs (Radius Limit).
  Hired Motor Cars and Taxi-Cabs (Radius Limit).
  Schools and Hospitals (Anthracite Stocks).
  Schools and Hospitals (Anthracite Stocks).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (WOUNDED AIRCREW PERSONNEL).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (WOUNDED AIRCREW PERSONNEL).
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BILSTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PRIVATE BILLS.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, these Amendments are really a formal matter, providing for copies of Private Bills being sent to the Ministry of Works and Planning under its new name. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills, etc., be amended as follows:—
Standing Order No. 39, page 27, line 43, leave out ("and")
Standing Order No. 39, line 44, after ("Air") insert ("and at the Office of the Minister of Works and Planning")
Standing Order No. 39, page 28, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("and at the Office of the Commissioners of Works")
Standing Order No. 39, page 29, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("and at the Office of the Commissioners of Works").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Standing Orders amended accordingly, and to be printed as amended.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOLE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
ALLIED POWERS (WAR SERVICE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a. The Amendment made in the Commons to the Bill as circulated to this House to be printed
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) 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 Ia
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CAERNARVON) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MOLD GAS AND WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendment of the principal Act]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): The first Amendment in my name is really a drafting Amendment. There is no need to provide for paragraph 13 of the Second Schedule to have effect as originally included in the Bill. It is right that this change should be made. The matter is formal, and does not need discussion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("and in paragraph 13 of the said Second Schedule").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Amendments relating to the principal Act generally]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is a drafting Amendment. It was a mistake to draw the Bill as originally drawn, and I ask that this correction be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, leave out from ("Act") to ("to") in line 42.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 23, leave out ("restriction or outgoing") and insert ("or restriction").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after paragraph 4, to insert:
" 5. Payments to owners of rentcharges.
(1) Where a value payment is to be made in respect of war damage to a hereditament and at the date by reference to which the disposal of the payment is to be regulated (in this para graph referred to as "the material date") there was subsisting a rentcharge created out of a proprietary interest (being either the fee simple or a tenancy granted for a term of a hundred years or more) in any land in the hereditament, or in any such land together with other land, a right to receive a share of the value payment shall vest in the person who was the owner of the rentcharge at that date, if he shows that the following conditions are satisfied, namely—

(a) that the amount of the rentcharge so far as attributable to land in the hereditament then subject thereto (in this paragraph referred to as" the charged land in the hereditament") exceeded the available annual value of that land as depreciated by the war damage; and

(b) that at the time when the question whether this condition is satisfied falls to be determined no building sufficient to make good the excess has been carried out, or, having regard to all the circumstances (including any undertaking required under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of Section seven), is likely to be carried out within a reasonable period after the time when the discharge of the value payment becomes permissible.

(2) If the said right is exercised—

(a) the amount of the share of the owner of the rentcharge shall be an amount equal to the capital equivalent of the excess mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph, so however that if the amount of the rentcharge so far as attributable to the charged land in the hereditament was greater by any sum than the available annual value of that land apart from any war damage the amount of the share shall be computed as if the said excess had been reduced by that sum; and

(b) so much of the rentcharge as is equal to the said excess shall be extinguished on the date on which the share is paid, and, as between the persons interested in the charged land in the hereditament on the one hand and in any other land subject to the rent-charge on the other hand, the proper share of the persons interested in the charged land in the hereditament of the liability for the
748
residue of the rentcharge in respect of any period after the extinguishment shall be treated as being an amount per annum equal to the available annual value of the charged land in the hereditament as depreciated by the war damage.

(3) Any question as to whether the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph are satisfied, or as to the amount of the said excess or of the share of the owner of a rentcharge, shall be determined by agreement between the owner thereof and of the proprietary interest out of which the rentcharge was created in the charged land in the hereditament, together with any mortgagee of either of those interests, or, in default of agreement, by reference to a referee as provided by subsection (5) of Section nine.
(4) Where the said right is exercised effect shall be given thereto out of so much of the value payment as is payable in respect of the proprietary interest out of which the rent-charge was created in the charged land in the hereditament, and—

(a) if apart from this provision any of the value payment would be payable under subsection (4) of Section nine to a mortgagee of that proprietary interest, then, if the mortgage had priority to the rentcharge, it shall be payable to him and effect shall be given to the said right out of any sums to which the owner of that proprietary interest would otherwise have been entitled under the provisions of that subsection as to mortgagees accounting, or, if the rentcharge had priority to the mortgage the sum payable to the mortgagee shall be reduced by the amount required for giving effect to the said right;

(b) if the rentcharge was itself subject to a mortgage at the material date, subsection (4)of Section nine shall have effect in relation to the disposal of the share to be paid in respect of the rentcharge as it has effect in relation to so much of a value payment as is payable in respect of a mortgaged proprietary interest, with the substitution for references therein to such an interest of references to the rentcharge;

(c) subsections (2) and (4) of Section nine, and sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of this Schedule, shall have effect subject to the provisions of this paragraph.

(5) Regulations may be made under Section ten (which confers power to make regulations as to claims for payments) as to the exercise of the said right and the manner in which effect is to be given to the said right where exercised, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by this subparagraph, regulations so made may make provision as to the matters aforesaid in cases in which the charged land in a hereditament is a part only thereof, or was in divided ownership at the material date, or in which a proprietary interest or rentcharge was subject to a mortgage at that date.
(6) In this Act the expression "rentcharge" means a rentcharge (including a fee farm rent) subsisting at law or capable of subsisting at law, and not being an interest or charge arising under a settlement within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, and means, where an apportionment of a rentcharge binding on the

749
owner thereof has been made, each of the apportioned parts and not the entire rent-charge.
(7) For the purpose of this paragraph the "capital equivalent" of the excess referred to in head (a) of sub-paragraph (I) shall be taken to be that excess multiplied by the number of years purchase which the rentcharge might have been expected to realize on a sale thereof in the open market on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, if it had been subsisting on that day with the like incidents in all respects as it had at the material date, and the hereditament had been in the state in which it was immediately before the occurrence of the damage thereto, and the annual value of any land outside the hereditament subject to the rentcharge had been its annual value apart from any war damage.
(8) For the purposes of this paragraph the "annual value of the charged land in the hereditament as depreciated by the war damage" shall—.

(a) if that land is coterminous with the hereditament, be taken to be five per cent. of the value of the hereditament after the occurrence of the damage as ascertained for the purpose of determining the amount of the value payment;

(b) if that land is a part only of the hereditament, be determined by apportioning an appropriate part of the said percentage of the said value to that land.

(9)For the purposes of this paragraph the "annual value apart from any war damage" of any land shall, if that land was coterminous with land which constituted a contributory property or two or more contributory properties for the purposes of the instalments 0f
contribution for the year in which the war damage to the hereditament occurred (or, if it occurred before the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and forty-one, for that year), be taken to be the contributory value or the sum of the contributory values of the property or properties for that year, and, if it was not, shall be determined by valuation made by reference—

(a) primarily to the contributory value for that year of any such contributory property or properties as aforesaid which that land comprised or of which it formed part; and

(b) subject as aforesaid, to the rent at which that land or any part thereof might have been expected to let from year to year on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, if it had been on that day in the state in which it was immediately before the occurrence of the damage to the heredirament, or, in the case of land outside' the hereditament which had then also sustained war damage, immediately before the occurrence of that damage, and the tenant undertook to pay the usual tenant's rates and taxes and the landlord undertook to bear the costs of the repairs and insurance and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the land in a state to command that rent.

(10) For the purposes of this paragraph the "available annual value" of the charged
750
land in the hereditament as depreciated by the war damage, or apart from any war damage, shall be taken to be the annual value thereof as so depreciated, or apart from any war damage, as the case may be, less the amount, so far as attributable to any of the charged land in the hereditament, of—

(a) any rentcharge having priority to the rentcharge in question to which the fee simple in that land was subject at the material date, or, where that tentcharge was created out of a tenancy of that land, to which either the fee simple therein or that tenancy or any superior tenancy thereof was subject at that date; and

(b) where that rentcharge was created out of a tenancy of that land, the rent reserved by the lease for the year in which that date fell.

(11) For the purposes of this paragraph the "amount attributable" to any land of a rentcharge, or of rent reserved by a lease, shall, where at the material date, that land was the only land subject to the rentcharge, or out of which the rent issued, be taken to be the whole amount of the rentcharge payable, or of the rent reserved, for the year in which that date fell, and, where it was not, shall be determined by apportioning or allocating to that land so much (if any) of that whole amount as may be appropriate, having regard—

(a) primarily, to any apportionment or allocation of that rentcharge or rent which may have been made otherwise than so as to be binding on the owner of that rent-charge or on the landlord, as the case may be, before the occurrence of any war damage to any of the land subject to that rentcharge or rent; and

(b) subject as aforesaid, to the proportion borne by the annual value apart from any war damage of that land to the annual value apart from any war damage of the other land subject to that rentcharge or rent.

(12) In the application of this paragraph to Northern Ireland there shall be substituted for the reference to the Settled Land Act, 1925, a reference to the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890.
6. Payments to superiors and creditors in ground annuals.
(1) The last preceding paragraph shall extend to Scotland subject to the modifications specified in the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) For any reference to a rentcharge created out of the fee simple in any land there shall be substituted a reference to a feuduty or ground annual payable by the owner of the fee simple in such land; references to the owner of a rentcharge shall be construed accordingly, and references to a rentcharge created out of a tenancy shall not apply.
(3). The right conferred by sub-paragraph (1) on a superior or the creditor in a ground annual to receive a share of a value payment shall not be exercisable until—

(a) in the case where the feuduty or ground annual is payable in respect of the charged land in the hereditament and also

751
of other land, the part of such feuduty or ground annual attributable to the charged land in the hereditament has been allocated thereon; and

(b) the feuduty or ground annual or the part thereof so allocated, as the case may be, in so far as it exceeds the annual value of the charged land in the hereditament as depreciated by the war damage, has been discharged.

(4) Where for the purposes of this paragraph a feuduty or a ground annual is required to be allocated or a feuduty or a ground annual or a part thereof so allocated is required to be discharged, the superior or the creditor in the ground annual shall execute and record in the appropriate register of sasines—

(a) a memorandum specifying the sum to be allocated and describing particularly or by reference the land on which it is to be allocated; or, as the case may be,

(b) a discharge of the feuduty or ground annual or part specifying the extent to which the same is discharged and describing particularly or by reference the land so disburdened;

and any such allocation or discharge shall be binding on all having interest."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the first and serious Amendment on which the House will have to spend rather more time. One is usually entitled to assume that as soon as the clauses of a Bill have all been passed what remains is small beer, but in this case the difficult matter arises in the Schedule, and I move, in the First Schedule, on page 7, line 32—that is to say at the end of the paragraph marked 4 on page 7 of the Bill—the insertion of a new paragraph which would be numbered 5 followed by a further paragraph which would be numbered 6. These Amendments are put forward in order to fulfil a promise which was made by the Government in another place to extend the benefit of payments under the War Damage Act to owners of rentcharges. Rentcharges are common as an incident of land development in some parts of the country, especially in Lancashire. Indeed I think it has sometimes been said that wherever a Lancashire builder has been at work you may be sure to find a rentcharge. They also occur very commonly in Bristol, and they are common in the North of Ireland. In Scotland feu duties and ground annuals, which are very similar in their general effect to rentcharges, are also of course most common.
I want to make plain to those who are interested in the subject that the proposal
752
I have to make has nothing to do with that class of rentcharge which is created under family settlements. It is not uncommon under a family settlement to make provision of that kind, but there is no need to bring this into the Amendment I am proposing, because such family charges are adequately provided for under the War Damage Act already by the payment that will be made for damaged settled land to the trustees of a settlement. What this very formidable, complicated Amendment deals with is rent-charge in the other sense. The argument is, and it appears to be a forcible one, that the owners of rentcharges created in the course of land development are exposed to suffer loss in the event of war damage for which at present no provision is made in the war damage legislation. I speak humbly about these high matters, but I think that I am correct when I say that such a rentcharge is real property; it is a legal interest in land which exists independently of the fee simple or any tenancy in the land, and as the Statute Law at present stands we have only provided for payments to the owner of the fee simple or to the owner of a tenancy in the land, so that the owners of rentcharges at present are excluded. The owner of a rentcharge has some effective remedies if he is not paid the half-yearly or yearly payments to which he is entitled. He might distrain, he has a right to take possession, he has a right to create a term of years in the land and to mortgage or sell the term to erase the arrears. There are various remedies with which he is provided if he is not paid what is due to him.
I think the reason why in the first instance the draftsman, and those who advise the Government on this technical matter, did not include rentcharges was that it was assumed that, at any rate in nearly all cases, the value of the rent-charge would not fall below the value of the bare site, and therefore, even though the building was destroyed, there would still be sufficient security for the owner of the rentcharge. That, however, is not always so, and there is this particular difficulty arising from a complication very common in Lancashire, that the owner of the land in the first instance lets the builder have it in return for a rentcharge, and then the builder when he builds a house may sell the property for what is called an improved rentcharge, the

753
amount of which tan only be covered if you include the value of the building. Therefore if the building is destroyed the holder of the rentcharge suffers and is at present without remedy.
At first the idea which was worked out, was quite a simple one, that you should simply say that the owners of rentcharges should be entitled to receive a payment in so far as they could show that the value of their rentcharges had been reduced by impairment of the security due to the damage to the buildings. That sounds very simple. But there are great difficulties here in simplicity, I am sorry to say. In the first place, it is very embarrassing to the substantial landowner if there has to be an endless multiplication of valuations to divide what is received between different claimants, and it is simply not worth doing if the amount is quite trumpery, In the second place, though the owner of the rentcharge may suffer when the house is "blitzed," if the house is going to be rebuilt in a year or two, or in quite a short time, what he suffers is only a loss in the meantime, and he will be right again as soon as there is sufficient security. There is, thirdly, the point that whatever you do you must not give the man who owns a rentcharge both a light to the whole of the rentcharge and also compensation. You have got, therefore, to have some plan which sets one against the other.
That is what this clause, which I must say is very ingeniously drafted, attempts to do. The present proposal is that a rentcharge owner should only come in, first, if his security has depreciated to a point below his rentcharge; secondly, if he can show that re-building is unlikely; and, thirdly, on the terms of giving up a right to so much of his rentcharge as is represented by the payment which he receives. Those principles I think will be recognized everywhere as valid. The draftsman would have been able to put this in a much less elaborate form into the Bill, into a much shorter compass, and in much less technical language, if it was not for a very annoying circumstance, which is that a particular area over which a rentcharge may apply is by no means necessarily the same area which is dealt with as a unit under this Bill. It is extremely common in Lancashire, for example, for the sites of two or three houses to be lumped together and made
754
the source out of which there is one rent-charge, whereas of course, each separate house would be a unit of valuation, and it may be of compensation when you apply the War Damage Act. I will not delay the Committee by expounding the subsidiary clauses of this draft which get over that difficulty. It involves apportionment and a number of difficult things of this kind.
I think your Lordships may take it that, subject to anything that may be said by noble and learned friends of mine who are much more expert in the matter, this very elaborate provision has been well devised. It meets the claim made by all kinds of people in the House of Commons who represent Lancashire and it appears in itself to be quite just. It only remains to entertain your Lordships for a moment by one or two other words of art. Your Lordships will note that the expression "fee farm rent" is also introduced into this paragraph. I will not endeavour to explain it. I think it is enough to say that under the Law of Property Act, 1925, a rentcharge is defined as including "fee farm rent". I think for present purposes we may leave it at that. When it comes to the arrangement for applying the Act to Scotland, that is quite outside any competence of mine, but I have been most carefully advised and indeed coached on the subject, and I am assured that the provisions which we are making to cover feu duties and annuals correspond in substance to what is proposed for England. I regret that I cannot entertain your Lordships at greater length on this most attractive portion of the law of property, but I have no doubt I have whetted your appetite for further information on another occasion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 32, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, after ("hereditament") insert ("and of rentcharges (if any) to which it is subject").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is a verbal Amendment to remove an ambiguity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page S, line 49, leave out ("therein mentioned") and insert ("mentioned in Section sixteen").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 32, at end, insert ("or to any rentcharge").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after paragraph 7:
"8. Amendment of form of s. 9 (3) as to valuation of a proprietary interest free from certain charges.
In subsection (3) of Section nine (which provides for the valuation of a proprietary interest as if free from any charge or lien for securing money or money's worth), for the words 'charge or lien for securing money or money's worth' there shall be substituted the words 'mortgage or floating charge or to any rent-charge.' "
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is really identical in object with the earlier Amendments, and the same principle applies. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 44, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to paragraph 8 [Amendment of form of s. 9 (4) to make provision for mortgages of disclaimed leasehold interests and for successive mortgages]:
(2) In subsection (4) of Section nine, for the words 'exercisable by the mortgagee' there shall be substituted the words 'exercised by the mortgagee on the date by reference to which the disposal of the value payment is to be regulated.'"
The noble and learned Viscount said: If your Lordships wish for an explanation of this Amendment, I can give one, but I think it is probably sufficient for me to say that I am satisfied the Amendment is needed at this page.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 23, at end insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to paragraph 18 [Application of Principal Act to elementary schools transferred to local education authority]:
756
"(7) In the application of this paragraph to Northern Ireland—

(a) for the references to an elementary school, to transfer under the enactments mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, to the local education authority for elementary education, and to the Board of Education there shall respectively be substituted references to a public elementary, school, to transfer under Section fourteen of, and the Second Schedule to, the Education Act (Northern Ireland), 1923, to the education authority within the meaning of that Act and to the Ministry of Education for Northern Ireland; and'

(b) the expression ' premises ' in relation to a school includes the teacher's residence (if any) and any land or buildings held in connexion with the school."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is an application of the paragraph to Northern Ireland, and ought to be there inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 45, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, after paragraph 24, to insert:
Disposal of unclaimed balances of mutual insurance funds.
"25.—(1) The Board of Trade may by order provide that where the persons having the control of funds which fall to be distributed by virtue of subsection (2) of Section eighty-seven (which provides for the distribution of funds constituted before the passing of the principal Act for the purpose of providing indemnification against war damage) have been unable to trace the persons entitled to any moneys forming part of such funds, the Board of Trade may, if satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken for the purpose of tracing the persons entitled, authorize the payment of the moneys in question into an account specified in the order; and any payment into such an account authorized by the Board of Trade shall be a good discharge for the amount of the payment.
(2) An order made under this paragraph shall provide for the making of payments out of the account, in accordance with the provisions of the order, to persons claiming to be entitled to moneys paid into the account."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a very small matter, but it is of concern to some hundreds of people. I am rather inclined to follow the example of the noble and learned Viscount, and to say that I can explain this Amendment if requested, but inasmuch as it is of some complexity, and has been agreed to by the Board of Trade, I think probably I shall consult your Lordships' wishes best by formally moving.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 25, at end insert the said new paragraph.—[Lord Rankeillour.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall imitate my noble friend's restraint and merely say that I am glad to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Amendments as to ultimate incidence of contributions under Part I of the principal Act.
Mortgagors and Mortgagees.
4.—(1) Where—

(a) the whole or parts of different storeys of a house or building are occupied by two or more persons in different apartments or tenements and the house or building comprises more than one contributory property, but each of the contributory properties is used or suitable for use for residential purposes and has a contributory value not exceeding thirty-five pounds; or

(b) land which is farmed as a single unit or consists only of land so farmed together with other land either normally farmed therewith or, if it consists of or comprises buildings, intended to form part of the unit, comprises more than one contributory property, but the aggregate of the contributory values does not exceed five hundred pounds,

the house or building or, as the case may be, the land shall be deemed for the purposes of Section twenty-five to be a single contributory property to which that section applies.
11.—(1) At the end of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 of the Fourth Schedule there shall be added the folowing proviso:—
"Provided that where it is shown that the rent is greater by any amount than it would otherwise have been by reason of the landlord undertaking to bear any tenant's rates, or rendering or providing, or procuring to be rendered or provided any services or goods, the proportion appropriate to the tenancy shall be calculated as if the rent were reduced by the said amount."
(2) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby-declared that for the purposes of the said sub paragraph (1) the proportion of rent to value—

(a) in the case of a tenancy under which no rent is reserved, is less than one quarter;

(b) in the case of a tenancy under which the rent reserved is not a money rent, is the proportion which the money value of the rent, or the annual equivalent thereof, bears to the value of the land.

General provisions as to indemnities.
12. A right to indemnity conferred by Part. I of, "or the Fourth Schedule to, the principal Act shall not be enforceable until the
758
discharge of the liability in respect of which the right arises:
Provided that on the discharge of part of the liability the said right shall be enforceable as respects a proportionate part of the amount of the indemnity.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in paragraph (4) (1), after head (b), to insert:
"; or
(c) land which has been developed by a housing association (being an association within the meaning assigned to it by Section one hundred and eighty-eight of the Housing Act, 1936) for the purpose of providing houses for the working classes, if the developed land consists of or comprises more than one contributory property,''
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I have put on the Paper attempts to do justice to a very deserving set of bodies, the housing associations. Housing associations have always had the sympathy of your Lordships' House in the work which they are trying to do, that is to provide houses at low rents for that portion of the population who can only afford low rents. They have done a great deal in the way of housing reform. At the end of the last war, when housing became a very urgent public issue, I think it is correct to say these societies really did whole-heartedly respond to the urgent appeal of the Government to do what they could to stimulate housing reform and to meet the shortage of houses throughout the country. Many of them had to contract considerable mortgage loans and at very high rates of interest—some up to 6½ per cent. I know of cases where societies borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board on terms of that kind. Under the War Damage Act, 1941, where the mortgage relates to only one property the mortgagee is required to pay a portion of the contributions on the property if the Schedule A valuation does not exceed £150, and in other cases the mortgagee is absolved from, payments. That is the circumstance which is making things very difficult at the moment for these housing associations.
There are two versions of my Amendment on the Paper, and if I may I will formally move the first. The second version, if I may be allowed to refer to it, is an attempt to meet certain objections which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is sure to make to the Amendment in its first form. I am going to appeal to the noble and learned

759
Viscount to help me in the matter because it is very technical and I think the object is one with which he will sympathize, although he will be the first to point out practical difficulties. My idea in putting in limiting words in the second version was to do something to remove the objections which I anticipate on the part of the noble and learned Viscount.
I would like to give one or two instances of the sort of way in which present arrangements are working to the detriment of these housing associations. I have here a statement by the Welsh Town Planning and Housing Trust Ltd. It is as follows:
''The annual contributions payable by our twelve societies amount to £4,994. It is a most severe handicap not to be able to recover the equitable proportions from mortgagees. We are already carrying the burden of increased cost of repairs and maintenance and higher taxation. The two societies at Rhiwbina and Burry Port, during the years of the industrial depression in South Wales, had to reduce rents (with the approval of the Minister) by 30 per cent., involving a loss of rent income of several thousand pounds. The P.W.L.B. refused to reduce interest rates (6½ per cent.). The societies cannot now raise rents (although tenants are earning higher wages); the P.W.L.B. continue to demand the 6½ per cent. interest: yet we are denied the comparable right of other mortgagors of claiming from the P.W.L.B. the equitable proportion of the War Damage Contributions."
I think it is relevant to say in connexion with that, that these housing associations were encouraged from official quarters to do their housing work when rates of interest were high. Official assurances were given that in bearing the burden of the high rates of interest and building at a time of big cost the societies would not be placed at a later date in a disadvantageous position. That has come about. These societies now, owing to the War Damage Contribution and the impossibility of passing it on to the mortgagors, are really in a very difficult position indeed. With these few words I beg to move the first version of my Amendment in order that I might have the advantage of hearing the reply of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 22, at the end insert the said words.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend raised this question when we had the main measure before us a year or more ago. His interest in housing associations
760
is well understood and I think that there will be a general feeling in the House—certainly I share it—that the work done by these associations is very meritorious. My natural inclination would be, therefore, to try to see if I could meet my noble friend. But as I pointed out to your Lordships in the last debate on the subject, so I must point out now, that really consistently with the scheme of the Act this is not possible. The great majority of the mortgages of the housing associations raise money generally on a large contributory property and are not in the least in line with the provisions which my noble friend has quoted from Section 25. The Treasury, and the other Departments concerned, I am informed have considered this matter with great care and sympathy. They realize that the housing associations have a very meritorious claim upon our sympathies. But just consider what is involved in what my noble friend has just said. He gave an instance in which an association has borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board. There are also—as he knows and as others in your Lodships' House know also—a great many instances in which housing associations have borrowed from local authorities, and the broad question is, are you in these matters to depart from the principle of Section 25 and to call upon the lender to take a share—I do not pause for a moment to discuss how difficult it would be to work it out—of the burden of contribution?
It is really fundamental to the view of the Bill that normally the relation between the lender and the borrower—between the mortgagee and the mortgagor—is of this kind: the mortgagee advances money at a rate of interest—usually a low rate—and he does it on the basis that that is the full extent both of his possible gains and his possible losses. If the mortgagor does well out of the loan and makes profits out of it, that does not advantage the mortgagee in the very least. He simply advances money at the rate quoted, and it is the borrower who takes the rough with the smooth as to whether he may make a good thing out of it or not. What my noble friend is asking is that because housing associations are, as we all agree, very meritorious bodies, in their case, as an exception, those who have advanced money to them should be treated in a different

761
way from which they would be treated if they were not housing associations. I do not think that it would be easy for your Lordships to agree that the local authorities that lend money to housing associations, or for the matter of that any other lenders, should be put in a quite exceptional position.
The trouble is, and I am sure that I very much regret it, that owing to the circumstances of the war some of' these associations are faced with very great difficulties. The instance which my noble friend quoted is an example. But this is not a difficulty which is to be met by this kind of thing at all. The burden of War Damage Contribution is not the only cause, or the main cause, of the difficulties in which some housing associations find themselves. It is not that at all. It is the fact that they have unhappily lost revenue owing to properties becoming vacant—what is called voids—or may be owing to the transfer or flight of considerable portions of the population. In so far as they are faced with an emergency, I am not denying it, but I must respectfully but firmly insist that it is not to be met by giving them this exception—this really unwarrantable and unjustified exception from the general scheme of the Bill. It must be considered in other ways. It has been stated that when housing associations have paid their ordinary annual outgoings they will not have sufficient net income to pay the contribution. Well it is the practice of the Inland Revenue Department to give careful consideration to cases in which a person charged is unable out of income or from other resources to meet the liability as it falls due. I am authorized to say that, in such cases, the Department is prepared, on being furnished with the facts of a particular case, to consider any proposals for extension of the time for payment.
But I am not prepared, and I hope that your Lordships will support the Government in this matter, to alter the general relation between mortgagor and mortgagee by which a mortgagee lends at a low rate of interest because all the risks of the enterprise do not rest upon him but rest upon the borrower. I am not prepared to alter that in this special case. If I did it would be the beginning of an avalanche of cases of all sorts and kinds. I regret very much that an association which has
762
borrowed money for philanthropic purposes should not get this assistance, but what we have to consider is would that justify a departure from the general principle of the Bill which I think by this time is approved by the judgment of all sensible people? I am bound to give the answer that it would not. I do not pause to say that the definition of "housing association" as a matter of fact might very well let in some people who are not quite in the mind of my noble friend. Much as we sympathize with the difficulties of these particular borrowers they cannot expect to be made a special exception because they have borrowed from local authorities or from public loan funds.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for what he has said. What I intend to do is not to ask your Lordships to depart from the whole principle of the Bill except to very nearly the same extent that it has been done already. My Amendment goes in as (c) to paragraph 4 of the First Schedule. Now (a) and (b) are already two exceptions. It will be noticed that head (a) says that where—"
the whole 'or parts of different storeys of a house or building are occupied by two or more persons in different apartments or tenements and the house or building comprises more than one contributory property, but each of the contributory properties is used or suitable for use for residential purposes and has a contributory value not exceeding thirty-five pounds,"
then—
"the house or building … shall be deemed for the purposes of Section twenty-five to be a single contributory property to which that section applies."
It consequently gets relief. My Amendments is so drawn as to bring another small category, morally entitled to this relief, within the umbrella of those who are legally entitled to get it.
In those circumstances, I cannot understand the noble and learned Lord Chancellor saying that this is a derogation of the whole principle of the Bill. On the point of letting in other people who do not deserve it, I am aware that there is some substance in that, and, to meet that point, I have put down an alternative Amendment on the Paper, which in the circumstances I should prefer to move, if I may, by leave, withdraw the present Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in paragraph 4 (1), after head (6), to insert:
"(c) land, the proprietory interest of which is vested in a housing association (being an association whose objects and constitution are within the meaning of Section one hundred and eighty-eight of the Housing Act, 1936, which defines a 'housing association') established for the purpose of providing houses for the working classes and the land by virtue of having been developed for that purpose consists of or comprises more than one contributory property and each contributory property has a contributory value not exceeding thirty-five pounds."
The noble Lord said: It may be that some further tightening-up is required, and, at the next stage, it might be desirable to amend the Amendment, so that instead of referring to a housing association as defined in the Act of 1936, the definition is made more narrow. The definition in the Housing Act, 1936, is as follows:
" 'Housing association' means a society, body of trustees, or company established for the purpose of, or amongst whose objects or powers are included those of, constructing, improving or managing or facilitating or encouraging the construction or improvement of, houses"
and so on. I would suggest that the words" or amongst whose objects or powers are included those of" be omitted from the definition in this Bill, so that it would read that a housing association
"means a society, body of trustees or company established for the purpose of constructing, improving or managing"
and so on. That would have the effect of bringing this body of admittedly meritorious people, as the Lord Chancellor has been kind enough to describe them, within the little exception provided for in this Schedule, and would bring them into line with the building societies' borrowers, who already get this relief. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will think that that will have the effect of achieving, in this limited way, what I think I am entitled to say that he would like to see done. In those circumstances, I hope that he will be able to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 22, at end insert the said words.—[Lord Balfour of Burleigh.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but, although my noble friend is perfectly right when he says that he desires to add housing associations as a further category, (c), to the two categories which are called
764
(a) and (b) in the Second Schedule, realty he is asking for something which is not in the least like (a) or (b). The general scheme of the Bill is that under Section 25 of the original Act you will not get a limiting of the contribution unless you have a mortgage which is on a single property of a limited value, which is, broadly speaking, a building society mortgage. What is (a), to which my noble friend wishes to join his own proposal? Head (a) provides, in substance, that if there is a flat in which different persons occupy different tenements or apartments, each portion shall be treated as one unit. That is obviously sensible; if you have a law about small houses you must obviously have a law about small flats, and the fact that several of them are put together in a single building would be a very artificial reason for doing anything about them. Head (a) is not an exception, but a working out of the scheme.
What is head (b)? It deals with the agricultural case. The only instance in which, as the Bill stands, a mortgagee has to bear a share of the contribution for agricultural land is where he has advanced money to buy land, the land itself not being worth more than £500. Head (b) provides that
"land which is farmed as a single unit or consists only of land so farmed together with other land either normally farmed therewith or, if it consists of or comprises buildings, intended to form part of the unit, comprises more than one contributory property, but the aggregate of the contributory values does not exceed five hundred pounds,"
—so that that falls exactly within the £500 limit. My noble friend's housing associations may, and probably do, raise a very large loan over a very large area of properties which they own. This is not a case, therefore, of the addition of a little head (c), which is just like (a) or (b), just to make things comfortable; it is a totally different principle, and I do not see my way to agree to it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not wish to be pertinacious, but the Lord Chancellor said that if, say, six flats are included in one block, then they are to get the relief. If six houses, with a rateable value of under £35, are also included in one block, I think that they ought to get the relief too. I think it is an entirely analogous case, and I hope your Lordships will support me if I press it to a Division.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?

CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Maugham, V.

Barnby, L. [Teller.]

Davies, L.

Esher, V.

Atkin, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Exmouth, V.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Simon, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Addison, L.

Jessel, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Bethell, L.

Latham, L.

Albemarle, E.

Blackford, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.) [Teller.]

De La Warr, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Dundonald, E.

Monkswell, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Braye, L.

Palmer, L.

Lucan, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Perry, L.

Manvers, E.

Cecil, L. (>V. Cranborne.)

Rushcliffe, L.

Ypres, E.

Clwyd, L.

Sherwood, L.

Denham, L.

Snell, L.

Chaplin, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Soulbury, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Ennisdale, L.

Southwood, L.

Hailsham, V.

Faringdon, L.

Stanmore, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Aberdare, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Teviot, L.

Addington, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Wardington, L.

Resolved in the negative,, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, after paragraph 6, to insert:
"7.—(1) Where the interest of a direct or indirect contributor in respect of a contributory properly to which Section twenty-five does not apply is at the revelant date subject to a mortgage as hereinafter defined and the amount secured by the mortgage at the relevant date is more than one-third of a sum equal to twenty times the contributory value, the contributor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the mortgagee to the extent set forth in subsection (1) of Section twenty-five, the sum equal to twenty times the contributory value being substituted in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of Section twenty-rive for the price of acquisition of that interest.
(2) Subsection? (2) and (3) and paragraph (b) of subssction (8) of Section twenty-five shall apply but so that in subsection (3) the sum equal to twenty limes the contributory value shall be substituted for the price of acquisition.
(3) For the purposes of this provision, the expression 'mortgage' shall mean any mortgage or charge on any property for securing money or money's worth which vests a legal estate in the mortgagee or confers upon him a legal interest within the meaning of Section one of the Law of Property Act, 1925, but shall not include any debenture or floating charge."
The noble and learned Viscount said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I feel that the Committee deserves an apology for the jargon in which the Amendment is framed, because it is quite unintelligible to any person who
Their Lordships divided: Contents, II; Not-Contents, 47.
is not in a position to compare what is said there with the original Act and with the present Bill. The meaning of the Amendment is simply this. It is to extend the principle of Section 25 of the War Damage Act to other mortgages in the ordinary sense. The Amendment particularly leaves out of consideration such charges as debenture holders' charges and bankers' charges and all floating charges, and relates simply and solely to what may be called straight mortgages of houses and buildings.
In order that your Lordships should appreciate what I want, I must tell you what Section 25 of the original Act does. It gives a right to a mortgagor against a mortgagee in a very limited class of cases to a certain contribution towards the five contributions which are at present required from the owners of property in this country to help the Government with the payments which it is going to make in respect of war damage. I should like to make clear from the start, so as to brush that matter out of the way, that this Amendment does not affect the Government or the amount that the Government have to pay at all. It is merely a question between mortgagors and mortgagees. And although I am afraid I must take a little time in explaining to your Lordships why what I am suggesting is fair, in one sentence what I am going to contend is that it is fair and just that in

767
the cases which I mentioned—straight mortgages of land and property—the mortgagee should bear a share except when the amount secured, as compared with the value of the property, is such that he really is not an interested person. Now what does Section 25 do?—and I think those of your Lordships who have not yet been able to study it will be rather surprised when they find how limited it is. There are four conditions which have to be complied with before Section 25 helps a mortgagor. I will state them briefly, because they are wrapped up in verbiage which I am afraid laymen would not readily understand.
These are the four conditions. The first is that the amount secured on mortgage must be more than one-third of the price for which the property was acquired. The second is that the contributory value under Schedule A—because the amount you pay is called the contributory value, and is ascertained under Schedule A, where Schedule A applies, or according to the rateable value where there is no such basis available—the contributory value must not exceed £150. The third condition is this, that the property must be used, or be suitable for use, as a residence or must comprise a residence. In other words, all shop property is ruled out, and all those unfortunate small retail traders all over the country who are being driven out of their shops—no doubt quite properly—by diverse war measures which are thought to render such a course necessary, are not within Section 25. I have said it was £150, but, if it is agricultural land, I should have added that the Schedule A contributory value must be less than £500 annually. Then comes the fourth of the conditions. The mortgage must have been created to secure a capital sum on the occasion of the acquisition of the property or of the execution of the works of improvement on the property, provided, as I understand the rule, that the acquisition was of only one property.
I ask your Lordships what is the real suggested ground for keeping to the view that the advantage given to the mortgagor is to be limited to cases which are residential. Why should it be limited to properties which are under £150 annual value and, worst of all, why should it be limited to mortgages created for the purpose
768
of buying the property? What principle of justice is involved in that? The system which Section 25 has adopted in cases where the section is applicable is that the mortgagee must contribute from one-sixth of the mortgagor's liability to two-thirds of the liability, varying of course with the proportion that the amount secured bears to the price of the acquisition of the property. For the purposes of my Amendment, I have adopted precisely the same proportion, and have indeed worked in the Amendment which I have the honour to submit with Section 25 as it stands. I must express regret that I have lost two most valuable supporters—one my noble friend Lord Swinton, who has unfortunately had to go away on Government service, and the other my late noble friend Lord Stamp, who was greatly in favour of the sort of Amendment I have put before your Lordships. He made some observations when the matter was last before your Lordships which I shall take the privilege of reading. Lord Stamp, Lord Swinton, and I - did not have an Amendment before the House when the matter came up on the, last occasion on March 12, 1941, but we took the step of making some suggestions to the noble Viscount on the Woolsack who, I am glad to see, is still appearing for the Government in this case. We made some suggestions to him in the hope that the Government would see the justice of what we were contending for.
Lord Stamp, whose name is one of the most revered among your Lordships, was a moderate-minded man who expressed moderate things, but when he pointed out this extraordinary anomaly in Section 25—that it turned on the accident of the mortgage being raised for acquisition—he said this:
"If there are two people side by side, one of whom has bought the property with the assistance of a mortgage and the other of whom has found it necessary to borrow the money otherwise, why should these two people be in a different position?"
And he went on to say:
"One observes, 'When I bought the house I raised the money from A,' and the other says, 'I did not do that. I was in possession of the house for two years, but I wanted the money for other reasons.'"
Then Lord Stamp said:
"Could you have anything more arbitrary, more inexact, more unscientific and unfair as between two people?"
These words of Lord Stamp have just the same weight to-day as they had then. I remember speaking to him after the debate was over, and we both agreed that the argument had never been answered or dealt with at all Lord Swinton had the same view. The editor of The Economist, a journal which has a high reputation—certainly with me—made some observations a few days ago to the same effect. He dealt with other matters, I agree, but also with this matter of mortgages.
I suggest that the purpose for which the mortgage was created is wholly irrelevant to the question as to whether it is just that the mortgagee should make some contribution towards the amount due from the mortgagor. A man who borrows to send his son into medicine or to the Bar, to assist his daughter to marry, or to discharge his own debts, is just as much entitled to consideration as a person who has bought his house with the advantage of borrowed money, borrowing it probably from a building society or some other institution. As I understand it, there is another anomaly here. If a man has borrowed to buy two separate houses, Section 25 does not apply. I agree that the proviso to subsection (5) is a little difficult to understand, but that was alleged to be its meaning in the other place, and I understand there was no denial that that was what the effect was.
Now let me say something of a general nature before going on to tell your Lordships what I submit is the real justice of the case. I think it is true that the Government did not find themselves in a position to deal complete justice to everybody. It is a rough-and-ready scheme intended to meet an emergency, and the proportions in Section 25, for instance, are not scientific proportions; they go in jumps from one class to a different class. I do not expect to find in this measure—it would be silly to expect to find—complete fairness to everybody. "Rough justice" is what it has been called both in another place and here, and I should attribute, myself, very little weight to a particular hard case or hard cases which I could mention, if the principle involved is sound. But what is the principle of this measure? Surely it is this, that all persons with a real interest in land and buildings have to bear their share, all of them. The Government are going to come in after a sum
770
which is estimated, I think, to be £200,000,000, have been expended in discharging war liabilities, and the people who are going to contribute in the first instance to the money the Government are to find are not the general property owners of the country, but those property owners who have land and buildings. But why any particular class of those people should be singled out for exemption, I am totally unable to understand.
I have given you the illustrations of the man who has borrowed the money because he needs it, and I have given you the other case, but the real question is, are the mortgagees of land and houses owners of a real stake in the land and houses in question? Are they not really the people with a stake in it, and is it fair that they should pay no contribution at all? Let me pause here to ask your Lordships not to believe that this is a question of law or a question for lawyers. It is not. It is a question of the purest common sense, and has really nothing to do with law except to understand what the meaning of the word "mortgage" may be. It is a question of fairness, and I am going to urge your Lordships to support me in doing something which I submit is fair for all classes of the community who have been suffering during the last two years a grave hardship. Your Lordships will remember that under the terms of the Act (Section 92) contributions are to be treated for all purposes as outgoings of a capital nature, and your Lordships will remember that it is a capital tax on land and buildings which normally falls on owners of houses, on agricultural property and on certain fishing rights and things of that sort. There are five annual instalments of 2s. in the pound on the net annual value of the property which do not resemble an insurance premium in the very least. It is compulsory on owners of land and buildings. It is an outgoing of a capital nature, it is quite irrespective of the risk, so that people, we will say, who have houses in Appleby pay precisely the same as people who have houses in Dover, Portsmouth or Plymouth. Really, so far as I can see, it is no more of the nature of an insurance premium than Income Tax is.
The nature of the Amendment is one which relates simply to ordinary mortgages. Debentures, floating charges and deposits of deeds and bankers' charges

771
are left out, and I have left them out for the reason that I admit I did hear on the last occasion, and I have read more recently in another place, arguments which have some weight in relation to such things as debenture holders and floating charges. I admit, for instance, that the man who borrows money on overdraft which he may be called upon to pay off at any moment is in rather a different position from the man who has mortgaged his property for half or three-quarters of its value, mortgaged it definitely for a period which is expected to last for a considerable time—a permanent fixed loan with a fixed rate of interest. I will only just remind your Lordships—and it is the only scrap of law I intend to worry you with—of these facts as regards a mortgagor and a mortgagee. In the first place, the property passes to the mortgagee, under the definition which I have used in my Amendment. If the mortgagor wants to get it back he has to redeem—that is to say, he has to pay principal, interest and costs, and unless he does that it is the mortgagee's property; the right to take possession is vested in the mortgagee. It is true that since the War Emergency Powers Act he has got to get the leave of the Court, but apart from that the mortgagee is entitled to go into the property if he can get it without a breach of the peace, and if he does not find it easy to do that he can apply for possession to the Court. The mortgagee is entitled to sell after three months' notice unless the mortgage gives him a right to sell at an earlier date. The mortgagee's rights in the land are, therefore, far more valuable and important than those of the mortgagor.
The Legislature has agreed that there are cases where the mortgagee has taken possession or obtained a receiver, for they are actually the subject of a section in this very Act which we are proposing to amend. Who is going to tell me that after the war is over, and smiling times come once more perhaps, that the mortgagee is going to give up possession of the property to the mortgagor and that the mortgagor in most cases will be able to pay him? In the cases where the step has been taken of appointing a receiver, or where the mortgagee has been able to recover possession there in substance the interest of the mortgagor has vanished to a point at which it is practically invisible.
772
In theory he still has a right to redeem, but he has to find the money and in nine cases out of ten the real right of the mortgagee is in the property. I need not elaborate that. I might ask, does anybody suppose that with regard to the mortgagees in my Amendment there are 2 per cent. who would have lent the money but for the security of the property? Of course it is the property that is looked at in the mortgages which I am considering, not the possibility of getting the money by an action against the mortgagor.
I will ask your Lordships another thing. Supposing in a dangerous area, say, there is a strong probability of bombing, and this Act comes to an end, perhaps because for some reason the Government think it has expended its usefulness, or supposing, only in theory, we wipe it out, who is going, under a voluntary scheme, to insure the property, the mortgagor or the mortgagee? It is absolutely certain that in such a case the majority of the insurers would be the mortgagees. They are the people who are really interested in the great majority of cases. I should have thought that all that was absolutely clear.
Now I want to give your Lordships an illustration, if you will bear with me for one minute, because I think it is a fair one, and it will show you how great the interest of the mortgagee is in a case which is not a very surprising one. I am going to take the normal case of a house and premises worth £2,000, which has, accordingly, in all probability a Schedule A value of £100, because everybody knows that twenty times the Schedule A gives you roughly the value of the house. The property is mortgaged for three-quarters of its value which is the ordinary maximum that a prudent lender lends on the security of a house—that is to say, £1,500. We may take the normal interest rate at 5 per cent. In order to make the illustration clear I will not assume that the man is living in his property at the time we have to consider, but that he has had to go out, perhaps to go abroad to fight. He has let his house, and I will assume that he has been lucky enough to let it for £100, which is the same as the Schedule A value. His annual contribution is £10 and that is to go on for five years. As the law now stands, the mortgagor will get £100 for rent less

773
£10 for annual contribution, less £75 for interest on the £1,500. That is to say he will get, as the law now stands, £15 per annum, and out of that and of other property he has somehow to pay Income Tax, but I will not say anything about that because it is very fluctuating, and I do not know at what stage now he would get off. The mortgagee gets out of the property £75 per annum as compared with the mortgagor's £15. The mortgagee gets five times as much as the mortgagor. Yet there are people who pretend that the mortgagee is not interested in the property.
Now I want to tell your Lordships what will be the effect of my Amendment if it is passed. The mortgagee, under the terms of my Amendment, will contribute £5 per annum towards the £10 annual contribution. That is to say he will be left with £75 for interest, less £5 towards the contribution under the War Damage Act. The mortgagor, instead of £15, will get £20. The result is that the mortgagor will have an interest in the property of £20 during the war and the mortgagee's interest will be £70. Of course the mortgagee's interest will be much the greater.That is because the interest of the mortgagor in the land and property is always a right in a margin. The person who has got the real and prior right is the mortgagee. The mortgagor has got nothing but a margin and in the illustration I have given, where three-quarters is lent on mortgage, the interest of the mortgagee is very much more than the interest of the mortgagor. Yet the Government apparently adept a non possumus attitude and treat the mortgagee as if he were not really concerned as the person who has got the real interest in the property in question.
I come next to the main objection, as I understand it, to the Amendment which I put forward. The main objection is that the mortgagor has convenanted to pay principal, interest and costs. Is that really any reason for fixing on him the whole liability for these War Damage Contributions which neither the mortgagor nor the mortgagee contemplated at the time when the mortgage was entered into? I cannot see why, when the Government are distributing various amounts as due for War Damage Contributions to mortgagor and mortgagee, the mortgagee should be held not to be a proper person to discharge some portion of them if he has, as I have
774
established, a real interest in the land and house. Why not? I confess I cannot see it. The Government can do what they like and arc only concerned with the fairness of the proposal. In a large number of cases which the Government have not thought to bother about the mortgagors are unable now, and will be unable, to pay a penny. The diminution in the value of houses has been very great even in cases where they have not been damaged by bombs. In cases where they have the position is really tragic for the unfortunate mortgagor. The only real security of the mortgagee is in the property, and it is fair that he should bear a certain proportion of the burden.
There is only one other argument I have ever heard which is worth your Lordships' consideration. It is that this is an interference with the sanctity of contract. I cannot see what sanctity has to do with this matter of fairness. In a special emergency this war tax of a capital nature was imposed to meet the special case of war damage to property which falls on the just and the unjust alike. The damage will not be due to the acts or defaults of property owners. It is a misfortune which comes from the fact that we are at war with a foreign Power. The tax was an unforeseen and unanticipated one which the Government were perfectly entitled to impose equitably as between mortgagors and mortgagees. But the Act itself disregards such questions as sanctity of contract. We have in the Act the most elaborate interference with the rights of landlords. As between landlord and tenant there are enormous changes introduced as compared with the position which would exist if you left existing leases to operate. Yet I have not heard that anybody is shocked at that because it interfered with the sanctity of contract.
If your Lordships know anything about Income Tax—I hope you do not—you will be well aware that the Income Tax Acts all along have contained a provision that no contract or other instrument of any kind which seeks to throw liability on some party other than the person who is in receipt of rent or interest or other charge of that sort is to be valid. The Acts have always declared them void. That, you may say, is an interference with contracts. But has anybody ever thought it unfair? When the Crown is imposing Income Tax, it is entitled to say: ''We will impose a certain share of

775
that tax on the person who is going to receive the interest on a debt, none the less because he is a creditor and the other man a debtor." Why should it not be so? In this present Bill the sanctity of contracts is disregarded. The only reason I can think why landlords have been treated as they are by this Act, if it be true that the sanctity of contracts is to be regarded, must be that landlords for some reason must be regarded as criminals. By a parity of reasoning, I suppose, mortgagors must be regarded as misdemeanants. But if you are going to be fair to the mortgagors you must, I submit, have regard to the fact that the persons really interested in a vast number of cases are the mortgagees—they are predominantly interested. But although there are some cases in which the interest of the mortgagee is smaller, that, I suggest, is a matter for attempting a slight Amendment to my Amendment. I have taken the form or proportion which the Government have accepted, and I think it works out at something like rough justice as between mortgagors and mortgagees.
There has been no vote yet in either House on this particular Amendment. It was not voted on before in this House because it never was before your Lordships. It was not voted on in the other place because the Amendment then before the House included an Amendment which related to bankers' charges and debenture holders and floating charges, and there were interests arrayed against any interference with those particular interests. There was, however, very wide support coming from all sides of the House in the other place even with the Amendment in the wider form. The voting in fact on the Amendment was 87 against and 53 in favour of the Amendment. My conjecture is that limited as the Amendment now is it would have been carried, and I have, as I have said, the great authority of the late Lord Stamp, Viscount Swinton and other noble Lords, some of whom I hope will speak in this debate, in favour of the Amendment which I have put on the Paper.
I hope that we are not once more going to be favoured with a statement that this is a departure from the principle of the Bill. The real principle of the Bill is to be fair alike to all the people who have houses or land property. That is the
776
principle of the Bill. There is no principle in favour of treating mortgagors as if they had done something disgraceful, though the Government have long been urging legislation which has been encouraging them to buy their houses and also to borrow money from building societies on the faith of the security of the property. I have long been concerned in endeavours, to the best of my ability, to secure justice. Well, I am completely disinterested in this matter as I used to be in dealing with those matters which came before me in the past. I am not a mortgagor or a mortgagee. I am not even happy enough to be, so far as I know, a debenture holder. But I am interested in justice, and for the reasons I have given I urge your Lordships to support this Amendment on the simple ground that it is just and equitable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 48, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD BARNBY: I am sure that the Committee will have been overwhelmed by the lucidity, the logic—and to use a phrase which the noble Lord emphasized—the common sense approach to the subject with which my noble and learned friend has been good enough to explain this Amendment. He referred to the debate on this point which took place when the principal and original Act came before the House, and he quoted in support of his reasoning the opinion of one who, alas! is no longer with us, but which opinion nevertheless evidently carries now, as it did then, great weight with your Lordships. This is shown by the wisdom of my noble and learned friend in deeming it appropriate to quote that opinion now. It so happened that that debate arose on an Amendment which was put down in my name, and for that reason I ask for the indulgence of the Committee in order that I may add some words on this particular point now. I think I shall have the sympathy of the Committee when I ask you to recognize the position in which I as a layman now find myself. The position for one like myself, inexperienced in the law and in speaking, is indeed one of some inconvenience seeing that I come in, as it were, between the expressed opinions of a former Lord Chancellor and the reply on behalf of the Government of the present Lord Chancellor.

777
I make that explanation in the hope that it may gain for me the indulgence of your Lordships, and I now venture to ask your attention to the simple aspects of this proposal. I think you will all understand my relief at my good fortune that, instead of moving the Amendment which stood in my name, a task which would have involved some attempt on my part to deal with the legal aspects, that task of dealing with legal aspects has been performed with the brilliance, skill and overwhelming conviction of which my noble and learned friend is a master. The explanation which he has given to the House relieves me of the necessity of attempting to deal with the legal angle at all. I feel that the Committee will have been convinced of the force of the analogy which he gave on the subject of interference with the sanctity of contract. When your Lordships hear from a former Lord Chancellor so clear an analogy I have no doubt that you will be convinced that, on the legal side, there is no foundation at all in what has been put forward on behalf of the Government by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place.
Speakers may well cite the case of a company the shares of which are held by a multitude of small investors on whom, therefore, great hardship may fall if they are forced into the position of being called upon to pay the whole of the War Damage Contribution which is a capital charge. In an instance which was quoted in another place and to which I propose to refer in a minute, an example was given of a company that had to pay £70,000 a year. I do not know whether the shareholders were large or small. That means that £140,000 of income is required in order to pay £70,000 net as War Damage contribution. It may well be, moreover, that this will be a case where the other £70,000 would have been paid anyhow under Schedule A.
I come back to this simple illustration, which concerns the common-sense view of the situation. Here is a mortgagor who, as I have tried to emphasize, may merit the good will and the support of the community, because he has been trying to provide housing accommodation for the working-classes. He finds it necessary to raise capital, because he probably has no capital of his own, and so he uses other people's money, making use of the
778
ordinary machinery for the purpose. He is helping to keep the country going, but hs is called upon to pay the whole of this contribution, without, should he have effected a mortgage, getting any contribution from the mortgagee. That does not seem good logic or good sense. It is not equity. My noble and learned friend said that during a long life he had been occupied in pleading for equity. He brings the richness of his accumulated knowledge to bear on this question, and gives the Committee the benefit of his long experience. I am sure that his arguments must be found overwhelmingly convincing.
It is a curious thing that, where a mortgage applies to a house of a rental of £150 and under a year, an exemption is made, but that exemption is denied to other cases which may be regarded as equally entitled to consideration. It is a curious thing that this provision applies to houses but not to tenements. If a man without much capital, who is trying to develop the country and provide accommodation for the working-classes, provides that accommodation in the form of houses, the Act applies; but if a company builds a large block, giving the same accommodation, upwards instead of horizontally—in the form of flats instead of houses—it does not apply. That stultifies the whole principle of the Bill, and there is no logic in it at all. I instance that as one example which I hope will appeal to the Committee. I hope that 'the Committee appreciate the difficult position which I am in, in speaking to an Amendment such as this, when I find myself confronted with those who are so qualified to speak on the legal aspects of the measure. This, however, is not a legal matter. If the Official Report of the proceedings in another place is studied, it will be clear that, because of the character of the measure, people are afraid of it; they think that it is something which they do not understand. It is plain, I think, that an overwhelming majority of the members of the other House do not understand it, and one might almost assume, from the attendance here to-day, that there are many members of this House who do not take any interest in it, even though they may be directly or indirectly affected—and we are all indirectly affected, because we are all taxpayers. This may seem to be a very involved question, but it is really a very simple one. It is a question which,

779
as my noble and learned friend has emphasized, is one of pure equity and common sense.
My noble and learned friend has emphasized that his Amendment does not include bankers' charges. This matter was raised in a debate in your Lordships' House on another occasion. I notice that my noble friend Lord Wardington is present, and he may have something to say on the matter. He will probably feel that when my noble and learned friend presses his Amendment to a Division, the Amendment will be adopted. In another place a speech was made by someone who has definite associations with banking and who, curiously enough, quoted as an example, to support his argument, the case of a very large property company which would be particularly interested in this matter. It was curious that he should have chosen this to illustrate his argument, because it is a case which affords the strongest support to the argument that the mortgagee should be asked to contribute something. When an Amendment dealing with this question was moved in another place, it was specifically provided that banks should be excluded, because short-term advances, of three months or so, could not be regarded as a definite mortgage. In any event, when it was argued that a portion of the contribution should be made by the mortgagee, it was provided that that should not exceed at the most 50 per cent. of the interest paid.
My noble and learned friend said that it was evident in another place that there was an "array of opposition" to the Amendment which dealt with this point. In that connexion there is one point which, with the indulgence of the Committee, I should like to make. The property owners who happen to be poor people who have mortgages are not organized, but the big banks, the insurance companies and the investment companies are strongly organized. It is a curious thing that the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in the Amendment which he moved a short time ago, should not have received the support of Labour members of the Committee. His Amendment suggested something for the benefit of the smaller men, to alleviate distress in the case of the smaller men who have tried
780
to build houses for the working-classes. It is an amazing thing that Labour members of this Committee should have voted against it.
I am very glad that, as circumstances have turned out, I withheld my Amendment, and left the first attack to my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham, who has been able to deal so brilliantly and so convincingly with the legal aspect of this matter. It is hard to understand that in a matter like this, where the hardship is often borne by small people who have organized themselves to build houses for the working classes, the Labour Party should be found in opposition. If, as I believe, the Committee support my noble and learned friend, then there will be an additional evidence of the inconsistency which has already been conceded by the Government in the case of the building society and the £150 line. My noble and learned friend emphasized the fact that there was no question of the sanctity of contract in this case, because the Rent Restrictions Act has already introduced something which has broken the sanctity of contract, and he gave the further instance of Income Tax.
Possibly the noble and learned Viscount is going to concede this point. At any rate, I am convinced he will see that there is logic in the wider concession being made, which would correct the injustices that already exist, and which is manifastly fair, and would exclude all the arguments of difficulty with regard to short-term loans, such as are made by banks, while meeting the argument so strongly put forward in another place for this necessary correction. And if the noble and learned Viscount does not concede this point to-day, I hope he will consider the propriety of making the concession at a later stage in the Bill. At any rate I hope I have convinced the Committee on pure logic and equity. The opinion of the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Maugham, is an emphatic one, and I suspect the Lord Chancellor might well feel doubtful about the fairness of this treatment of the mortgagor, which I consider to be harsh, though in the position in which he finds himself he has to adopt a different attitude. I hope that if my noble and learned friend presses his Amendment he will receive the support of the Committee.
LORD WARDINGTON: I would like to say a word on this rather difficult and vexed question of the respective responsibilities of mortgagees and mortgagors. I ventured to speak on the subject when it was before your Lordships this time last year, when the principal Act was being discussed, and I remember that the noble and learned Viscount thought I was wrong in the views I expressed at that time. I am, therefore, very diffident in rising to-day and saying that I am unable to accept or support his Amendment. I am all the more sorry because his Amendment has to a very large extent met the objections which I had formerly on two very important points, and I will not therefore refer to them—the objections regarding temporary fluctuating loans secured by a banker's charge on the one hand, and the difficulty in connexion with a debenture on the other. The noble and learned Viscount's Amendment has recognized those difficulties, and expressly eliminated the holder both of an equitable mortgage and of a debenture from liability to contribute. From the business point of view therefore, the Amendment is designed to get over those two practical difficulties.
But I would like to approach the subject, not merely from the point of view of what is administratively easy and practicable, and certainly not from the legal point of view, when I should have such a formidable opponent as the noble and learned Viscount, but, like both him and my noble friend Lord Barnby, I would like to approach it on the broader and more general grounds of what is equitable and fair and in accordance with common sense. I, like all other Englishmen, think I have a certain amount of common sense in my composition, and a sense of what is just and fair. It only shows what a funny thing common sense must be, because people who pride themselves on this quality differ when they test it on a particular point. Let me bring it down to quite the simplest form that I can. If I am the owner of a house, it is naturally my business and interest to protect it as far as I can against any damage which it is likely to suffer. I therefore insure it against fire. If I am unfortunate enough to live in a country which is liable to tempests and earthquakes I insure it against those possibilities, also against floods, burst pipes and frost, destruction of glass by hail, and anything else that I
782
can think of which is necessary or desirable. It is my property, and it is my business to look after it and to protect it as far as I can against these eventualities.
If, having done that, I wish to borrow a sum of money on it to put into a promising venture which I believe will yield me a considerable profit, would it be reasonable for me to expect that the mortgagee or the lender should be liable for any of those premiums, when all that he gets out of the transaction is a small fixed interest, and he has no interest whatever in any possible ultimate profit which is made? I do not believe there is anybody who can think that that would be fair. I know of course that the noble and learned Viscount thinks that the analogy of fire and other similar insurances is fallacious, and that War Damage Contribution is quite another matter, and he points out that this Bill deals, not with what might be called more or less ordinary and foreseeable risks, but with accidents due to a war. He pointed out to your Lordships that the mortgagors have already suffered very much from the depreciation of their property owing to the war, but mortgagees have also suffered very considerably. If fire and other similar insurance is not a proper analogy, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to another measure which seems to me to be entirely on all fours and to constitute a complete analogy. The commodity insurance scheme under the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, makes compulsory the insurance against war damage of goods for sale. No one has ever suggested, as far as I know, that, when these goods are pledged, the pledgee should contribute towards the cost of insurance.
LORD BARNBY: May I ask whether the contribution in that case is not a charge to trading?
LORD WARDINGTON: I do not think that the fact that the one is paid out of capital and the other out of income has really very much to do with the argument. I feel, myself, that the insurance of these goods owing to the war is very much on all fours with the insurance of property, and I cannot see why, in all fairness, house property should be specially favoured and not treated in the same way. I have another case where it seems to me to be quite inequitable to ask the mortgagee to bear the whole responsibility. Let us take the case of a limited company

783
formed for the purpose of dealing with properties. In its capital structure there are three classes of persons who have contributed to the erection of the buildings and their maintenance—the mortgagee, the preference shareholder, and the owner of the equity or ordinary shares. Why the mortgagee, of these three, should be expected to contribute and the preference shareholder, for instance, goes scot-free, I cannot see, in common sense, fairness, or anything else. It must not be assumed, as it sometimes is, that the borrower is generally poor and the lender rich, and that therefore the former should receive some special degree of compassion. Beneficiaries under a trust, the funds of which are invested in a legal mortgage of property, are often in dire need of their small incomes, and deserving of greater consideration than the mortgagor, who may be much better off than they are. It surely is not fair that their small incomes should be depleted by the deduction of the contribution to the relief of the mortgagor who, besides the property, has given his personal covenant, which is of value.
One further point seems to me worthy of mention. This Amendment leaves the holders of mortgages from third parties under liability to contribute. People are frequently kind enough to deposit their deeds and to pledge them to secure a loan for a friend, or to deposit their deeds in support of a guarantee for the same purpose. It cannot be regarded as fair to ask the mortgagees in that case to pay any of the contribution when it is quite uncertain they will have to resort to that particular security for the debt which the debtor will most likely discharge himself. If your Lordships think I am wrong, and that, on the contrary, you regard as equitable and common sense the suggestion that mortgagees should contribute, I confess I cannot find that ruling principle in the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount. Under it, liability to contribute will depend not upon any particular principle, or on the nature of the interest of the party concerned, but merely on the form in which the relevant document is drawn. No doubt it has been framed with the object of overcoming the administrative difficulty of making banking securities and security for temporary advances liable to contribute.
Although I greatly acknowledge this concession in favour of banking securities,
784
I wish to be quite unbiased in my mind, and I cannot find any ruling principle of fairness in this. Moreover, even from a bank's point of view, bank mortgages are very often legal hard-and-fast ones which would not be eliminated by the terms of this Amendment. It is perhaps difficult, if not impossible, to frame a Bill of this kind without hardship or unfairness to anyone, but it has been most carefully considered and most patiently debated, and on the whole it appears to me to be as fair as it can be made. I hope therefore it will stand as it is, and that your Lordships will not think it right to accept this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The argument in favour of this Amendment has been very powerfully and elaborately presented to the Committee, and the time has come when your Lordships generally would wish to know the view which is taken of it from this Bench. I shall try and state the arguments which I wish to present briefly, though the matter itself is complex and technical, and no doubt that makes it very difficult to deal adequately with the subject in a few words. The first consideration would ask your Lordships to weigh is this. This is a proposal greatly to extend Section 25 of the main Act—the War Damage Act, 1941, which became law in March of last year. The subject matter was discussed when the main Act was passing through the House of Commons. It was discussed, as your Lordships remember, in this House, and the clause was maintained without alteration by the majority of your Lordships.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: We did not vote on it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then it was maintained unanimously by this House! I quite agree that my noble and learned friend's Amendment was not available to the House of Commons. It is a most ingenious work of art which does him infinite credit, but the question was considerably debated in the House of Commons on this Bill, and the Bill comes up in the form in which we see it.
I have to say quite bluntly, on behalf of the Government, that our desire is that in this respect the Bill should stand as it is. As regards the merits of the Amendment, my noble and learned friend protested quite properly and naturally

785
that he was disinterested. I hope that in this matter we are all disinterested. I should think so. He pointed out that it is not a matter in which the Government have any concern in the sense that the Government have to find the money. The Government have no bias in the matter whatever. The Government have received a very great deal of advice and a great deal of consideration, and analyses have been devoted to this; subject for many months. The view of the Government is that in this admittedly imperfect world the Bill in this respect is about right. My noble friend may say he has devoted the whole of his life to the pursuit of justice. So also, I think, have others of us——
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I did not say all my life.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope most of it. At any rate he pointed out that he was deeply moved on this matter.
LORD STRABOLGI: He has sat on the Woolsack.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He was deeply moved on this subject, and feels about it no doubt most sincerely. So do other people. We really have to look at the thing without any prejudice on one side or the other, from the pure dictates of common sense to which my noble friend Lord Barnby referred. Indeed he said his view was that they were so powerful it was not necessary to go on speaking at all.
LORD BARNBY: I spoke mainly in support of my noble and learned friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly, I understand that. It does appear that even so sensible a man as Lord Wardington takes exactly the opposite view. I could understand it if this proposal of my noble and learned friend which is now before us really had the slightest justification to be the application of principle. Justice no doubt depends amongst other things on trying at least to observe good principles. He claimed in the course of his speech that the principle was that all who had an interest in land and buildings should contribute to this War Damage Contribution. That is a principle. Whether it is the right principle I will examine in a moment, and whether it could be practically applied,
786
I will also consider in a moment. But the first point is that my noble and learned friend's Amendment does not embody that principle at all. He is careful to say—and I quite understand the reason, because he remembers the last debate—that his Amendment is limited to legal mortgages. He commends them to your Lordships by describing such things as straight mortgages. That is an expression which I myself do not know, but I am not so familiar with the law of mortgages as he is.
Supposing a man borrows money by the deposit of the title deeds of his house. That, as I understand, is not a legal mortgage. Then, according to this Amendment, if he does that, there is no principle of justice that requires that the mortgagee, the lender of the money, should contribute anything at all. Why not? If the principle is that the man who lends money on mortgage ought to bear a portion of this contribution, what conceivable reason is there according to common sense that he should only do so if it was a legal mortgage? Exactly the same consequences in common sense ought to follow in the case of an equitable mortgage. The first thing which a Court of Equity, about which my noble and learned friend knows so much more than I do, does is to see that the man who has the equitable mortgage is not denied the rights he would have if he had a proper legal mortgage. There is no possible distinction in principle whatever on which you should take the one and leave out the other, except this. If my noble and learned friend was really to write down an Amendment which embodied this principle, it would at once be exposed as being completely impracticable.
Then my noble friend wishes to leave out bankers' charges or floating charges, or debentures. A very distinguished Chancery lawyer has declared before now that he did not know what debentures were. That is what Lord Lindley said. Why should certain things be left out if the principle is that in the matter of this contribution for war damage people who have advanced money on security must be expected to take their share and pay their whack? What conceivable difference can it make in principle or in common sense that the advance takes the form of debentures? Indeed the thing becomes perfectly fantastic. Suppose you

787
have two builders working side by side, one of whom receives the money for developing his estate by what my noble and learned friend calls a straight mortgage. Then in the sacred name of principle such a person must contribute. But supposing the builder happens to be a limited company and raises exactly the same sum of money by issuing debentures; then he has not to contribute at all. It surely is quite obvious to everybody who looks at this thing that, whatever may be the merits of this proposal, it has not the smallest claim to be regarded as an application of a principle.
There is a second difficulty which I must state with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend who has studied this subject and has presented it to your Lordships very persuasively. In this matter some regard must be had to practicability. The law is not always as technical as some people suppose, but if Acts of Parliament are so drafted, or are so amended, as to produce great complications, it is the fault of the Legislature. In this instance it would be the fault of the House of Lords; it is not the fault of the law or of the draftsman: Let us see what would be the result if we were to apply this principle. I think I remember on the last occasion that my noble friend Lord Wardington pointed out in reference to such things as floating charges or bank charges, or if you like bank loans, that you would at once get into a fearful complication because the particular loan which was charged on the house was also charged on a lot of other things as well. A man goes to his banker and says: "I want such-and-such a loan for the purpose of my business, will you lend me £2,000?" The banker says: "What security can you offer?" It is very likely, for it constantly happens, that he offers a collection of securities, he offers an insurance policy, he offers his reversion under somebody's will, amongst other things he may offer the title deeds of his house. You cannot determine what is the proper amount of this war risk contribution in respect of the house that should be borne by the mortgagee without going through the most elaborate valuation of all the items of the property. That is one of the reasons why my noble friend in his Amendment has endeavoured to exclude some of these cases, but as a result
788
he has completely sacrificed any principle there could be in the matter whatever.
Let me take practicability. If mortgagees are to bear a share of the contribution, elementary justice requires that the extent of the contributions which they are to pay should be related to the extent to which they are concerned in the preservation of the property—that is to say, to the relation between the amount of the mortgage deed on the one hand and, on the other hand, the value of the rest of the interests of the property mortgaged. Then, if a bank has got a legal mortgage on a particular property as well as a variety of other securities, which may be stocks and shares that are constantly changing their value, this Amendment would require that the authorities who were trying to work this scheme in order to find out how much the contribution should be from the mortgagee, will have to value all these items. I can only say that I have made inquiries about it from the War Damage Commission and that the persons responsible think that, as a matter of administrative machinery, this is a burden they are most unwilling even to contemplate.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will pardon me. I only want to understand the illustration. I confess I do not understand it at the moment. The banker may lend £10,000. He gets a mortgage on part of the property of the borrower for, say, a couple of thousand pounds: what is the difficulty?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have thought that it did make a difference whether the mortgagee was really depending on the particular hereditament which is at risk of being destroyed or on a whole series of other securities. I should have thought it quite unfair to call upon the mortgagee to make the same contributions in respect of a house on which he held a legal mortgage if that was the only security he had, so that it really did depend on the existence of the house, as in the case of a house which was a mere make-weight in a whole series of securities which had nothing to do with the house. That is the suggestion I make. I do not believe, and those who have examined this confirm me here, that it could be worked with reasonable convenience and facility. The plain fact is that in order to define the extent of the contribution to be paid by

789
mortgagees, it would be necessary for a valuation to be undertaken in every case of the value of the freehold or leasehold property that is mortgaged, and other securities which are held in many cases.
My noble friend has spoken as if the only thing mortgaged is the fee simple. There are plenty of cases of mortgages o f leaseholds. The complications which would arise, in the opinion of those who advise me, who have been working at this thing in the Department for many months, are such that they really cannot face them. It may be said: "You protest that the Amendment does not carry out any principle but does the Act as it stands embody a principle?" I admit at once that Section 25 may very well be regarded as an exception. I think myself that it is well justified, and well justified on this ground. I am not using the language of technicality, but I am endeavouring to use the language of common sense. A contribution is required under Section 25 from mortgagees who fall within that section on the ground that the mortgage transactions dealt with in that section really partake more of the nature of a joint adventure between the mortgagee and the borrower than of a transaction in which capital is advanced on security and in which the borrower is intended to take all the risks. Substantially it is the ordinary building society case. Anyone who has been on the outskirts of London where estates are being developed by building societies, will have noticed placards stating that a certain house is offered and may be bought at 18s. 6d. per week, or whatever it may be. That is, of course, only in a manner of speaking. Strictly speaking, no doubt the occupier is the person who has mortgaged the property through the building society, and I am quite free to admit that were we to proceed with pedantic precision we should apply the same rule here as elsewhere. But as a matter of reasonable adjustment, and with the acquiescence of the building societies, we have said that if it is a case of a man acquiring his small house as his own residence, not worth more than £150 a year, there shall be a contribution made in effect by the building society.
LORD BARNEY: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount if he could explain at this juncture the distinction between houses up to £150 annual value and dwellings in the nature of flats which
790
would be of the same rateable value, which would form in the aggregate a building which would be the property of a company, the owners of which would be all small shareholders?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend makes a perfectly good point, and I do not reproach him because he has not read every word of the Bill. If he will turn to page 22, at line 9 he will find paragraph 4 and immediately under that subparagraph (a). I think I may summarize that by saying that that is proposed to meet the exact point he makes. I think he was right up to this moment that if a builder built a series of small houses horizontally, the proviso to Section 25 (5) would come into play, but if he built them vertically it might not come into play. That is a perfectly good point, and it is dealt with in paragraph 4 (a). He will have the satisfaction of knowing that, whether building was horizontal or vertical, as long as there is a residence within the limits of value laid down for the two cases, the same law will apply.
What I was saying was that Section 25 is admittedly in the nature of a limited exception. It is an exception to which the building societies agreed. It is true that the small man engaged in acquiring his house is really in effect in a joint venture with the building society, but outside that you really come to the point which I think myself is conclusive here. I do not speak hotly, because I know great authorities take a different view. If you try and apply the principle that lenders of money on mortgages must share with the mortgagors, then this Amendment does apply, but nobody knows better than my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham, that if you applied it universally, you would get into a terrible confusion between equitable mortgages, floating charges, debentures and the rest of it. It is not the case that debentures are always issued by limited companies. There is a golf club which, finding itself short of money recently, raised money by issuing debentures to two or three of its more wealthy members. There is no sense in saying that you will not require a contribution if the lender is a debenture holder, but will require it if the lender is a mortgagee. That is a point of principle. The point of practicability is just as important. We must have a machine that will work. It is certainly not my wish to oppose my noble friend, but I assure him it is not a

791
practicable matter to enter upon an immense number of additional valuations which would have to be entered upon. It must be one of our objects to make this thing simple. At present it does not look too simple to judge from some of the Amendments I have moved this afternoon. I ask your Lordships to support the Government and not make the matter more complicated still.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I cannot say that I am surprised at the attitude my noble and learned friend has taken, because the Government have rather a reputation for not accepting any Amendments moved from outside and for administering, if not a reproof, at any rate something like a reproof to those who bother them to consider something which they have not themselves thought of. Let us see where we are. In the first place, the noble and learned Viscount addressed to us some very excellent observations with his usual skill in reference to this Amendment. He tried to show that it was not the application of a principle and that accordingly it ought to be disregarded. I was prepared to make some observations on the subject of Section 25. But I knew very well that my noble and learned friend would be clever enough to see that all the observations he had previously been making were, in effect, destroyed by the fact that the Bill contains the elaborate provisions of Section 25.
It is no good saying that you must never touch the rights of mortgagees by requiring any obligation from them when you have already done it, and the only apology for doing it that came from my noble and learned friend was that in the case of the particular mortgages there described there was a joint adventure between the mortgagor and the mortgagee. My answer is that there is, to an equal extent, a joint adventure between a mortgagor and a mortgagee in practically every case where a mortgage exists. The mortgagee is acquiring the property subject to the right of the mortgagor to redeem. The mortgagor is putting himself in the position that he may be thrown out if he is not able to pay the money. That is a real joint adventure of a kind, and it is just as much a joint adventure if the money is borrowed for the purpose of a mortgagor sending his boy to a
792
University as if he borrows for the purpose of improving his property and putting an extra building on to it.
The real truth, I submit, is that the whole of the argument of the Government against this Amendment is one which rests upon this false view that if you cannot do complete justice on a particular principle you ought not to do justice at all. The suggestion they make is that the Amendment rules out debentures and floating charges, that therefore you have to agree that it is not a universal yardstick for justice, and that, that being so, you ought not to go on and do what you can do. I know that half a loaf is better than no bread, and I know that in the case of emergency legislation in particular you cannot deal with every case, but I think that my noble friend Lord Wardington must have felt a little bit uneasy when he heard the Lord Chancellor explaining that debentures and debts due to debenture and floating charges and bankers and equitable charges and so forth could not be differentiated from the Amendment which I have placed before your Lordships.
I have here—and I could read them to your Lordships if it were not that I do not wish to delay you—two passages in which Lord Wardington showed that these were different cases to that of the ordinary mortgage. Of course he is right. There is a distinction between them—they are cases of different sorts. I am not denying for a moment that you can put before me the case of a debenture which is exactly the same as that of a legal mortgage in a special case, but I do submit—and I am well aware of this—that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 a debenture is a different sort of thing to a legal mortgage, it has different effects, a different commercial value and different commercial result. That is the reason why, very largely, my noble friend Lord Wardington on the last occasion complained that the suggestion would hurt debenture holders, and, in the same way, he pointed out that there was the very greatest objection to temporary loans on the security of deposits of title deeds. These again are different in their nature to such instruments as I am asking your Lordships to help me about here.
I submit that really the argument against the Amendment is no more than this. I agree that it is imperfect. Let, it be so. I agree that it does not touch

793
some things which may be very near the line. Nevertheless, if it is fair to the people who are going to have the benefit of the Amendment, if it should become law, is there any reason in the world why we should not do it? This seems to me rather like what the noble and learned Viscount said not long ago with regard to logic chopping. I am not here to defend logic. I am here to try to do justice to these people, and if there are a certain number of cases that will not be within my Amendment I am sorry, but I know very well, as your Lordships also know, that with emergency legislation of this kind you cannot have complete justice to everybody. You can only do the best you can with the material and in the time available to you. My noble and learned friend asks, what is the matter with an equitable mortgage and why is not that included? I agree that there may be certain equitable mortgages that are only in form different to legal mortgages, but these are not normally cases of equitable mortgages. I am leaving them out because I want to cover the real genuine case where a mortgagee is deeply interested in the property in question because he has a legal interest in it, the case of a mortgagee who is entitled to foreclose, who is entitled to possession subject to leave of the Court, and to sell subject to giving a certain notice.
These cases, I venture to think, are obviously cases in which the mortgagee is deeply interested in the property, and, as indeed in normal cases, is far more interested in the matter of stake than the mortgagor himself. What is my noble friend's answer to that? I have listened with great attention and I have not noticed that any answer has been given to that at all. It is true that he says that the suggestion contained in the Amendment is not a practicable suggestion. That rested upon some advice that was given to him by somebody, we know not whom, and I do not understand why in the least it is not practicable. I do not follow his point about a banker having a legal mortgage. If a banker is, making an advance to a particular individual, say, an advance of £10,000, on the security of his land and his stocks, that is a normal case which any ordinary banker would have to deal with daily. In the ordinary way he could take a bankers' charge for that to cover the whole lot, and it would be generally for a fluctuating account with
794
an interest varying according to the bank rate.
That is the normal case. The noble and learned Viscount says to me—and it is true—that the bank may have a legal mortgage. Of course it may, but what docs it do in that case? I am taking the normal case, not an exceptional case. The bank, let us say, is lending £10,000 on the security of land and buildings and of certain stocks, and it wants a legal mortgage. It does not take a legal mortgage in any form except the ordinary form, at any rate in nine cases out of ten. I have seen plenty of these things when I was younger and a member of the Chancery Bar. In such cases, the bank would take a floating charge in the sense of a bankers' charge on the bankers' terms on the ordinary property, and take a legal mortgage for a specific sum with, as in any legal mortgage, a covenant to repay in six months, which is the ordinary term, and with the proviso for redemption, and all the rest of it; and the amount secured would be the amount which the bank considered was sufficiently secured by the property. The bank would not put in £10,000 if the property was worth only £2,000, because the amount would affect the stamps, and bankers do not throw money into the sea on stamps, any more than other people. The bank would therefore get the ordinary banker's charge on stocks and, if they wished it, take a legal mortgage for the value of the property, which might be anything you like up to a few thousand pounds.
What is the difficulty, if that is the case, in dealing with the Amendment before the Committee? There is no question of any valuation at all. This would be a case where the bank receives a mortgage in the ordinary form, or to use the words of the Amendment, a mortgage "for securing money or money's worth which vests a legal estate in the mortgagee," and that would be the bank. The bank would therefore have all the rights of a legal mortgagee. If I take it that the mortgage is for £2,000, a specific mortgage on property, that mortgage would be dealt with for the purposes of contribution in precisely the same way as a mortgage for £100 or £1,000 granted to someone who builds his property with the money or who, alternatively, after he has built his property borrows money on it for some proper purpose. I cannot

795
help thinking, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Viscount, that this notion about the impracticability of this Amendment is really based on some misconception either of what the Amendment does or of what the real facts are.
I do not like to take up the time of the Committee any longer. I have dealt substantially, I hope, with the answers which have been made to me. But I ought to refer to the argument of my noble friend Lord Wardington, that people may mortgage properties for the benefit of third parties. That is a true observation. It is one of those rare cases which may sometimes occur; but, if I purport to mortgage my property for the purpose of
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph 11, to leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:
"(2) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the said sub-paragraph (1) has effect—

(a) in relation to a tenancy under which no rent is reserved, as if a rent were reserved under the tenancy bearing to the value of the land comprised therein a proportion of less than one quarter;

(b) in relation to a tenancy under which the rent reserved is not a money rent, as if the reference to the rent or the annual equivalent thereof were a reference to the money value of the rent or the annual equivalent thereof."

The noble and learned Viscount said: Sub-paragraph (2) is for the avoidance of doubt, but after it was produced there seemed to be some doubt as to whether it avoided the doubt, so here is the substitute
an advance of £1,000 to me, and hand the money over to a third party, I ought to pay my share of the annual contribution like anybody else, and I would get it from the person whom I was obliging. I can see no injustice there. It is a very rare case, but where it does occur it does not seem to me that it leads to any injustice. I am afraid that, with the very greatest respect, I am unable to accept the views of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, and I ask the Committee to deal with the matter on a Division.
On Question, Whether the proposed new paragraph shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 5; Not-Contents, 34.
formula, which is said to avoid the doubt better. I hope it will.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY moved, in paragraph 12, immediately before the proviso, to insert:
"Except in any case where the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have allowed the discharge of such liability to be deferred by reason of the fact that a payment in respect of expenditure on the making good of wax damage to property has accrued or is accruing but has not been discharged."
The noble Lord said: I drew attention to this point on the Second Reading, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount may see his way to give some concession on the matter. Where a ground landlord

797
and the owner of a lease puts up a building and there is a ground rent, it would seem only reasonable that, in the event of damage being done by enemy action and the payment being deferred, the lessor should be able to recover from the ground landlord before the quittance has been received for the payment for the damage to the building.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 32, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Barnby.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: An Amendment to similar effect was, I believe, proposed in another place, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then explained that the Government could not accept it. It really is a necessary principle that the direct contributor should make his contribution first. If the direct contributor is able to recover from the indirect contributor before he has paid, there is no security as to what the direct contributor is going to do with the money. Moreover, if the indirect contributor had paid, but the Revenue had not received anything, the result might very likely be that the Revenue would deduct the contribution, and in effect, therefore, the deduction would be suffered twice. The thing will not fit in with the Bill. I am sorry therefore that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD BARNBY: I still hope that the noble and learned Viscount may be able to review the situation between now and the later stages of the Bill. I should like to point out that the reasons advanced in another place in opposition to this Amendment have since been dealt with rather at length from different sources, and there seems no reason why some such modification should not be made. But, while I am quite satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of my noble and learned friend, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Amendments in Part II (Goods)]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the Schedule:
"7. Application of s. 88.
The provisions of Section eighty-eight (which relate to amendments by Defence
798
Regulations) shall apply to amendments of this Schedule as they apply to amendments of Part II of the principal Act."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I ask the Committee to insert this Amendment, and your Lordships may be glad to know, even at this late hour, that a consolidated Bill, which brings the whole of the provisions together, I hope in a more intelligible form, has been promised. It is necessary to make this Amendment in order that this consolidated Bill may be drawn up.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 35, at end insert the said new paragraph.—[The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

Consequential Amendments.

Provision of principal Act amended.

Amendment.

Provision of this Act on which amendment consequential.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first Amendment to this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 30, after ("therein") insert ("or of a rentcharge charged thereon").—[The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 23, at end, insert—

("Section seven, subsection (3), paragraph (c).

After "hereditament" insert "and of rentcharges (if any) to which it is subject."

First Schedule, paragraph 5.")

—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 49, at end insert—

("Section nine, sub-section (5).

After "proprietary interests in the hereditament" insert "and of rent-charges (if any) to which it is subject".

First Schedule, paragraph 5.")

—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 37, at end, insert—

("Section thirty-three, sub-section (2).

For "immediately before the occurrence of the war damage" substitute "at the date by reference to which the disposal of the value payment is to be regulated"

First Schedule, paragraph 6.")

—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Schedule 4, page 30, line 36, at end, insert—

("Section forty-five

In subsection (1), after "proprietary-interest" insert "or rentcharge", after "under-lease" insert "or a rent-charge being an equitable interest", and at the end insert "or the legal estate in respect of the rentcharge, as the case may be"; in subsection (2), for "to the legal term" substitute "thereto", and after "proprietary interest" insert "or rentcharge"; and in subsection (3) after "proprietary-interest" insert "or rentcharge".

First Schedule, paragraph 5.

Section forty-six

In subsection (1), for "a proprietary" in both places where those words occur substitute "an", and the words "Sections nine and fifteen of" shall be omitted.

First Schedule, paragraph 5.")

—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 40, at end, insert—

("Section ninety-six

After subsection (9) insert— "(9A) For any reference to a rentcharge there shall be substituted a reference to a feuduty and to a ground annual and any reference to the owner of a rent-charge shall be construed accordingly ".

First Schedule, paragrap 6.

Section ninety-six

After subsection (10) insert—
"(10a) Subsection (5) of Section three shall have effect as if for the words "any other incumbrance" there were inserted the words "any ground annual or other incumbrance and any liability to pay feuduty ".

First Schedule, paragraph 6."

—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 55, at end, insert—

("Second Schedule, paragraph 1.

After "pounds" insert "or, in the case of a payment to the owner of a rent-charge the amount whereof does not exceed twenty-five pounds per annum ".

First Schedule, paragraph 5."

—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 34, column 2, at the beginning, insert ("After 'proprietary interests' insert 'or any rentcharge,' and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The last Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 35, column 3, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs 5 and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PENSIONS (MERCANTILE MARINE) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that the Bill be now passed.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MARCHWOOD: My Lords, it is not customary, I know, to make a speech at this stage, but I wish to say how very much satisfaction this Bill will give to the Merchant Navy, and also to thank my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for the great trouble he cook in making sure of the wording so that the eligibility to compensation would be in no doubt in the case of men affected by tuberculosis. I shall not detain the House after the long discussion we have had on another measure, but I do express indebtedness to your Lordships generally for the spirit in which the points we put were accepted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend. I recognize that, as the Bill was first drawn, it gave rise to doubts, and it was much to be desired that these doubts should be removed. After two efforts they were removed, I believe to the general satisfaction.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

SUBSIDIZED FOODSTUFFS.
LORD O' HAGAN: My Lords. I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government to give an up-to-date list of foodstuffs which are subsidized by the Government
802
and in each case the amount of the subsidy.]
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, the list of foodstuffs which are being subsidized through my Department, and the amount of the subsidy in each case, vary constantly. In these circumstances, the most useful information which I can give my noble friend is based on the last quarter of the last financial year. During the period 1st January to 31st March, 1942, the cost of food subsidies, including freight and marine war risk insurance, was at the rate of £127,000,000 per annum after allowing for the profits (approximately £10,000,000) realized on certain commodities which are not subsidized. The principal foodstuffs which were subsidized during this period, and the annual rate of subsidy in each case, were as follows:—Flour, bread, oatmeal, and animal, feeding stuffs, £40,000,000; meat, £23,000,000 (of which approximately 25 per cent. was in respect of the pre-war cattle subsidy); potatoes, £20,000,000; sugar, £13,000,000 (of which approximately 50 per cent. was the beet sugar subsidy); milk, £2,000,000; National Milk and other milk schemes, £18,000,000; eggs, £11,000,000; tea, £3,000,000; milk products, bacon and ham, carrots, and various small items, £7,000,000. This policy has largely contributed to stabilizing the cost of living.
LORD O'HAGAN: I thank my noble friend for his reply.

CAPTURED ARMS AND EQUIPMENT.
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether better facilities than exist at present can be given to managing directors of firms employed on Government work and other responsible persons concerned, to enable them to view arms and equipment captured from the enemy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can explain in a very few minutes the purport of the question I have on the Paper. It is a question that suggests that facilities might be given to engineers and others engaged on Government work to examine arms and equipment captured from the enemy. I am well aware that such

803
facilities already exist, but I do not think that the present arrangements are as good as they might be, and I am quite sure they are not so good as those which existed in the last war. Then it was a comparatively easy matter to get an order to examine captured machines, which were assembled at a central depot conveniently situated in London. Passes were issued from an office in Kingsway. There was little difficulty in obtaining them, and no limit was placed on the number of representatives of any one firm desirous of examining such machines. To-day, if you apply to the Ministry of Production, this is the kind of answer you receive: "Information as to enemy practice is readily made available to contractors engaged on corresponding work in this country provided application is made through the proper channels." In the case of aircraft the application has to be made through the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, who make the necessary arrangements with the Royal Air Force establishment concerned, which I may say is situated in the country.
I have learnt something of these matters from the managing director of a large firm which supplies appliances that are indispensable to all aeroplane engines, all tank engines, motor cars, and motor cycles that are used in Libya. They are also fitted to all planes operating in this country to-day. This gentleman, who is himself a member of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors and who is, as your Lordships may imagine, not unknown in the armament world, reckons that it takes him about a week to get the necessary permission. If it takes him as long as that, it is reasonable to suppose it would take longer in the case of an unknown engineer who is not a member of this society. One suggestion I have to make is that this process might somehow be speeded up. I would also suggest that it should be quite possible to grant permanent passes to heads of firms employed on Government war work, or to their accredited representatives, for the purpose of viewing these enemy machines. In the last war, as I have said, there was a depot situated in London. No doubt there are excellent reasons why the depot or depots—because there are more than one—should be situated in the country, but I assume we have many of these machines captured from the enemy in
804
this country, and I make the further suggestion that it might be possible to place a subsidiary depot in London and another in the North of England where these machines could be inspected.
At Cairo, I am told, it is the case today that there is a regular war museum of captured tanks, etc. I would like to say here that I hope that some of these are shipped home promptly so that experts at home may have an opportunity of examining them, and especially I would say that this should refer to the tanks and guns used by the Germans in Libya. The manufacturer to whom I have just referred heard by accident that the appliances in which he is interested were to be seen with captured aircraft at a Royal Air Force establishment. The Germans and Italians have copied our designs in this matter, and naturally it is of interest to him to see exactly how they have done it, and whether they have improved on our designs. I submit that things of this kind ought not to be left to chance. As a general rule firms that are concerned, with this work should be notified when some machine in which a manufacturer is directly interested has arrived from Egypt or from some other theatre of war. I say advisedly "as a general rule," because it may be the case that with a new type of machine Government designers and experts want the first opportunity of examining it, or in the case of a new type of machine that may have been captured it may be that the War Department concerned does not wish the enemy to know anything about the fact. But subject to these exceptions, I suggest that the firms concerned ought to be notified.
I make these suggestions with diffidence because I have no expert knowledge of these matters, but I hope that possibly they may be considered by the Government Departments concerned. I may say that had my noble friend Lord Hankey been present he would have spoken in support of my proposals. I would remind your Lordships that Lord Hankey has only lately given up the post of Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee and of the Enginering Advisory Committee, so that he speaks with considerable "authority on these points. I would just add that it does seem to me that if these facilities can be more readily granted than they are to-day it is quite

805
possible that an engineer who is quite unknown to-day may devise improvements on German and Italian armaments or may hit on an invention that would be of real use to our war effort. I beg to move.
THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING (LORD PORTAL): My Lords, in answering the Motion of my noble friend Lord Denman, in which he suggests that improved facilities should be given to managing directors of firms employed on Government work and other responsible persons to enable them to view captured arms and equipment, I would point out that, as your Lordships will realize, this subject really concerns three Government Departments, the Admiralty, the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Ministry of Supply. I have been in consultation with the three Departments, with one of which I was associated for four or five months, and in all cases I have discussed it with the Minister concerned. I think the best thing, as my noble friends will agree, is to say what is being done and then see what more, if possible, might be done.
In the case of the Admiralty it is the regular practice to make use of, and to impart to firms, information about design, technique and manufacturing processes which may be gained from the examination of captured enemy equipment, and no difficulties are placed in the way of firms obtaining this information when it is in the national interest that they should have it. National interest is a point which the noble Lord made, and in some cases it may not be in the national interest to do as he suggests. It is quite impossible to lay down any general rule on this matter because there are cases in which it is in the highest degree: necessary that we should not disclose to persons who are not immediately concerned the state of our knowledge of enemy weapons or equipment. It must therefore be left to the appropriate Department to decide when it is, or is not, in the national interest that facilities should be given for the examination of captured enemy equipment.
As regards aircraft production, I have discussed this point with the Minister of that Department. He tells me that whenever an aeroplane or valuable piece of equipment comes into their hands in this country, they invite the chief designers of leading fighter, bomber or air-cooled
806
engine firms to examine the aircraft. If the aircraft is undamaged test pilots are invited to fly it. They also give full facilities to the technical Press to view captured aircraft and to describe them in technical periodicals. The Minister of Aircraft Production knows of no complaint that facilities to aircraft firms to view captured material are inadequate.
As regards the Ministry of Supply, they have a staff of tank and weapon specialists who are under the command of the Commander-in-Chief Middle East, and transmit any information on technical matters to the Departments concerned at the War Office and Ministry of Supply. Specimens of all captured weapons are sent back from the Middle East to the War Office, which provides the Ministry with its requirements for inspecting and testing them. Recently captured tanks have been brought back, examined and careful reports prepared by tank-producing firms. I myself have seen these reports and I can assure your Lordships that they are most thorough in every detail. Complete drawings have been prepared by manufacturing specialists doing similar work in this country and are embodied in a final report which has been circulated to all concerned. I was looking at the latest reports to-day upon the tanks that have come back. There were complete descriptions and analyses and photographs of turrets and armaments, brakes, gear boxes and cooling systems of the tanks. I think they were extremely well done and very elaborate in their details.
I would like to point out to your Lordships some difficulties. I do not wish to make any excuse, but there is a world of difference between this war and the last. In the last war we were fighting mostly in France, which is quite close to us, and it was much easier to send weapons over to this country than it is to do so at the present time when the fighting is being done a long way off in the East. But that is being attended to I think in the best way possible. As to the remarks and suggestions of my noble friend Lord Denman on the question of increasing the facilities he indicated, I would like to say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that I shall bring them to the consideration of the three Ministries concerned, bearing in mind what he said as to what happened in the last war, and I hope that will prove satisfactory to him.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his reply. I do not want to continue the discussion and ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PRODUCER GAS.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name:
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government' whether in view of the increasing needs to save shipping space, and the possibilities of so doing through substitution of producer gas driven road vehicles, to which attention has been drawn by debates in Parliament, information can now be given as to long-range plans for location and distribution of necessary substitute fuels.]
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the necessity for relating the supply and distribution of fuel to the conversion of vehicles, and as part of the plans for this purpose the total present output of suitable anthracite, surplus to present producer gas demands, is being taken into stock by operating companies. Further development beyond the 10,000 of which I informed your Lordships on April 28, must largely depend on widening the range of suitable fuels, research experiments and tests to secure this are being energetically pursued.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I with the indulgence of the House, ask the noble Lord in regard to the location of these fuels. In his reply he stated that suitable types of one kind of fuel were being taken into stock by operating companies. I put my question with the object of obtaining an indication of the policy of the Government in regard to a longer range distribution of fuel that would be needed throughout the country. The answer which the noble Lord has been good enough to give me suggests that those plans are not yet developed.
LORD LEATHERS: So far as fuel is concerned for the 10,000 vehicles that are being converted, the supplies will be made available at those points in the
808
country where the vehicles will be run for the selected business that has been taken for those concerned. It is not easy to describe it in any other words because these points are about to be determined. As your Lordships know, we have had to be very selective in the vehicles and the trades, and when they have been finally determined we will finally determine the precise points and road's where this service of fuel will be maintained. As regards further developments, my immediate difficulty is that I cannot see any additional anthracite being made available beyond that needed for the 10,000 vehicles that are now being catered for. We know there will be a need to consider the increased development of producer-gas vehicles, and it will require very close intensive study to find out how we are going to secure anthracite or other fuel which will be necessary properly and effectively to carry out this work. Intensive study and experiment will be needed to get increased output and I will do my best to ensure that it shall be available.

ARMED FORCES: LEGAL ADVICE.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to introduce a scheme for giving free legal advice and aid to members of the Armed Forces of the Crown. The noble Lord said: My Lords, since my question was put on the Paper I have received through the courtesy of the Secretary to the War Office a copy of the A.C.I, dealing with this matter so far as the War Office is concerned. I wish to say only a few words on the subject. This Army reform dates back to the last war when there was an agitation for free legal advice because of conscription. Men coming into the Army who had had this advantage in civil life expected it in the Army. When I was at Cologne we tried unofficial methods which proved very successful in difficult cases, particularly matrimonial cases involving relations with German families. The War Office did not carry on the system, although pressed to do so, but voluntary societies have given help during this war. I know many cases where officers who have legal experience and are now commanding units give free advice to men to the great advantage of those men.
I think we in the Army certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for the sympathy he has shown those who have tried to get this very necessary reform. There are two things in the A.C.I which I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to expound. I cannot understand why you should stop at the rank of sergeant in giving advice. It seems to me a sort of means test to determine whether a man should receive free legal advice or help in the case of litigation. Why stop at the rank of sergeant? I know of many cases of young officers whose financial position makes them in greater need than sergeant:; or sergeant-majors of free advice in legal matters and assistance in litigation if that follows. I think that is a point that might be considered with a view to amendment. Then there is the position of Scottish soldiers. They travel all over the world and unless some special arrangements are made for them, it may be that they will not find in a particular area advisers with sufficient experience of Scots law. I am very grateful that such a reform should have been brought in and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to clear up the small points I have raised.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity provided by the question of my noble friend to make a short statement on this important matter. In time of war, when the serving soldier is likely to be away from home and cannot leave his duty to attend to his own affairs, it seems to the Government, and I think it seems to all of us, of great importance to devise some adequate scheme to help him—or it may be to help her if she is a member of the Women's Auxiliary Services in connexion with the Army—in cases where he or she needs legal advice about his or her private affairs. If he gets into trouble—and in what I am saying the masculine includes the feminine—with the military authorities, that of course is; dealt with under the Military Code and his interests are already protected. Similarly if criminal proceedings are taken against him in the ordinary criminal courts the Poor Persons Defence Act, 1930, applies. But it must be very worrying to a serving soldier when at a distance from home not to know what to do about some civil difficulty such as the rent of his house or the claims of a building society or a hirepurchase
810
contract or the complaint of a neighbour reported to him by his wife.
We have had in this country for a long time past an organization for helping poor people with legal advice and assistance, an institution known as the poor man's lawyer. It was originally started, I think, in settlements like Toynbee Hall, and I know that I myself gave a little help there a generation ago. Advice is provided gratuitously by such organizations for those who need it. Here I would make an observation which I am sure will appeal to your Lordships. It is even more important to advise individuals, whether rich or poor, how their troubles can be adjusted without going to law than it is to leave the Law Courts to deal with them. There is also a poor persons litigation scheme established many years ago, and since then much developed, which has been organized between the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Bar and the Law Society—the Society representing solicitors—under which, when litigation cannot be avoided, poor persons may get the services of solicitor and barrister gratuitously.
I would like to take the opportunity of saying what I think your Lordships will confirm, that we are grateful to those professional men who most generously and whole-heartedly give the best of their professional services and time without fee or reward when needed in cases of that sort. Thousands of divorce cases and a considerable number of other cases in the High Courts are dealt with under this beneficent system. Under this system barristers and solicitors make the contribution of their services free. The State from public funds—one of the Lord Chancellor's not very extensive financial responsibilities—provides a remission of Court fees and a subsidy to the offices of the Poor Persons Committees throughout the country. That really was our peacetime system for ordinary people. But those are peace-time systems and, though they are very useful so far as they go, they are not sufficient for the needs of the serving soldier to-day.
I wish to acknowledge the good work which has been done under this head by some officers who have been charged with welfare work in the Army. I do not at all overlook the value of the welfare schemes that were set on foot, I think, early in the war. But in the view of the Army Council there is more that is

811
required to put this whole matter on a proper footing, and, as my noble friend has said, the Army Council has now issued this red book, in conjunction with an Army Council Instruction on the 4th July, which does represent the result of a great deal of discussion betwen the War Office and my Department. My noble friend said something about the limits within which the scheme applies. I will say a word about that. I think it must be clear that the rules which limit free assistance in litigation to those below a particular income limit must depend on the application of some test of means. I do not consider that these rules are suitable in the condition of Army service. You do not want to have an inquiry of that sort unnecessarily. A far better standard in many cases, I think, is rank, and the new scheme provides for both advice and assistance for soldiers up to and including the rank of sergeant.
I will say a word about that and as to whether we can go further in a moment. The only qualification is that an individual sending in an application should say that he has not sufficient private resources to enable him to employ a solicitor. That is not at all a means test, and I have no intention that there should be a means test. It does not involve any elaborate inquiry or test, but after all, it would be absurd to provide a scheme of this sort for use in the case of men of wealth who are serving—as men of wealth did in the last war—in the ranks. My noble friend has raised a most important point as to whether the rank limit could not be raised. He points out that a young subaltern in many cases may be as much in need of this sort of help and as awkwardly placed when it comes to paying for it as a man in the ranks. I appreciate the point, but I thought myself that it was important to get the scheme on foot and working. I have no authority to make a statement on the part of the War Office as to any extension of it. But I am sure that what has been said by my noble friend, and what is probably approved by every noble and gallant Lord in the House, will receive very full and careful consideration.
Now how is the scheme to work? The Army Council has arranged that in each Command there will be officers whose peace-time experience qualifies them to
812
give the best legal advice. For this purpose there has been established in each Command a Command Legal Aid (Civil Affairs) Section. That is an official organization and the staff of this Section will consist of officers who from their peace-time avocations are qualified solicitors or barristers or men who otherwise have experience in legal affairs. So much for advice in the Commands. There will also be in units and in formation headquarters Legal Advice Bureaux where barristers and solicitors serving in the Forces will give voluntary advice and help, and where, if necessary, civilian lawyers living in the neighbourhood will attend to supplement their labours. I attach great importance to this scheme whereby we are going to get help from skilled civilian lawyers who will come in and lend their services.
The main functions both of the officers in the Command Legal Aid Sections and the Legal Advice Bureaux, and particularly in the latter, will be advisory. That will not necessarily be in regard to litigation. They will advise people as to how they should proceed and what are their rights; and where the subject matter is likely to result in litigation in the High Court the officers will refer the papers to the local Poor Persons Committee or the Poor Persons Committee of the Law Society in London. The Law Society have throughout co-operated most loyally in the working out of this scheme and they have set up a special department of the Poor Persons Committee to deal with Service cases. This department will handle by far the largest proportion of Service matrimonial cases. That is not unimportant. Although the officers of the Command Legal Aid Sections will not themselves undertake litigation they will act as liaison between the Services Divorce Department or local Poor Persons Committee and the soldier. For instance, they will assist the Services Divorce Department in getting statements from the applicant and any necessary witnesses. Take a simple example. If, unhappily, a soldier acting under the advice of the Poor Persons Divorce Department decides to bring matrimonial proceedings, it is necessary that a statement should be got from the man himself who is actually serving—it may be in some part of this country or outside—and that statement must be furnished to those who are going to look after his interests

813
in the Court. The officers of the Command Legal Aid Sections will be in a position to obtain the statement and forward it to the Services Divorce Department.
Such is the general outline of the scheme. I cannot doubt any more than does my noble: friend that it is capable of conferring great advantages on the serving soldier. Such a scheme may provoke criticism. If you will only look through this little red book I am sure you will find that plenty of questions will arise in your minds on certain points. It may well be that some people may find it much easier to hit upon its imperfections than to appreciate its great value. But I am quite sure that the most important thing is to establish the scheme and set it working. When we have set it working, then we shall see whether or not it requires correction or improvement in one direction or another. Undoubtedly the serving soldier has been admirably helped in many ways by welfare officers, but at this moment there is no officially organized adequate assistance available to him, if he is a poor man, should certain legal difficulties assail him arising from his private life. This scheme, I hope and believe, is going to do a great deal to improve that situation. I venture to commend it to the House not only because it is calculated to promote the interests of justice—end we all want to do that—but because the morale of the fighting soldier will be strengthened by the knowledge that we in Parliament and in Government Departments are doing this much to help him in his difficulties.
There is only one other matter which I must mention. Although the scheme which I have just described, and which is in this little red book, applies only to the Army, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Air proposes to apply the scheme to the Air Force as soon as the appropriate arrangements can be made. Any question of the application of the scheme to the Navy is much more difficult, but I understand that the matter is being considered by the Admiralty. I have described this matter in some detail, because it is really one which affects vast numbers of people outside this House and which is, I am sure, of the greatest interest to your Lordships. I wish to make it quite plain that I am not overlooking or neglecting the
814
valuable services which have been rendered already under the welfare scheme; but it is the view of the Army Council and of my Department that it is possible, under this new scheme, greatly to enlarge and improve the organization of that assistance, and to bring in, I am proud to say, large numbers of members of the profession of the law, not only those who are serving in the Army but those who, on account of age or for other reasons, are still attending to their legal business, and who will come forward to give their full assistance, without fee or reward, for the purpose of making the soldier's life one such as we should wish to make it, in view of all his contribution to our defence and to the solution of our difficulties.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House and, when they come to know it, the Forces, will appreciate the great importance of this matter, and I should like to thank the noble Lord opposite for giving the noble and learned Lord Chancellor the opportunity of making this statement. I would wish the noble and learned Viscount to understand that, if I have criticisms to make, I am not in any way depreciating the immense value which may arise, and which we hope will arise, from this scheme for the members of the Forces who will benefit by it. It is not altogether new, as we have been told. I well remember the operation of it in the last war, and I know, too, that in this war the Welfare Department of the Army have dealt with many thousands of cases. I think that it is fair to say that so much did their work increase that a memorandum from them had something to do with the initiation of this wider scheme.
There are, however, certain questions which I should like the noble and learned Lord Chancellor to take account of with his Department. First of all, has this paper been issued formally or not? Is it at the present time, that is to say, an instruction to the Commands? I hope, for reasons which I shall mention, that it is not, although I want the scheme to go forward. Then I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount to tell us why criminal offences are excluded from this scheme of advice. I am not a lawyer myself, and therefore I recognize that I may be treading on somewhat thin ice; but I cannot imagine why criminal offences are excluded. I should like to

815
thank the noble and learned Viscount for his courtesy in supplying me in advance with a copy of this booklet, together with a memorandum, which was very helpful to me and to my friends. So far as the first page of the booklet is concerned, matters affecting the status of the soldier, such as Courts Martial, pay, allowances and so on, are dealt with by Military Courts, but why should the soldier be excluded from any advice and assistance if the charge is a criminal one? He may be an innocent person, and I can see no reason for limiting the benefit in that way.
On page 7 there is another limitation which I should be glad if the noble and learned Viscount could explain, with regard to matrimonial cases. It states:
"The section will satisfy itself that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the scheme, that he has a prima facie case and that he is not debarred by his own conduct from seeking relief."
That is an instruction to the Commands. What do the words "seeking relief" mean? I gather that if a man were cited as a respondent he would not be a person seeking relief, and therefore he would not be entitled to be helped. I may be quite wrong, and I expect that I am, but, if I am, the position should be made plain.
I now come to something much more serious—namely, to two important objections. The points I have raised so far have been questions which, as an amateur, I ask to obtain further information, but I come now to two very serious objections. I cannot for the life of me see why this scheme is limited to men of the rank of sergeant and under. I should like the support of the noble Lord opposite on this. There are thousands of young men in the commissioned ranks who may not be in the least better off than many privates and sergeants. They have given up their businesses, they may have young wives and a child or children, and they may have almost nothing but their pay to live on. There are thousands of them. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount, speaking for the whole Party which I represent, that we take the strongest possible exception to that limitation of the scheme. The scheme ought to be made available to anybody in the King's uniform because he is in the King's uniform. I notice that the noble
816
and learned Viscount expressed in advance his readiness to consider this objection, but it is a very serious objection, and I hope that this limitation will be removed before this leaflet is issued in an authoritative way.
This limitation seems to have been invented—I use the word "invented" deliberately—in order to get round the rules of the Supreme Court, which define what is a "poor person." It seems to have occurred to somebody that the expression "poor person" could be done away with by limiting this scheme to noncommissioned officers and privates. It is an invention which may have occurred to someone, but it has no relation whatever to the realities of life, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will ask his colleagues to think again about it.
There is another very serious objection which I have to raise. I cannot accept the explanation which the noble and learned Viscount gave us with regard to the means test in this scheme. He tells us that the applicant has to assure the persons concerned that he is not able himself to pay the lawyers' and other fees. On page 3 of the booklet, however, we find this:
"Every soldier applying for advice must, before being advised, sign a certificate on Form ' A '."
Form "A" is on the lines of which we have been told. It says:
"I have not sufficient private resources to enable me to employ a solicitor."
That, however, is not all. The adviser at the bureau must satisfy himself that the applicant has not sufficient private resources to enable him to pay his own lawyer, and it goes on to say:
"In assessing whether an applicant has not sufficient private resources to enable him to pay his own lawyer, the adviser will inquire from the applicant what his resources are and will apply roughly as a test the standard laid down in the Poor Persons' Rules (as amended) or their Scottish equivalent."
I leave the "Scottish equivalent" to the noble Lord opposite, but the Poor Persons Rules provide an income limit of £2 a week, or in exceptional cases £4, or a capital sum amounting to £50 or £100. However, the adviser has to inquire from the applicant what his resources are.
We object absolutely to this inquisition into the man's private means. It opens the door to all kinds of odious proceedings, and it ought not to be. I do not care what

817
the man's rank is—he is serving his country and doing his best. If he gets into trouble, and it is thought desirable—as it is—that this kind of service should be available to a man in the King's uniform, men he should not be exposed to this private inquiry into his savings and family circumstances. It may be thought that the Labour Party has got a bee in its bonnet about the means test. You can say that if you like—we object to it on principle. The Party which I represent will never agree to this. Not that I want to deprive lawyers of their proper remuneration—not at all, they are entitled to be paid, like other professional men, and they ought to be paid properly. If it is desirable—and I am sure it is—to make these facilities available for men, scattered as they are, and away from their homes and exposed to all kinds of difficulties, then we ought to be able to pay for it as self-respecting citizens, and have done with it. I do not want to be dependent upon charity. Pay the fee, if it is required to be paid, to some competent person to deal with the case.
I entreat the Lord Chancellor to convey to his colleagues our vehement objection to the private inquisition which may lie behind these words, and which we consider to be thoroughly objectionable. I do hope that he will get them withdrawn, and that we shall not start this thing with this odious—it really is odious—condition attached to it. It will lead to all kinds of unfortunate inquiries which ought not to be made, and it will prejudice the plan very much. As a matter of fact, I believe that this paper has not yet gone out to the Commands, and that gives us an opportunity. I am sorry to strike what seems to be a jarring note. It is not out of any lack of appreciation of the need of the scheme; but to these two points, the limitation of benefit to persons of the rank of sergeant or under and the means test as applied to every man in the British Army who happens to get into difficulties, we take the strongest possible exception. I entreat the noble and learned Viscount to get this amended.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I wish to join with previous speakers in thanking the Lord Chancellor for—as he is constantly doing—giving his own careful thought to this problem, and I welcome the regulations proposed. I have not yet had a copy of the A.C.I., or
818
"Army Council Instructions," as I should prefer to call the book—these short initials are absolutely baffling to the ordinary man. Call it the "Army Council Instructions," and be done with it. I hope that the Army Council, and the Air Council too, will continue to employ welfare officers and to encourage those officers to be acquainted with the elements of the law because, as I know after two and a half years' experience of the war, it is an immense comfort to the men when the welfare officer can go and say, "You need not worry about that particular thing"—as in the case the Lord Chancellor quoted, when the man entered into a contract for hire purchase. The welfare officer says, "This will easily be adjusted," and the man goes about his business with his fears removed. Also the welfare officer can utter a word of warning, and that is extremely valuable. I hear that from all ranks of the Army, so I hope they will continue the welfare work.
But this goes further, and is very much needed. When the danger point comes and you have to go to law, I am sure this machinery will be of value, and on the whole I dare say it is very well advised. As for the limitation to the rank of sergeant and under, I go the whole way both with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison, and with Lord Addison. I think that is a mistake on the part of the Army Council, due to the fact that they are accustomed to draft orders, when they say, ''The subaltern has so much, and the sergeant so much less; we will stop at the sergeant, because naturally he has got less money." If it comes to available resources, as has been pointed out, that may be wholly untrue. It is very often the case—in fact, I am told that in many units it is more often the case than not—that the subalterns and the second-lieutenants who are married have far less resources than the non-commissioned officers. As the object of the scheme is to avoid these real embarrassments to men who cannot afford to pay for legal advice, I would respectfully beg the Lord Chancellor to ask the Army Council—and the Air Council when they come into the scheme—to think again.
As for the other point, the inquisition, I think there is a misapprehension there. Naturally, I sympathize with the view of my noble friend, being Chairman of the National Savings Committee, and

819
also Chairman of the Army Savings Committee. You do not want a man to suffer because he has saved a little money for the sake of his wife and himself when his service is over. But to say, as Lord Addison did, that odium attaches to an inquiry whether a man can afford to pay or not, that is going too far, and I think on consideration he will agree.
LORD ADDISON: Have you read it?
LORD MOTTISTONE: Well, you have the advantage of me there, you have the particular words. But I had it from the Lord Chancellor himself that there was no intention whatever that there should be that kind of inquiry into the private resources of the individual. I think the intention was that the man should be asked: "Can you really afford to pay? Of course it is fantastic, the whole Army would laugh if you called yourself a ' poor person,' but if you are really hard up and cannot afford it, it docs not matter whether you are a sergeant or a subaltern." The Lord Chancellor will no doubt tell us when he replies what the Poor Persons Rules will be. I would respectfully suggest that, whatever those rules are, it should be made plain to the Army that the object is to relieve the anxieties of soldiers, whether officers or men, who really are too hard up to be able to provide the necessary funds for proper legal assistance. If they are so hard up through no fault of their own, there is this great organization being set up to help them out. I would not go beyond that and have too precise terms. I submit that that is the best way. Make the Army understand it, and I am quite sure there will be no discontent, no feeling that the soldier's private means are to be inquired into. They would just be asked, "Would it be fair and right that you should be regarded as a poor person?" And if a reasonable man says, "Well, I am satisfied," there is an end of it. With these two or three considerations I heartily commend the scheme to the House.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the House will appreciate, and excuse me on these grounds, that as a serving officer I have a particularly keen interest in the scheme the noble and learned Viscount has described. There has, everyone would agree, been a real
820
need for a long time past for an organized service of legal aid as a contribution to the morale of the Army. A man who is worried and preoccupied by his private affairs cannot, in the nature of things, be a first-class fighting soldier. The two essential requirements of any scheme of this sort are these. In the first place it should be administered by a staff of trained lawyers, men of experience in the legal profession, and in the second place that expert legal advice and, if necessary, access to the Courts should be available for every man in the Forces irrespective of his rank or pay or other irrelevant circumstances.
The scheme just described satisfies completely the first of these two criteria. It will set up the Legal Aid Sections at Commands and Legal Advice Bureaux at lower formations, and these bodies will be staffed by barristers or solicitors, whether they appear in uniform or in mufti. The sole criticism I should like to offer regarding this part of the scheme is that every effort should be made, and I am sure will be made, to avoid removing trained regimental officers from fighting units for whole-time legal work at Commands. The work at Commands is to be whole-time, and at the lower formations that will probably not be the case. May I make one suggestion? If the requisite staff cannot be raised from officers who are over age or in a lower medical category, it should surely be possible to employ members of the legal profession whose call-up has been deferred, either in their civilian capacity or, probably more economically, by giving them what are termed emergency Commissions.
Let me pass from the first requirement, which has been fully satisfied, with that small proviso which one hopes may prove unnecessary. The second criterion I mentioned was that every fighting soldier, without regard to any irrelevant circumstances (which from this point of view includes rank) should be in an equally favourable position to solve his legal problems. This criterion is far from being satisfied by the terms of the scheme. In the first place—and here I should like to support the plea that has been made by all the speakers in the discussion—it makes rank in the Army an essential condition for those entitled to benefit under its provisions. The beneficiaries are, in fact, limited to sergeants and other ranks.

821
The assumption that every man above the rank of sergeant can afford legal costs, and very often extremely heavy expense of litigation, is manifestly false. I shall not labour that point. It has been underlined by all the three speakers in this discussion that very often a young subaltern with a wife and family to support, and no private means, is in fact worse off than a young unmarried sergeant, and therefore in greater need of help in these circumstances. Yet neither junior officers nor warrant officers, or even staff-sergeants, because the line is drawn at the sergeant——
LORD LATHAM: Nor company sergeant-majors.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: And, as my noble friend reminds me, company sergeant majors as well, however limited their financial means may be in relation to their obligations, cannot look forward to relief under this scheme from the added burden of legal costs. To draw the dividing line in this way is extraordinarily artificial and bears little relationship to real economic hardship. If it were necessary (and the assumption is that it is necessary) to separate in this way the deserving from the undeserving, the test should surely be related directly to need—that is to say, to the amount of income left after the price of indispensable purchases has been deducted. It would surely be universally agreed that military rank is a rough and, very often, a misleading indication of its holder's financial circumstances.
The number of those entitled to benefit under this generous scheme is subject to yet another limitation. As my noble friend and leader has pointed out, those below the sergeant level will only be eligible if they have signed a declaration that they are unable to afford this service. Furthermore, according to the terms of the A.C.I., although the noble Viscount did not seem to be completely in agreement with this interpretation of it, there will be an inquiry by the officer' into the resources of the applicant. This inquiry will be based on the Poor Persons Rules. These are the terms of the A.C.I., and I very much hope the noble and learned Viscount will reply to the questions that have been raised in order to clear up what is a manifest contradiction between what he has said in the first
822
instance and what is laid down in black and white in this section of the A.C.I.
May I make a case on rather different-lines from the case made hitherto for the dropping of this particular income test? I am not objecting in principle to all income tests, or even to the application of income tests in the case of civilians who wish to benefit from poor persons' facilities in the Courts; but the validity of such a test should be dependent on its usefulness, and in this case it serves no useful purpose. Surely all services that help to maintain morale in the Army should be given to the troops free of charge. Mental fitness is just as essential to a satisfactory state of morale as physical fitness. If a soldier is supplied with hospital and dental treatment without inquiry into his means, so also should he be supplied with facilities for banishing worry from his mind. He can attend evening classes without paying a penny, and receive instruction in any subject under the sun, because it is recognized that an educated man is the more efficient soldier. Surely it is high time that we should acknowledge that a legal service as well as a medical and an educational service should be available to every member of all three Forces, if possible without regard to their rank or other circumstances.
There are three practical objections, I think, to the present test which I should like to mention very briefly. In the first place it will give rise to hard cases, particularly under the Poor Persons Rules if they are applied literally. The man who has managed to save £200 or £300 will be obliged to realize half of it at any rate, because otherwise he cannot qualify under the scheme, or he will have to forego his legal rights. If I am mistaken—and it all depends on that initial point—I shall be glad to have it pointed out. Secondly, there can be little doubt that most of the officers who can now afford the luxury of litigation and professional advice will continue their present habit even if they are entitled to make use of this new procedure. Senior officers of the Regular or Territorial Army—and they are the soldiers with sufficient private means—will always prefer to transact their legal business through the accustomed channels. It surely follows from this that a means test is unnecessary for the protection of the legal profession. Solicitors and barristers will continue to be employed by those of

823
their military clients who could afford to make use of their services in the past, and they will not be deprived of any new clientele, because the ordinary soldier is never likely to be in a position to afford their fees.
I submit that an income test of this kind is really superfluous as a protection for those who wish to earn their living by the law, that it is unnecessary as a means of preventing an abuse of the new procedure by those who can afford to employ solicitors, and that it is definitely damaging in border-line cases. Those of us who serve in the Army know that the Army Council Instructions are subject to alteration and amendment. I beg very humbly to submit that in the light of the criticisms, I hope constructive criticisms, that have been made by all the speakers this afternoon, it may be possible at a future date for this scheme to be reconsidered and to be improved by such of the suggestions as commend themselves to the Government and to the Army Council.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the Lord Chancellor replies, I am going to ask him seriously to consider advising the authorities to withdraw the A.C.I. altogether. My noble friend informs me the instructions have been actually issued, but there is some confusion and conflict of evidence as to that. If they have been issued then they should be altered as Lord Mottistone suggested. If they have not been issued I would appeal particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Croft, that he should stop the issue. In a few sentences I will add something to what has been said already as a reason for doing so. In the first place this scheme does not provide any new service at all. All the work has been done by welfare officers, with this difference, that the welfare officers have not the limitations with regard to means or rank or the class of advice they can give, which are imposed by this A.C.I. Furthermore, welfare officers can help all soldiers. In this case the help is limited to the soldier or members of the A.T.S. and so on.
It is very important to remember that we are dealing with a scheme which, if it goes out in its present form, affects the whole Army, and will apparently be copied by a similar scheme for the Royal
824
Air Force, and even the Admiralty are considering something of the same sort. We are therefore talking about a scheme which affects directly or indirectly a very large percentage of the population of these islands. It certainly does affect an immense number of people, and we in this House must be very careful that no confusion or doubt is allowed to arise. May I add to the objections already made and to what was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Addison? There are other important limitations apparently for soldiers. In a case in the County Court, has he not to employ outside legal aid in the ordinary way? I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor if that is the case. For example, there are very frequent cases of applications to the Courts for separation maintenance or for affiliation payments. Is the soldier to be assisted there? According to the Instructions, apparently not. All this advice and help are given at present by the welfare officers without any limitation at all.
Now, like my noble and gallant friend Lord Mottistone, I had not had the advantage of seeing the little red booklet until my noble friend Lord Hutchison was courteous enough to lend me his copy, but I have been advised as to its contents. I come back to the question of assistance being given to the soldier in matters of divorce. This of course is important because a man who has matrimonial difficulties, as Lord Listowel has pointed out, is worried and accordingly the efficiency of such a man is impaired. According to the scheme what assistance do the Aid Departments, as I shall call them, give to the soldier in collecting evidence and preparing the case in connexion with the Legal Aid Bureaux? I think that is important. At any rate, this means that the evidence will be collected, not by the solicitor's clerks and people of that kind who usually do it in cases decided in the Divorce Court, but by officers or other ranks who will be in uniform. I appeal to my noble friend Lord Croft in this matter. He is not a lawyer. Does he consider it altogether fitting that officers and soldiers in uniform—not that the work is dishonourable—should be used to collect evidence? It may be suggested that the uniform gives them a certain prestige and that the evidence may have been collected under duress. That is a real danger and I suggest that it should be reconsidered. I hope

825
that will be taken up by my noble friend Lord Croft, and I hope the Lord Chancellor will have a suitable reply to make in regard to it. These are only one or two of the objections that we see in addition to those already dealt with so adequately by my noble trends and other speakers.
I am told that this scheme was drawn up by people who might have been better chosen for the purpose. The genesis of the scheme, I understand, arose from certain suggestions made by welfare officers themselves. These suggestions were referred to a committee of very eminent lawyers who are unfamiliar with Army life, assisted by a number of distinguished soldiers who are not acquainted with the law, with what result we see. I am unacquainted with Army life, I am also unacquainted with the law, but I have some little knowledge of what my fellow subjects and His Majesty's lieges think and feel, and, speaking from what I know of the Navy, if this sort of scheme is introduced there will be trouble. I dare say the same thing will happen in the Army. All sorts of difficulties will arise, although it is all done with the best intentions and with the desire to secure the happiness and welfare of the soldier. It would be better to leave it to the welfare officers until it is possible to bring out a better scheme.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may have leave to say a few words upon what has been, I think, on the whole, a very useful and helpful debate. The list of objections which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, strung together—I gather out of a still longer list in his hand—almost made one feel that he did not want the scheme, although no one else has said that. This red book was in fact only issued to-day. I am sure speaking from my own knowledge of the matter, that it is far better to put the scheme into operation because then one can see what adjustments may have to be made. I am most unwilling to enter into the wholly unfruitful discussion of whether this is being done by the welfare service, which seems to be the impression of the noble Lord who has just spoken, because I do not wish to say one single word which would in the least depreciate what that service has done. The welfare service, however, so fax as I know, is not staffed by lawyers, and so far as I know it has not got its liaison and communications with the Law Society. I should feel
826
that I had wasted time if I had been negotiating with the Law Society in arriving at a scheme when the whole thing was in operation thanks to the welfare officers all the time. I am sure that those really interested in the welfare service will be glad that there should be this addition made to their own efforts.
Two or three points have been made in the debate which I must endeavour to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, asked whether this scheme covered criminal charges. It does not, for the reason that the Poor Person's Defence Act provides the regular machinery by which people who cannot afford to defend themselves in a criminal court are assisted. This scheme is directed to matters in the nature of contracts and divorce and civil complaints for which there is not otherwise adequate help. My noble friend Lord Addison, who is a bit of a heresy hunter on this point, almost smelt the scheme to discover defects in it. His bull point was that he had been informed that there was some regulation which required investigation to discover whether a person asking for help has an income of £2 per week. I am sure he will be glad to know that in that respect he has been led up the garden path. The regulations do not deal with that. What they do provide is that the consideration which would determine whether a man should be helped is whether, excluding any pay or other emoluments, he has an income and assets which render it unreasonable that he should be assisted as a poor person.
LORD ADDISON: May I be allowed to interrupt in order to say that I derived the information which I quoted from the noble and learned Viscount's own office? Through the abundant courtesy of the officials there I was provided with this document which I hold in my hand, and that is where I find it set out. The noble and learned Viscount's own office provided me with a document which seems not to contain the latest information.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord will let me have the document after the debate is over I will see that suitable disciplinary action is taken. My idea is very much the same as the idea presented by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, that is that we do not want to go too closely into figures, but that it is

827
obvious that there must be some people who ought not to take advantage of a scheme like this because they can well afford to look after themselves. Indeed I would agree with my noble friend that in many cases they would prefer to do so. It is ridiculous when you are trying to do good to the serving soldier that you should be meticulous about these wretched inquiries which I dislike when they are not necessary just as much as the noble Lord dislikes them. The noble Lord also called attention to another point which shows that, I will not say a suspicious mind, but at any rate an inquiring and anxious mind has been applied to this red book. It is solemnly suggested that it is the intention of the Army Council, the Solicitors' Society and the Lord Chancellor only to help in divorce cases if the man is a petitioner. It would take some pretty strong language to make me think that that is what anybody meant to do. The red book provides that an applicant for help must show that he is not debarred by his own conduct from seeking relief. Everybody knows that exemplary as is the conduct of the British Army, there may be cases in which, whether rightly or wrongly, a serving soldier may be made a respondent. That of course is a case in which he is entitled to help provided he has really got a defence.
LORD ADDISON: I am awfully sorry to interrupt again, but may I be allowed to ask what is meant by the words "is not debarred by his own conduct from seeking relief"? What does "seeking relief" mean?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should think it refers to the case where the man is the proposed petitioner and is seeking relief from the Court. It does not say and is not meant to say that a man shall not have any help unless he is a person seeking relief. Another point which I ought to mention is that relating to a man's rank. I must say that when I heard the objection first taken, I thought the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench wanted to include Field-Marshals, but I gather that it is not proposed that there should be no limit, but that the limitation of rank should be put higher. That may be so. I have no authority to give any pledge, but I shall be very glad to represent what has been said to the War Office.
828
I have no doubt they will carefully study the report of this debate and give due weight to everything that has been said.
There may be some who say that there is nothing new in this scheme and others who think that it is all wrong, but leaving those two points of view to knock their heads against one another, I think it can be said that this is a very considerable reform and that it will work sufficiently well to commend itself. If it is found to be the case that changes are needed, changes will be made. The great thing is that something has been done which ought to have been done before and I think our thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison, for raising this question.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would the noble and learned Viscount be good enough to answer the question I put about a soldier sued for affiliation?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, I had no wish to avoid the question. Of course affiliation proceedings take place in a magistrate's court, a police court, and would not be covered by this scheme. The County Court is on the whole the poor man's court, and a great many cases go through the County Court without solicitors or counsel, but so far as this scheme is concerned it is a scheme which applies to litigation in the High Court. That is deliberate because experience has shown that it is there that help is chiefly needed. Undoubtedly the expenses there are greater and the machinery more complicated. It is for that reason that in peace-time the Lord Chancellor's Department has got a very considerable service which helps poor persons in divorce cases. I do not think that up to the present there has been any official scheme which assists in the County Court. I am sorry that I did not answer Lord Stabolgi's question on that before, but I had inadvertently overlooked it.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount most sincerely for his extraordinary clear and lucid exposition of this new scheme. We may not agree with it—it has been brought in as something new in the Army—but it has produced a first-class debate. I am only sorry that more noble Lords were not present to hear this debate and to take part in it. As I say, this scheme has

829
introduced a new thing in the British Army, but at this late hour I do not wish to enlarge on what has already been so well said. But do not forget that Army Council Instructions such as these are never absolutely perfect when they are first issued. Very seldom have I seen an Army Council Instruction of this length which stood very long without alteration.
I only hope that my noble friend who represents the War Office so well here, and whom I see on the Bench to-day, will convey to the Adjutant-General the hope that he will support these Army Council Instructions in their various actions in the country. First of all he must see that the legal officers go out coutinually to the units and that the unit orders contain times well in advance of those at which these officers go to the various units. I am delighted to see that use is going to be made of the huts and other premises of the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., the Salvation Army and other organizations rather than the orderly rooms for the purpose of consultations. This legal advice is tremendously important to the civilian soldiers whom we now have in the Army. The point regarding
830
limitation by rank has been very well put by various speakers. This rule has got to be altered, and no doubt in due time it will be put right. There is no finality to anything like this. It will go on and develop into a great scheme for the Army. I particularly hope that special arrangements will be made in respect of that splendid corps, the A.T.S., because the members of that corps will have many legal difficulties upon which they will wish to consult various authorities. I again thank the Lord Chancellor for the splendid answer which he has given. I wish this scheme well. I hope that good fortune may attend its progress and that it will do a great deal of good in the Army.

HORLEY DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1942.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Horley District Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned.