Sitting of 1 October 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the Borough of Manchester (Clayton Division), in the room of John Jagger, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Whiteley.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MILITARY SERVICE

    Medical Grading
    Mr. Toucheasked the Minister of Labour, whether, in view of the fact that mistakes made by medical boards in grading entrants for the Services usually only become apparent after the persons concerned have been some time in the Services, any information is given to his Department by the service Ministries as to obvious errors in medical grading so that they may be brought to the attention of the medical boards concerned?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): When a person is discharged from one of the Services on medical grounds, the facts are reported to my Department if there appear to be grounds for thinking that the civilian medical board made an error in grading which could have been avoided. If my medical advisers agree that there may have been an avoidable error, the case is brought to the attention of the board concerned.
    Mr. Touche: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the number of cases that have been brought to the attention of the boards?
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot give the number that has been referred to the boards concerned, but the number of errors is well below 1 per cent.

    University Students (Training)
    Sir John Graham Kerrasked the Minister of Labour the total number of matriculated male students in each British university and the number in each university who are undergoing training in the Senior Training Corps, University Air Squadron or Sea Scouts?
    Mr. Bevin: I regret that figures of the total number of matriculated male students are not available for any date later than the autumn of last year, and therefore an accurate comparison with the numbers undergoing the training referred to cannot be made. I am, however, sending to my hon. Friend such figures as are available.

    Government Departments (Staffs)
    Mr. De la Béreasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that there will be a comb-out from all Government Departments of men of military age before any groups covering men who were on active service in the last war are called up, since the calling-up of older ex-Service men entails the destruction of their businesses which have been built up over many years?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not consider that any exceptional action with regard to the staff of Government Departments is warranted for the purpose of postponing the call-up of the small number of men who can come within the category to which my hon. Friend refers. The policy of His Majesty's Government is to retain in the Civil Service only those fit men of military age who are necessary for the maintenance of the essential services of National Government.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that a number of older ex-Service men have been called up and as a result many of them have had to close down their businesses and very great hardship has been caused, whereas younger men from Whitehall would not have to undergo the same hardship?
    Mr. Bevin: These problems are not dealt with by making invidious distinctions between one class of the community and another. The cases of the men who were in the last war and of the one-man business are being dealt with very carefully on their merits.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British Legion—and my hon. Friend the Member for the Deritend Division of Birmingham (Sir Smedley Crooke) can confirm me in this—is very exercised over it; and will he give this matter real consideration with a view to seeing that no hardship is inflicted, as it is a very real thing?
    Mr. Bevin: I am constantly reviewing questions of men who served in the last war and of the one-man business, but it is not my intention, and I will not be placed in that position, to deal with it on the analogy of somebody else. It must be dealt with on its merits.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend deal with it fully on its merits?
    Mr. William Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the more effective organisation of the work in Government Departments would result in the release of many thousands of men to do more important work; and will he use his very great influence with the Prime Minister to see that joint committees on the lines of the production committees in factories are set up in Government Departments with a view to the more effective organisation of that work?
    Mr. Bevin: That question does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: May I ask whether the War Office could not be induced to take people over the age of 60?

  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

    Transferred Workers (Allowances)
    Captain Stricklandasked the Minister of Labour, whether his attention has been drawn to the postion of war workers, compulsorily transferred prior to 1st June, 1940, who are not entitled to the payment of subsistence allowance or the grant of cheap travel allowance to visit their homes and families, which are allowed to workers similarly transferred on or after that date; and why this distinction is made?
    Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on 4th June to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson
    902
    Stewart), a copy of which I am sending him.
    Captain Strickland: Will my right hon. Friend give fresh consideration to this matter; and can he indicate to the House whether men were transferred compulsorily before 1st June, 1940, and, if so, why this distinction is necessary in making the date so short a period from the outbreak of war?
    Mr. Bevin: The Order dated from 1940, and there was so much movement throughout the country that it was impossible administratively to deal with it.
    Captain Strickland: Was that movement compulsorily made or was it voluntarily made?
    Mr. Bevin: It was voluntarily made.

    Contractors' Workmen (Hazardous Duties)
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Minister of Latour, under what circumstances is danger pay granted to contractors' workmen engaged on work on aerodromes, etc.?
    Mr. Bevin: Under the working rules of the Civil Engineering Constractional Conciliation Board and of the National Joint Council for the Building Industry (England and Wales) additions to the standard rates are payable in certain cir-cumstaices for working at heights, underground or at high temperatures. The working rules of the Scottish National Joint Council for the Building Industry empower Local Joint Committees to arrange special terms when work of an extra hazardous nature has to be done. The circumstances in which such extra payments are made is a matter for settlement between the parties in the light of the agreements under which the work is being performed.
    Sir R. Glyn: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his statement, but can he say under what conditions such pay is given as regards danger from enemy action, which he has not mentioned?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not know that there is any payment for that special purpose.
    Sir R. Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiry at certain places and aerodromes where workers are being paid danger pay?

    Fair Wages Resolution
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has been reached regarding the amendment of the Fair Wages Resolution?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. The draft of a new Fair Wages Resolution has been prepared in consultation with the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress General Council. It is proposed to issue at a nearly date a White Paper giving the text of the draft Resolution and explaining the Government's intention with regard to its introduction.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Will that be brought before Parliament and subject to any amendment that may be proposed to it?
    Mr. Bevin: It will be open to Parliament at the appropriate time to adopt the Resolution or otherwise.
    Mr. Thorne: If the matter is brought before the House of Commons and some alteration is made, will it not really have to go back to the other bodies?

    Work Direction, Birmingham
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour by what authority the Birmingham District Man-Power Board claims the right to direct persons, who are not due for registration, to change their employment?
    Mr. Bevin: The Regulation which gives powers to direct persons to perform specified services is 58A of the Defence (General) Regulations; these powers are not dependent on prior registration of the persons concerned. Inquiries are being made into an individual case of which my hon. Friend has supplied particulars.
    Sir J. Mellor: Has the Minister authorised this particular exercise of the power under Regulation 58A, and if directions are to be given to people to change their employment before their age group has had to register, is this not a very fortuitous and unfair way of applying the Regulation?
    Mr. Bevin: Direction has never depended on registration. This House carried the Bill giving me power under these Regulations to direct any person anywhere, including my hon. Friend.
    Sir J. Mellor: Did my right hon. Friend delegate that power to the Brimingham District Man-Power Board?
    Mr. Bevin: Certainly, that is my duty. They act for me and on my behalf. I am responsible for what they do, and in so far as they have to carry out their administrative duty they are carrying it out on my account.
    Sir J. Mellor: But only under my right hon. Friend's instructions?
    Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

    Mobile Women Workers, Scotland
    Mr. Stephenasked the Minister of Labour how many appeals were made by girls from Glasgow at Parkhead and Bridgeton employment exchanges to the nearest available date, against being sent to work in England, or against joining the Services, respectively, on grounds of domestic hardship; and in how many cases the appeals were successful?
    Mr. Bevin: The number of first applications for postponement made on domestic grounds by women called up under the National Service Acts at Park-head and Bridgeton up to 31st August last was 489, and of these 253 were granted; in a number of instances appeals have been made to the Umpire but separate figures for appeals from Parkhead and Bridgeton are not available. The available information does not show how many of the women concerned had expressed a preference for industrial work and for the Women's Auxiliary Services respectively. Women, other than single women born between 1st January, 1918, and 30th June, 1922, are not being called up under the National Service Acts but are being considered under the Registration for Employment Order, and in these cases appeals may be made to local appeal boards. Information is not immediately available about the numbers or results of such appeals, but I will make inquiries and write to my hon. Friend.

    Boys (Employment)
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Minister of Labour whether he will revise the arrangements under which a boy of 14 years of age is compelled to remain in an essential industry which may be injurious to his health and an unsatisfactory first placement?
    Mr. Bevin: The arrangements already provide that such a boy may apply to the National Service Officer for permssion to leave his employment and, if necessary, may appeal to an appeal board. I am not aware that this procedure is not working satisfactorily, but if my hon. Friend has an individual case in mind and will send me particulars I will look into it.
    Mr. Lindsay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that as juvenile advisory committees are not, in many cases, meeting now, a number of these boys are wrongly placed at first and are not aware of their rights? Perhaps I may send the right hon. Gentleman a few examples?
    Mr. Bevin: The whole question of the stimulation of juvenile committees and the intensification of their functions is now under consideration.

    Labour Disputes
    Mr. Molsonasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases and the nature of any labour disputes which have entailed the stoppage of work since the beginning of September this year?
    Mr. Bevin: I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as full particulars have been compiled, which will be about the middle of October.
    Mr. Thorne: Will that information show official and unofficial disputes?
    Mr. Bevin: There is no such thing as an unofficial dispute now.

    Women (Shopping Facilities)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that women resident in the North Staffordshire area are having difficulties over shopping which affects their hours of production and that they are concerned at the effect on the war effort; and can steps be taken to meet the needs of the women?
    Mr. Bevin: Machinery has been set up with the co-operation of the Ministry of Food to deal locally with shopping problems, as they come to the knowledge either of the local Welfare Officer of the Ministry of Labour or the District Food Officer. This machinery provides for consultation with all the interests concerned, including the retailers, shop assistants, factory managements and trade unions. I am not aware of the special difficulty in North
    906
    Staffordshire, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars I will look into it.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: In considering the difficulties of shopping for housewives, will my right hon. Friend not forget the harassed shop assistants?
    Mr. Bevin: I think the Shop Assistants' Union has expressed appreciation more than once of the care which has been taken.

  CATERING TRADES (REGULATION)
  Mr. Mandarasked the Minister of Labour the present position of his proposals for controlling conditions in the catering trades; and when it is intended to bring them into effect?
  Mr. Bevin: I am in consultation with the interests concerned, but I am not yet in a position to make any further announcement.
  Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is to be an investigation before the proposals are put into effect, and, if so, how long it will take?
  Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, not in the sense of an inquiry of the nature my hon. Friend probably has in mind. I intend to introduce a Bill which will set up the main position of a permanent character.
  Mr. Leslie: Are not these conditions sufficiently well known by the trade without the need for any further inquiry?

  INDIA

    Congress Prisoners
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India what representations he has received from influential persons or organisations in India respecting facilities for legitimate communication with Congress prisoners and for purposes of negotiation respecting the present political situation; whether he can state the present whereabouts of Jawarharlal Nehru; and whether he can receive correspondence?
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I have received no such representations. Mr. Nehru is permitted to correspond with his family on family matters. I am not prepared to disclose his present whereabouts.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that many prominent non-Congress politicians in India earnestly desire to communicate with the leaders of Congress with a view to a possible settlement? Further, may I ask whether it is true that Mr. Nehru is in East Africa at the moment?
    Mr. Amery: I see no reason to think that a settlement would be promoted by contact with Congress members at this moment.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the second part of my supplementary question, as to whether Mr. Nehru is in East Africa?
    Mr. Amery: He is in India.

    Suppression of Disorder (Use of Aircraft)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information respecting the aircraft machine-gunning of crowds in India and of attacks on aircraft crews; and whether any steps will be taken to prevent aircraft being used in India for the suppression of disorder?
    Mr. Amery: I have nothing material to add to the official statements made in the Indian Legislature last week and reported here in the Press, to the effect that during the recent disturbances mobs were five times machine-gunned from the air, and that after an aeroplane crash which occurred on 18th September in Bihar in which the pilot was killed the crew of the aircraft were murdered by a mob. It was found necessary to use aircraft to check sabotage by mobs in areas in which the movement of troops on the ground was hampered both by widespread interruption of the railways and by exceptional flood conditions. The measures taken by the Government of India to restore order in circumstances, the seriousness of which is I think still imperfectly appreciated in this country, have my full support and I am not prepared to interfere with the Viceroy's discretion in this matter.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the justifiable condemnation of the air gunning of turbulent crowds which has taken place in parts of Europe, and that if aeroplanes were used to quieten crowds in this country there would be wholesale resentment in all parts
    908
    of this House? In view of that, will he see that this form of——[Interruption.]
    Mr. Sloan: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Cannot you restrain Members from cheering when there is mention of bombing of Indian civilians?
    Mr. Speaker: I have not heard anything of the kind the hon. Member mentions.

    Political Situation
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for India whether the statement by Sir Sultan Ahmed, the Law Member of the Council in the Indian Assembly, that a National Government, presented by all the Indian political parties, could not well be resisted by any Government, represents also the policy of the British Government?
    Mr. Amery: If the hon. Member would read the whole of the passage in which Sir Sultan Ahmed dealt with a situation, which, unfortunately, does not seem likely to be realised in the immediate future, and the conditions which he stipulated as essential to the formation of an Indian National Government, he will realise that his statement was in accord with the policy repeatedly declared on behalf of His Majesty's Government. In any such National Government that were constituted there would, of course, have to be an ultimate responsibility to Parliament under the existing constitution pending the establishment of an agreed Indian constitution.

  CIVIL DEFENCE

    Travel Permits, Great Britain and Ireland
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will relax the restrictions on travel between Great Britain and Ireland so as to enable persons to travel to their homes in either country not more than twice in any period of 12 months instead of not more than once in any period of six months as at present?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. In order to avoid hardship in the case of persons engaged on war work who cannot plan their holidays as they choose, I have decided that as from to-day, persons who qualify for exit permits to visit their homes in Great Britain or Ireland may be allowed to make the journey twice

    909
    in any period of 12 months instead of once in any period of 6 months. Workers who are conditionally landed on their arrival in Great Britain will be required to remain in this country for an initial period of three months before they make a visit to Ireland. The 12-month period will run from to-day to 30th September, 1943, in all cases. Visits home will include visits to husbands, wives, parents and children, who are established in homes in cither country but will not include visits to more remote relatives.
    Professor Savory: May I express my deep gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the reply he has just given, to use his influence or issue some kind of intimation to those who are responsible for granting these permits to see that applicants are told with as little delay as possible? Frequently a full fortnight passes before the permits are granted.
    Mr. Morrison: I will do my best in the matter. It would also be helpful if applicants would give us as much notice as possible of their wish to travel.
    Professor Savory: Will that concession apply also to teachers in schools in this country?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I presume that they will be treated the same as any other citizens.
    Dr. Littleasked the Home Secretary whether he will deal with the serious grievances of Northern Ireland people in Britain by having the regulations regarding the granting of travel permits reconsidered with a view to the relaxation of their stringency; and whether he will instruct passport officials to grant permits in all cases where persons have to visit Northern Ireland for the transaction of business?
    Mr. Morrison: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to Question No. 25. As regards the second part of the Question, the position is that permits are granted to enable persons to travel between Great Britain and Ireland on business of national importance, but I regret that I would not
    910
    feel justified in modifying the restrictions on travel between the two countries so as to enable persons to travel to either country for the transaction of purely private business.
    Major Sir Ronald Ross: Does my right hon. Friend consider it reasonable to have no restriction on travel to a neutral country and to impose these very severe restrictions upon travel to a part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Morrison: One of the difficulties is that after travelling to the part of the United Kingdom it may not be very difficult to travel to a neutral country.
    Dr. Little: Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is a great grievance for people who have business to transact in Northern Ireland to be detained here when they should be there attending to their affairs?
    Mr. Morrison: The travelling accommodation is limited. The check on people going in is a great strain on us. The position must be that if people go to Northern Ireland they must show good cause in the national interest why they should go, or family necessity, and so on. Again, I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that he is constantly pressing me to tighten up movements and at the same time also pressing me to relax them.
    Sir R. Ross: Is it not for my right hon. Friend to control people going to neutral countries?

    Aliens (War-time Restrictions)
    Colonel Arthur Evansasked the Home Secretary whether he will exempt from war-time restrictions upon aliens those aliens who volunteered for His Majesty's Forces and who, after a period of service, have been discharged with good characters?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I have given sympathetic consideration to this proposal. My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that a large number of aliens joined the Forces while they were in internment. I believe the majority volunteered for service with the British Forces without reservations, and that they are trustworthy and loyal to the Allied cause. Since, however, I should not feel justified in assuming that there are no exceptions whatever, I propose the pro-

    911
    cedure shall be that an exemption from the principal restrictions upon movements shall be granted in every case in which I am satisfied that there are no objections from the point of view of security. This means that any alien who has been honourably discharged from the Forces and who wishes to receive such an exemption should make application to the police of the district in which he resides. His application will be forwarded to the Home Office and my decision will be given in the light of the applicant's record.
    Colonel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to note the keen sense of appreciation that will be felt by those alien ex-Service men who have given their best to the cause of the United Nations?

    Northern Ireland (Armed Raids from Eire)
    Dr. Littleasked the Home Secretary whether he will take immediate steps to prevent persons in Eire who are hostile to the State from crossing the border into Northern Ireland either to make raids or to settle in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross).
    Dr. Little: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week there was before the court in Belfast a man who had failed to produce an identity card, who said that he had walked from Dublin to Belfast without hindrance, and that——
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Little: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

    Women Fire-Watchers
    Mr. Higgsasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the difficulties in arranging suitable sleeping accommodation in many factories for women fire-watchers in addition to men; and does he intend to modify the Order so as to relieve the position?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Women will not be required to perform fire-prevention duties at the business premises where they work
    912
    until adequate amenities have been provided and it is the duty of occupiers to provide these as quickly as possible. A memorandum setting out the minimum standards is being issued for the guidance of occupiers and appropriate authorities.
    Mr. Higgs: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great difficulty in getting accommodation modified at the present time owing to the shortage of skilled artisans in the building trade, and will he communicate with his factory inspectors before putting the Order into operation?
    Mr. Morrison: The Order is in force. I have said that we will be careful about administration where the amenities are not available. I appreciate the difficulties to which my hon. Friend draws attention, and they are indeed within the experience of Ministers themselves in their own work. I assure my hon. Friend that we will be as reasonable as we can. I will consider the point he has raised, although the factory inspectors are not at the moment under my Department, but are attached to the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. Lipson: Who is to decide whether the amenities are satisfactory or not?
    Mr. Morrison: I presume the appropriate authority, which would be the Government Department dealing with this matter or the Regional Commissioners. I speak from memory. The persons concerned will know who is the appropriate authority, which is a technical term.
    Mr. Stephen: May we have an assurance that there is no intention of reducing the amenities which are necessary for these people?
    Mr. Morrison: We want to keep these amenities at a reasonable standard, but, of course, people must face the fact that we are at war, and they cannot have anything in the nature of luxury amenities. We will do all we can to keep the amenities on a reasonable standard.
    Mr. Stephen: Did not the Minister say that he intends to modify the Order, or at least to do something that will amount to a modification of it, with regard to the standard required?
    Mr. Morrison: We have issued a model code of standard amenities and advised authorities not to impose fire-watching on

    913
    women unless the amenities are on a reasonable standard. I think I have met the principle of the hon. Member's point.
    Miss Rathbone: Is it not a fact that the great majority of women will do fire-watching without any elaborate arrangements being made for them?

    National Fire Service
    Major Petoasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that full-time members of the National Fire Service are now receiving their calling-up papers for the Armed Forces; and whether this is in accordance with his declared policy of improving still further the fire-fighting efficiency of this service, in view of the possibility of renewed enemy air-raids over this country?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the men who were released from the Army for fire-fighting duties during the heavy raids of 1940–41. These men are members of the Class "W" Reserve, and in existing circumstances I do not feel that I should be justified in demurring to their return to the Army: arrangements have, however, been made to retain in the National Fire Service those who occupy key positions.
    Mr. Cluse: Is there any intention of calling up ordinary members of the National Fire Service?
    Mr. Morrison: There is a well understood agreement between us and the Ministry of Labour whereby they are reserved in suitable categories. There is no question of any general calling-up.

  PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS (PLAN OF SEATING AND PRICES)
  Mr. Cluseasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider issuing an instruction or order to all places of amusement, to the effect that a plan of seating and prices must be exhibited in prominent positions for all performances, together with the number of seats available at the various prices?
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have no power to do as my hon. Friend suggests. Licensing authorities can require as a condition of licence that such plans be exhibited, and I understand that the London County
  914
  Council and a few other authorities have imposed this condition.
  Mr. Cluse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the method adopted by some cinema companies to avoid the latest increase in tax is to abolish cheap seats and increase the number of higher priced seats, so that the public are compelled to pay more in order to attend cinema performances?
  Mr. Morrison: I was not personally aware of that, but if my hon. Friend will be good enough to let me have any particulars, I will consider them.

  TAXI-CABS, LONDON (ILLEGAL CHARGES)
  Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the exorbitant charges still frequently demanded by taxicab drivers after blackout time; that last week two junior officers and two war workers were charged 30s. for a taxicab run which normally costs 3s. 6d.; that the driver refused to make the journey until this sum had been paid; that this case is not exceptional; and what further action he proposes to take in order to prevent exploitation of the public in this way?
  Mr. H. Morrison: As I stated in my reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for South Salford (Major Stourton) on 6th August, active steps are being taken by the police to deal with abuses of this kind in the Metropolitan area. I understand the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers was not brought to the notice of the police, and it would materially help them to take effective action if members of the public would report full particulars, including the driver's number, in every case where a sum in excess of the legal fare is demanded.
  Mr. Shinwell: In order to put a stop to this objectionable practice, would my right hon. Friend consider consulting with the trade union concerned to see whether they cannot use their influence in the matter?
  Mr. Morrison: Certainly, I will consider that. I imagine that not all of the men are members of trade unions. I will certainly explore that possibility.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Is the Home Secretary aware that this practice is exceptional and that most taxi-drivers are exceedingly honest and courteous?
  Mr. Morrison: It is only fair and proper that I should say that these cases are rare and exceptional and involve no reflection on the general body of London taxi-drivers, who will, I am sure, support us in energetic action against this practice.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: In order to prevent these exceptional cases, would it be possible for some notice from the police to be issued at once to taxi-drivers and taxi companies; so that this kind of thing will not happen?
  Mr. Morrison: The reports of my answers will appear in the Press, and from my knowledge of London taxi-drivers, I know that they are very astute observers of Parliamentary proceedings as far as they affect taxi-drivers. I will do all that I can, but the public must help us, and if people do not give us the men's numbers and particulars, the position is very difficult.

  PRIVATE DETECTIVE FIRMS
  Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the methods of private detective firms, calling themselves by other names and using methods repugnant to the public sense of fairness; and whether he will call for a report on these activities with a view to suppressing them by legislation or otherwise?
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have not previously received any complaints of the kind suggested; but if my hon. Friend will let me have details of any particular cases he may have in mind I will make inquiries.

  GROWING FOODSTUFFS (THEFTS)
  Mr. Denvilleasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to introduce regulations or legislation for the imposition of drastic penalties, including flogging, of persons found guilty of stealing from allotments or any other growing foodstuffs?
  Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. I have no evidence that the present severe penalties are inadequate.
  Mr. Denville: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a case recently where a person was ordered to pay a small fine for persistent robbing from allotments in a Northern town?
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.
  Mr. Sorensen: Will not my right hon. Friend resist this tendency to sadistic penalties?

  PRISON SENTENCE FOR MOTHER
  Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Phyllis Clifford, of Liverpool Road, Islington, aged 20, mother of a young baby, who was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for forging a cheque and has taken her baby to prison; and if he will consider remitting this sentence?
  Mr. H. Morrison: The inquiries which I have made show that the statement in the Question about this woman's offence does not accurately describe the course of fraudulent conduct to which she pleaded guilty, and, while I fully appreciate the compassionate considerations which have prompted this Question, I am sorry to say that I can find no grounds on which I should be justified in advising the remission of any part of the sentence which the court thought it necessary to impose.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Does not this sentence compare very unfavourably with the lighter sentences given for far worse offences?
  Mr. Morrison: It frequently happens under our system of local administration of justice that sentences vary, and, unless justice is completely centralised in the State, I do not see how it can be avoided. But in this case I do not think the sentence was out of proportion to the offence and the record of the woman concerned.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Was it her first offence?

  EDUCATION

    Russian Life and History
    Captain Alan Grahamasked the President of the Board of Education, whether, in view of the need of promoting

    917
    a better understanding of Russia in this country, he will inform the House as to the nature of the scheme of instruction on life in Russia, at present being brought forward by his department; and whether, in order to ensure the balanced perspective essential to any true understanding of a nation, he will provide, in any historical course under this scheme, proportionate time for the study of the 300 years' rule of the House of Romanoff and, in the interests of accurate political theory, see that a clear differentiation is made between the Communism of the late Mr. Trotsky and that of Mr. Stalin.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Ede): In order to promote a better understanding of Russia, the Board have held some courses for teachers at which qualified persons have lectured on Russian life, institutions and culture. The courses, being very short, have dealt in the main with present-day Russia, but the history and political background of the country have not, of course, been neglected.
    Captain Graham: Are the Soviet Government providing us with reciprocal facilities for the teaching of history?
    Mr. Ede: That question should be addressed to the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Shinwell: Could we have at the same time the history of the Conservative party during the same period?

    Esperanto
    Mr. J. H. Hollinsasked the President of the Board of Education, whether, in view of the increased interest being taken in this country regarding the necessity for an auxiliary international language and the great possibilities thereof in the promotion of a better understanding between the nations of the world, consideration will be given by the Government to the question of teaching Esperanto in schools, at evening classes and through the medium of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend does not feel that there is sufficient justification for his encouraging the inclusion of Esperanto generally in the curriculum of full-time day schools, particularly in view of the pressure of other subjects of special importance at the present time. The subject has from time to time been included in the curriculum of evening institutes
    918
    and, no doubt, if there is a demand, it will be more widely included. The question of lessons through the medium of Broadcasting is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information.
    Sir Stanley Reed: Is there anyone in the United Kingdom capable of speaking Esperanto at the present time?
    Mr. Ede: I presume there is, because I understand there are at least 600 pupils learning from a certain number of teachers.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is not English better than Esperanto?
    Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's English, undoubtedly, but I have met specimens of English which are open to doubt.

    Free Milk and Meals
    Mr. Manderasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the advisability of arranging to distribute milk free to all children, both to under fives at home and to older children at school; and to make all school meals free as a normal part of their educational system?
    Mr. Ede: For children under five at home, arrangements already exist for the supply of milk free or at a reduced price. I am informed that my Noble Friend the Minister of Food does not at present contemplate extending these arrangements. Both milk and meals are already provided free to necessitous schoolchildren, and I have no reason to think that other children are failing to obtain them owing to any inability of their parents to pay the small charge now made. As regards school meals it would be inequitable to offer free provision until they can be supplied to every pupil wishing to take advantage of them.
    Mr. Mander: If it is not possible to do this, can we have an assurance that the possibility of carrying out this policy as part of our post-war programme is being considered?
    Mr. Ede: I can give the hon. Member that assurance.

    Army Cadet Training
    Mr. Lindsayasked the President of the Board of Education what arrangements exist between his Department and

    919
    the War Office to safeguard the conditions and education standards of Army cadets below the age of 16?
    Mr. Ede: The Board has asked local education authorities to give their help in developing the educational aspects of Army cadet training. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of a circular and administrative memorandum dealing with this matter.
    Mr. Lindsay: I have seen the circular. Will the hon. Gentleman have a further look into it, because in one London borough 50 per cent. of the cadets have dropped off in the last few months. I think it requires some further examination.
    Mr. Ede: The matter is receiving constant attention. I know that the county cadet committees and the local education authorities are very actively co-operating in the matter, and I think a substantial improvement in the education facilities for Army cadets is being made over wide stretches of the country.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless the ceiling is increased many of the boys will be unable to join the Forces?
    Mr. Ede: That is a matter for the Secretary of State for War, who replied this week that the matter was having serious consideration.

    Young Workers (Leisure Time)
    Mr. Lindsayasked the President of the Board of Education, whether he will make it clear that he and his Department have no responsibility for compelling the use of leisure hours of young people who are already compelled to remain in essential industries?
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Member can rest assured that no compulsion is exercised by my department upon the use made of their leisure time by young people, whatever their employment.
    Mr. Mander: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that compulsory imps would be undesirable?

    Policy
    Mr. Sorensenasked the President of the Board of Education, whether he is now in a position to state when he will
    920
    bring new education proposals before the House; and what progress has been made respecting consideration of the problems of dual control and the imparting of religious instruction in elementary and secondary schools.
    Mr. Ede: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Not yet, Sir." The matters referred to in the second part are under active discussion with representatives of the various interests concerned.
    Mr. Sorensen: When is some statement likely to be made on the matter?
    Mr. Ede: I would advise my hon. Friend to put a question in a few weeks' time.
    Sir H. Williams: May we have an assurance that the hon. Gentleman will not imitate unduly the Hitler movement?

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Diabetes (Insulin Prices)
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the hardship caused to diabetic patients by the increased prices of insulin and needles which they must have; and will he consider means to prevent these continued increased prices so as to place them within reach of all who need them?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am aware that prices have increased, but having regard to the free provision of insulin and the necessary appliances for administering it under the, National Health Insurance and public assistance schemes, I do not think that there is a case for any special measures to prevent any increases which may be warranted by the conditions of production.
    Mr. Tinker: Could not something be done for people in need of insulin outside the societies mentioned?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) has been discussing the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the discussion with the Parliamentary Secretary has failed badly and that it is time the Minister did something for these people

    921
    who are suffering from diabetes? There is a person in my division taking 90 units a day, and she cannot get a penny piece. I hope the Minister will rise to the occasion. If he subsidises the price of insulin, that will do something towards it.
    Mr. Brown: That is a point that we are looking at now.
    Mr. Griffiths: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to look at it. I want him to do it.

    Voluntary Hospital Nurses (Hours of Work)
    Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the excessive hours at present being worked by nurses in voluntary hospitals; and whether in view of the discouraging effect which this state of affairs is having on girls who would otherwise wish to enter the nursing profession, and the likelihood that in the event of heavy war casualties the hospitals will find themselves seriously understaffed, he will take steps to impose on the voluntary hospitals the obligation to reduce the hours and otherwise improve the conditions of the nurses in their employ in all cases in which they are at present unsatisfactory?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that in some hospitals and in times of special pressure the hours of duty are longer than is generally considered desirable in peace time. The shortage of nurses at the present time inevitably prevents some of the hospital authorities from reducing the hours as they would like. Consideration of this question falls within the scope of the Nurses' Salaries Committee, which is now sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Rushcliffe.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Are not nurses continuing to be overworked and underpaid?
    Mr. Brown: That is what the committee has been set up to consider.

    War-time Nurseries
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to reorganise the system of war-time nurseries, having regard to the fact that 7,000 women are employed at an annual cost of over £50 per child, involving a total charge of over £1,000,000 per annum to
    922
    enable 21,000 other women to undertake war work?
    Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. I do not think I should be justified in lowering the standards which I have recommended for the care of those children of women in employment for whom provision is made in war-time nurseries.
    Sir H. Williams: Is it not a farce to employ 7,000 people to liberate 21,000 at this enormous cost?
    Mr. Brown: I do not think it is a farce at all. To treat the 7,000 as being an alternative to the 21,000 is a complete illusion.
    Mrs. Tate: If nursery schools were confined to children of from 2 to 5, would it not save millions of pounds and be far better for the children?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is talking about nursery schools. That is not ray responsibility but the responsibility of the President of the Board of Education.
    Miss Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept the figures in the Question as broadly correct?
    Mr. Brown: I would like to see that Question down in specific terms.
    Sir H. Williams: Did not my right hon. Friend give me the figures in answer to a Question?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, but the figures are now put in a very different setting.
    Major Petoasked the Minister of Health how the demand for war-time nurseries is being met in the industrial districts of the Midlands?
    Mr. Brown: In the Midland Region 120 nurseries are in operation, 70 more have been approved but are not yet in operation, and five more are in an earlier stage of preparation, making a total of approximately 200 nurseries at all stages.

  MARRIAGE NOTICES (MUNITION WORKERS)
  Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Health whether the privilege granted to members of His Majesty's Forces, whereby they may regard their home address as being their usual place of abode and residence for the purpose of giving notice

  923
  of marriage, can be granted to munition workers transferred outside their own districts who are obliged to return and reside at their home address for seven days, 15 days for marriage by licence, before fulfilling conditions of residential qualification?
  Mr. E. Brown: I am advised that there is no necessity for munition workers to return to an address from which they have removed in the course of their employment in order to complete the period of residence which is requisite for the giving of notice of marriage. Notice can be given in any district in which the requisite period of residence has been completed, and, in the case of a marriage by licence, by one party only. If ray hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will send me the details I shall be glad to look into it.

  FURNISHED ROOMS (RENT)
  Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to stop excessive rents being demanded by persons letting furnished accommodation?
  Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, which I gave recently to a Question on the subject to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). I am also sending him copies of circulars on the subject which I have sent to local authorities. I shall be glad to have details of any cases which have come to the notice of my hon. Friend, or indeed of any other Members of this House, so that I may look into them.
  Mr. Hall: Does this answer mean that the Department really is doing something about it?
  Mr. Brown: Reports from over 1,068 authorities are referred to in the long answer which I have mentioned.
  Mr. Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a proper way of tackling the matter, in view of the fact that he sent a circular to local authorities some time ago and nothing was done?
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend will look again at this long answer.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the royal
  924
  borough of Kensington have increased the rent of two large rooms at 16, Newton Court, from 16s. per week to 22s. per week; and what action he intends taking about the matter?
  Mr. Brown: No, Sir; but I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  Flight-Lieutenant Raikesasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the maximum sum of £7 10s., permitted as an emergency grant towards the funeral expenses of an ex-service man makes no allowance for the purchase of mourning and is therefore insufficient in all cases to discharge the costs of burial; and whether, in view of the hardship and distress suffered by families of service men and women, he will take immediate steps to remedy the situation?
  The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The expenses for which the funeral grant is designed are those incurred in connection with the actual burial. The grant is not intended to cover the purchase of mourning where this is desired.
  Miss Rathbone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is impossible to obtain even the simplest form of funeral nowadays for £7 10s.?
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Pensions whether the emergency grant in cases of serious illness applies to confinement expenses?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): A normal confinement without complications is not regarded as a serious and prolonged illness covering entitlement to an emergency grant. Where, however, there are complications or other exceptional features which entail unavoidable and unusual expense the case is within the scope of the scheme.
  Mr. Bellenger: Has my hon. Friend any knowledge of what the expenses of a confinement amount to in what he terms normal cases; is he aware that they are very considerable for the wives of soldiers, and will he include them within the terms of the grant?
  Mr. Paling: If they come within the terms of my answer, they are included, but they are being made at the present time.
  Mr. Bellenger: But only in so far as abnormal cases are concerned. The majority of cases are normal cases, and very expensive, too. Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, not include them in the grant?
  Mr. Paling: As the hon. Member knows, provision is made through another Department for normal confinements, and if we included them that would be duplication.
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Pensions, whether the emergency grant is applicable in the case of chronic illness resulting in continuing payment of doctors' bills and cost of medicine?
  Mr. Paling: An emergency grant may be made towards the expense arising from the onset of a chronic illness, but continuing payments are best met by a weekly grant which takes them into account. The Ministry is always ready to deal with applications on these lines.
  Mr. Mathersasked the Minister of Pensions, whether, in view of recent improvements in allowances for the wives and children of members of the Forces, he is arranging to increase the amounts payable to widows and other dependants of men killed on service in this war so as to remove the disparity between allowances and pensions which is being made more acute by the latest changes?
  Sir W. Womersley: Increases in the pensions and allowances of widows and other dependants were made in February last and thus preceded the improvements in Service rates of children's allowances. The fact that these changes did not coincide in date does not justify a further increase in scales which are very favourable in relation to other schemes of compensation for death.
  Mr. Mathers: Does not the Minister realise that these pension allowances now fall far behind the allowances that were coming into the same home prior to the husband losing his life in the service of this country, and does not that prove to him and to the Government the need for an improvement in these pensions scales?
  Sir W. Womersley: My hon. Friend knows very well, because I have told him
  926
  time and time again, that a pension is an entirely different thing from an emergency grant. A pension in the case of a widow is an annuity so long as she remains a widow—it may be for the rest of her life; and in the case of the children it continues until they are beyond school age. I have to think of all that in fixing the rates.
  Mr. Mathers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be right for me to tell the Minister that he is upholding a scandal that must be ended?

  KING'S SERVICE BADGE
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the granting of the King's Service Badge to all ex-Service men who have been honourably discharged from the Army, Navy or Air Force?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Bassetlaw Division of Nottingham (Mr. Bellenger) on 9th June last.
  Mr. Tinker: I have already seen that. Since the Question was put down, I have had 21 most pathetic letters from men in various parts of the country who have given their best to the State, and they have nothing to show that they have done that.
  Mr. Attlee: It is difficult to make distinctions between people who in various occupations and in various methods are giving full-time service to the State. I shall be glad to discuss the point with my hon. Friend.

  VICTORIA CROSS
  Mr. I. Thomasasked the Prime Minister whether the principles followed in the three Services with regard to the award of the Victoria Cross to officers and men taken prisoner by the enemy are the same?
  Mr. Attlee: The principles followed are substantially the same. When there is satisfactory evidence of the circumstances and of the act of gallantry, cases are considered at once on their merits by the Admiralty, War Office or Air Ministry, as the case may be. Otherwise, consideration is postponed.
  Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in practice the War Office is more reluctant than the other services in awarding the Victoria Cross to prisoners of war? Should not the award be made to prisoners as well as to men who have not been taken prisoner, as an act of justice?
  Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend will realise that in these cases it is necessary to get the facts right. I do not think he is right in saying that the War Office are reluctant, but they must establish the facts. If my hon. Friend has any particular case he would like to bring before me or the Secretary of State for War, we shall be glad to look into it.

  SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  Mr. I. Thomasasked the Lord President of the Council who are the members of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the War Cabinet; what are the duties of this committee; and what are its relations with the newly appointed scientific advisers of the Ministry of Production?
  The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): The scientific members of the conamittee are:
  Sir Henry Dale—President of the Royal Society.
  The two Joint Secretaries of the Royal Society, one of whom is my hon. Friend the Junior Burgess of Cambridge University (Prof. A. V. Hill) and the other Professor A. C. G. Egerton.
  Sir Edward Appleton—Secretary of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
  Sir Edward Mellanby—Secretary of the Medical Research Council.
  Dr. W. W. C. Topley—Secretary of the Agricultural Research Council.
  The functions of the committee are:

  (a) to advise the Government on any scientific problems referred to it;

  (b) to advise Government Department, when required, on the selection of individuals for particular lines of scientific inquiry or for membership of committees on which scientists are required;

  (c) to bring to the notice of the Government promising new scientific or technical developments which may be of importance to the war effort.

  It was never intended that the committee should usurp the functions of the scientific and technical advisers of Departments, and the appointment of these three Scientific Advisers to the staff of a new Ministry of Production in no way affects the scope or the responsibilities of the committee. The committee will naturally consult with the Scientific Advisers to the
  928
  Minister of Production upon matters which fall within their province.
  Mr. Thomas: Are questions being in fact referred to this body, and is it being fully used?
  Sir J. Anderson: I have sometimes wished that Departments would make more use of the services of this committee. It has, in fact, been of great assistance to the Government as a whole and to Departments.
  Mr. Levy: What procedure is to be adopted in order that these eminent gentlemen can collect the information about which they are to make decisions?
  Sir J. Anderson: That question relates to the functions of the Minister of Production, which is a separate matter.
  Sir H. Williams: What is the difference between the functions of this new scientific body and the one announced the day before yesterday, as they seem to be completely overlapping?
  Sir J. Anderson: This is not a new body——
  Sir H. Williams: The one announced the day before yesterday is new.
  Sir J. Anderson: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is not referring to the advisers of the Ministry of Production. They are individuals appointed to advise a Department. Every Department whose work involves the use of scientific knowledge has always had its own staff of scientific advisers and has access as necessary to outside advice.
  Sir H. Williams: As the Ministry of Production co-ordinates about six other Departments, each of which has its own scientific advisers, where are we?
  Mr. De le Bère: We are nowhere at all.

  AGRICULTURE

    Cutter-blowers
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any steps are being taken to popularise for use on farms a new type of cutter-blower for silo-filling from America suitable for small ricks?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As part of my Department's campaign to popularise silage production

    929
    the Ministry has encouraged the production of cutter-blowers for silo filling by British manufacturers, and has supplemented this production by the import of suitable machines from the U.S.A.
    Mr. Price: Are there any small ones on the market, or likely to come on the market, which will do for small farms?
    Mr. Hudson: Cutter-blowers are not necessary for making grass silage, which is the most important. They are only necessary for crops grown especially for silage, such as vetches.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture the extent of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the West Country; its source; and what steps are being taken to prevent its recurrence?
    Mr. Hudson: There have been rather more than 250 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the Bath infected area, the natural spread of the disease from the initial outbreak on nth July being aggravated by movements of the public over the countryside during the holiday season. Disease first appeared in pigs fed on swill. It is understood that the swill was boiled before being fed to the pigs. It can therefore be inferred that infection was conveyed to the pigs from the swill before it was boiled. It is, I am afraid, impossible to obviate entirely the risks associated with the use of swill, but steps are being taken to ensure, as far as is practicable, that swill is treated before distribution to farms.

  HOSTEL WARDEN (PROSECUTION, MAIDENHEAD)
  Major Lyonsasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a case at Maidenhead, on nth September, when a charge of false pretences was preferred against the warden of the local authority's hostel for boys and to his previous record as then disclosed; when, and by whom, and upon what investigation or reference this appointment as warden was made; and what steps are proposed to ensure different and closer scrutiny and examination in respect of any such appointment so as to avoid any similar future incident?
  Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. I am informed that the appointment was made in April by the Evacuation Committee of the Maidenhead Borough Council, after interviewing the candidate who was at the time employed with his wife in a responsible position in a well-known residential charitable institution. I have already informed local authorities that particulars of persons to be appointed as wardens to hostels should be submitted to my senior regional officers, and they are well aware that my regional staff are ready to give advice and assistance in the search for suitable applicants. The regional staff have now been consulted by the local authority in making appointments to fill the vacancies at the hostel to which the Question refers.
  Major Lyons: In view of what must have been the spurious representations made on behalf of this candidate, which were accepted, have appropriate steps been taken for the future?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir.

  BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the British representatives on the Bank for International Settlements have the special permission of His Majesty's Government to enter into business relations with enemy aliens, and whether he will give their names?
  Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present position of the Bank for International Settlements?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The President of the Bank is an American citizen and the conduct of the Bank, which is guided by a strict policy of neutrality, is wholly in his hands. No transactions have taken place since the war between the Bank of England acting as a member of the Bank and enemy Central Banks forming part of the institution. There have been no meetings of British and enemy directors since the war and there are no business relations between them. There is no British member of the Management at Basle. The two British Directors are Mr. Montagu Norman and Sir Otto

  931
  Niemeyer. The only British subjects on the staff at Basle are three subordinate officials and they have nothing to do with the policy or management of the Bank. The Report just issued is that of the American President of the Bank. No one else has any responsibility for it and neither of the British Directors is concerned in it. No copy of it has in fact yet reached this country, and it was not submitted to the Treasury or the Bank of England before publication. This country has various interests and rights in the Bank under International Trust Agreements between the various Governments and it would not be in the national interest to change our connection with the Bank as at present constituted and conducted.
  Mr. Strauss: In view of the fact that the great majority of the shares are owned by the Nazis, either directly or indirectly, would it not be very much more satisfactory if the British Government and the Bank of England dissociated themselves from the Bank for International Settlements by withdrawing any representation and arranging that their interests should be looked after through Swiss sources—by Swiss bankers?
  Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, there would be no public advantage in that at all. We have substantial interests in the Bank, and we have to safeguard them so far as we can.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Will my right hon. Friend say whether when this Report does reach this country a copy can be placed in the Library?
  Sir K. Wood: Yes, certainly.
  Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the issue of this Report has been received in Germany with warm approval?
  Sir K. Wood: I have no knowledge of that, and I do not know how we can comment on it. So far as we are concerned, no copy has reached this country.
  Mr. Loftus: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform us on what date this Report was issued to the public Press here and on what date it was communicated to the Bank of England?
  Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. No communication has reached the Bank of England
  932
  about this Report, and no copy of this Report has reached this country.
  Mr. Loftus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 5th September the "Frankfurter Zeitung" devoted a whole page to the details of this Report?
  Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. Whatever may have appeared there, no copy of the Report has reached this country.
  Mr. Bellenger: Although the Report has been issued on the authority of an American citizen, does not that by implication also commit our own directors of the Bank as well, and therefore should we not entirely dissociate His Majesty's Government from the views expressed in the Report?
  Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I have already stated quite explicitly that this Report was issued on the authority of the American president of the Bank alone. I do not know, in fact, what is in the Report or whether it is open to any objection.
  Mr. Strauss: In view of the difficulty of dealing with this important question by this method, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the forthcoming Business?
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): The forthcoming Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—The Debate on the coal situation will be concluded.
Second Sitting Day—The Adjournment of the House will be moved in order to give an opportunity for a Debate upon the First Report from the Public Accounts Committee, dealing with contracts. At the end of the Debate we shall ask leave to withdraw the Motion for the Adjournment and take the Committee and remaining stages of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill and of the Local Elections Bill, if there is time.
Third Sitting Day-Second Reading of the India and Burma (Temporary and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Mr. Greenwood: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether in the Debate on the

933
India and Burma Bill you will allow an opportunity for a Debate on a rather wider basis?
Mr. Speaker: I have given some consideration to this matter and can only say that as there have been two previous occasions when in similar circumstances a wider discussion was allowed than would have been strictly in Order, I propose therefore to allow a wide discussion in the Debate on the India Bill. I think, however, that the Minister in making his statement should connect as much as he can the proposals in the Bill with the history and the future government of India.
Mr. Greenwood: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for what I may call with the deepest respect a very wise Ruling.
Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, with regard to your Ruling about the discussion on the India and Burma Bill. Are we to take it that this slightly out of Order, almost in Order, Debate on this Bill about Indian administration and Burmese matters is to take the place of the Indian Debate which the Prime Minister promised the House, when there would be an opportunity for the House to cast a vote definitely for or against the new policy in India?
Dr. Haden Guest: Is not the House to have an opportunity of debating the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), which will allow us to express a clear-cut view by a Division whether hon. Members approve of the Prime Minister's statement on India, or not? Is it not desirable that there should be a definite opportunity for the House to express its opinion?
Sir S. Cripps: The Bill which was introduced by the Secretary of State for India yesterday is an urgent Measure, which must he dealt with by the House within the course of the next few days, and it is not considered advisable, in view of the fact that there has already been one day's Debate on the Indian situation—[HON; MEMBERS: "No, it was on the Adjournment."] It was on the Adjournment, but it was on the Indian situation as well—to have a third Debate on the same subject matter. As Mr. Speaker has said, the Debate on the Bill will be a broad Debate, in which reference can be made to
934
general matters with which hon. Members are concerned.
Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister gave consent to certain hon. Members putting down a Motion supporting his statement on India, is it not desirable to proceed with it? Would it not be of interest to the House to know what the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are on the Prime Minister's statement?
Sir S. Cripps: It might or might not be of interest to the House to hear my views, but it is perfectly possible for the House, if hon. Members wish to vote on the matter, to vote on the Second Reading of the Bill which has been brought forward.
Mr. Maxton: Are we to understand that Government policy on India, which took such a sharp turn in the last few weeks, is not to be submitted to this House for approval? Are we to understand that the Prime Minister makes his own statement and his own policy and consults nobody at all?
Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of any change, sharp or otherwise, in the policy in the last few weeks or days.
Sir R. Glyn: Are we to understand that the Debate will be without prejudice to the rights of hon. Members to discuss the matter on the Motion which stands on the Paper?
Sir S. Cripps: It is always without prejudice, of course.
Sir R. Glyn: I mean by that that a day will be allotted by the Government, if the forthcoming Debate is not satisfactory?
Sir S. Cripps: We had better wait and see how the Debate goes.
Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the statement made by the Prime Minister on India is also to be the subject of discussion during the Debate?
Sir S. Cripps: It is a matter for Mr. Speaker to say whether that specific question can be raised, as it has already been raised on one occasion before.
Mr. Shinwell: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. I put it to Mr. Speaker now, whether that matter can be raised?
Mr. Speaker: It is impossible for me to say at the moment whether that matter can be raised in the Debate. I must see first whether anybody raises it.
Dr. Haden Guest: Would it not be desirable for the House to have an opportunity to decide for or against the Motion put down by the hon. Member for Abingdon? It is a perfectly straight Motion. A great many of my hon. Friends would like to vote against it, and no doubt a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to vote for it. Is the House afraid of showing whatever division of opinion there may be?
Mr. Maxton: Would a reasoned Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill, protesting against the imprisonment of leaders of the Indian Congress Party and expressing regret that complete independence has not been granted to India, be regarded by you, Sir, as a competent Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading of that Bill?
Mr. Speaker: I would like to see that Amendment on paper.
Mr. Maxton: You will have the opportunity, Sir.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Would the Government consider issuing a White Paper showing the present position of the particular contracts to which reference is made in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee?
Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. The Government propose to issue a White Paper, and I hope it will be in the hands of hon. Members by the end of this week.
Mr. Greenwood: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal whether he saw a report in the Press about to-day's Debate which appeared to show that there has been an alteration in the procedure? The Debate was asked for by my hon. Friends on the Adjournment, and it was assumed that we should open it, but, according to a Press statement of last night, the Debate is to be opened by the Minister of Fuel and Power.
Sir S. Cripps: I understand that the arrangement which was contemplated was that the Minister should open the Debate
936
with a record of his administration during the last few months and that then the House would have an opportunity of discussing it, in the light of the facts which he will have laid before us.
Mr. Greenwood: I am not raising any question about the Minister of Fuel and Power. My recollection of the usual channels is that, as we asked for the Debate, we should be granted the usual right to open it.
Sir S. Cripps: I should be very sorry if there had been any misunderstanding, but I think the usual channels were under the impression that there was an indication that it would be convenient to have the matter of coal debated, and as it had already been promised some time ago that the Minister should make a statement on the progress of events in his Department, it was thought that he should open the Debate by making a statement.
Mr. Greenwood: My end of the usual channels has not that impression at all.
Mr. Pickthorn: How did the statement come to be in the Press?
Sir S. Cripps: I cannot answer the question. I did not see the matter in the Press, and I have no knowledge of how the Press knew anything about it.
Mr. Shinwell: In view of what happened on a recent occasion, would it not be possible, after the Minister of Fuel and Power has opened the Debate, at a somewhat late hour which may impinge on the meal hour, for the House to suspend its Sittings for one hour after hearing his statement and then to resume the Debate?
Sir S. Cripps: I suppose the hon. Member is at liberty to make that Motion, if Mr. Speaker will accept it.
Mr. Austin Hopkinson: In order to avoid a repetition of that unfortunate incident, could not you, Sir, call, as second speaker, someone who is not a member of the Front Opposition Bench?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
  Fourteenth Report from the Select Committee, brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 112.]

COAL SITUATION
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The problem of coal supply has exercised the minds of Members in all parts of the House on more than one occasion during the year. As the House will recollect, last June the Government decided upon certain steps. I make no complaint that Members are anxious to know what progress has been made in setting up the new organisation, but I am perfectly certain that they will agree with me that the creation of a new Ministry practically at the end of the third year of war cannot be achieved overnight, especially when one considers the many new Ministries that have already been formed and the great expansion that has occurred in some of the older ones. It would be not an easy matter at any time, but it has not been made any easier by the fact that summer was already well advanced at the time when it was decided to create this Ministry. The immediate problem of the supply of coal had to be tackled at once. I am glad to say that we have made satisfactory progress with the new organisation. I have visited many of the regions myself, and I hope very shortly to be able to visit them all. I am pleased to say that while they too have had their difficulties, with regard to staff and accommodation, very satisfactory progress is being made. I do not think anybody would quarrel with me if I were to say that the reorganisation of the industry which is intended as one of the results of the new machine is not likely to have a very material effect on the supply of coal for this winter.
I was, therefore, faced with this problem. First, I had to overcome the

961
immediate difficulty of supply and at the same time I had to create a machine which would enable us to avoid that difficulty next year and in subsequent years. May I remind the House of what the position was when I took office? The coal supply position was this: In 1938 the production of coal in this country was 227,000,000 tons; export and other oversea shipments accounted for 46,000,000 tons which left 181,000,000 tons for the home market. In the year which ended with Dunkirk, the date which marks the beginning of the sharp decline in the industry's manpower and the great increase in domestic consumption—two factors I would remind the House which are responsible for the present position—in that year, the production was nearly 230,000,000 tons. Exports and other shipments accounted for 45,000,000 ions and that left the home market consuming 185,000,000 tons.
I come now to the position in the present coal year, that is, the year beginning on 1st May, for that is the period when stocks are at their lowest and the time when we are beginning to replenish for the winter. The position this year is that during five months output has been at a rate that would produce something under 200,000,000 tons. Together with that decrease in production, requirements have risen steeply since Dunkirk, owing to the increased demand for raw coal at the new war factories, the development of the war industries, the needs of the Services, and the increasing demands made upon our public utility undertakings, including railways. As an example of what that demand is in the present coal year, I may say that certain important munition industries will require 25 per cent. more coal than they did two years ago; electricity will require 40 per cent. more coal, gas 15 per cent. and railways 13 per cent. above the figure for the pre-Dunkirk period. The effect of this increased demand will be that consumption in the United Kingdom will be about 20,000,000 tons in excess of what it was in the year before Dunkirk. This, together with the fall in production—due very largely to the loss of man-power—has created a deficit which even the decline in exports does not make good. The current estimated deficit is about 14,500,000 tons. Against that there is a saving which we have already achieved by running down public utility under-
962
takings' stocks, the use of low-grade fuel from colliery banks and production from open cast workings. The total contribution I expect from these three sources will be about 3,500,000 tons which will bring our deficit down to 11,000,000 tons.
I take this opportunity, in passing, to speak about open cast working. The probable output from open cast working is about 1,500,000 tons. I think hon. Members opposite will agree that there has been a good deal of exaggeration as to the possibilities of what can be got, this year, out of open cast working. One of my difficulties is transport. Many of the open cast sites are, at the moment, remote from load or rail. The fact is that we were accumulating large supplies which had to be got away. While I appreciate that getting large quantities of coal from outcrop is not an easy matter, I do not want anybody to believe that the transport of the coal away from the sites is an easy matter either. But I am glad to say that we have made substantial progress with transport arrangements, and I am satisfied that we shall be able to get rid of the accumulation before long. I only want to make this point—that while the ultimate possibilities will really be such as to give us a real contribution, I do not want anybody to run away with the idea that, in this present coal year, we shall get more than 1,500,000 tons from this source.
That, with the public utility undertakings' stocks and the use of inferior qualities off the banks, would bring our deficit down to about 11,000,000 tons as I have already said. The question which I have to face is how this deficit is to be met, without either injuring the vital war effort of this country or causing unnecessary hardship to our people. While the seriousness of the situation must not be underestimated, I am satisfied that we can get through this winter, provided we get the full co-operation of all, both consumers and producers—and when I refer to producers, I do not refer only to the men but to the managements as well, and when it refer to consumers, I do not refer to domestic consumers only but also to that very important class of consumers the industrial consumers. The deficit in our coal budget has to be wiped out and in my judgment it can be wiped out. There must be an increase of production and a decrease of consumption.
May I give now the figures relating to consumption? Consumption is divided

963
into two parts, domestic and industrial, and I will deal first with domestic consumption. Although we are now in the fourth year of the war, I doubt very much whether until recently consumption of fuel in all its forms by the domestic population of this country had really decreased at all, per head. I am talking now of the situation before any economies have been made. I am satisfied that very large savings can be made without real hardship, and I do not want people to confuse inconvenience with hardship. There is a very important difference. But, as I say, I am satisfied that it can be done without real hardship to our people. In this connection, I feel that I must remind hon. Members that it was decided by this House last June that they would give—or that I was expected to give—voluntary economy a fair trial. At the same time, it was laid down that all the necessary steps should be taken and administrative preparations made to produce a rationing scheme in case it might be necessary to introduce such a scheme at short notice. I need scarcely now remind the House that the fuel economy campaign has started, under the able and energetic direction of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall), and it will grow in intensity as the winter comes on. While I am satisfied that we can achieve the necessary savings by voluntary means I have not neglected to fulfil the Government's undertaking as to other arrangements. Some 13,000,000 householders were required to complete forms in the middle of July, and on the information contained in those forms Local Fuel Overseers have been busy assessing the needs of the householders of the country. The arrangements are now practically complete, and the first stage of a really vast undertaking has been successfully completed. Whether we have a rationing scheme or not, the information will be of immense value to us in determining the allocation of fuel to districts this winter, and the work therefore will not be wasted, whatever we decide.
Furthermore, I decided to secure a substantial measure of economy by statutory direction. I therefore made a Waste of Fuel Order, and subsequently a Control of Fuel Order. Under this latter Order I have made certain directions which
964
come into force to-day. I do not know whether anyone in the House has noticed them, but they certainly would have done so yesterday. They came into operation to-day and limit the use of fuel for central heating, for water heating and also lighting in public institutions and larger households. It is obviously too early yet to judge the full effect of the fuel economy campaign. Of one thing I am absolutely certain; it has made the whole country fuel conscious. There are definite indications that the campaign is having a substantial effect on consumption, but it is obviously impossible until later in the year to see how successful it will be, because we are now only at the end of September.
I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that if the cases which have come to my notice are typical of what is happening throughout the country—and I have no reason to doubt that they are-many thousands of tons of coal are being saved. If the House will bear with me, I will give one or two illustrations which I have taken at random. I have tried to take them to cover every activity. For instance, in the case of municipal offices I have examples of savings of from 17 to 42 per cent. since this campaign started; in the case of hotels savings of from 15 to over 50 per cent. have been secured; cinemas, from 15 per cent. to one case, in London, of 59 per cent.; and for flats I have examples of savings of 20 per cent. and under in many parts of the country. But the most remarkable indication of all is one of the big cities of this country, a very important manufacturing city with a consumption for gas of about 1,000,000 tons of coal a year. Before the campaign was started they were using about 17 per cent. more gas this year than last, because it is a big industrial city and the demand is great. That was reduced to 6 per cent. above last year, then to 2 per cent., and now it is one-half of 1 per cent. above last year. An interesting thing is that before the campaign really started the excess consumption of gas over last year was 55,000,000 cubic feet, and this has now come down to 7,000,000 cubic feet excess. This means that not only is there economy in industry but obviously there must be a very substantial economy in domestic consumption as well.
Another important factor in my plan for saving is the restriction of supplies

965
this winter. I have reduced the allocation of coal for domestic consumption, both in its raw state and in the form of gas and electricity, by 4,000,000 tons. The supply restrictions at present in force do not permit any householder to acquire more coal than will raise the stock in his cellar to one and a half tons of coal and three tons of coke. The House will be aware that there is an overriding condition in the case of coal which limits deliveries to not more than one ton in the period of three months ending 30th October. Any householder can under the Order appeal to the local fuel overseer, who may grant licences for greater quantities if he is satisfied that there would be real hardship unless the restriction was relaxed. These restrictions will be continued, but they may be modified as to quantities in the light of the supply position. If supply improves, the restrictions will be relaxed. Some relaxation has already been made regarding coke, because the supply position is somewhat easier at the moment. It is right to point out that the improvement in supply may be in respect of poor quality fuel, and householders and others may have to realise that they will have to take poorer quality fuel than some of them have been accustomed to having. Many people have been rather spoiled in this country in the past in respect of the quality they have had, and they may well have to put up with poorer quality now.
To secure the measure of economy in domestic consumption of gas and electricity restrictions will be imposed by Order on consumption. In deciding upon the form of the restrictions I propose to impose, I have had uppermost in my mind the need for equity in the distribution of the supplies that are available. I feel it is essential to provide for the small consumer as a first charge on the supplies of solid fuel that are available. To this end I propose to instruct merchants that consumers who normally use about 1 cwt. a week will be the first charge on their coal supplies. Each merchant must set up a regular rota covering all the streets in the area served from the depot. The supervision of the performance of these instructions will be carried out by the local fuel overseer, to whom I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute. Restrictions imposed by my Ministry on the lines I have described will continue to apply to those consumers who do not come within this "small con- 966
sumer" class. It is intended to supply these people on a programme basis with a stock of from 1 ton to 1½ tons by the end of December. The House will see that under these arrangements the transport and labour for deliveries during the period when conditions are usually at their worst will be available to serve the needs of the small consumer.
As an insurance against interruption of transport during the winter, merchants have been compelled to hold back a certain quantity of coal in stock, and Government dumps have been established in localities where the effect of interruption of supplies would be most serious. For instance, dumps have been established in practically every Metropolitan borough in London, and the councils have been encouraged to hold stocks at their blocks of flats to meet the difficulties which arose last year and in other years too. Under the scheme of delivering coal to the small consumer, as I have just described, the rota will be laid down for the merchant, but the householder must play his part in ordering coal at the office of the merchant with whom he is registered.
I do not want the House to think that because of recent concentration on the domestic consumer a great deal cannot be done with the industrial consumer. I am certain that substantial savings can be secured in the industrial world as well without seriously or at all impairing our war effort. The consumption of fuel by our industries must be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 140,000,000 tons a year, and a very small saving there would turn out a very large tonnage. Much has already been done. A year ago my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), when he was Secretary for Mines, appointed a Committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Grumell, to advise on how greater efficiency could be obtained in the industry. Their work is definitely beginning to bear fruit. They realise that it is impossible in war to effect substantial reductions in the consumption of coal by the installation of different plants, but they realise that a great deal of saving can be made by proper attention to operation and to maintenance. They have a three-point programme for economy.
First, they realise that however great the willingness to economise, it is useless unless people have knowledge. They therefore started last year refresher

967
courses at the technical colleges throughout the country. Secondly, they were convmced that in many large industries economies could be made by an overhaul of the heat in process work. The accordingly met representatives of about 30 trade associations, to discuss the scope for economy in each industry in turn. These associations undertook to make examinations and to see what savings could be effected. Many industries have appointed whole-time officers to give advice, backed by that of the Committee set up by the Ministry. Large economies can be made in steam-raising plant. For this reason, at the request of the Committee, my staff of combustion engineers has been increased. In addition, the controllers in the regions set up under the White Paper have been asked to recruit the voluntary part-time services of other experts. Nearly 300 of these experts have volunteered to give their assistance. We have thus set up an organisation to help those who want to save fuel in industry.
I could give many examples; there is one that I will give, from South Wales. There, one of these economy committees was set up. They inspected 50 firms, with an aggregate consumption of coal per annum of 700,000 tons. They are satisfied that they will be able to save 70,000 tons in that group of 50 firms alone. I could give many other cases. I am satisfied that people are doing their best to take advantage of what advice is offered to them, and that substantial economies not only can be made, but at this moment are being made in this country.
I have dealt with consumption: I must come to the other part of the effort to get rid of our deficit—that is, production. Leaving out the question of reorganisation, which I shall deal with later, there are at this moment, for the immediate problem, two ways of increasing output—an increase in man-power, and an increased output from the man-power that we have. It is stated in many quarters—and I see there is a Motion on the Paper to that effect—that this problem can best be resolved by releasing more men from the Forces. Members will appreciate that in dealing with this matter considerations obviously outside coal considerations must be taken into account, and I would remind them that that is
968
not an expedient that can be repeated year by year. A great deal has already been done; I wonder whether the House realises how much. The House will remember that in 1941 33,000 men were returned from other industries. This year it was decided to bring back 11,000 more from the Services and from other industries. This programme has, in fact, been improved upon. The total number returned to the mines last year and this year is nearly 50,000.
Mr. A. Bevan: To what category do these men belong? They are not first-grade men, from the field Forces; so they are not the youngest and most virile workers. How many are real face workers?
Major Lloyd George: I have not the figures broken down as my hon. Friend wants them. As for face workers, the result has been to put up the number of face workers by over 5,000 as compared with last year.
Mr. Bevan: Out of the 50,000, only 5,000 are to work at the coal face?
Major Lloyd George: No. My hon. Friend, I am surprised to see, has forgotten that there is such a thing as wastage. That increase of 5,000 allows for the wastage that has taken place.
Mr. Bevan: I am sorry to be so persistent, but this is a matter of the gravest possible moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), when he was at the Ministry of Mines, made several attempts to get men released from the Forces. The War Office laid it down that they would not release men from the field Forces, so men are coming back who are not Grade 1 men; and they are not the men to raise coal output quickly.
Major Lloyd George: I will try to get the actual figures for ray hon. Friend. Obviously, no Minister responsible for producing coal would refuse additional man-power. It would make my task, I will not say simple, but a good deal simpler than it is at the moment. But I must remind the House that there are 17,000 more men in industry than there were last year, and that the output is 70,000 tons a week down. I make this point for one purpose only; I want to make it perfectly clear that "more men"

969
is not the whole solution to this problem. An increase in output from the present labour force might be achieved, and can be achieved, by concentration on more productive pits and seams and on the modernisation of methods. This must, of necessity, take time. Not only has the machinery to be manufactured, but very big issues are involved, both human and mechanical, where concentration is concerned. My regional officers are now engaged in making detailed surveys—that is a very important preliminary to anything of this character—and in a number of cases are already discussing details with colliery managements. Further, concentrations within some collieries have already taken place. I say frankly that progress has not been even in all the regions, but I have given instructions that this must be considered as a work of prime importance.
But the anxiety of the House and the country is concerned with the immediate position. That must in the main depend on the increased productivity of the men now in the industry. For the last two years output has steadily declined. I thought it was of the utmost importance that as soon as I had the opportunity I should myself go around to try to ascertain what the reasons were. I have recently been around several of the areas—and I hope very shortly to have seen them all—and I have met over 200 pit production committees. I had a perfectly free and frank discussion with them all. I encouraged them to tell me what they thought about anything, and it was extremely instructive and, I think, will be of great use.
I will give one or two examples of the kind of things which in their minds are responsible for decreasing output. There are many others, but I am just taking one or two. First of all, I found in many cases an extraordinary lack of appreciation of the powers conferred on pit production committees. I was very surprised, and I took the opportunity to explain to them that their position was such to-day that they could take part in advising as to production and that what they suggested and advised would be sent to the Regional Controller. I want to make that perfectly clear again, because the operational control of the mines is invested in me and my Regional Controllers, to whom I delegate my powers.
970
I made it perfectly plain to pit production committees that that was a very different position from what it was at the beginning of the year. I thing my visit was useful for that purpose alone. Here are one or two of the points emphasised. There is the general strain of the war, including——
Mr. George Griffiths: I do not like to interrupt, but before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves the pit production business, may I ask him if he emphasised to the men that they have also the right to go down the pit and see the face and make recommendations over and above the managers themselves?
Major Lloyd George: The pit production committees are composed of both sides, and the men are perfectly entitled to go down, as indeed they do, but what discouraged many of them in the past was that when they made recommendations no notice was taken of them. I tried to make it perfectly plain that that would be very different in the future, and that if they made remmendations to me for improved production and things of that sort, they would be considered from one angle and one angle only.
Mr. Sloan: Is the Minister quite sure with regard to pit production committees being at liberty to go down the pit and go into certain sections where they consider that things are not being carried out efficiently? The managers at the colliery simply say that they are responsible for the management of the pit, and they will not and cannot allow men to wander around the pit without permission.
Major Lloyd George: If that is so, I will look into it, but my intention is that the pit production committee should certainly be what its name suggests, and if they need information which would help them to that end, I shall be very glad to hear it, because I am satisfied that coal must be got. That is one thing which I may go upon with regard to output. There is the general strain of war, including the lowering of nutritional standards. The average age of miners—and I have recently made inquiries—is now 37½, compared with 34½ 10 years ago. The number over 40 years of age is now more than 40 per cent. of the total man-power

971
compared with 33 1/3 per cent. in 1931. The number between the ages of 21 and 24—a highly productive group—is not more than one-third of that group in 1931.
Deterioration and breakdowns in machinery, and, in some cases, difficulty in getting parts and so forth was also mentioned by pit production committees, and without exception, at every meeting I attended, the question of absenteeism was raised. I want to deal with that.
Mr. E. J. Williams: May I put this point? [HON; MEMBERS: "No."] I seldom interrupt, and it is a vital point. Has the Minister inquired into the average age of the pits themselves, which, after all, is as vital as the average age of the miner?
Major Lloyd George: This is part of one of the things upon which I am engaged at the moment, and that is the question of the survey, which is vitally important, and it will be bound to take a little time, because we have not had an up-to-date survey in this country at all.
With regard to absenteeism, which was raised at every meeting to which I went, let me say quite frankly that in general the majority of the men are working considerably more shifts than in pre-war days. There has recently been a good deal of discussion about absenteeism among miners. The rate at present is between 10 and 11 per cent. for the country as a whole. This is an overall figure, which includes voluntary as well as involuntary absenteeism, and absenteeism through sickness and accident which operates with great severity in this industry. Nor should it be forgotten that in considering the rate of absenteeism account must be taken of the number of shifts worked by miners compared with the number worked at any other period in the history of the coalmining industry. I have no information which leads me to believe that absenteeism among miners is greater than that of any other industry.
Mr. G. Griffiths: Say that again, so that the other side can hear it.
Major Lloyd George: While this is so, it does not excuse the small minority of men who are not working with the urgency required for this present situation. With
972
this minority I say at once I have no sympathy. I doubt whether anybody in this House has any sympathy for them, and I certainly found no sympathy whatsoever in a single pit production committee, either individually or collectively. Indeed it was generally condemned. I will go further—and I had lots of talks with miners themselves. It causes a very great resentment among those who are working steadily, because it upsets the work they are doing, and, further, it draws upon the whole mining community criticism which ought to be confined to the particular section which is not doing its job. An examination of the actual attendance of individual men in a large number of collieries shows that in these collieries 85 per cent. of the men are putting in a satisfactory number of shifts and the remaining 15 per cent. are not putting in the requisite number of shifts. Some of these, it is true, are elderly men, and these cannot be classed with the younger men, who can offer no justification for their absence.
Mr. Shinwell: What is the percentage of face men among them?
Major Lloyd George: It is rather high. It is estimated that if the minority were working as many shifts as the majority, the output of these collieries would be increased by 4 per cent., and if these collieries represented the whole country, that 4 per cent. would mean an additional 5,000,000 tons for the rest of this coal year.
In dealing with the question of absenteeism, a step of great importance has been taken in that absenteeism is removed from the jurisdiction of pit production committees. Of equal importance has been the alteration in the Essential Work Order to bring the coalmining industry into line with other industries by making absenteeism a direct offence under Defence Regulations. This Amendment became operative on 17th September. The policy laid down in the White Paper has been carried out, and investigation officers have been appointed in the regions. I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour with a view to simplifying the machinery for dealing with absenteeism. I am satisfied that the alteration of the procedure will reduce delay in dealing with these cases and give the results

973
which the whole industry desires. It is too early to estimate the effect of the steps which have been taken, but the reports which reach us indicate that there has already been an improvement in this very important matter. During September also there was a very welcome improvement in output, and I am glad to inform the House that the output last week was 4,137,000 tons, the highest figure, with one exception, since December of last year. The total represents an output per man of 5.82 tons, a figure which had not been reached since last March.
A satisfactory feature is that eleven of the districts have reached their standard tonnage. Last week it was only seven, and I hope very much that we shall be able to start a second eleven next week. The House, I am sure, would like to know that I intend to publish in future, on a fixed day each month, the total output figures for the whole country during the preceding month, with a statement showing the percentage of the standard tonnage reached in each district. This will enable the House and the country to follow the trend of production and to know how far each district has gone towards achieving its tonnage.
To sum up, I am satisfied that if everybody concerned puts his back into it, we shall wipe out our deficit of 11,000,000 tons. With what we can expect to get from domestic and industrial consumption I think it can be achieved without hardship or difficulty. The indications which I have seen this month show that by a concentration of output on the part of those who have not so far been doing their share we shall be able to bridge this gap. I am perfectly satisfied about that.
Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and gallant Friend, but he has either left something out or perhaps intends to refer to it before he sits down. When he talks about the improvement in the position so far as men are concerned has he discovered any defects relating to production so far as management is concerned? What has been done in that direction?
Major Lloyd George: That is in the hands of my Regional Controllers. I said at the beginning of my speech, and I meant it, that when I referred to men I referred to managements as well. Part of
974
the purpose for which the new machinery is being set up is to see that management is functioning as it ought to function.
Mr. Shinwell: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend discovered any improvement?
Major Lloyd George: Where things are not going properly they are being looked into at the present moment. I can assure my hon. Friend that whether it be management or men I have instilled it into my Regional Controllers that this job must be done in the interests of the nation and in no other interest whatever. I do not care whether it is one side or the other, if their attitude is obstructive to what this nation wants, it will have to be corrected.
Mr. Foster: Have any colliery managers been sent to gaol? In three cases in Lancashire miners have been sent to prison for three months each, but no managers have been sent to prison.
Major Lloyd George: I am sure my hon. Friend will not expect me to deal with that now. I do not even know what the charge against them was or what charge my hon. Friend has in mind against managers, but I can only repeat that so far as I am concerned no interest will stand in the way of the interest of the nation. There are, of course, other matters of immense importance to this industry with which I should like, to have dealt, but I felt that at this moment the House would have liked me to deal with the immediate position. I have concentrated my attention on that, although that is not to say that I have lost sight of other extremely important things, such as the new medical service and plans for recruitment to the industry. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, however, has devoted a great deal of time to these two particular subjects and will deal with them more fully later in the Dabate. As I have mentioned, the question of a long-term policy is one which cannot affect seriously the output for this winter. Therefore, I confined myself to dealing with the subject which is of most interest to the House and the country at this moment—how to get through this winter.
As I have said, I am satisfied that if we can get—as I am certain we can—all concerned seized with a sense of the urgency of the position and to contribute their share, I have no doubt we shall see it

975
through. But I am far from thinking that the tackling of the immediate position is the sole purpose of this Ministry. It is true that this industry is essential in war, but it is equally essential in peace. It produces the raw material upon which the prosperity of this country is founded. All has not been well with this industry for a great number of years. An industry that loses more men than it takes in is not in a healthy state. When we have overcome this immediate position, as I am sure we shall, I shall be free to give my almost undivided attention to the reorganisation of this great industry, so that its vast resources may be used to the best advantage of our nation and for the security and well-being of those who labour within it.
Mr. A. Edwards: May I put this point to my right hon. and gallant Friend? With regard to men in the Forces, it has been said that those who have been released are not effective men. I had a Question on the Order Paper to the Minister, and he promised me he would give me some information on this point. Some of us are given to understand that there are effective men in the Forces who could produce all the coal required. The Minister has not yet said whether he is satisfied that these men are available; if so, whether the War Office would release them, and whether, if they are there, he would take steps, if all else failed, to insist on these men being released to do this essential work in the mines.
Major Lloyd George: The number of these men in the Army at the present time is about 4,000.
Mr. Edwards: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I had a Question on the Order Paper, and my right hon. and gallant Friend promised me some information today. It is an important point and he has not made the issue clear.
Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that it will probably come out in the course of the Debate.
Mr. Grenfell: I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to the Minister on his first speech in his new office. I can assure him—if he needs any assurance—that I will do everything I can, wherever I may be, to help him in
976
his onerous task. The Minister has found himself in charge of an organisation which has yet to develop and which has yet to acquire his full influence in the scheme of mining and fuel operations of this country and I sympathise fully with him when he alludes to the need for building up this industry. I thought that when he began his speech he would propose a Vote of Censure upon the Government for having set up this Ministry at this most inappropriate time. I assure him that I have no feeling in this matter at all and that I do not complain of the enormously increased authority reposed in him compared with the authority which I had in my time of office. I served two years m the Department, and for the first year I found no difficulty in the performance of my duties, but I must say that during the last year of my duty in the Mines Department I was very severely restricted in authority. I said so then, and I think I should say so to-day. The Minister has been elevated to a position which will enable him to achieve far more with his own power than he would have been able to do if he had occupied a position similar to mine. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded his remarks on a note of optimism and idealism. He said that this is a long-term policy but that it is equally important as the immediate policy. I would like to assure him that, although the long-term policy will require the combined wisdom and authority, knowledge and experience, of all the people in the industry if the industry is to play its rightful part in the life of the nation, there is to-day a terribly urgent situation that cannot be disregarded. I do not complain of anything that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, but I thought he was not quite sufficiently impressed with the importance of the immediate problem.
He referred to certain figures of production and consumption. He gave us some of the history of the industry. I would like to amplify that history a little by saying that there has not been any time in the last two and a half years when the industry has been sufficiently supplied with man-power, except for the period immediately following Dunkirk, when the export market for 500,000 tons a week fell away overnight, and there were no doors open to receive the coal produced in our exporting areas. In Durham and South Wales pits were

977
closed down. We had, it appeared then, a surplus of coal and a surplus of manpower, but it was a very great mistake indeed at that time to assume that those figures would be permanent, that the figures up to the time of Dunkirk would be the figures of consumption and prospective production for the duration of the war. I remember that I gave a very definite and clear warning that there would be a steeply rising curve of home consumption. I am afraid that the wisdom that is displayed by my right hon. and gallant Friend to-day has come all too late to the Government. He referred to the increase of 20,000,000 tons compared with the highwater level of 1938, when we were beginning our war preparations and when there was a consumption of 181,000,000 tons a year for all kinds of industrial, domestic, and miscellaneous purposes.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said to-day that we are needing more than 20,000,000 tons additional coal. I will give the figures. Last year we produced and consumed almost an equal balance. It was a great achievement for the industry and for those responsible for the production and distribution of coal. Last year we produced 207,500,000 tons—a very large figure—and consumed almost exactly the same tonnage. This year, according to the estimates—I remember them very well, for I prepared them—from 1st November to 1st May of next year, we shall require no less than 120,000,000 tons for home consumption, plus a minimum of exports which we may not cut down with safety of 3,500,000 tons or 4,000,000 tons. We shall require, according to the estimate already available, 124,000,000 tons for the next six months. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there is deficit of only 11,000,000 tons and he hopes that that will be made good by economies in industrial and domestic consumption. He had better remember that he should be very careful not to rely entirely upon prospective saving? to meet prospective demands. The prospective savings are problematical. He cannot guarantee them. The demands are certain. I should like to give a word of advice—get your coal in the bag before you weigh it.
I would like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to face the problem as a problem modified in its aspects from the
978
one which he described. We shall need 120,000,000 tons for home consumption in the next six months. Perhaps I should interpolate here that this is a winter problem. The danger is in the winter. There is always a margin in the summer, and that margin should be used for stocking. This year the stocks are not there. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not tell us what are the stocks to-day. I do not suppose he is under an obligation to tell the House, it may be dangerous to do so; but let me give the history of stocking before I proceed further. When I went into the Mines Department at the end of the first winter of war, there were 10,000,000 tons of coal in stock. There had been much hardship and complaint about coal shortage, but there were 10,000,000 tons in stock on the day I arrived at the Department. Then came Dunkirk. There was a pessimism in Government circles as well as in industrial circles which I had to overcome, and I make the claim that I stood alone in Government circles and almost in industrial circles for a while when I said, "You will want this additional coal."
The figures that have been quoted today by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman show how right was my forecast of the requirements. In May, 1940, there were 10,000,000 tons of coal in stock. Then came the transport difficulties which set in on 1st September with the blitz. I would like to pay a word of tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, who presided with patience, tact and an extraordinary grasp of the details of the transport problem over the committee of the Admiralty, the Mines Department, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Shipping, the Railway Executive and the Board of Trade which was in almost constant session throughout the winter. We managed to stock a good deal and I readily tender my recognition to the Lord President of the Council and all who worked with us.
We began the winter of 1940–41 with 28,000,000 tons of coal in stock. I ask the House to note the figure. We survived a very severe winter 1940–41, during which the position was aggravated by transport difficulties, magnetic and acoustic mines when there were reports of sinkings all around the coast, and bottle-necks and obstacles of all kinds on the railway system. The 28,000,000 tons of coal in stock helped us to overcome the

979
difficulties. We ended my first winter with 14,000,000 tons in stock, 4,000,000 tons more than I had when I entered the Department. The next winter, in the light of the increase in the prospective demand, I insisted on more stocking, and we began the second winter with 31,000,000 tons of coal in stock on 1st December, 1941. I ask the House to note that we ended the winter with exactly the same tonnage; at the beginning we had 3,000,000 tons more in stock, but the stock worked down to the same level of 14,000,000 tons. We took 17,000,000 tons out of stock in the second winter and finished up when I left with 14,000,000 tons. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must face this matter before the Debate ends. It is in the interests of the country and in his own interest that I speak. He knows that he will not be able to draw 17,000,000 tons out of stock next winter. He has not got it. He will not have it. It is not there.
I speak with complete approval of the plan of reorganisation. I submitted the first draft myself. It is still there. I am convinced that it ought to work to the advantage of the country, and I wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman Godspeed and the utmost success in its operation. There is a plan which has given the best possible results from the equipment and the men at his disposal. He cannot by any efficient management get more than the capacity of the pits. Are there enough men? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been given a very fine office, which is much more dignified and elevated than mine was. I admire his modest demeanour in this very exalted situation, but no top dressing, no well-proportioned scheme of organisation, will get coal from the pits without men going down the pits, and there are not enough men. I shall be told, "You were there a long time. Why did you let the men go?" I did not. Everyone knows that I was opposed to letting them go. I tried to impose a limitation upon the number who were to remain. After all, what is important in an industry like ours is. What have we left when they have gone? I gave a minimum figure of 720,000 in September, 1940. We fell to below 690,000 for a very long period.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must really watch this. The production
980
of coal was never, more efficient than in May and June, 1941. We then had 688,000 men. They had not been driven too hard through the winter, because there were transport stoppages. They had not been worked too hard. They had a surplus productive capacity which was never fully employed. When the spring, came, they responded readily, and, despite their attenuated numbers, they produced nearly 4,200,000 tons. That is just about the limit. All kinds of inducements were put to me to promise a greater output, but I said I would never promise more than a 5 per cent. increase. Under the best conditions you might get 2½ per cent. from better management and 2½ per cent. from better attendance. When you have added the lot together, 5 per cent. increase is a very good achievement indeed. We were producing nearly 4,200,000 tons with fewer than 690,000 men, a number lower than we had had for 50 years, and at no time in the 50 years which have passed since I began to work have we had better production results than in May and June last year. The House can check these figures. The figures of mining are very simple. The ramifications inside the pits are beyond the layman altogether—the cannot understand them—but the figures are simple. If you get from every man employed at and about the coalmines in this period of stress and pressure which the Minister contemplates, with all the persuasive influences of neighbours and colleagues upon the workmen and all the pressure of the Regional Controller upon the management, if you get six tons per person per week in 50 weeks, you will have achieved a very good result indeed.
May I show some of the obstacles to reaching this high rate of production? It has been suggested that there are two factors which deal with the efficiency of the men in the mines. One is the average age of the men employed, and that is highly important. I was in my prime when I was in the pit. I left coalface work at 35, feeling good and strong, but I knew men, my own father among them, the cream of the industry, who remained in the mines till 50, 55, and 60. At my age we could run away from them. Youth does count. It is a very arduous occupation. I take a rather more pessimistic view than the Minister about age. The average age is well over 38 to-day.

981
I know he has expert statisticians, whose work I admire, but this is one of the points which have not come into their computation. We have far more men over 60 than we ever had in the industry. I am afraid that some men over 64 are not known even to the Ministry of Labour. To my knowledge some of the old boys suddenly take six or eight years from their age in order to get a job. The average age is well above 37½. I should say it has gone up from 33 to 38 in the last 10 years. It is now 38. It was not more than 33 in 1937. Suppose you pick two football teams, one of an average age of 33, and other other of 38. What number of points do you expect to go to the older team? You cannot expect the productivity that you got from younger men. Of course it drops as the men get older and, if you try to retrieve the loss due to that cause by excessive driving, you only make matters worse. You must take care of the older men. You must work them within their strength. You should set aside, if you can, the non-mechanised parts of the mines for them and they will give you far better value.
But there is a far more important point, and that is the percentage of men at the coalface. I wrote a memorandum on this in the first three days that I was at the Mines Department. It is there now. I described the effect of losing a proportion of your face workers. Again the proportions are very easy. I mentioned an average production of six tons per person per week. If you get an average production of 16 tons per person at the coalface you are doing very well taking mechanised and non-mechanised mines in the lump and thick seams with thin seams. I myself have travelled along seams in recent years, I admit with extreme difficulty, less than 17 inches in thickness. If you take your good and bad seams and mechanised and non-mechanised mines and lump them together, you can get an average of 16 tons per man for a week at the coalface. It requires full attendances.
That requires good attendance and diligence. If the overall output is six tons a year and the output at the coalface is 16, you want only six men at the coal face out of 16 persons employed. Three-eighths of the men should be employed at the coalface. That is the optimum percentage but we have lost that optimum level. We are working now
982
with a, proportion of face workers of less than 36 per cent. Before the war we had 800,000 men on the colliery books, and 38 per cent. of them were at the coalface. Multiply 38 by 8,000, and we get a total number of men at the coalface of 324,000. We have now come down to 36 per cent. of the men in the industry who work at the coalface, but that is 36 per cent. of a number that is reduced by 10 per cent. If you multiply 8,000 by 36 you get 288,000, and then, if 10 per cent. is taken from that number it gives 256,000 men at the coalface. They are now expected to produce as much as 324,000 men would have done before the war.
There is no mystery about this at all. The only man who fills coal in the coalmine is the man who works at the coalface, but we must have the other men—the winding and engine men, the banks men, the onsetters at the bottom, the ventilating men and the pumps men. Many of them have to work whether men are filling coal or not, but if we want to get the best overall results we must see that the optimum percentage is maintained at the coalface. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not got sufficient men at the coalface. If he could put an additional 20,000 men at the coalface without adding one man anywhere else, he would be able to get the 250,000 tons a week that he wants. Let him not delay in putting these men there. He has no coal in stock now. He is millions of tons down now, and from 1st November to 1st March he will want, after all his economies have been achieved, something in the neighbourhood of 116,000,000 tons. There are 24.6 working weeks in the mining half-year, less than 25 weeks. I have given him 6,000,000 tons to take from stock; he will, therefore, have to get 110,000,000 tons in the next 25 weeks. Can he get it? With new organisation, with good will and with the pooling of managerial responsibility, will it give him 4,400,000 tons a week? There is a more simple way, and that is to add to the number of men at the coalface and to treat them properly when they are there.
I do not wish to speak very harshly about the Government. They have their responsibilities and none of us would exchange responsibility with them. They cannot run the risk of going without coal this winter. They have sent men into

983
munition works. The Government have persuaded them, appealed to them, coaxed them and done everything to get production. We are talking about a second front. Who dare send men to fight on any front if in December, January and February the works are unable to maintain war production because there is no coal? Coal is at the bottom of it. You have to get your production right and your organisation right. Let the Minister have all the help he wants in economy, in production and in distribution, and he will have all the help he wants from people on this side. I have not spent a day in the last four months without taking some time of every day to prepare a favourable atmosphere for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to do his job.
Let me say a word or two of warning about domestic rationing. I submitted three alternative rationing schemes on 3rd February this year. The Cabinet knows of them. I put them up under my own initials to be held in reserve. I favoured a restriction scheme, the kind of scheme the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has described to the House to-day. We may have to come to rationing, but let me warn the Government not to dare to cut down the consumption of the 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 poor people who have never had enough coal. They have been rationed by circumstances all along. There are the poor of London, of Glasgow, of Birmingham and of Liverpool; I know them well and know their difficulties. We must try to overcome some of those difficulties. We must improve transport. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has assisted materially by preventing people putting in too large stocks. A large stock often makes a person selfish, for while he holds on to it he wants his share of the limited supply that will be made available in winter time.
I wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the utmost success in his attempts at distributing the restricted amount of coal on the fairest basis, but I warn him not to attempt miserable economies at the expense of the poorest people. This is not the speech I would have made if I had spoken first. I do not wish to appear unappreciative of the Minister's speech, but I do want him to think again and to consult his good advisers. I worked for
984
two years at the Ministry and learned to respect them. Let him have consultations with them again. Let me assure him that he stands in very grave danger. He will carry us all into the danger zone with him if he under-estimates the enormity of this problem. This is a whale of a problem. Let him not be content merely with counting the shrimps of economy. It is the biggest problem facing this country. There could be nothing more demoralising if we broke down because there was no fuel in the munition works and if we let people suffer from the cold. There is nothing more demoralising than cold. You cannot make war with cold feet. You cannot even make love with cold feet. Let us not be led into the temptation of assuming that because a Minister has been changed and the Ministry exalted he can give up a claim for the essentials of production in this vital industry. There are three essentials. The first is a suificient number of efficient men of strength and staying power to do the arduous work underground; the second is ample pit room—that can be improved; and the third, labour and steel, which are difficult to command, for the essentials of the new mechanised mines. But first of all my right hon. Friend will be doing himself and the industry justice and doing his duty to the country by insisting that the industry is properly staffed.
Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: I do not propose to follow the late Secretary for Mines in his very generous and very well-reasoned speech, other than to say that I join with him in desiring to strike a note of warning in regard to the situation. I cannot agree with the Minister of Fuel and Power that the situation is as satisfactory as he seems to feel it to be, or that its solution of our difficulties will be as simple as he suggested to the House. What are the bald facts of the situation? Ever since Dunkirk, or a few months after, it was evident that our growing war industrial effort would require a great deal more coal, and I think it is fair to say that the only concrete steps that have been taken since that time to deal with the situation are these. Possibly the most important was the improvement in transport. By one means or another after the winter of 1941 the railways have been able to transport more effectively and more efficiently a greater volume of coal than in the first year of the war, and they

985
are still making improvements, but the margin is getting very small and we cannot expect a great deal more in that direction. There is also the question of economies by both industrial and domestic users, and there I am in full agreement with the Minister. I think very considerable economies can still be made, with the proviso of the late Secretary for Mines that those economies shall not fall on the poorer section of the population. Thirdly, there has, of course, been a change-over from non-essential production to essential war production. Of course the lag of that has been more than taken up.
Those have been three main factors of alleviation. During the whole of that time increased production has only been effected by, in some small measure, the return of more men to the pits. Fifty thousand is the actual number referred to by the Minister. Of course during that period there has been wastage, and therefore the net figure has been something in the nature of 17,000. We have approached the matter from other aspects, giving increased wages aid attendance bonuses, but by and large that step has not been a success. Not that wages did not require increasing, but the fact remains that the increases given under the Greene award did not bring about either an increase of production or a decrease of absenteeism.
I must ask the indulgence of the House if I return to a theme which I have expounded on every occasion when I have been able to attend coal Debates, and to say that in my opinion the matter can only be effectively dealt with by tackling the question of production. In my view nothing has happened during the war and nothing has been said during these Debates to make me feel that there is any other effective way of doing that than by facing up here and now to rationalisation, covering the men, and managements and machinery. We shall have to face it sooner or later. We have to make it possible for the men in the industry to produce more coal. They cannot do more than their best. If we are satisfied that with the exception of the small percenttage of men who absent themselves—and I will deal with that question later—the men are doing their best, and I believe they are, then we must evolve some means of enabling them to produce more, and that, as I have said, can only be
986
done by rationalisation. In every district, in every section, in every few square miles of the coalfields there are places, as we all know, where coal is more easily produced than in others. What is required at the moment is that men and machinery—possibly lo the extent of about 20 per cent. of the available men—should be moved. The men should not go out of their districts or sections beyond, possibly, an average of four or five miles, but they should be moved into those pits where shaft capacity, transport arrangements, face room and all the other requisites for the production of a higher tonnage per man-shift are available, and thus be given a chance of producing more coal.
Surveys have been taken—I know they are not complete, I know they are up to date in only one or two districts. Surveys should be taken at the earliest possible moment over the whole of the country. We cannot wait for the completion of those surveys. We must be ready, if need be, to go ahead at once in those districts where the surveys have been sufficiently completed. Undoubtedly there will be mistakes, but that cannot be helped. By and large, any steps taken in that direction are bound to be steps in the right direction. In my opinion, if we pursue that objective for the next six or nine months, we shall come to a position where this gap can be closed without having to bring back these essential face-workers from our field Force.
Additionally to that, there is scope in the direction of further use of power-loaded machinery. We are much too apt to be satisfied with mean percentages of mechanisation, when we say that certain districts and parts of coalfields are mechanised to a given percentage. I remember very well, when we went to France at the beginning of the war, how the then Secretary of State for War said that the Army was mechanised to a most satisfactory extent. It took the Battle of France and the first Battle of Libya to make people realise that an armoured fighting vehicle which could do very little more than keep out the rain was not necessarily a very effective piece of mechanisation. Merely to sit back on the fact that we have a high percentage of one sort or another of mechanised mining does not of necessity mean that the mechanisation is anything like as intense as it might be.

987
I have referred to this matter before, and I refer to it once again. We should do well to consider what has been effected in the United States during recent years. They have had very considerable difficulties in their coalmining industry for one reason or another, but they have been able to increase the intensification of their mechanisation. From what I have been told by people whose opinions I respect, I am satisfied that conditions in a great many seams in this country are such that we could make a very much greater use of the type of power-loaded machinery which is achieving such remarkable results in the United States of America at the present time. As the House is aware, America is producing four times the amount per man per year that we are able to produce in this country. There are reasons for that, including the more virgin state of their coalfields, but nevertheless we cannot completely discount the, very marked improvement which they have made in recent years in regard to intensive mechanisation.
I recognise that the Government have acknowledged this aspect of the matter and have taken certain steps in regard to it. A purchasing commission has recently been in America, but fully five months have gone past and no machinery has arrived in this country. People familiar with coalmining will agree that, even if the machinery arrived to-morrow morning, some considerable time would have to elapse before the necessary adjustments and modifications could be made to enable the machinery to be put to effective use. Time is against us. We have not started rationalising, and we have not intensified our mechanisation to the point which I consider possible—according to those whose technical opinions I respect.
A word about absenteeism. Both sides of the industry have made mistakes in their approach to this problem. The trade unions have pressed for increased wages, and a section of the coalowners have thought that the situation could be dealt with by the weapon of fear. I think they have both made a psychological mistake. I believe the men will respond to the right appeal, but I do not think it practicable for that appeal to be made at this stage through the medium of the pit production committees. These
988
committees have had the invidious experience during the greater part of the year of having to deal with absenteeism as a disciplinary matter. It is asking too much of those committees to say that they should turn round overnight and be the medium by which a call is made to the higher and better feelings of the men. Mistakes have been made both by the Minister and by the Regional Controllers. They are depending too much upon the pit production committees for getting their results. The appeal to the men will have to be done upon a national basis. I have little fear that if it is done effectively and a call is made to the men's consciousness of the gravity of the situation, we shall get over the winter. It must not be an appeal as to what they can get out of it. The situation is, much graver than that. The gravity of the situation should be brought home to the men on the highest possible basis and not the basis "Obtain more if you can possibly get it "on one side and" We shall punish you if you don't turn up" on the other side. By all means pay the men what they ought to have, but I would observe that soldiers give of their best not merely because they will be shot if they do not, but because they feel that their country needs their best. I am convinced that the miners will give on exactly the same basis. I have had the advantage of knowing miners for a number of years in peacetime, and I have known them intimately during the last three years of war-time. I have not the slightest doubt that if the right appeal is made they will respond, and that absenteeism will cure itself, in great measure.
For that section to whom no appeal is possible, discipline must play its part. It is not as well known as it might be that managements still have considerable power of exerting discipline if they wish to do so, without appeals to the National Service officers in the first instance. It is their duty to report cases immediately with the full circumstances. They have power to observe a measure of discipline beyond that of which a great many of them are at present fully aware. I do not put much reliance on the most recent suggestions that young men, rather than go into the Army, may be allowed to go down a pit for a month. If those men have had no previous connection with

989
mining life or with the mining community, I do not think they will be welcomed very warmly. No one would suggest that miners themselves are not undertaking a job of work which in some senses is every bit as important and front-line work as any, but I think they have much too shrewd an appreciation of human nature to be impressed by a young man who might decide, because he thinks it a safer thing, to go down the mine rather than join the Armed Forces.
I have made three suggestions. They are, an immediate rationalisation of the industry to an extent which will cover the gap of our immediate requirements and provide the basis for meeting our requirements, whether the war lasts two years or ten. I ask the Government to push ahead at the earliest moment with the question of an intensification of mechanisation, with particular reference to what has been achieved in the United States. I beg them, to appeal to the men on the highest possible level, and on one which puts the duty of the miners precisely in the same light as the duty of the Armed Forces of the nation. In view of what seems to me the extreme urgency of the situation, I appeal to the Minister to do this here and now.
Mr. Murray: A great man and a good man once said:
"I think myself happy because I shall answer for myself this day."
Liberty of thought and speech are very precious things in these days, and I wish to say quite frankly at the beginning that there are some things in the White Paper with which I entirely agree. I realise, for instance, that the nation must have coal, and plenty of coal, and have it immediately. But what I cannot subscribe to in the White Paper is the fact that the Government have decided to concentrate available machinery on the best and productive seams while at the same time they are prepared to leave over the question of the future control of the industry until another Parliament. That is the danger I see in that particular Government suggestion.
I have been in and about the mines since I was 13 years of age. I went down the pit the day after I was 13. I started as a trapper boy, and having had over 40 years' experience in and about the mines, one has at least had an opportunity of
990
making a few observations. In my own division I have discussed this question with managers and checkweighmen, and every one of them without exception says to me, "All the best seams have already gone from the industry in the West of the County of Durham." What has been suggested in this White Paper is no new thing; it has always been done. That has been the system that has operated in the coal industry. The manager has always seen to it that the miners have gone for the best coal so that he might realise his ambitions, never thinking of the poor individual who had to follow him. Therefore the manager's position in the West of the County of Durham is a very difficult one, and I suggest that it is a very unenviable one and is no sinecure by any means. He knows perfectly well he cannot have his cake and eat it at the same time. He understands the suicidal policy that has been adopted. If that same policy is pursued to-day, it must greatly aggravate the future position of the mining industry.
Because of this policy and my activities as a trade union leader, I had the pleasure of receiving unemployment benefit for three years nine months. The manager during that period of time was doing exactly what is suggested in the White Paper, getting the biggest possible production with the least number of men. That was his job. That is the system which has always operated. When the best places became exhausted I was sent for. Work was available, with the result that I had to go into the worst places in the pit where it was hard and wet and low and difficult, and where the lowest possible production was obtainable. More men were employed at that moment, but that did not mean that production automatically went up. That was not the manager's intention. His intention was that he should maintain his prior production so that his costs might be kept down, so that he might deliver the goods, so that the owners might get the profits. He knows that if he fails in that direction, his stewardship is very soon called into question.
I have a note from a friend which bears out this very point. He says that in two months, in March and April, seven sets of men with pneumatic picks produced 800 tons in a week. That coal became exhausted. The men were transferred to other places in the same pits, but the pro-

991
duction of those same men was 175 tons in a week, in other words, a reduction of 625 tons; and no one would suggest that any one of those men was not a trier. They were doing their level best, but conditions had changed. They had to travel two miles to the face to work. So with all the good will in the world and with the most perfect organisation those are some of the things that cannot be altered. They simply happen, they come and go like the swing of a pendulum, but once gone they are gone for ever. To my mind the mining industry cannot simply be considered in the present tense. It is a trinity of thought of past, present and future.
I am glad that the White Paper, as the Minister mentioned to-day, makes provision for the worker to have some say in the industry. A picture comes to my mind of a pit where new stables were erected near a coalface, where new landings for tub standage were placed near the coalface. Steel girders were withdrawn, the roof was allowed to fall, no pony was ever put into the stables, no tub was ever run on to the landing. The part the miner had on that occasion was to pay the piper, although he did not call the tune. He could not even make a protest against the terrible expense and waste. I would be very sorry to see this policy pursued by the Government. I suggest that they would certainly be living in a fool's paradise in following the very short-term policy that has always operated in the mining industry. No firm or combine should be allowed to do what has been done in the past. I hope that they will never again be able to close a colliery where there was a production of 4,000 to 5,000 tons a week, which is equal to a quarter of a million torts a year, to throw 700 employees on to the streets, and to flood the mine, so that it overflows to the mine of another firm. With a little common sense and good will between two colliery firms the pumping cost in that case could have been halved, and both collieries to-day could have been in full production; but the will was not there under private enterprise. As a result, there are millions of tons" of coal still in the bowels of the earth, while the country becomes impoverished. When transport is difficult to obtain, these men, who had their mine at their doorsteps, have to travel a number of miles to find em-
992
ployment. This policy is short-sighted, it is costly, it is a wicked waste, it is a national scandal.
Any combine that desires to close any colliery can always find ways and means of making that colliery uneconomic. In time you will make every colliery uneconomic by ploughing into the best seams and into the places where the best production is to be got. I hope the Government will think again before embarking upon such a policy without also deciding what the future conduct of the mining industry is to be. We people who have been in the mining industry all our lives have long memories. We remember the result of the 1921 debâcle. When I was in Russia I had the privilege of seeing the best mine I have ever visited. There I did not see broken timber: I did not see pressure from the roof; I was able to walk practically to the boundary. Their method was to work that seam on what is termed the retreating system. There is the means of increasing production whenever you want to do so with reduced cost of timber, of stonework, and of Datal work, and with happy and contented men working under ideal conditions. I wish we could have such things in this country, but I know that under private enterprise it is not possible: you have too long to wait for your profits, you have too long to carry on in the narrow places. Under a unified system of control it can be done.
I know we can produce grand speeches in Parliament, but grand speeches will not produce the 250,000 tons per week which are required. But I believe that, with proper co-operation, some increase cam be effected. I am glad to note that in Durham the ascertainments just issued show an increase amounting to 889,779 tons for the year. I know that there are more men employed and more shifts worked, but this increase is a step in the right direction. But if you want to increase production, you must increase the number of strong, active, healthy, skilful young men, and they will produce the coal and see that it reaches the surface. It has been said to me time and time again in my division, "Jim, it is not pies we want: we are sick of pies. Let us have some steak and kidney, and our wives will make the puddings. Let us have some suet, and our wives will make the dumplings." The miner is a very hard-working

993
man, but he is also a good eater; look at me if you do not believe it. Many of these men have said to me, with all sincerity, "What we need, Jim, is some substantial food." I want to speak of the consumption of coal. I believe that, with proper methods, fuel can be saved. I have been a very active member of our Durham County mental hospital committee. They were very anxious about fuel costs. After careful investigation it was found that by installing a super-Lancashire boiler better results could be obtained on five tons a day than had been obtained on eight tons a day with the old Lancashire boiler. The cooking in that great hospital was centralised. The electric oven had been simply eating electricity, but that electric oven is now a thing of the past, and the results have been wonderful. We installed new machinery in the laundry, and thousands more articles are washed today—not only for the patients, but also for the military—and overtime has been abolished, with a great saving of fuel and power.
I am now going to say something with which many hon. Members and many people outside may not agree. I cannot understand why the Minister of Food, in this time of stress and strain upon our shipping, has not seen fit to prohibit the sale of bread until 24 hours after it has been baked. There are three reasons why I advocate this. I believe that the community would have better health, and good health is cherished now more than ever. Secondly, I believe the bread would be more nourishing. Thirdly, I believe there would be a great saving in fuel, and in the consumption of bread. I know that people like new bread, and they say that bread will not keep. I am not asking them to keep the bread. What I say is that it should not be on sale until it is 24 hours old. In our house we never got new bread. There were nine robust lads and one daughter, and our maxim was not that of the Food Minister, that we should eat more potatoes and less bread, so that there should be more shipping space: it was, "Eat more pudding, and you will want less meat." If you put that maxim into effect and eat plenty of pudding, you will not want any meat. That is the reason why it is advocated. In our house we were always at war, but it was a war against poverty, an economic war. I have seen my father bring in 25s. for 12 days at the pit, with 12 to keep.
994
You can understand sometimes why we people are so anxious to help the people we represent. My mother was a wonderful woman. She could neither read nor write, but she was a born organiser. She believed in the long-term policy in the home as well as in the pit. When the box was full of bread that was the time to bake, and not when it was empty. No new bread was ever allowed to be eaten in our house, and I do not think that I am a bad advertisement for that, and for what I am advocating.
I know a bakery in the County of Durham where the bakers are anxious to abolish the night shift, and that is what everybody advocates. They do not want any night-shift baking. They built a new bakery and installed modern machinery. What is the position to-day? An hon. Member yesterday said that this new bread was unpalatable, and all I would say is that I hope we shall never have worse in this struggle in which we are engaged. These figures may help to assist that hon. Member. For the week ending 12th September, 1941, 41,168 two-lb. loaves were baked in this particular bakery and for the corresponding week this year 155, 255 two-lb. loaves were baked, just over three and three-quarter times the number that was baked last year. For the two weeks ending 12th September, 1941, 552 sacks of flour were consumed and for the corresponding period this year 1,624 sacks of flour were consumed. These figures speak for themselves, and I leave it at that for the digestion of hon. Members. I humbly suggest to the Minister of Fuel and Power that this simple remedy, if adopted, will save fuel and power and shipping space.
People will grouse. They will grouse at me probably for what I am saying today. It is a good thing that they can grouse. That is their prerogative. I told my people in the Spennymoor Division not to leave a yard of land unfilled, not to waste a scrap of bread, not to bum an unnecessary unit of electricity, not to waste a drop of water, and not to lose a shift at the pit if able and fit to go. And yet I read that outside the Grosvenor Hotel at 1.15 a.m. there were 137 cars waiting to take dancers home, and at midnight, the paper said, the rush was like a peace-time rush for motor cars. I suggest: that such a picture is very aggravating and irritating, and it is certainly grossly unfair that such things are allowed. If people want to dance and

995
have the time to dance, let them dance. I am not a killjoy, but I would not allow them to use vital fuel supplies that might be urgently required in the near future for war purposes. When I was elected to this House I received many letters urging that there should be some move to get this cruel war finished. What I want to say to the Government is, "Be bold, be active, be courageous. The people today are anxiously waiting. Now is your opportunity." My old school teacher used to say to me that opportunities were like snowflakes on the river, a moment seen and then gone for ever. Let the people see that the Government mean business. Stimulate in them a greater faith. Let them see that you intend to get a move on, and if you do, you will find the people are with you 100 per cent. and will do anything and everything to assist you to final victory.
Viscount Castlereagh: I would first like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) on the very excellent speech which he has just delivered, but his eloquence and his knowledge were such that I thought he was an old established Member of this House who had been elected while I was away in the Army abroad. I sincerely hope that he will frequently intervene in our Debates, but I must say this to him, that, much as I welcome him as a Member of this House, I deeply regret the fact that his predecessor, an old friend of mine, Joe Batey, found it necessary to resign. As a representative of the coal owners, maybe my hon. Friend will think it wrong for me to say that Joe Batey is an old friend of mine. But he is, and I think he also regards me as an old friend. I hope that in future the same happy relations will exist between the representative of the constituency of Spennymoor and the representative of County Down.
It is so long ago that I made a speech in this House that it is more or less like making a maiden speech, and in many ways it is rather worse. The whole atmosphere has changed. The benches are red instead of green. My clothes are khaki instead of black jacket and striped trousers, and I have no hesitation in asking hon. Members to accord to me the same indulgence which they extend in respect of a maiden speech. I
996
promise that my speech will be of the shortest possible duration. I have been in the Middle East for some time, and there were times when the temperature was of such an excessive nature that any reference to a substance like coal or any substance which generated heat was regarded as the height of bad taste. At the same time, we were interested in the subject of coal, and we realised from the meagre reports we got or from letters from home that the situation at home was not quite as good as it might have been with regard to the production of coal. If we got hold of the papers we read that the output of tanks. Spitfires and other warlike material was going up by leaps and bounds. At the same time we read with considerable anxiety that the backbone of the whole thing, which was coal, was definitely going down. I was abroad at the time and not unnaturally I thought that there was only one cause for this, and that was that the miners had joined the Fighting Forces as they did in the last war. I thought it might be that there had been lack of co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and the War Office and that these key-men, the miners, had joined up before. I remember in the last war that stories were told of the fighing worth of the North country miners in the Northumberland Fusiliers and the Durham Light Infantry. I think that the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for War, Lord Croft, could tell hon. Members a lot of stories about the fighting value of the Durham Light Infantry. I thought this was what had happened. Men in my own unit were recruited in Durham. My own battery, of which I was the battery captain for a year and a half, was recruited entirely in Seaham. Two of the battery sergeant-majors were hewers in the collieries with which I am connected. Naturally I thought that the falling-off in coal production was due to the fact that the miner, as he did in the last war, had joined the Fighting Services.
I am inclined to believe that that is the main argument, but I am also inclined to believe that there are other arguments. I have no hesitation in saying that in my humble opinion there are far too many miners in the Fighting Services. I would like to see them withdrawn from the Forces straight away. If this cannot be done, is it not possible

997
for the War Office to see that these men are seconded temporarily, say for a period of six months? There are many units which were recruited about the same time as my own battery, which, I might add, is still abroad. Suppose the men of my battery came back to this country to the Tyneside area and were stationed about 15 miles from where they used to work as civilians. The men of the battery are trained gunners. What is to stop them from going back to their civilian work and being called back every six months to be given a refresher course, to see that the pneumatic pick has not clumsied their hands for dealing with the 40 ram, gun? They could be taught the modifications of the gun and then sent back to the pits again. Then, if and when the second front starts, they could come out, and I guarantee that they would be among our finest troops. A miner in a pit is a much more valuable man than a miner in the Tanks. A ton of coal is worth a dozen route marches. Somebody once wrote that a large standing Army which was not fighting was a parasite on the country. I believe that to be true. What the extent of the Army is now I do not know, but I do know that there is a very large proportion of highly trained men who could be seconded from their duties to do other work until the time comes for them to be called back for fighting, although I know of two districts where the harvest was very severely held up and where commanding officers thought it very infra dig for their soldiers to be pretending to be farmers, even for a short period.
Hon. Members opposite have had many arguments with me about coal. They have always been of a most friendly nature, but still there have been differences. But everything is entirely different now. We have our gallant Ally, Russia, putting up the greatest fight against tyranny the world has ever seen, and we are doing our utmost to help. The Royal Air Force is smashing the production centres of Germany by night and day, and our convoys to Russia are getting through. The Russians, undoubtedly, are grateful for this, but if they get a paper in Stalingrad—I do not know whether they do—and suddenly read that the output of coal in Great Britain is going down, it will not impress them. I do not know what they would say, but I do know that they would feel that their Ally was not helping them to full capacity. The
998
situation is very serious, and it is the duty of hon. Members of this House not only to find out the reason for it but to put it right. One thing most of us have always agreed about is that the mining engineers in Great Britain are the finest in the world. Our methods of production are first class. They combine efficiency with economy for the future use of coal. We used to have disagreements about the ownership of coal mines. Many thought it quite wrong that private individuals should own coal mines—they may have been right—and that they should have been owned by the State. But that is not the argument now. If somebody says that with Hitler on the doorstep, as he was two years ago, the miner intends deliberately to curtain output because coal mines are not owned by the State, well, frankly, I do not believe it. The shortage of output is not due to any political reason like that.
I understand that the miner is at the moment making a decent wage. I hope so. His is a very dangerous and arduous calling and should be rewarded with a decent wage. It has always been my theory that an employer should pay the biggest wage possible and cut hours to the minimum, or cut down the working week so that at the end of the week men had money to spend on recreation, leisure or on their families. Members may not recall it; but I was one of the earliest advocates of holidays with pay. I always thought that the only industry which had holidays with pay was the House of Commons. Although some of us may not have had a holiday, we did, at any rate, get paid. I advocated that all along for the coal industry in order to prevent men getting stale and giving them something to which they could look forward. Now there is no crisis like that, and the miner is not getting too bad a wage, so I ask hon. Members opposite to tell me if they think miners' attendance is quite as good as it might be. I can speak for only a limited area, but some of the voluntary absenteeism on Monday and Saturday is just enough to pull the output down very considerably.
I cannot help feeling that some of the younger people in the mines who are exempt from military service do not realise the gravity of the situation. I used to read, while abroad, that England was a nation conscripted. Well, the only way to take on somebody like Hitler is to

999
have conscription, but let us see that there is proper conscription. Men who do not turn up on Mondays or Saturdays should think of their pals in Libya, Egypt, Iraq and Syria, who, if they do not turn up, are put on a charge and punished. If that sort of thing is clearly put to these men at home, I am quite certain they will respond. The nation is supposed to be conscripted. I admit frankly that the whole idea is repugnant to me. I am entirely an amateur soldier, and the idea of discipline is one to which I object very strongly, but we have to do certain things whether we like it or not. The conscription of civilians is a thing I do not like: it is totalitarian; but I have the feeling that if we do not do this totalitarian stuff ourselves, there is a little man in a brown shirt who would love the opportunity of showing us how it is done properly on a big scale.
I have been told that there is a certain feeling of resentment among the mine workers that they are being paid 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. less than munition workers. That sort of thing happened in the last war and it was a great grievance. I know little about munition workers, but I know that their life is a fairly easy one compared with coal mining. The munition worker does not have to crawl about a 17 inch seam such as was described by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). It is an easier he, but the munition worker is paid far more than the miner. I should have thought that the unfortunate coal miner would be getting used to this sort of discrepancy in wages. A very few years ago coal miners were earning very low wages, but luckily we managed to introduce the principle of central selling schemes and co-ordinated district schemes. I think hon. Members will remember that I was one of the forerunners of that arrangement. It led to improvements in the position. But it must be admitted fairly that part of the cause of low wages for miners was in the industry itself. The coalowners and the miners fought each other with such success that the consumers were able to buy coal at a, rate far lower than they should have done. The central selling schemes put that right. At the present time, the situation is rather different, and the discrepancy between the wages of miners and those of munition workers is not the fault of the industry, but of the
1000
Government in not formulating a wages policy. I cannot congratulate the Government on their wages policy, or rather their lack of it.
But there is another aspect of the matter. The miner is getting a pretty fair wage now; many of his comrades in the Army are not getting half as much or living half as well. I have spent three years with a battery consisting 90 per cent. of miners, and I know the conditions in which they are living. They are, it is true, clothed and shod by a grateful Government; they are fed pretty well, in my view; they are doctored rather indifferently; and they are paid abominably. Like other hon. Members, I have read the famous White Paper on Service pay. If anyone believes that, he can believe anything Dr. Goebbels tells him. I do not know who wrote it, but when I read it I was convinced that it was a piece of modern British humour written by the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert). But the miners who are serving in the Forces are earning a very small sum of money compared with what is earned by the chaps at home, some of whom are not doing the work they should do.
In conclusion I want to ask the Minister to go straight to the War Office and, with the powerful support of the Minister of Labour, say, "We want every miner, not only in this country, but abroad—send them back as quickly as possible." I would go a step further and say that any miner who is a prisoner in Germany and who is fortunate enough to escape should go down the pit after a week or fortnight leave. Secondly, I want to make an appeal to the leaders of the Miners' Federation. I have been rather out of touch with that body for some time, but a few years ago I used repeatedly to meet the President, Mr. Joseph Jones, and Mr. Ebby Edwards; Very patiently they used to listen to my questions, and to give me a lot of advice and criticism, too. They were two fine men. I appeal to the present leaders of the Federation to go round the districts, to find out who the slackers are, and tell them that they are in the front line just as much as the men who left the pits and joined the Army, that they must do their stuff now, and if they do not, they

1001
will get it in the neck. The nation needs coal, it has got to have coal, and the nation is jolly well going to get it.
Mr. Ridley: I would like, first of all, to join with the Noble Lord the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) on the attractiveness of his maiden speech. The great movement to which he belongs, and which he distinguishes, has made a great contribution to the Benches on this side of the House, and we had every right to hope that, on coming to the House, the hon. Member would make the great contribution he has done. I would like also to thank the hon. Member for Down for the gracious reference he made to my hon. Friend's predecessor in the representation of Spennymoor. Joe Batey held the very great affection of hon. Members on these benches, and I feel sure the references that have been made to him will warm his heart in his retirement in Spennymoor. I congratulate the Noble Lord, too, in not having lost, after a fairly considerable absence, his facility in addressing us and in trailing his coat for the purpose of providing further argument for sustaining debate. I wish I had the opportunity and time to debate with him the three principal provocatives he propounded—first, the ownership of the mines, secondly, absenteeism, and, thirdly, the curious doctrine that if we are to beat Hitler, we must out-Hitler Hitler by the use of his totalitarian methods.
I rise for a few minutes to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I congratulate on his appointment to that position, to underline, for the purpose of bringing more conviction to us, at least one of the statements made by his right hon. and gallant Friend. In the last 20 years, debates on coal have been almost interminable and generally inconclusive, and there is one direction, not so far referred to, except in a different way by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), in which I think this Debate may really be conclusive. I do not ask for a rationing arrangement, and certainly I do not ask for a rationing arrangement merely for the purpose of having a piece of machinery on which a label can be stuck saying, "This is rationing." But I do beg for some more conclusive assurance that whatever coal
1002
is produced will find its way into the places where it is most needed in conditions of equity and not conditions of inequity. On that ground, despite what has been said, I feel some misgiving and some disquiet. The House does not know much about the work of the Ministry of Defence, and it does not expect to. It is willing to believe what it cannot prove, although the first verse of "In Memoriam" must not be carried any further than that. But we are entitled to hope that in such vital matters as the when and where of a new offensive there has not been displayed so much timidity and vacillation as has been shown in this matter of fuel consumption.
I came to the House, as many others did, on 7th May, generally having the idea that a rationing arrangement in the matter of domestic fuel was desirable but not having any strong or conclusive Views about it. Then I listened to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, a speech which I thought one of the most cogent and convincing and complete that I have ever heard him make. Having known him for a large number of years and listened to a great many of his speeches, that is indeed high praise. I then became convinced that a rationing scheme something on the lines of the Beveridge scheme was immediately imperative. I should like to take an abstract of the speech. He knew that from many directions there were demands for a reorganisation of the industry, and he knew also that the view was gaining ground that an increase in production was making a decrease in consumption less necessary. Against that my right hon. Friend said,
"The case for rationing as an urgent necessity emerges through all the other hopes and possibilities on which we are working. Time is pressing hard upon us. Next winter is not very far away. In the view of the Government rationing cannot be delayed, even though other steps must be taken as speedily as possible."
This was obviously a serious declaration of Government policy, or so it was assumed to be. The Government was in favour of compulsory rationing as an urgent necessity. That was my right hon. Friend's phrase. He dismissed the idea of propaganda as an alternative to rationing by saying:
"I wish to submit that propaganda alone will not do what we want. It can be a very-valuable supplement to a rationing scheme. It can be an educative influence and a stimulus,

1003
but it will not alone achieve the purpose. That is generally accepted and I need not stop to argue the point."
The idea of a voluntary scheme was dismissed peremptorily and the Lord Privy Seal having later in the day forcibly underlined what the President of the Board of Trade had said, and, having gone through the alternative scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) as a warm knife goes through butter, dismissed the idea of a voluntary appeal by saying,
"When the country approaches a state in which there is liable to be, and indeed almost certain to be, a shortage of a commodity, that we should in advance, if possible, arrange a fair scheme of distribution of that commodity which is going to be in short supply."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 7th May, 1942; col. 1563, Vol. 379.]
He said also that the whole essence of a voluntary scheme was that a lot of people would deny themselves those commodities which were in short supply in order that other people might consume them. Let the House consider these extracts carefully and then consider the present situation. We are now in a position in which we have not a rationing arrangement, which the President of the Board of Trade said was an urgent necessity. We have a kind of voluntary scheme which was rejected almost with contempt by both the President and the Lord Privy Seal. There must be some reason for this sudden such substantial change of policy and the House is entitled to know what it is. There are on these benches some grave suspicions, but there are suspicions in other and even more surprising quarters." In the "Observer" of 17th May, immediately following the first Debate, I discovered this amazing editorial:
"The Government declared fuel rationing to be necessary and asked Sir William Beveridge to produce a scheme. He produced one. Ministers approved it. The Conservative 1922 Committee disapproved it. The Government, not persuaded by Debates on the Floor of the House but intimidated by a party meeting upstairs, thrust the whole thing back into the melting pot and announced that after the Whitsuntide Recess it would produce a new and more voluminous scheme embracing not only fuel consumption but the organisation of the industry."
The "Observer" went on to say—this is the "Observer," not the "Daily Worker"—
"Fuel, like food, is a necessity of life, and the basis of any rationing scheme must be, as
1004
with food rationing, individual need. The Beveridge scheme starts from that, which is perhaps why the Labour Party approves it and the 1922 Committee does not."
In the Debate of 10th June the Lord President sought to discount the view that there had been a change of policy on account of the 1922 Committee when he said:
"I deny that absolutely. I took the view more than a year ago that, having regard to the uncertainties of war, it was necessary to have a rationing scheme in readiness, and the first steps were then taken to prepare one. That is precisely the position of the Government to-day. Some may say that a month ago the Government were all for introducing the scheme at once. Why did we change? The answer is quite simple. To give any scheme a fair chance, if it involves complications and a certain amount of trouble and inconvenience, it is very important that the public should be reasonably satisfied that it is unavoidable. The last Debate, and discussions outside have shown that conviction on that point is at present lacking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1942; col. 1086, Vol. 380.]
I do not know what the Lord President meant by saying that public conviction in the matter of fuel rationing was lacking. I admit that he might have thought so from speeches made on the other side of the House. This is an old House, and a General Election is along way behind us. I am convinced that, if an election came to-morrow, some Members on the other side would be swept like chaff before the wind. As far as I have been able to test it, they certainly do not accurately represent public opinion in this matter, and, if they did, they would be representing a very selfish kind of public opinion. In any case I do not understand the fear of public opinion in the matter of rationing. There has been no objection to rationing in the scores of directions in which it has been applied. On the contrary, it has been pressed for from these benches and has been welcomed, because it would relieve the gravity of the existing situation and further because a rationing scheme not only involves a shortage of supply but has come to be regarded as a guarantee of supply. If the Minister says he cannot apply a rationing scheme to fuel because he cannot even guarantee a rationed supply, a calamitous situation would then be revealed. I ask him to say whether that is the case, and, if it is not, why he does not propose even now, late though it may be, to implement a rationing scheme. I believe that, because of vacillation in this matter, we are heading

1005
for a very serious situation. It is now very likely too late for any rationing scheme to be effective for the coining winter, but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say definitely whether he is satisfied that, with the arrangements announced to-day by his right hon. Friend, there will be this winter an equal distribution of domestic warmth between rich and poor, between those who have coal cellars already well filled and those who have no cellars at all and have in consequence to rely on small weekly supplies.
In other words, if there is to be shivering this winter, will there be an equality of shivering? If there is inequality it will be a scandal. It will simply be due to the fact that the Government do not pursue with resolution the policy they announced on 7th May. I beg that we may be assured, in spite of what my right hon. and gallant Friend said to-day, that every resolute attempt will be made to ensure that whatever may be the shortage this winter there will be equitable distribution of whatever supply there is. One of the most serious aspects of the problem is that we continue to endure an entirely chaotic method of coal distribution. I beg my right hon. and gallant Friend to tell the House what he is doing to deal with it. With some little experience I again warn the Government that if we get this winter, as we easily may, a combination of the circumstances of last winter and the winter before, the Government will make a grave mistake if they repose on rail transport burdens which could, if other steps were taken, be to some extent avoided. I wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in spite of his peculiar ideas about voluntary rationing, every success in his new and most responsible position, although I confess to some grave misgivings about the future because of the vacillations in Government policy in the last few months.
Sir Arnold Gridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) has devoted his speech mainly to the problem of rationing. As there is no proposal to introduce any compulsory rationing scheme until the House has an opportunity of debating it, I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not treat the question as a live issue to-day. We have a much more urgent matter to face. When the present
1006
Minister was appointed to his onerous office his appointment was received with good will and approbation in all quarters of the House. The Minister retains that approbation to-day, and I am sure he feels that it is the desire of everyone to help him as far as they can in the problems which face him. I do not want to say anything to-day other than with the intention to be helpful. We know that he is as anxious as anybody to avoid having to introduce any compulsory fuel rationing scheme, but this obviously depends upon whether coal production can be sufficiently increased to make compulsory rationing unnecessary. Unfortunately, he figures that have been given in answers to Questions this week and again by the Minister in his speech to-day—on which I would like to congratulate him—show that production has, if anything, fallen and is nowhere near the target which has to be reached if all the requirements of war munition industries and domestic consumers are to be met.
I think that the majority of Members agree with the view that the situation is now so grave that steps much more drastic than any that have been taken hitherto and which are long overdue must be taken if the output of coal is to be increased. I am sure that the majority of Members do not look upon this as a party question at all. It is a national question which concerns all parties. For that reason there was no difficulty in getting the support of Members of all parties to the Motion dealing with the release of coal-face workers from the Services which I thought fit with many of my hon. Friends to put on the Paper for to-day's Debate as a direction to which we might devote our consideration. I claim to have received sufficient information to enable me to speak on this subject and the position in which the industry now stands in a more informed way than others in the House except those who work with me on the Select Committee on National Expenditure and who for nearly two years had at regular intervals the position of the coal industry and of electricity, gas, oil and transport under review. It was our business to call witnesses before us in order to inform ourselves of the situation from quarter to quarter and we consulted all interests. We had before us representatives of the mineowners, the Miners' Federation, the coal merchants, the gas

1007
and electricity industry, the Mines Department and of oil.
The House will forgive me if I remind it that 18 months ago the Eighth Report of the Select Committee dealt with the then serious coal situation and made certain recommendations. Three months later, in the worse situation which had then been reached, it was urged in the 16th Report that the situation could only be remedied, first, if thousands of experienced miners now in the Army and in various industries were released for return to the pit; second, if by hearty cooperation between mineowners and workers output could be steadily increased and sustained by reducing idle time and absenteeism to the minimum; third, if the users of coal, coke, gas and electricity for domestic purposes exercised economy to an extent few have yet attempted to achieve. In the body of that Report it was emphasised that economy must begin at once and be maintained until coal production had been increased by at least 25,000,000 tons per annum. That was 15 months ago. Four months later, just under a year ago, the 24th Report recommended, first, that greater efforts should be made by the Mines Department and the, gas and electricity industries to secure voluntary savings, and, second, that the question of releasing miners from the Services or other employment should at least be reconsidered. We used that careful term in the Report because we knew that up to then the Government had stuck their toes in and said, "No more men from the Field Forces." Finally, another Report which dealt solely with the coal situation and was presented to this House on 19th February last included among some 14 recommendations this outstanding one: that a plan should be prepared for the temporary release of men from the Army this spring to help in building up stocks for the winter of 1942–43.
I wonder of what use all these recommendations have been? For 15 months there was little effective action. In the past three months there has been some activity. We now have a Minister of Fuel and Power, we have Government control over the industry, and there is now in active operation a scheme for securing a reduction in domestic consumption by voluntary means. Can it be wondered at that in the circumstances,
1008
and having regard to the serious, indeed, most grave situation, in which the country stands as regards the Supply of its coal needs, many of us are driven now to raise very definitely the issue of urging the recall of coal-face workers from the Field Forces? And I have been advised since the Motion was put on the Paper that we could well have added "and from industry," because I am told there are still thousands of miners working in the industries of the country who could be combed out of those industries and go back to the coal face.
No one will be so foolish as to deny that there are weighty arguments on both sides of the suggestion that trained men should be called back from the Forces. One can appreciate the strenuous opposition of commanding officers to having battalions broken up, but having regard to the relatively small amount of serious fighting by large British Forces it would not have entailed any serious weakening of those Forces—as we have heard in an excellent speech from the Noble Lord the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh)—if men had been released temporarily to return to the coal-face. After all, if a battalion goes into battle it is fortunate if it comes out of it without serious losses, in engagements such as are fought to-day, and then commanding officers have to fill up the gaps with reserves. In Germany when active warfare diminishes for a time in the winter months it appears to be the practice to send many thousands of soldiers back from their armies to resume their former occupations in munition works and the mines. If the Germans, with a far greater man-power than we have, find that pays surely there is much to be said for our bringing back a relatively small number of our men—whose absence from the Army and other Forces would not be materially felt—to their former occupation, where their value cannot be over-estimated. War coins new words. One of the new phrases of this war is the term "browned off." There are a great many men in the Forces today who would be very much better off in occupations where they would be black with coal-dust rather than left brown with boredom.
There are some who, I think, still hold the view that we cannot expect increased output from the mines until the mines have been nationalised. On that I want

1009
to say a word without the least intention of being provocative. There are many in this country who point to Russia as an example that it would pay us to follow, and in many respects I agree, but I have here the "Soviet War News" of 21st April and 22nd April. An article in the first is headed "More coal," and from it I quote this short extract. It is dealing with what is needed if the shortage of coal is to be made up and says:
"Above all, improved organisation of labour in the mines. It is necessary to carry out the repeated directions of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party and of the Soviet Government about staffing the workers with sufficient hewers and team leaders."
There we have the question of the coalface worker again. The second article is headed "Absenteeism must be punished," and on this point the article says:
"In the conditons of this unprecedented war managers who tolerate violations of labour, discipline, or self-interest undermine the work of their factories. Even if only a few such persons are to be found in a factory, they must not go unpunished, but must be held responsible according to the law. We must remember Stalin's words. It must be explained to the workers, and particularly to those who have only recently entered' factories and workshops, that by admitting absenteeism and not furthering labour productivity, they are acting contrary to the interests of the whole working class and harming our industrics."
Do not those two quotations suggest that even where industries are owned by the State the same human difficulties are found as we are confronted with in our coalfields?
Mr. Gallacher: In that quotation it says they are doing injury to their industry, and therefore should be punished, but the hon. Member says that if they injure not their industry but your industry they should be punished. That is the difference.
Sir A. Gridley: I think that is an explanation which will not carry much weight with the House
Mr. Kirkwood: The mines in this country belong to the mineowners, just as the land in our native land belongs to the landlords. It is the very opposite in Russia. The mines are the Russians, belonging to the workers, and that is why there is enthusiasm there to beat the Germans.
Sir A. Gridley: I think that the hon. Member has missed the point. I understand that all those things belong to the Russian State, but I am pointing out that that fact does not get over the troubles which we find are inherent in human nature. Men will absent themselves from work when they ought to be there, and Stalin points out that those men are acting against the interests of their own class by so doing.
Mr. Kirkwood: Give us the mines, and we will deal with the malingerers in no uncertain fashion just as we are dealing with the mineowners now.
Sir A. Gridley: The conclusion I want to draw from those two quotations which I have made is that it is too much to assume that one can get over our present difficulties by persuading a small proportion of youager men in the pits to put out that greater effort and give that more regular attention which ought rightly to be expected from them.
Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member does not know what he is talking about.
Sir A. Gridley: The only effective alternative to mitigate the wastage in the mines, which is of the order of 25,000 workers a year, and to get the additional coalface workers that are wanted is the return of miners who are now in the field Forces and in industry.
May I turn the attention of hon. Members for a moment to another point upon which I hope I will not be doing the House an injustice when I say I doubt whether any hon. Member has really considered it before? The coal which is required to meet the needs of the gas and electricity undertakings to enable them to supply their domestic household consumers for a year on the old rate of consumption represents only 152 hours' mining output. Gas and electricity undertakings are probably the most efficient—I do not want to put the claim too high—users of coal.
Mr. Grenfell: There must be some mistake there. The hourly output is 100,000 tons, which is 700,000 tons a day, and we must reckon seven days per week. The joint consumption of electricity and gas undertakings is nearly 50,000,000 tons per year. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said domestic."] Is it purely domestic? Do lighting and heating all come within that figure?
Sir A. Gridley: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman did not quite understand me. I was very careful to say that this was for supply to domestic household consumers. That is the figure which I have given, and I doubt very much whether the hon. Gentleman has that figure at the moment. Just consider what that figure means. If everybody, large and small users, succeeded in cutting the use of gas and electricity by 25 per cent. in domestic household establishments, we could do without one week's output of coal from the pits. There are few houses in this country which have not their worries, anxieties, discomforts and inconveniences, yet the harassed domestic household is being harried to make cuts which, if wholly effective to the extent of 25 per cent. will represent only one week's effort, or 2 per cent. of the present rate of output.
I do not use those figures as an argument against rationing. I have been an advocate of rationing from the very start of the situation which has developed over the last 18 months, but I have never been in favour of rationing on the lines of the Beveridge proposal. I shall continue to oppose any scheme of rationing on the present fuel-target basis, if it ever becomes compulsory. Do not let anybody think that I am saying one word now to discourage the practice of the utmost economy in every domestic household in the country. The need for economy is absolutely imperative, and everybody should do his utmost to limit consumption of coal, gas and electricity to the utmost, so long as the war effort is not thereby impaired.
As the House knows, even if the country does not already know it, I have opposed, from the beginning, the Beveridge plan, of which the fuel target, as voluntarily exercised, is a complete copy. I am going to call Sir William Beveridge, however, to my aid on this occasion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not do that."] I will take the risk. He wrote a letter to "The Times" on 14th May in which he replied to his critics. In that letter he said:
"Of course, efforts to increase production of coal are required in any case."—
that is, whether rationing becomes necessary or not—
"Rationing in general is not unpopular with consumers. But rationing of fuel has to make head against a general opinion that rationing should not be necessary since there is, plenty
1012
of coal underground. Even when it is explained that getting coal to the point of consumption depends on organisation and manpower, general doubt persists whether manpower and organisation in the mines have been handled wisely. Unfortunately, with a single exception, all suggestions that can be made for increasing production, such as concentration of the available labour upon the best seams in the best mines, temporary increase of miners' hours or reorganisation of the industry, are highly controversial, or highly speculative, or both. The exception—the one certain method of getting more coal at once"——
Mr. Kirkwood: Is to nationahse the mines.
Sir A. Gridley:
"is to increase the skilled labour in the mines by returning to them at once men now in the Forces."
That is the policy which has been urged upon the Government for the last 18 months.
If the problems of the Minister of Fuel and Power are to be solved, the War Cabinet should come to a decision to act upon the advice given them in the Motion on the Order Paper to-day. I beg the War Cabinet to give the Minister the manpower that he wants in order to make sure that the coal the country needs may be won from the pits. It is all very well to estimate what the present and the growing requirements are and what the production must be in order to meet it. How do we know and how can we possibly foresee what unexpected contingencies will have to be provided against? We ought not to be trying merely to balance our demands with the production. We ought to have a reserve of sufficient amount to meet any contingencies with which we are likely to be faced. God has put into the earth the greatest asset, which mankind is able to draw freely from the earth.
Mr. Sloan: To whom did He give it?
Sir A. Gridley: It has taken thousands of years to mature. Coal is absolutely vital to the life of man in peace-time and far more so in time of war as grave as that which we face to-day. Therefore, I appeal most strongly that Ministers present should bring before the War Cabinet the need to come to an urgent decision now and to act quickly. Let us be done with procrastination.
Sir Samuel Chapman: We have had a most serious and illuminating Debate, and I rise not to join

1013
in the general Debate but to turn just for five minutes to a point which has not yet been mentioned during the Debate. I know nothing about coal-mining, and so I will say nothing about it, but I do know something about what is above ground, and I wish once more to make the suggestion that the woods of our country, the timber in our country, would provide a very large percentage of fuel in the 5years to come, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—if I may presume to say so—goes about it in the right way. I know how anxious he is on this point of using more wood, because he has sent out a circular to all the local authorities, and I know too how anxious the Secretary of State for Scotland is, because he too has sent out a circular. What I desire to ask is. What progress is being made to get into the minds of the people of this country that they should use more wood and less coal?
The quantity of wood which lies in the great forests, if I may so call them, of this country is enormous. Not only is it lying on the ground, no one daring to pick it up, but there are hundreds of thousands of dead trees which could be cut down without interfering in any degree with the timber which is wanted for the national requirements of the country. I will give just one example. It is no use speaking in general terms. I was walking yesterday in the county of Sussex and went through a charming little village called Isfield, a few miles from Lewes. There is an old corn mill there, and within a few minutes' walk of that corn mill there is enough wood, if it were properly used, to keep Lewes in fuel for the whole winter. Wood lies by the roadside; trees looking like antediluvian monsters have been there for years. I spoke to a woodman, who said, "If you go up that bank, you will find an old oak which has been lying there since 1910. I helped to cut it down. The tree was coming over the road, and we cut it down, and there it lies, eight or ten tons of it," Dead wood such as this is to be found all over the country in huge quantities. Why is not this wood used to save coal?
I shall make three suggestions. It is useless getting up and talking without making suggestions. The matter will have to be tackled in three ways. The first way is to leave the wood merchants to continue business as they are doing now. In the county of Sussex they are
1014
getting about £3 a ton for wood, which works out at about a penny for a 3 lb. log which when put on a fire will last for a considerable time. About four of these will keep an ordinary sitting-room fire going from 4 p.m. until bedtime with a little coal. [Interruption.] I regard bedtime as half past nine or 10 p.m. Any man who is in fairly good health and lives in the country wants to go to bed in good time in order to keep himself fit and be able to get up early next morning. The thing is to leave the wood merchants, who are conducting their business in a most admirable manner, as they are at the present moment.
As regards my second point, I know a wood of 1,800 acres. I went through it yesterday and could have picked up tons of wood lying on the ground, wood for which people would be thankful. Why is it not picked up? [An HON. MEMBER: "It would disturb the pheasants."] Cottagers around, and everyone else, would be glad of it, but what one is told, "We dare not go in. We should be watched." I spoke to a man whom I met in a public house. That is the way to get information in the country. Go into the local public houses. You need not have bottled beer or whisky; have a grape juice if the house provides it. I raised the question with four or five men who were standing round the bar. One man said, "I shall not go short of fuel. I know where to get it—after dark." There will be a lot of that sort of thing going on if fuel runs short. This matter is very serious. I suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend, who has made such an excellent and illuminating speech, that he might make an appeal to the great landowners of this country for good neighbourly feeling, that we must pull together, that we are all in the same boat, and would they show a spirit of friendship and kindness to the countryside by saying, "Come into our woods—without axe or without saw if you like—and pick what you see lying on the ground." There would be a minority who would have to be guarded against, as I learned in the public house. People will talk to you at the bars of these village public houses, and I have been in 20 or 30 of them. My hon. Friend has been down the mine, but he has not been into the public houses and got first-hand in-

1015
formation. What men of good will have told me is that I am quite right, that they would like to go into the woods and pick up dead timber, but that there are others against whom safeguards would have to be made. Some persons might even come down from London with lorries. These people who wish to go into the woods in the way I have proposed agree and desire that regulations of a reasonable nature should be made.
The great thing is to get a spirit of good neighbourly feeling in the minds of the people of the countryside. The response would be wonderful; it would be enormous. I see the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish). He knows these woods better than I do, and I recommend him to go into the Old Ship inn a few miles from Lewes. If in the past he has passed it, I would suggest to him not to hesitate to go in there. At the side of the road is the Plashet Wood of 1,800 acres. It is full of good stuff. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the country had become fuel-minded, and was anxious to save fuel. I am sorry to have to disagree with him. The people have not yet fully realised the seriousness of the situation. We must do everything possible even in regard to burning this wood. Perhaps if action were taken in the right way that would save 10 to 15 per cent.: it would help the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in the great task he has undertaken. Get the good will spirit, and let the people go into the woods, without axes and without saws. That is not enough. In the third place, the right hen. and gallant Gentleman will have to urge the local authorities to take in hand the cutting down of dead trees, and use these great antediluvian monsters which all over the country are lying by the roadsides. Then we shall, ease the great strain upon our miners and upon the use of our coal.
Mr. Sloan: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into the woods. I have listened to a great part of this Debate, and it has not helped me very much. I have no great complaint to make about this speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He accomplished a very difficult task in a very capable manner. It is not easy to face this House and say that coal production has fallen to 200,000,000 tons per
1016
annum, that the mining policy has been a tragic and ghastly failure, that the country must face a period of austerity, and that, in the words of the Prime Minister, people must in the coming winter shiver in their homes. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated that production is falling. If ever there was a time when I could claim to be a prophet and the son of a prophet, it is now. In the last coal Debate in which I took part, I prophesied that coal production would continue to fall. In that prophecy I have been completely justified, and, unfortunately, I am in the position to say to-day that if reorganisation of the industry does not take place production will continue to fall. The Minister had a great deal to say about man-power in the mines.
The name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) is among those attached to the Motion on the Order Paper demanding the return of 30,000 miners from the Forces. The return of 30,000, or 100,000, people, without proper directions, will make no difference to the production at all. That has been demonstrated. Already 33,000 men have been returned from other industries, and after that happened production was lower than before. Men returned from the Army to the mines, and production then went lower still. It has been a progressive decline. We have now lost an output of three cwt. per man-shift since the war began: instead of having 23.4 cwt. per man-shift, we have now an average of something like 20.14 cwt. Yet without one single man being returned to the mines, if output was restored to 23 cwt. per manshift we should get all the coal that is asked for by the Minister. We must find the reason for this tragic drop in output. In spite of all that has been said, inside and outside this House, the sole responsibility for the drop in output lies with the management of the collieries. The workmen are as capable and as willing as they were three years ago. They are prepared to work as hard at the coalface as they were three years ago, and as hard as they were six years ago, when the output per man-shift was over 25 cwt. The same men are there, the same coal seams are there, the same people evidently are there to take the coal from the men after it has been hewed. This is a very elementary matter. We must look into the distribution of the men in the pits. The number of men at the coal-

1017
face has not increased; in fact, it has slightly decreased in the last three years. But the number of workmen other than at the coalface—those not engaged in active production, in cutting the coal and filling it into the tubs—has increased enormously. Who is going to examine this matter?
We have now a new scheme of control. There was ever a more fraudulent scheme imposed upon a country or upon an industry than this scheme of control. It is there on your White Paper. It was accepted by the Miners' Federation, and by this House, and put into operation, but I defy any person to visit the coalfields—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been visiting the coalfields, and it is a pity he had not visited them before this scheme came into operation—and find the slightest change taking place in the outlook or psychology of the coal-owners. Where has the change taken place? The mines still belong to the owners, and they are being operated by the same agents, managers, under-managers and all the lesser fry in the same fashion as before. They are being operated not in the spirit of securing more coal for the nation but in the spirit of securing greater profits for the mine-owners. There is not the slightest difference taking place. They are still squeezing the miners at the coal face.
I visited a colliery the other day where it was a question of 3d. a ton between the management and the men. The management said that they were not going to give that 3d. per ton and said they would put machines into the pit; they would find some other method of operating it, but they were not going to give the other 3d. a ton. That is the spirit in which the mines are being operated to-day. The question of output is not a question of the men at all. There are men at the coalface filling 20 to 22 tons of coal in a shift. Will the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply tell me how 22 tons of coal can be scaled down a ton per man before it reaches the wagon? Can he explain why it takes 19 men to take away one man's output? Can he explain how it can be scaled down? In collieries in the county in which I live where they are working without any machinery the output is more than three tons per man per shift. The men are working coal at the coalface, and
1018
surely no one is going to suggest that the men are at all responsible for the loss between the coalface and the wagon.
There is only one way in which you can look for increased output. Even supposing 30,000 to 50,000 men were released from the Forces to go back to the pits, they would not, unless there was drastic reorganisation, increase the output of coal. Besides, there is no pit room for these men. During the last three years of the war development has suffered very severely, and while no doubt there may be some pits where more men can be employed, in the majority of pits I know there 1s. no room for any more men. It is only by making proper use of the manpower already there that output can be raised per man-shift. Give me a pit I can walk in and I will dig my 20 cwts. and carry them out on my back. The suggestion that reorganisation cannot take place or that output cannot be increased is ridiculous in the extreme. Do not let any Member say that absenteeism is the cause of the loss in output, because it is not true. There is not a single word of truth in it. We know that a certain number of men have been absent from their work when they ought to have been there. Nobody on this side of the House justifies that, neither does any miners' leader, and we; will take any steps possible to stop it. But do not let anybody come to this House and say that absenteeism is the cause of the drop in output.
Absenteeism in Scotland, both avoidable and unavoidable, is 8 per cent. On the last figures we had from the Government they proved that if men were absent one day a week, they were working extra shifts to make up for it and that during the whole year they had actually worked more than six shuts every week. So the question of absenteeism in Scotland does not arise, although output there, like that in other places, has dropped. Let us not be complacent about the scheme of control which has now been forced upon us. I have heard the Minister say a great deal about production committees, and I want him to investigate the question of the power of these committees to examine collieries where allegations are made that production is being retarded, because I am informed by managers in Scotland, and by the Controller, that men have no power whatever to move from one section of a pit to another in order to have it

1019
examined. If there are complaints about safety, there are workmen's inspectors whose job is entirely different from that of the production committees, which have no right whatever to move about the pits.
The managers claim that they are the managers of the collieries, and they will not allow their rights to be usurped. The managers have very serious responsibilities under the Mines Act, and undoubtedly they will maintain their rights. If these production committees are to work efficiently, they will have to be able to visit the different parts of the collieries, and I hope that matter will be examined so that we may know exactly what powers they have.
The question of man-power in all the collieries should be thoroughly examined. Pits should be examined for the purpose of finding out how many useless men there are in them, how many men have been brought into them who were never miners but are there with an umbrella over them to keep them out of the Army. I would like to know whether people are being brought into the pits who ought not to be there, who are of no use in the pits and who, by their presence there, are reducing the output per man-shift. The workmen cannot be blamed for a reduction for which they are not at all responsible.
If people are to be prevented from shivering in their homes this winter, something very serious will have to be done. The coal is still there, the equipment is there, and the men are there. The miners especially are people who never shirk employment, despite what the coalowners or managers may say. My chief complaint about them is that, they are always prepared to work too hard and to do too much. It is well known in mining districts that the tendency of men, if they are put on a ton rate, on piece rates, is to trample over the top of each other to get coal away from the coalface. If that is so, there should be no scarcity. The 30,000,000 tons of coal required should be obtained quite easily. One hon. Member talked about Russia and about what would happen in Russia. Drastic things have to happen in Russia because Russia has lost over 60 per cent. of her coal output, and drastic things are being done in an attempt to make up that loss. Not a single pit has been lost in this country, there is no invasion here, no enemy trampling over our coalfields, but the output has gone
1020
down to such an extent that the position has become tragic and serious. I suppose the Minister will come to Scotland in the near future. I hope that in his peregrinations round the collieries he will see to it that the management work the pits not in the interests of the coalowners or in the interests of profit, but in the interests of securing every ounce of coal that can be brought out of the pits during this period of war.
Mrs. Tate: I cannot intervene in this Debate even for the very few minutes in which I intend to occupy the time of the House without paying a tribute of appreciation, which I am sure the whole House must feel, to the energy and imagination with which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Fuel and Power has tackled the extraordinarily difficult task with which he has been faced. I am sure that all who listened to his speech in this Debate must have considered it a model of introducing a very intricate and difficult subject in a manner which was interesting and inspiring to the whole House.
The hon. Member who has just spoken said there was no need for a larger number of miners in the pits. His knowledge of mining is very much greater than mine. He has experience which I can never hope to have, because the experience of those who have worked in the pits and lived their lives among miners must of necessity be infinitely more valuable in every respect than any experience of those who endeavour to study the question from the outside. I only wish my experience of the industry were sufficiently good to enable me to pay the tribute that I would wish to pay to the miners, in whom I have taken a very great interest. But I cannot agree that there is not a greater need for men in the pits, and I think not only is this a matter of grave concern at present, but it must be a matter of very grave concern in the future. The Forster Committee Report, recently published, shows that in the last year in Somerset only four boys entered the coalmining industry. When one considers the very high degree of wastage because of old age which is inevitably taking place year by year, one can but consider that a most seripus situation, and indeed the Minister said that was a problem which was engaging his most earnest consideration. I would ask whether it is

1021
not possible to restart mining classes. Fifty-five years ago the Somerset County Council commenced evening mining classes, which were of tremendous assistance. A very large percentage of those who attended them obtained posts as managers and under-managers. Twenty years ago, for reasons of economy, the classes were brought to an end. The coalfield of Somerset is very nearly as large as that of the Forest of Dean, where there are these facilities. I hope consideration will be given to the reopening of these classes.
The Minister spoke of the economies which had been made up to date since the campaign was started to make the country conscious of the very great need for economy. I am sure the whole country would rather see economy produced by voluntary means if possible than by compulsory methods. But, in spite of what the Minister said about the figures being satisfactory up to date, and the very appreciable economy being effected, I do not think it is as yet time to judge how effective that is going to be, and I am certain that we have not reached the maximum of economy. There is still a considerable wastage of fuel in the consumption of electricity and gas in private houses, and I think greater publicity should be used for hay-box cookery. A Question was asked in the House the other day whether the Purchase Tax could be removed from hay boxes. I agree that anyone who can afford the rather expensive type of hay box which is now being sold could also afford to pay the Purchase Tax, but I suggest that it would be a great advantage if, in food advice bureaux and over the wireless, full instructions could be given on the method of economically making hay boxes in the home, and the tremendous saving in fuel which could result from the use of hay boxes. I welcome the visit of the Minister to the coalfields and his interviews with coal production committees. I hope that he will visit Somerset at an early date. I particularly welcome his intention, which I know to be sincere and genuine, that where faults are found in management they will receive the same attention as faults in other departments in the mines. I am sure that the coal production committee of Somerset will be extremely glad to receive a visit from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Major Braithwaite: I do not
1022
think that any Minister has started off in his new office with better wishes than my right hon, and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. He has the particular affection of the House, and everyone is wishing and praying for his success in connection with the many difficulties attached to coal production. To-day he made a fine Parliamentary performance, and it was one that must have very much pleased the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). When, however, I get away from the Parliamentary performance, I do not find anything in the speech which contributed one extra ton of coal to the nation's need. We are in desperate straits. Unless coal production goes up we shall lose the war, and the sooner the House of Commons and the country realise this the better it will be for them. We cannot envisage opening up a second front unless we are prepared to fuel the people of France as well as the people of this country. Here we are with a gap to fill, and yet we are talking about coal as if it were a matter of not very mach urgency. This Debate is on a par with Debates in which I have taken part in ordinary times; there seems to be no urgency about the matter at all. Coal production is falling, the country is in grave danger, and I am very much alarmed.
I had hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his vigour and courage, would have come out boldly with some valuable proposals for the immediate increase of coal production. Instead of that we have this lamentable decline and the figures that have been presented to us today. I have had a long experience with the coal trade and have worked with men underground practically all my life, and I say to the Minister frankly that by running six consecutive shifts he is losing production instead of improving it, particularly in the most prolific districts. I was glad to see the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), because he has a knowledge of coalmining which is second to none in Yorkshire. He knows perfectly well that in South Yorkshire where there are prolific seams six days a week consecutively underground is bound to bring production down instead of up. There may be something to be said for pits where the production per man is much lower, but certainly in the other districts

1023
it is far better to carry on with the five shifts and get the maximum, giving the pits and the machinery a chance to recover and giving extra leisure. The repair of machinery to-day, the getting together of spare parts and the opening of new districts, takes time, and if we run this six-day week underground it will retard production instead of expanding it.
This question is one of man-power. The Government and the Lord President of the Council, who, I see, is present, must take the fullest responsibility for allowing the young men to leave the pits at the beginning of the war, and we shall not get production back to its old level until we have put that man-power there. If this country is to be the Allied striking base for the winning of the war, Allied strategy should be directed to the preservation of the British coalfields and their utilisation to the maximum extent. I therefore suggest in all seriousness that a force of miners should be recruited from the British Empire, and if necessary some miners brought from Russia—from the Ukraine where they have been turned out of their mines—to this country and put into mines here, and our displaced miners sent to reinforce the workers in other mines so as to keep our personnel up to strength. In that way we could get back to normal production and would be able to secure the expanded output which is absolutely necessary.
Next I want to say a few words upon a subject in which I am particularly interested. Having been the father of the open cast mining scheme in this country, I want to join issue with my right hon. and gallant Friend. He did a great disservice to this effort the other day by putting out a disclaimer of certain reports which had appeared in the newspapers from industrial correspondents. I assume full responsibility for the visit of those industrial correspondents to the open cast mines. Nobody from the Ministry had bothered to go and see the work. I have not had the pleasure of seeing my right hon. and gallant Friend, or the Parliamentary Secretary, or the head of his Department, or any of the officials connected with it except the Controller for Yorkshire, who has spent half a day on the matter since he was appointed. I felt that it was necessary that the public should know exactly what is going on,
1024
and as this House represents the public I want to say frankly that I stand by every word that was written by those industrial correspondents. I did not go with them myself, so I was not able to influence anything they wrote. I asked them to give an opinion on what they saw.
What did they see? They saw a vast amount of coal being produced. They saw one man who, with one machine, dug 700 tons of coal in one day. They saw a production of not less than 30 tons per man employed; and they saw to their dismay thousands and thousands of tons of coal stacked in the fields at a time when it is badly needed in industry. My right hon. and gallant Friend says that this is not so, and that the Coalowners' Association, who are supposed to sell this coal for the Government, sell it without profit. I understood they were receiving 1s. a ton for handling this outcrop coal. I do not know whether I am right or not, but that is my impression. But if 1s. a ton is the sum paid, and whether they make a profit on it or not is not my business, they should be paid for handling it, and there can be no excuse for lack of sales at this time. I went to the head of the Midland amalgamated district for coal sales at Sheffield, and I said to him, "There is a vast amount of outcrop coal coming on to the market. It is coming, quickly. The director at the Ministry of Mines will tell you when it is arriving. He will tell you when it is coming and the approximate output. Before you are asked to sell it you will receive an analysis, made by the Government at Sheffield University, of each seam, so that you will know its calorific value and what it can be utilised for. It is up to you to make arrangements for its disposal in advance." He said, "That is easy. Do you know that I am dealing with 1,500,000 tons a week? "I said," Of course I know that, and so this extra 20,000 or 30,000 tons will not worry you." He said, "Not in the slightest. We want every bit you can get." That was before June. Since 5th June we have produced over 600,000 tons of outcrop coal, and in Yorkshire alone, 129,000 tons is now lying in the fields instead of factories and power stations. It has cost the Government 1s. a ton to stack it in the fields and it will cost them another 2s. a ton to pick it up and load. At one time during the course of its raising, it could have been taken direct to

1025
the power station or public utility companies within easy range.
I will tell hon. Members the places. At Manston, only four miles from the city of Leeds, 21,800 tons have been produced since July. On the ground lie 21,818 tons, or 100 per cent. of the output, and no attempt has been made to sell it at all. That is a definite loss to the country and to the taxpayer of over £1,000 in putting that down. Again, at Went-worth, eight miles from Sheffield, 45,000 tons have been produced of Barnsley main coal, suitable to drive any steam engine or any electric plant in the country, but 37,800 tons, 83 per cent. of the total production, have been put into a field within a few miles of an electric power station. I do not know all the cases, because I am only concerned with the organisations I happen to be looking after, but out of a total production of 303,000 tons, 129,000 tons, instead of going away, have been put on the ground.
Major Lloyd George: I will have to deal with this matter later, but would my hon. and gallant Friend be good enough to indicate to the House on how many of those sites there were facilities for removing the coal at the time he speaks of?
Major Braithwaite: At every single site the coal was put into a wagon and transported from the coal face to some place in a field to put on the ground. That wagon could easily have left the field and gone to some power station, instead of staying there. That is not the whole of the story. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said to-day that he could not expect from open cast mines more than 1,500,000 tons in his coal year, which ends at the end of next May. Why minimise the effort? Why not give the diggers a little more credit and help? We are getting 60,000 tons a week now——
Major Lloyd George: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend again, but I cannot allow that figure to go out. The figure of 60,000 tons has been reached only once in the whole period. The average is far below 60,000.
Major Braithwaite: It depends from where you take it. If you take the whole position, I think my right hon. and gallant Friend will not disagree that over 650,000 tons has been raised since 5th
1026
June this year. I make that statement perfectly specifically. Work that out, and you find that before the end of next May you will have over 3,000,000 tons. This has been done with a minimum of plant. One concern engaged in getting coal ordered £80,000 worth of machinery to dig it. As each machine was finished at the excavation works some Government Department came along and commandeered it. That concern has never received one new machine for this work.
Again, only last week 30 of the machines being used by the contractors on this, work were commandeered and will leave the coal jobs in the course of the nest week or two. I made a statement in this House, which I stand by, that there are 50,000,000 tons of coal within 30 feet of the surface of this country that can be dug by open cast methods. It is only a question of the number of machines that are used, I admit that some of the coal is of an inferior quality, but most of it is useful for industrial purposes. I am thoroughly dissatisfied by the lack of appreciation and lack of help which the Ministry of Fuel and Power has given to this project, which is quite capable of raising 10,000,000 tons a year. During the course of this Debate I got a wire for which I did not ask from one of the Ministry's own officials, which reads:
"Please inform House of Commons that 32,000,000 tons of outcrop coal are available for open-cast mining at an average ratio of one in four within a radius of 25 miles of Wakefield. Can produce reliable evidence."
I do not want to stress this too much, but I feel that everybody ought to be all out to do every little bit possible to help win this war. Everything in this country depends upon coal. The mere fact that we cannot produce rubber in this country because we cannot produce coal is a serious matter which ought to alarm the minds of all Members. There are so many considerations that hang upon the production of coal that I earnestly ask the Minister please to let us have all the help he can give us. My statements have been discredited by people who do not know what has been happening.
I can substantiate every figure and word I have used in the House. I have proved the situation up to the hilt, and, that being so, let us get on with a full effort. There are plenty of machines and men doing less vital work which could be trans-

1027
ferred to this job, immediately; skilled miners are not needed. I promise the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he will give us this encouragement and help, he will not be disappointed. I am most anxious that both he and his colleagues should succeed in this very big task they have undertaken. I am ready to give them every bit of energy and help I can. This is no time to disparage one another's efforts. It is a time to work as a team and try to get the best results for the nation.
There is one other thing I wish to touch on in the main mining issue. There will unless the Government give very earnest consideration to the matter be a very serious shortage of pit props. There are plenty of pit props to be had in parts of Scotland but I was speaking to one of the people engaged in that trade only yesterday, and he told me that it was quite impossible for him to get labour. If collieries are to produce coal in increased quantity, it is absolutely necessary they should be supplied with essential needs, and pit props and pit wood are vital to increased production. Will the Minister examine the conditions under which the Minister of Labour will allow people to be transferred to cut pit props? I am told that a lot of women volunteered to help with this job in Scotland, and that they were refused permission by the Ministry of Labour. There may be a shortage of pit props, and it is vital that something should be done about this.
I want to revert to the subject of open cast mining. I took around the greatest expert in the world on open cast mining of coal, who happens to be in command of one of the American units over here. He has done more of this coal-getting in the open than anybody else in the world. I took him around, and I said, "Tell me where we are wrong and what we can do to help?" He said, "You are doing a great job of work in this matter, but you are doing it with toys. If only I had a dozen of the machines that we are using in America for this wonk I could double the output for you very quickly." I asked whether we were doing it in the right way, and he said, "With what you have got, you could not do it better." So that the House shall not imagine that this is being done uneconomically, I will quote figures. The amount raised by a
1028
company of which I know, up to 23rd September, was 282,000 tons. It cost the Government, in the contract for raising, £188,000—that is 13s. 4d. a ton. That was the average for the whole period: it included prices which were considerably higher. You must add to this the Ministry's charges and the charges for putting it down on the ground, which I do not think is a charge which should be imposed on the contractors. I submit that on those figures I am entitled to greater consideration from the Ministry, and to more help and encouragement. I promise the House of Commons that we can make a great contribution to the Minister's effort.
Mr. Wragg: Does the 13s. 4d. a ton which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned include the screening of the coal?
Major Braithwaite: There is only one screening plant available, and the Ministry screen the coal there themselves. The cost of the coal there as it goes into the screens is 10s. 2d.
Mr. Wragg: How is it then that when this open cast coal is offered to manufacturers it is offered at a higher price than that at which they can buy good deep mine slack?
Major Braithwaite: My hon. Friend knows that this goes through the coal selling schemes, which are operated entirely apart from the contractors. I have no knowledge of the price at which it is sold.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. T. Smith): As we are having another day for this Debate, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to rise now. As my right hon. and gallant Friend can speak again only by leave of the House, he proposes to deal, among other things, with the statement that we have just heard. I want to be perfectly frank with the hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite). He said that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary had been to see these open cast pits. Please do not believe all you hear. I told the hon. and gallant Member some time ago that when I went to see the open cast mines I should go officially, and not with him. If any contractor who happens to be working on them cares to come with me, that is

1029
another matter; but I do not take my advice, or my instructions, from anybody who is working an open cast pit.
Major Braithwaite rose——
Mr. Smith: The hon. and gallant Member is not going to have it all his own way. Nobody is disparaging this effort, but the hon. and gallant Member knows what the trouble has been for six or eight weeks. That is why some of us did not go. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tell the House why."] The hon. and gallant Member knows why. He would do far better to let the matter stay where it is until the Minister is able to reply to him on the next Sitting Day. After all, my right hon. and gallant Friend is the Minister; I am only the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not mind saying that I have spent nearly the whole of my life in and around mining, and I claim to be perhaps as tolerant as any Member in this House, and when I make up my mind in regard to a thing and I know that I am right, Bostock's elephants would not move me.
With regard to the other point made by the hon. and gallant Member, relating to pit props, anyone might imagine that since the Ministry was created there has been no discussion about pit props. As a matter of fact—and on security grounds one cannot say all that one knows about this matter—it was one of the first things that I had to tackle with the aid of the best experts in the country. The question of wood and steel and alternatives and all that sort of thing was gone into, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who was Secretary for Mines, was on these committees. If my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckrose has any information with regard to pit props and will let me have it, I will see that it is examined, but for heaven's sake do not assume that nothing has been done with regard to it.
For the last two or three years in particular I have taken a fairly active part in coal Debates, usually from the opposite side of the House, and although my hon. Friend the Member for Gower and myself may have differed on occasions about what should be done, nevertheless, both of us know the mining industry; we are the closest of friends and are prepared to co-operate to the fullest extent in order to get what we want in the interests of
1030
the country. He rather excelled himself to-day. It was an excellent speech. I have not a word of disagreement, as he knows, because I said all the same things myself some time ago with regard to manpower, pit production and our own experience in the pit. I agree wholeheartedly with him. May I say one thing and one thing only? He knows that I cannot give the figures with regard to the stocks at the present time, but the position is not quite as bad as he may have given the impression. I am sure he will take from me that assurance, but nobody connected with the Ministry of Fuel and Power will disagree with Members in all parts of the House in pressing for adequate man-power in the pits. All that has been said about the need for an adequate labour force at the coalface we know to be true, but there will be another occasion, on the next Sitting Day, to discuss that, and none of us attached to the Ministry will disagree with what has been said. Under the White Paper—and whatever my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) may think, the coal plan was the decision of Parliament—my right hon. and gallant Friend's task is to carry out what is laid down in this coal plan. It may not be a perfect plan.
Mr. Gallacher: It is not.
Mr. Smith: At the same time, that is our instruction as it were, and the regional control is being built up. I am bound to say that it has been up to now—perhaps not in all areas—and it will be in the future, productive of much good. Take the question of pit production committees, and hon. Members must never forget that coal is not got in London but is got in the pits and that it is there where you have to have your minds directed. With regard to these pit production committees, I can give this assurance straight away. Those committees are, as far as possible, to be on a basis of equality. There should be no attempt on the part of any management of any colliery to regard the pit committee as theirs. When these committees were first instituted there was a good deal of complaint on this ground, and if any Member knows of any pit committee in connection with which there is disagreement as to what is being done and will write to the. Regional Controller or to the Ministry, the fullest inquiry will be made. The building up of this structure

1031
has been a rather difficult task, but I am certain that it will be productive of much good in more than one direction.
Mr. Sloan: Can my hon. Friend give an opinion as to the right of a pit production committee to examine or inspect various parts of a colliery?
Mr. Smith: In my own division pit production committees have been down pits.
Mr. Sloan: Were they down with the consent of the management of as a right? Had they a right to go down?
Mr. Smith: They were down as the result of discussion by the pit production committees. I will not admit, however, that because a man may be a member of a pit production committee he has an absolute right to go down a pit when he wishes to do so, without supervision.
Mr. Sloan: My hon. Friend has not clarified the point. He knows that managers may ask pit production committees to inspect sections of a pit, but have the committees the right to say to the management, "We want to examine that particular section"? Have they the right to do it?
Mr. Smith: If a pit production committee was discussing the question of production at a particular pit and they had all the figures and data before them, and thought that the inspection of a certain part of a district in a seam would be helpful to more production, not only have they the right to inspect it, but they should immediately do so. We are starting a new thing in the mines. Miners have been clannish and conservative in many ways but if the question is rightly tackled, that should not hinder any progress in that direction. We have heard a good deal about wastage in the mining industry, and there is no doubt that it is very big indeed. With fatal and serious accidents, old age, infirmity, illness and so on there is always a terrific wastage of man-power in the industry, apart altogether from the question of entrants at the other end of the scale. There are between 25,000 and 30,000 men going out every year through one cause or another.
In paragraph 19 of the White Paper it was suggested that for the first time in the history of mining there should be
1032
set up a medical services scheme purely for the miners., not merely to deal with the checking certificates of those who wanted to leave the industry, but to deal with rehabilitation and remedial treatment in cases where it was required. Little time was lost before an Inter-Departmental Committee was set up, formed of some of the best men that could be obtained. After not too many meetings but a good deal of hard work their report has been prepared, and I propose to give its outline to the House. I had the honour of acting as chairman of that Committee, and I think this report will show that we have done good work, not merely for the immediate benefit but the ultimate benefit of the mining industry. The subject matter boils down to three heads—service at the pits, service away from the pits, and the checking of medical certificates. It is suggested that in each region there shall be appointed a full-time medical officer, making eight in the regions, and an additional one at headquarters, making 10 in all. I think everyone who knows anything about mining will agree that even in the days when there were 300,000, 400,000 and 500,000 more people employed in the industry than there are today, there was only one full-time medical officer. He is a very able man who has done wonderfully well, but he has had an almost impossible task to survey the 1,900 to 2,000 pits and all the different cases of illness and sickness. It is suggested that there shall be eight full-time regional medical officers and an additional one at headquarters, making 10 in all.
Mr. Grenfell: There will now be two medical officers at headquarters?
Mr. Smith: Yes. The duty or work of the regional medical officer will be to survey such things as first-aid treatment and ambulance services. Anybody who has been associated with pits knows that a good many collieries were deficient in some of the very first things that they ought to have had years and years ago. I worked in a colliery for more years than I care to look back on where there had to be the utmost agitation in order to get an ambulance and where there was no first-aid room. While a good deal of progress has been made, there is certainly some work left to be done. The regional medical officer will be expected, among other things, to supervise and improve the first-aid treatment. My hon. Friend

1033
the Member for Gower knows that in the Royal Commission's Report there are three paragraphs dealing with this specific point, urging more improvement, better qualifications for those who are handling it, and so on.
There are then the investigation and preventive measures concerning occupational diseases and fitness. I wonder whether the average Member appreciates what is taking place in mining at the present time. There are occupational diseases like nystagmus, which has been on the decline largely because there has been extra illumination. There is an occupational disease called silicosis, which the House will hear more about in a few weeks, and which, as a result of an inquiry in South Wales, is to be called pneumoconiosis. If anybody wants to know what silicosis actually means, he need only read that report and make some investigation of cases in certain parts of the country. I think hon. Members will agree that there will be plenty of work for the regional medical officer along those lines. The regional medical officer should be the type of man who is able to go down pits. To my own knowledge there are certain pits where men suffer from carbuncles and boils on an average more than in other pits, and where the causes should be investigated. There is to-day evidence of a certain number of cases of dermatitis, not limited to one district, where there is plenty of room for the medical officer to go down the pits and try to ascertain the causes and the necessary preventive measures.
Another thing we have recommended is that there shall be medical inspection of juveniles in accordance with the recommendation of the Forster Committee. I want to be frank about this matter. With the strain on the medical staff of the country at the present time, it would be almost impossible to carry out the annual inspection of youths in pits up to the 19th year. So what the committee suggests at the moment is that a youth entering the industry should be examined as to fitness for the work, and that after all is vital, but the question of the annual inspection up to the 19th year is a matter that shall be discussed with the Mineworkers' Federation. There has been a good deal of hostility in the past to the annual examination, and we know the reason why. On that score alone we shall find plenty of work for the regional officers.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I gather that there is to be one medical officer for Scotland. It strikes me that he will have infinitely more than one man can possibly do.
Mr. Smith: I do not think Scotland will be badly off.
Mr. Sloan: On a point of Order. I understood the Minister was to reply to the Debate. Has there been nothing raised which calls for a reply from him?
Mr. Speaker: That does not seem to me to be a point of Order.
Mr. Smith: The Minister is to speak on the next Sitting Day. When we come to the question of medical services away from the pits, there are panel treatment, hospital treatment, in and out treatment, and so on. In respect of fractures and allied injuries, there is a certain amount of facility under the emergency hospital scheme, but we have been told that quite a number of miners in certain localities have hesitated to go for out-patient treatment when advised by the medical man on the ground that they could not afford the travelling and out-of-pocket expenses. It is proposed that wherever a miner, on medical advice, goes for out-patient treatment, on request the whole of his expenses shall be paid. That is one of those irritating little things which have existed for a good many years.
With, regard to rehabilitation, we want to use as far as possible all existing facilities. It is no use opening another building if you have facilities in the area already able to deal with rehabilitation cases. The Scottish Office of Health has been extremely good. We have had the offer of one of the best places in Scotland for the rehabilitation of a certain number. We aim at using existing facilities and bringing them to the notice of the mine-workers. Where there are no facilities we are aiming at rehabilitation centres dealing-purely with medical cases. There are one or two in existence, at Mansfield, Wigan, Lanark, and so on. At Mansfield they are restoring injured men in a marvellous way. I had a physical disability for many years through an accident, and, if we had had the slightest kind of rehabilitation treatment in existence, I should have been saved 30 years' suffering. Instead of lying on basket chairs for years the men are treated with remedial

1035
exercises and up to 60 per cent. of all the cases treated are restored to their original work. In one pit I am told the figures show that more than 90 per cent. were restored to their original work.
We want to extend that service where there are not existing facilities. What is more, we want this rehabilitation work to be initiated by the Miners' Welfare Commission. The Commission has since 1920 won the confidence of the industry and has done wonderfully good work. We want the Commission to undertake this work, and I have an assurance from the chairman, although he has not been able to consult his committee in the few days before this Debate, that he is convinced that the Commission will be pleased to do this work, I can tell the House also that the amount of money that will be needed will be provided.
With regard to the third part, which is in paragraph 19, namely, the checking of medical certificates, the figures are rather astounding. It is estimated on the figures for one quarter that there are just under 20,000 applications to leave the industry annually based on medical certificates. Of that number about 25 per cent. come from men actually at work and who have remained at work in the industry. The most remarkable thing is that four districts—South Wales and Monmouthshire, Durham, Lanark, and Lancashire and Cheshire—have roughly 50 per cent. of the cases. Anyone who knows the conditions in some of those counties knows that the number has been on the increase. The figures are rather illuminating. In the checking of medical certificates we have not wanted to set up separate medical machinery for miners apart from anybody else. We do not want to segregate miners and regard them as a race apart. Whenever a man presents a certificate with an application to leave the industry on medical grounds it is first scrutinised by the lay staff of, say, the Ministry of Labour and National Service. If the certificate is vague or unsatisfactory the workman is then sent to a medical referee whose decision is final. In addition, we are suggesting, in order to fulfil the exact wording of paragraph 19, that certificates relating to miners shall be lodged with the regional medical officer who will scrutinise them and, if need be, get into contact with the man's
1036
own doctor or the medical referee. That course may be in the man's own interest. In addition, it will keep a check on the number of certificates applied for and in some cases it may deter some doctors from lightly giving medical certificates.
Let me give one case to show how careful one must be in charging general practitioners with lightly giving certificates. I know of the case of a big strong man who applied to leave a certain pit in my locality. He presented a certificate which said that he had serious heart disease. Nobody who knew him believed it, least of all the colliery manager. The case was looked into. The week afterwards that young man played Rugby football and scored two tries in a very rough-and-tumble Northern Union game. Before we had finished the inquiries that young man was dead. It was a serious case of heart disease, and I give that as an instance of how careful one must be before charging general practitioners with lightly giving certificates.
This medical service will enable us to maintain, as it were, a check oh the certificates. There is something else which it will enable us to do. The White Paper suggests, and rightly so in my opinion, that there are many men in the industry who while not actually ill are in need of certain treatment in order to prevent them from having to stay away from work. We believe that these cases can be brought under review. For example, the investigation officer, if he comes across a man who has been habitually losing time and is convinced that this man is not an habitual idler but is suffering from something, can suggest that certain treatment be given to him. All these things can come under this medical service scheme; but they do carry with them this obligation, one to which the House cannot fail to pay attention. If a man is working in the pits and you say to him, "Look here, what you are in need of is a certain kind of treatment, and you ought to undergo that treatment," he may say, "I am willing to do so, but who is to keep my family in the meantime?" That brings up the question of maintenance, travelling expenses and all that kind of thing, and that question is under consideration at the moment. It is a matter which certainly cannot be shirked. I can only say with regard to the Report generally that we have given careful attention to it and have

1037
laid what I believe to be the foundations of a scheme that will not merely deal with the immediate problem of checking to some extent this wastage but will prove of permanent benefit to those engaged in the mining industry, if rightly applied.
Finally, we must never forget the 700,000 men who work in the pits. We have had a good deal of discussion in the last 20 years in this House about accidents in mines. I see opposite me my two hon. Friends the Members for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and Gower. I acted as P.P.S. to each of them at different periods. We have had many discussions on accidents in mines. In September of last year my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, in discussing the prevalence of accidents from falls of ground, said he had appointed eight inspectors, specially seconded, for dealing with falls of roof. No one likes to be dogmatic with regard to accidents in pits. As a matter of fact there is a saying, in the mines that the moment you start to congratulate yourself that you have had no accident, you get one, but I think I am right in saying that during the first 37 weeks of this year the fatalities at all classes of mines and quarries were 676, compared with 741 in the corresponding period of last year. Of that total, 634 fatalities occurred at mines under the Coal Mines Act compared with 684 in the same period last year, an improvement of more than seven per cent.
One looks with very great interest each week at the accident sheet when it comes in, and I am very pleased to say that at the present moment there is a gradual decrease which I hope will be maintained. In the rush for increased production there must be no weakening in anything that can be done to make the mines safer for those who work there than they are at the present time. In addition to the eight inspectors to deal with falls of ground at the face, 10 junior inspectors for mines have been appointed. These are all men with first-class certificates who have been carefully selected, and they are keen on their jobs.
It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
Mr. T. Smith: Those 10 junior inspectors attended a conference at Sheffield recently, where they listened to lectures from all the experts in the Ministry upon all the matters with which they would have to deal in their duties. There were lectures on roof control, accidents from falls of ground, explosions, fires in mines, electricity, and explosions in coal and gas, and I am pleased to be able to say that there has been a reduction. I certainly hope it will be maintained. In all the changing circumstances of the last 12 months my hon. Friend the Member for Gower is certainly entitled to a little of the credit for certain things that were done while he happened to be Secretary for Mines. He and I used to talk these matters over very frequently indeed.
Mr. Kirkwood: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, will he tell the House how many of the inspectors who have been appointed have engineering experience?
Mr. Smith: I could not say offhand, but, if my hon. Friend wants me to get the information for him, I certainly will.
Mr. Kirkwood: I do. I think the House is very interested indeed in the matter.
Mr. R. J. Taylor: In regard to the inspectors who have been appointed with a view to reducing accidents at the face, ray hon. Friend has given the figure of a substantial reduction in accidents between one period and another. Does that reduction relate solely to accidents at the face and to falls of roof?
Mr. Smith: No, Sir. I did not go into details because I thought I was taking up too much time. Do not misunderstand the position. The eight inspectors were appointed to deal with falls of ground. In addition 10 junior inspectors will be attached to the general inspectorate, and they will deal with the general position inside mines. As to the figures, there is a corresponding reduction in other directions, except that the explosions figure happens to be up. The first half of 1942 was marked by a series of disastrous explosions. Fatalities from this cause during the first 12 weeks were 95, as compared with 65 for the corresponding period of last year. My hon. Friend will remember that we had the unfortunate occurrence at Sneyd on the first day of this year, which increased the

1039
figure on the explosions side. Generally, as compared with last year, there is a reduction in accidents, and the figure is assuming something like its position previous to the beginning of the war.
Frequent references have been made to paragraph 6 of the White Paper, under which men are to be allowed to opt, as it were, into the pits as against the Services. Perhaps a discussion will take place about the value of that provision, but nevertheless it is one of the suggestions that have been made. Consideration is being given in the case of any young man who opts to go into coalmining to the question of some kind of training being given before he goes underground. As to the exact kind of training to be given I am not at the moment in a position to say, but I think everyone with pit experience will agree that he would be horrified to think that any young man who had never had any intention of going down the pit was to be precipitated straight on to the coalface. That could be done. One point I wish to make perfectly plain. Someone has said that these young men would not be welcomed. That is not the case at all. Any young man who decides to go into the coalmining industry as against the Services will be doing valuable work. We should not decry mining. Mining is a very hard and dangerous industry. It can also be a very fascinating one, and there are few pitmen in this House who have not enjoyed a good deal of their work underground, even when it has been hard and often underpaid.
Mr. Kirkwood: How many of them have sent their sons into that work?
Mr. Smith: A good many,
Mr. Kirkwood: How many Members of this House? Not a solitary one.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend happens to be wrong on that point. I know a good many pitmen whose boys have followed on. What I am pointing out in this case is that if any young man offers to go into mining, consideration is being given to some kind of training before he goes down, training not merely on the top, but training underground as well under skilled supervision.
I think my right hon. Friend will agree when I say that no one could complain about the temper of this Debate. It has
1040
been an excellent one from that angle. It has been the one coal Debate during the last two or three years in which there has been very little bitterness shown with regard to absentee figures. I could not help smiling because the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) actually went to Russia to find a similarity on absenteeism. As one who was privileged to go down the pits in Russia six years ago and see for himself what conditions were like, I could not help smiling when the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) said that the pit was theirs. I remember going down a pit in a district unfortunately now overrun by the enemy. When I came out one of the women said, "Tovaritch, what do you think of our pit?" I replied, "Your conditions underground are very tolerable, very good; on the top, no." She said, "Ah, Tovaritch, the difference is that these pits are ours and those in Great Britain are not yours." I have to admit that from that angle it was conclusive evidence.
With regard to absenteeism, it is not a new term in mining. I find that in 1641, which is 301 years ago, a Scottish Act of Parliament declared that:
"Coal hewers in Scotland doe ly from their worke at Pasch Yule Whitsunday and certain other tymes of the year which was of great offence to God and prejudice to the coal-master."
That was in 1641. I find quite a number of instances of attendance bonuses and bonuses on output. In 1816 at Rothwell in Yorkshire there was an output bonus. There, if a man worked six days in a week, he got an additional 4s. Being Yorkshiremen they called it "takking brass." It was to some extent effective. There will always be a certain percentage of absenteeism in a heavy industry like mining, but as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, the great majority have done their best. Unfortunately, there is a minority whom nobody can defend. I have told the lads themselves, as hon. Members opposite have done, that some are not playing the game; and we are doing our best to encourage them to play the game. We believe that this output bonus, rightly applied, will bring increased production. The figures this week are an indication that that is likely to happen.
All these inducements are directed towards getting increased production.

1041
Absenteeism will be tackled. I believe that among the investigating officers we have the right type of men, that they will not bully the man in the first instance, but will interview the man, to ascertain from him the reasons for his absenteeism, and will point out to him his responsibility, and encourage him to work more regularly and to do his best. But if the man definitely refuses to do his best, he must be dealt with in another way. To those who have been saying that the more money you give miners the less work they do I would say: Believe me, it is not true. We have had hardly two normal weeks since the Greene award was given, with holidays and other things. I and other Members have gone out of our way at miners' meetings to tell the men that these special awards should not mean less output for the flat rate payments. I refuse to believe that output is decreasing for that reason in the industry generally. In the interests of winning the war, whatever can be done to secure increased production must be done; and nobody has made stronger appeals to the mineworkers than the leaders of the miners themselves. They have worked exceptionally hard. As my right hon. and gallant Friend said, we need the co-operation of everybody. Now we have tranquillity in the industry, and fewer disputes than we have had for a long time, and we want to get co-operation between both sides in order to achieve maximum production. Whoever is hindering production, whether he is a mineworker or a manager, must be tackled, as tackled he will be, I believe, through the regional organisation. I wanted, among other things, to outline what has been done on the medical services side. I would say, in conclusion, that I believe the Committee dealing with that work have done a good job, and I believe that the benefit will not be limited to our time.
Mr. McLean Watson: I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his very interesting statement. It is true that he has not been replying to the Debate, but he has given us some instructive information about the medical proposals for the men. I want to raise two points, in particular, I was pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with them, and that one of them was mentioned by the Minister. I warn the Minister that he had better be very careful how he operates the Essential Work
1042
Order. He said that arrangements were being made for a certain modification. I hope that there will be a modification, and that we are not going to have a constant procession of miners into the courts, on charges of absenteeism. I hope that the problem will be dealt with differently, because such a development would be asking for trouble in the coalfields.
I regretted to see the announcement that the Essential Work Order was to be applied to mining with regard to absenteeism, and I trust that the Minister will be very careful in whatever steps he takes to make it effective for dealing with absenteeism. I believe it will be possible by other means to get the miners to give the maximum attendance at their work. The Minister himself has said that the average age of the miner has increased during the past three years and is three years greater than it was at the beginning of the war. The fact has to be kept in mind that a very considerable number of elderly men have gone back to the mines. Men who could not find a place in the mining industry since 1926 have gone back to the mines. Some have been compelled to go back as they had previously worked in the mine, though they did not want to go. These men cannot be expected to work 100 per cent. of the time that the pits are working, so that you will always; have a certain percentage of absenteeism which is perfectly genuine. As far as the other cases are concerned, there is no sympathy among the miners themselves, and certainly not among the miners' leaders, with deliberate absenteeism, especially on the part of young men.
The other mutter I want to mention particularly is that with which the Parliamentary Secretary was dealing a few minutes ago and which had not been mentioned previously in this Debate. It is the option which is to be given to young men to enter the mines instead of the Services. We are to have a new type of miner introduced in this country—youths over 18. I remember reading somewhere, I think it was in connection with the agitation which the then Lord Shaftesbury carried out a great many years ago that in the case of the mining industry he had to meet the argument of the coalowners, who wanted children of seven and eight years of age to go into the mines. They had to be got into the mines at that time in order to get the

1043
"stoop" that was necessary to make a good miner. I am not going to advance an argument that they must be got at seven or eight years of age in order to become good miners. The best miner is the young man who is sufficiently interested in the mines and wants to work in the mines. If a young man is to be practically compelled to go into the mine, I do not care how long he is there, he will never be a miner.
I remember that during the last war a considerable number of young men got access to the mines. They were not compelled to go but they flocked into mining, which was a sheltered industry. They never became miners. They were not like the men who went into the mines when they left school and gradually became accustomed to the work. By the time a boy who enters the mine in the ordinary way comes to the age of 18 years he is a man. When I started in the mine this was the system. I went into the mine when I was 12 years of age. By the time I became 18 I was getting a man's "darg "—a man's wage. That was before the days of mechanisation in mines. The Minister intends to compel young men who do not want to go into the Army to go into the mines but I can tell him that they will never become miners, despite the rosy picture which was painted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in trying to justify the step. I would like to see some of these men at the coalface after working there for a week or two. The Parliamentary Secretary says there will be a period of training. I thought the Minister was particularly anxious to get immediate production of coal. What is needed is men at the coalface to produce the coal.
Dr. Russell Thomas: I think the Minister said that the idea was to get extra labour into the pits in this way so that other men already in the pits could be moved to the coalface.
Mr. Watson: I do not believe that would help very much, although it might help to a certain extent. It would not make any difference at the coalface. After Dunkirk, our coal export trade had gone and there was unemployment in the coal mines with the result that thousands of our young men volunteered for the Forces because they had no alternative. Those are the men who could give us
1044
the coal, if required, not the men who have been compelled to leave other industries and go to the mines. That has not met with very much success up to the present; neither has the scheme for the removal of men from the Forces to the pits because a great number of these men were not at the coalface before they went into the Forces. The men who have been coming back were not at the coalface, but were engaged in other phases of the mining industry before enlisting in the Forces. The men required to increase production are the young able-bodied men who left the coalface and went into the Forces during the time when there was so much unemployment in the industry.
I hope that the pit production committees will be a success. When that scheme was brought before the House, I welcomed it. I thought it was the greatest thing that had ever happened in the mining industry. I believed that because of the assurances we had from the Lord Privy Seal that the Government were determined that nothing on the part of the management would interfere with the most efficient working of the mines. I trust that the pit production committees will have an equal say with the management in the working of the mines. That has been stated by the Minister once again in this Debate. I hope that the pit production committees will be made a really effective instrument for getting the maximum output from the mines. I attach a very considerable amount of importance to them, and in this I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan). I do nor think the pit production committee scheme is a fraud. I think the miners have been given the greatest opportunity I have ever known in connection with the industry of having a say in the management of the mines. The assurance has been given in this Debate that the pit production committees will have liberty to enter pits where there is the least suspicion that they are not being properly worked, and with that power in their hand the pit production committees ought to be able so to organise the mining industry that it will give the maximum output that can be got.
In welcoming that scheme because I thought it would give the miners a great opportunity, I did not believe in a great

1045
many of the suggestions that were made. They were propaganda. At the present time there is any amount of propaganda among the miners. It is being tried among the miners in Scotland, but it is not having any effect. The miners will not go to meetings to be told by men who know less than they do about mining what should be done. Consequently, this propaganda is a "wash-out" in Scotland. The miners know more about these matters than those who come to lecture them. They are not prepared to listen to Lord Traprain or anybody else telling them about their industry and professing to know more about it than they do themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire put his finger on the real point when he spoke of the management of the mines. Despite the setting up of
1046
the pit production committees—I agree that they have not had time to function very much yet—the managements have the same power and influence and are carrying on in the same way as they did before the change was made. Unless the pit production committee system is made really effective, I believe the position will be just as bad as it was before. I was glad to hear the Minister's assurance that he is personally making himself acquainted with conditions in the coalfields, and is determined that the system shall be a success. I am certain that if we get co-operation between the management and the miners, there is no reason why all the coal that is required should not be produced.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

AGRICULTURE
  Ploughed-up Grassland (Compensation)
  Ploughed-up Grassland (Compensation)
  Child Workers (Insurance)
  Child Workers (Insurance)
  Foxes
  Foxes
  BLIND PERSONS (ASSISTANCE)
  BLIND PERSONS (ASSISTANCE)
  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  OLD AGE PENSIONS
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Milk
  Milk
  Fruit and Vegetables (Drying)
  Fruit and Vegetables (Drying)
  Ice Cream Manufacture (Prohibition)
  Ice Cream Manufacture (Prohibition)
  Prosecutions
  Prosecutions
  Poultry Sales (Licences)
  Poultry Sales (Licences)
  Rations (Sharing)
  Rations (Sharing)
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Regional Production Boards
  Regional Production Boards
  Location of Industry (Women Workers)
  Location of Industry (Women Workers)
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Transferred Workers (Sickness Allowances)
  Transferred Workers (Sickness Allowances)
  Teachers (Land Work)
  Teachers (Land Work)
  British Subjects Abroad
  British Subjects Abroad
  ANIMAL SLAUGHTER (AMMUNITION)
  ANIMAL SLAUGHTER (AMMUNITION)
  NON-INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (WAGE INCREASES)
  NON-INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (WAGE INCREASES)
  CATERING TRADES (REGULATION)
  CATERING TRADES (REGULATION)
  HOUSE-BUILDING SCHEME, DITCHLING
  HOUSE-BUILDING SCHEME, DITCHLING
INDIA
  Rice, Sugar and Salt (Supplies)
  Rice, Sugar and Salt (Supplies)
  British Government's Proposals
  British Government's Proposals
  Election Returns
  Election Returns
  Murdered Air Force Personnel
  Murdered Air Force Personnel
SCOTLAND
  Meals in Schools (Cooking and Service)
  Meals in Schools (Cooking and Service)
  Whisky Stocks
  Whisky Stocks
  DISABLED PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  DISABLED PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Postage Stamps (Import Licences)
  Postage Stamps (Import Licences)
  War Damage Contribution (Mortgages)
  War Damage Contribution (Mortgages)
  Old Age Pensions (Administrative Costs)
  Old Age Pensions (Administrative Costs)
  Estimates (Publication of Details)
  Estimates (Publication of Details)
  BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS
  BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS
  GOVERNMENT DOCKYARD EMPLOYEES (PENSIONS)
  GOVERNMENT DOCKYARD EMPLOYEES (PENSIONS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  COLINDALE STATION (TICKET COLLECTION)
  COLINDALE STATION (TICKET COLLECTION)
  ROAD DIRECTION SIGNS
  ROAD DIRECTION SIGNS
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION
EDUCATION
  Youth Service (Political Organisations)
  Youth Service (Political Organisations)
  Girls' Training Corps
  Girls' Training Corps
  SPECIAL SERVICE TROOPS (PAY)
  SPECIAL SERVICE TROOPS (PAY)
  BRITISH RED CROSS SOCIETY
  BRITISH RED CROSS SOCIETY
  BOARD OF TRADE (MR. HENRY CLAY)
  BOARD OF TRADE (MR. HENRY CLAY)
  WIRELESS REPAIR SHOPS
  WIRELESS REPAIR SHOPS
  COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION
  COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION
  COAL MINERS (WAGES)
  COAL MINERS (WAGES)
  ALIEN DOCTOR (PRIVATE PRACTICE)
  ALIEN DOCTOR (PRIVATE PRACTICE)
CIVIL DEFENCE
  Enemy Methods of Attack (Information)
  Enemy Methods of Attack (Information)
  Air-Raid Casualties
  Air-Raid Casualties
  ARMED FORCES (SUNDAY CINEMAS)
  ARMED FORCES (SUNDAY CINEMAS)
  POLICE WIDOWS' PENSIONS
  POLICE WIDOWS' PENSIONS
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD STRABOLGI'S MAGAZINE ARTICLE.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government, whether the censor passed for publication an article purporting to be by the Lord Strabolgi and entitled "What's wrong with the British Army?" which is stated to have been cabled from London and appears in Collier's magazine dated 22nd August, 1942; and also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have raised this question because I feel that a blow has been dealt in the United States against the faith that they may possess in our Generals and in our competence as a fighting race. The article entitled "What's wrong with the British Army?" is not of itself of vast importance, and I add to what publicity it has already received only because I regard it as a point of view expressed at home and abroad far too frequently to-day. The publication is a random and ill-reasoned piece of journalism. Nobody can call it constructive. It is an article which is confused. I venture to say that it is perhaps best described by picturing the noble Lord who wrote it mounted on a variety of political hobby horses careering, "a Knight or Peer errant his pen between his teeth across a full page of Collier's magazine."
Still, from the confusion there emerge two objectionable facts, the first of style, the second of matter. The first of style. It is this. The article is over-burdened with sentences which lend themselves to be quoted out of their context and used with little or no distortion as British-made ammunition for the enemy's propaganda guns. I will quote an example:
"The British Army has only chronicled a dismal record of failures. Its leaders are brave, public-spirited men, but they have not grasped either the technique or the nature of the present war. Brought up in the Imperialist school, out of touch with the common current of popular feeling and opinion, they have been quite incapable either in Whitehall or on the battle front of understanding a modern totalitarian war."
462
Surely the noble Lord was aware when he penned these resounding phrases of the danger which they would cause at the other end. Surely the Censorship, versed one hopes in the art of propaganda, realized the danger when this offensive literature—I cannot call it more than that—was cabled across the Atlantic Ocean.
The article says that "the British Army … has not shown up well in this war." If the Daily Worker had published similar remarks they would have caused a sensation in this country. Published in the name of the noble Lord, who is both a Peer and a recent Lieut.-Commander in the Royal Navy, they have been taken more or else as accepted facts. I should just like to read an extract from a speech made by the Minister of Information as recently as March 26, 1942, in the House of Commons. Speaking of the Censorship he said:
"The rules, I regret to say, proved not altogether adequate for the protection of certain essential interests of this country abroad, where on several occasions the true position here has been gravely misrepresented, and stories emanating from London have been published which could only foment ill-feeling between ourselves and our Allies or neutral countries. In future censors will be empowered to exercise a stricter control with a view to stopping any Press message calculated to create ill-feeling between the United Nations.…"
I think that that extract from a recent speech more or less speaks for itself. I can only suggest that the Minister of Information is either wasting his time or else he is sadly out of contact with public feeling on the question of the Censorship in this country to-day. Bloomsbury seems to be drawing rapidly nearer to Fleet Street.
More serious is the matter and manner of attack made by the noble Lord on our military leadership. What is the essence of this attack? Stripped of political adornment, it is more or less this—our military defeats are due to lack of faith in our Generals; there is no faith in our Generals because they are bad Generals, and they are bad Generals because they are professional soldiers. Bunkum! Apprenticeship in a technical trade then appears to be a waste of time. Tell that to the A.E.U. Lord Strabolgi alleges that our professional soldiers are drawn from a clique, from what he terms a clique of British Junkers, from a class within a class. I quote again:

463
"To-day there is in the British Army no officer above the rank of Brigadier commanding any sort of fighting formation who is not a member of the small professional Officers' Corps of the pre-war Regular Army."
More democratic in the eyes of the writer is the German method of promotion of von Brauchwitsch, von Kleist, von Runstedt, von Manstein, von Bock, von Leeb and von Keitel. Of all the vons and Freiherrs of the German General Staff there is not a mention. Why?
Yet Field-Marshal Erwin Rommel has been produced by the noble Lord as a white rabbit is produced by a conjuror out of his pocket, to confuse the issue. Clearly the noble Lord has not taken sufficient trouble to check up his facts about Field-Marshal Rommel. When I speak to the House I take the trouble to go fairly carefully into details beforehand. It is my duty as a soldier, even in a junior capacity, to know something about my opponent and I have taken the trouble to find out that the suggestion made by Lord Strabolgi about Rommel being a type of man who would never have got on in a British regiment, a man who would have quarrelled with his sergeants and junior officers, is altogether false. I should like to ask my noble friend why he says that Rommel is an aggressive type of man who would have remained a corporal or a sergeant in the British Army? I venture to suggest that I have had more recent contacts than the noble Lord with the German Forces, and I can assure him that their discipline is every bit as good as ours. As soon as that dicipline goes, the German Army will go just in the same way as the French collapsed because of no discipline.
I should like to tell the House some more facts about Field-Marshal Rommel. Rommel's father was an officer. That is something that is not generally known. His father, it is true, subsequently became a schoolmaser, but after the outbreak of the last war he returned to the German Army and commanded a fairly considerable depot during the whole of the war. These facts have been carefully left out in this argument. Rommel himself is now said to be the most successful professional soldier in the German Army. He joined it at the age of eighteen in 1910, served through the last war as a subaltern, and was not promoted to the rank of Captain until after the war in 1918. From
464
then on he has continued to succeed, working his way slowly through the arduous process that eventually brings a man to the top and makes him a Field-Marshal. He has now thirty-two years of uninterrupted service in the German Army behind him. Reading Collier's magazine one would assume that after a whiff of grapeshot he was given a baton. That is very far from being the case. I should like to ram that point home.
Perhaps, by "democratic Army," the noble Lord means a political Army. What else does he mean? I suggest that he changes his tune or his conclusions will be regarded as a prelude to class warfare. I should like him to come down one day and make sense out of some of his views to my Commandos. I have the honour to command men representing 58 British regiments. They are men in whom there is simple faith—they have no politics. Theirs is the faith which made our forebears feared and respected on every foreign battlefield on which they fought. If any tub-thumping politician came round to these men to raise any question about their leaders there would be only one answer—the nearest horse trough. But if the prickings of this free-lance are more irritating than dangerous, the sentiment which inspired them is not. It is the sentiment of an irresponsible politician making cheap capital out of men in His Majesty's Forces who are unable, except through an unworthy mouthpiece like myself, to make suitable reply. It is the mocking of men who have given their lives for their country. It is the ridiculing of His Majesty's Forces for lack of experience, when that experience, and, I may add, arms and equipment also, were denied them by the parsimony of peace-time Governments—Governments which said: "Peace at any price." It is an inexcusable attempt to mix politics with soldiering. This is a free country, my Lords. If Lord Strabolgi wishes to slander the British Army he may do so here in safety, but to send his defamations across the Atlantic Ocean and have them circulated through the length and breadth of the United States is an unworthy act that has brought upon him the contempt of his fellow-countrymen. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, the great Lord Chesterfield once remarked

465
that exceptional merit was displayed by those who supported their friends—when they were in the wrong. On this occasion I cannot claim that vicarious merit, for I believe Lord Strabolgi to be thoroughly justified both in gross and in detail. The detail I shall leave to him. I have read his article, and it does not seem to me to be at all unsuitable criticism at the present time. But in gross this whole debate raises two very important questions. The first is whether criticism of public servants or of the Government serves a useful purpose in war-time; the second is whether we should treat America as being as ourselves or as being a separate country. I shall deal with that latter point first.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, would have brought this question up had this article been published in an English paper; yet those of us who realize that this is a completely united struggle on the part of England and America against the forces of evil, know that sooner or later we shall have to treat the Americans with perfect frankness, and that they must treat us in the same way, if we are to hold together through these years of war and to live together in the years which follow. It is remarkable that during this last year we have had from the public men of America more resounding moral inspiration than we have had from our own statesmen. With the exception of our Prime Minister and, the other day, of the Primate of the English Church, we have had nothing from public men in this country to compare with what has come from Americans like Mr. Cordell Hull, Mr. Harold Ickes, Mr. Winant, President Roosevelt himself, and the Vice-President, Mr. Henry Wallace. One of Mr. Henry Wallace's speeches which struck me most was made about three months ago, and in it he said that this was a war between a slave world and a free world. My first contention is that all of us who are fighting for a free world are one and undivided in sentiment, and that the more we treat each other completely as comrades in arms the better it will be for our mutual relations. I will say quite frankly that there is nothing published in this country that I would not see also published in America, and vice versa. It is perfectly true that there are some things said in this country which would annoy the Americans. There are many things said
466
in this country which annoy Scotsmen, and many things said by Scotsmen which annoy Englishmen; but we should not dream of preventing those things being said, knowing perfectly well that it is only by real intimacy of that sort that common aims and common ends can be achieved.
I think that the same applies also to Russia. Our admiration for Russia is a thing of recent growth, but is extremely strong, and I think that there is everything to be said for that admiration. I only wish that the Russian admiration for us was equally great, and I hope that it will be. It will become so much more readily if we do not try to conceal anything from the Russians, and if we do not try to prevent anything that the Rusisans say about us which may seem unpleasant from being heard and read in this country. Confidence is the keynote to that union which alone can secure victory.
I now come to the other question the question of whether criticism of public servants and of the Government is useful in war-time. I take it that the noble Lord who brought this question up will agree that public criticism of the Government is useful in war-time, as long as it is constructive and not simply destructive criticism. I think that we must extend that to civil servants and to the Fighting Services also. After all, the essence of Parliament, the raison d'être of Parliament, is the criticism of the public services, the redress of grievances, but the grievances not of ourselves, and in our case not even of our constituents, but of the rank and file of the country, as well as of the Army. That is our business. Parliament is not a machine for making laws; that is true of Congress in the United States, but not of us. We are a machine for stopping the Government from making laws, and I wish we did it more thoroughly! At any rate, we can prevent the Government exercising their powers to the detriment of the country's liberties and of the country's chances in war.
This question of criticism is of enormous importance. The noble Lord, looking at this criticism, says "You are criticizing the Generals." Yes, but we must not consider the feelings of the Generals; the whole question is whether criticism does good to our war effort. I think there is no doubt that the criticism which we have

467
had during the last three years in this country has done an enormous amount to improve the efficiency of our fighting machine. As for the Departments of State, such as the Home Office, and even the Ministry of Information, nothing has been so useful as the criticism which they have received in both Houses of Parliament, and I only wish that they had had more. The noble Lord would not object to that criticism. Must we pick out the Fighting Services and say that they are above criticism? I do not think so; I think that it would be fatal to do so.
To take one small matter which comes to my mind, let us take the case of those idiotic blockhouses which were put up with portholes that a man could put his head through and with many of the portholes facing walls—convenient only to the enemy. Those things were criticized, and they have been abolished. I do not know how many thousands of them were put up, but substitutes have been provided for them or they have been camouflaged. That is a small matter. The criticism of the rank and file as voiced in the House of Commons has been of great importance—the criticism after Dunkirk, for example. All that has been useful. Criticism of the Generals, however, has not been made public. I quite agree with the noble Lord that criticism of our General Officers had better be made by the Government than by private members, but I think that it should have been made long ago. I am thinking of one particular feature which we all have at the back of our minds, the surrenders which were not what we should have expected of the British Army.
I had the good fortune to fight in that picnic which we call the Boer War. It was made disgraceful by surrender! You just handed over your rifle or your boots before they packed you off home with a packet of Quaker oats and said to you "Come and see us again soon." That went on for two and a half years. There was no public censure of it. On the other hand there was a train captured north of Bloemfontein by General de Wet, and there was on board a Captain of the Guards, Captain Vandaleur, who thought that to hold up his hands and take off his boots was conduct not consonant with the honour of a captain of His Majesty's Guards, and he was straightway shot.
468
That of course, if the Government had been properly criticized, would have been stated in the Orders of the Day and the man would have received a posthumous V.C. Nothing was said about it because it was felt that it might look like a reflection on other people who had surrendered. General Tucker, meeting a subaltern of one of our regiments in the Bloemfontein Club, said to him, "Been hoisting the bloody national flag again, have you? Get out!" Of course, that went round in that little coterie—you cannot help that. But in this war if the Government had let it be known after La Falaise that for a General to surrender his Army was a disgraceful thing we should not have had the surrenders at Hong Kong and Tobruk and Singapore. It all depends upon whether people understand what is expected of them. There was the crew of the "Rawalpindi," knowing what must happen to them, charging the enemy and going to the bottom. No captain of a British ship would ever dream of striking his flag.
In the last war, if your Lordships will forgive me for being personal, I had command of two armoured cars and was in the Naval service. We were advised by the Admiralty to give our armoured cars names and to carry the Union Jack—an excellent thing. I wish the modern tanks were treated in the same way. You get a sort of devotion to a car with a name; you cannot surrender, you cannot strike your flag. I remember the Admiralty supplied us with the list of names that had been used under the white ensign, and I selected for my two cars the names of two prizes, the "Vengeur" and the "Ca ira." Presently the Admiralty tumbled to the fact that they had got a red officer, and they told me that "Ca ira" would lead to misconception and changed it to "Cécile," the name of another French prize—associated, however, with what I may call Conservative doctrine. And I need hardly tell my right honourable friend the Leader of the House that the "Cécile" never surrendered—and never apologized.
But these cars were under the Navy, where certain traditions held good, and it is of the utmost importance that we should now establish similar traditions in the British Army. It is not difficult. They are publishing now day after day records of magnificent examples of courage, which I presume are being circulated

469
throughout the Army—I hope so. Many of them are Air Force people, but it does not matter: what you want is to advertize British courage, not in order to influence the Axis Powers, but in order to establish your own morale. Let men in the Army and Navy and Air Force realize that they are expected by their fellow countrymen to act as the heroes have done, then indeed they will act in that manner. We all behave in war, more even than in peace, as other people expect us to. That is what public opinion is. Everybody noticed it in the air raids. One or two people showing no sign of discomfort immediately stiffen the back and restore the courage of everybody. It is perfectly well known in war, and it is also true in peace. One of our difficulties in war is that you take people away from those they respect, their parents and families, and you transfer them to another milieu. It is very bad for the morale. You might say that the failure of morale in war-time is due to the absence of a sufficient number of maiden aunts. All of us are susceptible to what other people expect us to do. And that is the main advantage of publicity.
If you could make your criticism effective without publicity it would be some good. If only the War Office would act without having to make public the scandal against which they are acting, that would do, but it would not be so good as the publicity which comes from open criticism in Parliament. Open criticism is the safeguard for democracy, in war as in peace. It is the means of focusing the right public opinion upon people who are liable to err. And I beg your Lordships by your actions and votes to-day not to do anything that will tend to stop the amount of criticism of the whole of the administration in all its parts during war-time. Do remember that much of this criticism comes from the rank and file of the Army itself, that much of this criticism is ill-founded, and that it cannot be disposed of except by the criticism being made and publicly answered. We on these Benches are to make the criticisms; you on those Benches are to answer the criticisms, in so far as you can; the Government are to take advantage of that criticism to force upon the Services the necessary action to remedy what has been criticised. I apologize to your Lordships for taking up so much of your time, but I am perfectly
470
certain that this debate is of importance to the success of the war. Both so far as this country is concerned and so far as our relations with America are concerned, let us rely upon publicity, truth, and the refutation of falsehood.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, on a point of order, is it in order for members of this House or anyone else to speak of citizens of the United States as Americans? If there were a citizen of Brazil in this Gallery to-day he would, I am certain, strongly object.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, if I may intervene for one moment, I should like as a naval officer to say how very much I resent the courage of the Army being criticised in comparison with that of the Navy, and I hope I shall never hear it done again in this House.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Can I have an answer to my point of order?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): As the noble Earl will appreciate, there is no one in this House who can deal with a point of order. In extreme cases it is done by the House as a whole. The noble Earl's point has doubtless been noted by those who are going to speak later in the debate.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, there is one pleasant feature of this debate this afternoon in the fact that it has been initiated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lovat, who has recently earned great distinction in Commando raids on the French coast. Some of us in this House of an older generation hold his father in affectionate memory, and it is a real pleasure to us to read, as we have done lately, of his son's exploits—exploits which, it is fair to say, have added renewed lustre to an historic name. In the speech which the noble and gallant Lord has made this afternoon he has shown that he is just as efficient in debate in this House as he is in leading raids against the enemy.
There is a less pleasant feature of the debate this afternoon in that we are discussing an article written by a well-known member of your Lordships' House, Lord Strabolgi, in an American magazine which, I understand, has a great sale in the United States. As your Lordships are all aware, Lord Strabolgi is a frequent participator in debates in this House. He is a student of warfare. As an informed

471
critic he has taken part in discussions on Service matters in this House, and I remember that in the earlier years of the war, when the Home Guard was a subject of frequent debate, the noble Lord made what I thought were useful and valuable suggestions. I am therefore the more surprised that my noble friend should have written an article in the American Press which, although he gives high praise to the bravery and courage of our soldiers, presents, in my view at all events, a most damaging impression of the efficiency—or rather want of efficiency—of our Army as a whole. I have a copy of the noble Lord's article from which I shall read one or two extracts so that those of your Lordships who have not read it may be able to judge for yourselves.
I see that in this magazine there is an introductory notice about the noble Lord which reads as follows:
"Lord Strabolgi, at 56, is one of England's most colorful figures. As Commander Kenworthy he saw duty in the last war, he won a boxing championship in the Navy, he is active in the House of Lords to-day, he has written many political and military books, and he makes a practice of tearing old school ties into small pieces."
Possibly it is the noble Lord's obsession about old school ties that induced him to write this rather extraordinary article.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord is, of course, aware that I had nothing to do with that introduction. It is the first I have heard of it. I have not seen the article in print myself.
LORD DENMAN: I was not suggesting that the noble Lord wrote that himself. The title of the article does not seem to me a very happy one. Lord Lovat has mentioned it: it is "What's wrong with the British Army?" I shall now go on to quote one or two extracts from it. The noble Lord wrote this:
"The British Army, apart from many individual acts of bravery, has not shown up well in this war. Wherever it has fought on the mainland of Europe, whether in France, Norway, or Greece, it has been decisively defeated."
Is it quite fair to the Army to hold it entirely responsible for these defeats? In France, when the Belgians broke on our left and the French gave way on our right, the British Army was forced to retire, and it fought a gallant rearguard action to the coast. It can hardly
472
be held responsible for that defeat. As to Norway and Greece, we know now, looking back, that these were both forlorn hopes, undertaken without adequate air support, if, indeed, with any air support at all. It has been proved conclusively in this war, beyond a doubt, that if an Army has not air cover it is quite certain to be defeated by an enemy possessing a powerful Air Force, and the same thing is true of a Battle Fleet to-day. The article goes on:
"If we leave out of account minor expeditions against the Vichy French, the British Army has two victories to its credit against the Italians."
I should have thought it would have been more accurate to say that there were two campaigns with a series of victories against a numerically superior enemy.
The noble Lord goes on, and I think Lord Lovat quoted this passage:
"With these exceptions, against both Japanese and Germans, the British Army has only chronicled a dismal record of failures."
Is that quite fair to the British Army? Was the Burma campaign, for instance, a dismal failure? It seems to me that General Alexander, who displayed great qualities of leadership, extricated our Army in a most remarkable manner from a very difficult situation. Was the recent campaign in Libya a dismal failure when, as your Lordships will remember, after a severe initial reverse the Eighth Army fought Rommel and the picked troops of Germany and Italy to a standstill? I do not think that was a failure. Have the Commando raids on the French coast been failures? The article continues:
"Why is the prestige of the British Navy and Air Force so high and that of the British Army, to put it bluntly, so low?"
Again I think the noble Lord is not quite accurate. It may be that the prestige of our Army does not stand so high as that of the Air Force or the Navy, but wherever our Army has had adequate air support, and wherever it has had modern weapons of tanks and guns equal to the enemy, it has fought magnificently.
I really do not think it is wise to say these things, as the noble Lord did say them, to the American public. A good deal of the article which the noble Lord wrote deals with the question of Army officers. I think there is something to be said, perhaps there is a good deal to be

473
said, for the view that the officering of our Army is not entirely satisfactory. It would be remarkable if it were so. After all, if you extend a Regular Army of 150,000, to an Army of several millions the question of officering this Army is bound to present difficulty. You cannot make an efficient regimental officer in a few months, and of course a Staff officer takes still longer to train. I think it is true that after the last war when the Army was cut to the bone, as your Lordships will remember, many of the best men left the Service and in consequence safe men got rapid promotion, and it may be—I do not say it is, but it may well be—that some of these men occupy key posts to-day for which they are not well fitted. It may be that our system of promotion does not give scope for the best men in ranks lower down in the scale.
But because there may be misfits at the top and misfits lower down I really do not think it is right to make sweeping charges as the noble Lord has done in the American Press. It seems to me that if such charges are to be made they should be made on the floor of this House or in the Press of this country. I do not think it is quite fair that the noble Lord should state his own views as facts, for they no doubt will be regarded as facts by many of the citizens of the United States of America. The noble Lord complains that our officers belong to a clique within a class. If there is any truth in that, surely it applies with much greater force to naval officers and to the Navy than to the Army to-day. The noble Lord also has a tilt at the landed gentry because in the past, he says, they have supplied the officer class of the Army. Well, if they have done so, I should think that is rather to their credit. Near the end of his article he reassures American readers that power is slipping from the hands of a decadent section of the British ruling class. I suppose Lord Strabolgi in that would include all of your Lordships, with the possible exception of noble Lords on the Labour Benches.
There are, I think, two grave objections to the article that he has written. One of them, I think, was alluded to by Lord Lovat, that it will not conduce to the discipline of the Army that these things are written and published about their officers, and the second, which I think is
474
even more serious, concerns our relations with the United States Army. The officers of the United States Army will no doubt read this article, and will form a low opinion of their colleagues in the British Army. I ask your Lordships to consider what effect articles of this kind may have on our Military Mission in Washington, and what will be the result if and when a Second Front is formed. The brunt of the fighting in that case must fall on United States, on British and on Canadian troops. I have noticed, and I have been very glad to notice lately, the cordial relations that appear to exist between the officers of the United States Air Force and the officers of the Royal Air Force, and I have also noted how generously United States Air Force officers have acknowledged the advice and assistance which they have received from the Royal Air Force here.
If an invasion of Europe takes place it will necessarily follow, I think, that most of the planning will have to be done by British Staff officers because, after all, they will have knowledge of the terrain and they have had experience now for some three years of fighting Germans. Will the United States Army officers be prone to take advice from a British Army officer if they read articles of this kind? articles, it seems to me, which are calculated to bring our Service into disrepute and to sow seeds of mistrust and dissension between the two Services. In my view Lord Strabolgi has rendered a grave disservice to our war effort in publishing, as he has done, this article in this magazine in the United States.
There is only one other word I would say in conclusion. I understand, but I am not quite sure about it, that this article did pass the censor. Of course there may be, there must be, difficulty with regard to censorship because different individuals may take a different view of the same article. If this article has been censored I hope it will be brought home to the responsible individual, and I hope that some other form of national service will be provided for him such as, for example, filling sandbags or peeling potatoes or something which will not unduly strain his mental attainments.
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: My Lords, in supporting Lord Lovat's Motion I would like to remark that I whole-heartedly agree with everything my noble

475
friend has said. I do not understand what Lord Strabolgi means by a Citizen Army or a People's Army. Does he suggest that it would have been more satisfactory to discard the small professional Army and Territorial Army of peace-time as useless appendages of a primeval age and try to make an Army from people who could chiefly only claim the virtues of untried courage? The noble Lord must indeed have great faith in his own special military theories if he imagines that courage, however genuine, in war is sufficient. I have for seven years been a very junior member of the well-meaning class so despised by Lord Strabolgi—the professional soldier. Serving with the King's African Rifles in Kenya before this present war I had the honour to serve in the brilliant Abyssinian campaign under professional soldiers, General Dickinson and General Cunningham, and even his Lordship should admit that it was one of the most successful campaigns in our military history. The expansion in the King's African Rifles was extremely great and rapid, and certainly by the end of it the majority of local officers had been promoted from the rank of sergeant, the lowest British rank in the King's African Rifles, to a Commission largely for qualities of intelligence and disciplined aggressiveness so much admired by the noble Lord.
Disciplined aggressiveness is, I think, better described as initiative. The mere quality of aggressiveness is not of great value unless it is sufficiently directed. Discipline is the foundation and strength of an Army. Without discipline a battalion of soldiers becomes an armed mob. What can one describe as a democratic Army? What perhaps his Lordship means is that when a Commander has, with the aid of his Staff, made a plan, this should be put to the vote of the men serving under him to see whether they approve of the plan or not. Let me assure Lord Strabolgi that war is not so slow-moving as to allow such cumbrous political theories to operate in the Army. The average man might be forgiven for thinking that someone who has studied the science of war for some twenty years or more and fought in various campaigns in different parts of the world should know considerably more about warfare than some enthusiastic amateur who sees himself a General in his daydreams.
476
Lord Strabolgi seems to have supported the dreamer, the amateur dilettante. There seems to be a sinister similarity between Herr Hitler's insults to the British Army and what the noble Lord wrote in this publication in the United States of America. At this time of crisis one would expect a public man and a Peer of the Realm to do everything in his power to bind the nation together in a common front against the enemy, irrespective of class or creed, but, no, he must write to an American publication suggesting that the British Army is inferior to her sister Services because the leaders are professional, experienced soldiers instead of the amateurs in whom his Lordship would appear to have more confidence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has told your Lordships, the reason for the lack of success on some of the fronts on which the British Army has fought in this war goes back a long way. The blame can be laid partially on the wishful thinkers of the past who depended on collective security and the shadow League of Nations—in fact, on any method which would avoid spending an extra penny on our small, ill-equipped, peace-time Army. Blame must fall again on those fanatics and their followers who called the British Army persecutors of the proletariat and lackeys of the capitalists, and who did all in their power to throw despite on and reduce the Armed Forces of the Crown. It is of these men that your Lordships should think when you remember Dunkirk and Singapore. Our soldiers are paying for our own sins in the blood of our men in France and elsewhere. A nation which is the heart of the world's greatest Empire must indeed have been misguided if it imagined that it could live on the reputation of its more courageous sires.
LORD TYRRELL: My Lords, I apologize for intervening in this debate as a civilian, but I was very much struck by the lucid speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, and there was one statement in it which tempted me to intervene. He referred to the pernicious propaganda effect of this article abroad. I was also very much struck by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Denman, when he expressed the opinion that this article would not promote or help our war effort. It seems to me that a great many speeches

477
are made and articles are written nowadays in which not sufficient account is taken of the one over-ruling factor that should inspire us, which is always to ask: Will what I say or write promote the war effort? I was also struck by a statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, when he maintained that criticism was of the essence of our democratic form of government. I think, if he will allow me to say so, that that almost amounts to a truism. But I noticed that he never once used an adjective when he talked of criticism. I suppose he assumed and meant by criticism well-informed criticism, because in the absence of well-informed criticism ill-informed criticism may do a great deal to impair—
LORD WEDGWOOD: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him? I think even ill-informed criticism is useful, because it gives an opportunity for refuting it which otherwise would not occur. If you get ill-informed criticism passing secretly around there is no chance of refuting it.
LORD TYRRELL: The noble Lord reminds me of the days—I am sorry they are a long way off—when that kind of argument was very popular in the Union Society at Oxford or in our college debating societies. My point is that this article, which in the opinion of all the speakers who have preceded me, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, is not well informed—let me put it that way—is a very dangerous article to appear in the United States. My experience has been that the general ignorance of England in the United States is great and is only equalled here by our ignorance of the United States. There is a very keen competition between the two countries as to which is the more ignorant of the other. It is to that that I trace back many of the misunderstandings that exist. It is for that reason that I have always been a critic of any attempt to pursue propaganda in the United States on our behalf. The American fights shy of propaganda, but he welcomes publicity. The difference between propaganda and publicity, I may say, is that propaganda is an attempt to persuade people to adopt your point of view and your opinions, whereas publicity consists in giving other countries facts and knowledge about yourself on the strength of which they can form their own opinions. Taking human
478
beings as they are it is far more acceptable to the average human being to accept from you facts, if he believes you, and if you do not try and obtrude on him your opinions.
I think we all suffer from a national inclination—a failure almost—to what is called fouling our own nest. It comes from that inferiority complex which we all profess. We think we can afford to do it. I venture to say, having had something to do with the conduct of our foreign policy for some years, that in peace-time that has been a very great handicap, coupled with the strong tendency on our part to tell other people how to manage their own affairs. Now in war-time it is my opinion that it is not helping the war effort for us to spread abroad wrong opinions about ourselves. You are not appealing there to a well-informed public. We have many thousands of friends in the United States—and never forget they are critical friends, though very affectionate friends—but you also have a very large community there that is not friendly to this country and the ammunition you give them, when you either speak or publish articles that are ill-informed and give them wrong facts, will be used against you. It is for that reason that I was struck by the statement made by Lord Denman when he condemned this article on the ground that it would not assist our war effort.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I wish to associate myself very warmly with everything that my noble and gallant kinsman has said in moving this Motion. I have listened with great attention to the expressions of opinion which noble Lords have contributed to this debate, and particularly to the very forcible and well-phrased contribution of the noble and gallant Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I hope that this will only be the first of many contributions that he will make to the debates in your Lordships' House. I particularly admired also the gallantry and loyalty of the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, who defended his colleague on the supposition, apparently, that the article complained of was spoken in your Lordships' House.
But I would like to come to the actual words of the Motion which state that its purpose is to ask His Majesty's Government whether the censor passed this

479
article for publication. That is really the point before your Lordships to-day and, in considering the censor's attitude in the matter, I think it is only right that your Lordships should consider the influences to which the censor was exposed from very high quarters. For the last three years we have been fighting an enemy who brings to the practice of war an enormous gusto and who submits himself to the severe discipline and restraints imposed by war in order that when victory is won he may indulge the foulest and most disgraceful passions that have ever engulfed the soul of man. I do not see how we are to fight such an enemy unless we are prepared to bring the same enthusiasm to the task that has been laid upon us, to look upon it as a noble and great task and are willing to submit ourselves to the necessary restraints and discipline. And yet for three years—and indeed for a great deal more—in Parliament and in the Press and out of the mouths of those who claim to have more brains than most of us, we have been persistently criticizing our Army and especially our officers in what, I am sorry to say, seems to me a very virulent and ignorant manner.
As it is essential to my point to say something about discipline, I will first explain what I mean by the term. I mean by military discipline a habit ingrained by training which, when the noises and discomfort and menace of war have suffused the mind with emotion, makes correct conduct a habit. What I have to say is, I think, much better said by one who like myself has never undergone the severe training to which the British Army, especially its officers, have been subjected from time immemorial. In the British Army relations between officers and men are warmer and closer and more cordial than in, any other Army in the world. These relations are the real weapon which has kept that Army undefeated for centuries. This could be established by the record for over 150 years, probably for 300 years. It has been sentimentalized by novelists from Sterne onwards and copiously illustrated by Fortescue. As a matter of fact it is not sentiment at all. It is the most truly democratic bond of union in the world, because it has its roots in mutual self-sacrifice, and if we win the war it will be
480
by reason of this discipline and for no other reason.
And yet I am sorry to say that for historical reasons this relationship has always seemed—I am sure it has only seemed—to incur the jealousy of Parliament. It has been under pretty constant attack during my lifetime, not excepting even the past three years. An examination of the pages of the Official Report will show your Lordships clearly that what I say is true. No long time goes by without some question being asked, or some interjection or speech being made in debate, which tends to suggest that British officers are petty, ignorant tyrants exercising an outworn, stupid, unsympathetic authority. Take one actual instance. The Government may be asked whether a particular battalion commander has stopped a particular man's leave without justification or something of that sort. In such a case, even if the facts are true, nothing but harm can result from the question being put in that way. It tends to make all ranks feel that leave breaking is not a serious offence and to give the impression that one can take action and get good results by getting grievances taken up outside the recognized machinery. Wretched battalion commanders feel as if they have two masters and that there is always a danger that proper and impartial discharge of their duty may be rewarded by this sort of pillory. We all know how cases of chronic leave-breaking cause serious discomfort and discontent to all ranks, and many examples of similar tendency could be culled from the pages of the Official Report.
These cases receive a great deal of publicity and I do not see how the public, or the soldier, can fail to think it is better not to be an officer, and that the loyal comradeship of the ranks is to be preferred. I have as a matter of fact been asked by lads of high character not to bring their names into notice. They are lads of humble origin and they have asked me not to do anything which might bring them into notice as they have definitely determined not to aspire to take Commissions. After all, we are all aware of cases of sergeants refusing Commissions because they are so much better off financially as N.C.Os. than they would be as officers, and they know that Parliament is responsible for it. It is not only the unworthy who get this impression,

481
because on the only occasion when I did disregard the request of a lad not to bring him into notice, he received a report that I have never seen equalled for excellence. In an Army where all promotions are from the ranks, the selection of candidates for Commissions is a task of tremendous difficulty, and not less so because many of the best officers are men who are singularly modest and retiring, and who very often are not likely to put themselves forward for notice, even for stripes. Since towards the end of a war the supply of junior leaders to an Army is one of the most important factors in ensuring victory, anything which makes that task more difficult is not only foolish but suicidal. I think that we ought to take a lesson in this matter from our enemies, who foster leadership by every means in their power.
Then let us take the Press. The censor has to read the newspapers and is subject to the influence of the Press; and the Press take the liberty of discussing all matters affecting the internal discipline of the Army wth the same freedom and confidence that they show in discussing higher strategy. If I may judge by letters written to the newspapers, apparently by private soldiers, the results are even more harmful. Some of your Lordships may have noticed a discussion about a year ago in Cavalcade on the subject of soldier servants. I am told that this correspondence caused great difficulties throughout the Army. It is perfectly obvious that the duty of an officer is to think of his job and of his men. Unless he is properly looked after, he may have to use part of his time in looking after himself, and by just so much does he fail in his real duty. Everything that makes it harder for officers to get good batmen makes it harder to make the Army efficient.
Only a few days ago I saw in Truth an article criticizing some action of the War Office. I was not in the least surprised by the criticism, but I was surprised by the line of argument, which proceeded on the assumption that every officer who had been trained at Sandhurst or at Woolwich was naturally incompetent and ignorant of his business. The article also echoed the jibe about the South African War which appears in the article which is the subject of this debate, although it did so a little more vaguely. I do not see how the
482
censor can be expected to escape altogether from this prevailing influence. The various "Brains Trusts" find an easy path to notoriety along the same lines. I have in my hand a Penguin book—and your Lordships know their wide circulation—published at the beginning of this war, and called Science and War. It is supposed to be a symposium by various scientists on the relation of science to the war effort, and I believe that some of it is very good, but it has four pages on psychology and discipline which seem to me the most ignorant which have ever been written on the subject. The effect of these things on the censor has to be allowed for.
It seems to me that the article which is before your Lordships in effect holds up a mirror in which we can see what we are too apt to do in this country. We are too apt to run down our Army and to attack the close bond between the officer and the soldier. If we continue to do that, we shall do more harm to our Army than any enemy can ever do. As far as the effect in the United States is concerned, I am certain that our Allies will do all they can to minimize it. In regard to what it says about the South African War, they will bid the intelligent American study the work of their own writer, Mahan, who wrote about the South African war what is probably the best short history ever written about a war. As far as what the article says about the last war is concerned, they can point out that when the last war began there were less than a quarter of a million Regular soldiers in the British Army, and that after the First Battle of Ypres the shattered remnants of that Army provided leaders, staffs and instructors for the Armies of three major fronts. As for this war, they will recognize that an Army which had been neglected and starved for twenty years, whose Generals had never handled large bodies of men, and whose whole system had been suddenly and drastically changed on the threshold of war, and the majority of whose hastily-raised units were imperfectly trained and disciplined and then sent straight overseas, was able, after a few months' unremitting inspection and organization by its commanders, to fight a successful retreat like that of May, 1940. I think it is marvellous that so much was achieved. I do not suppose that the Americans will be grateful for having to counteract the effect of this article, but I

483
am quite sure that they will do so as a war service to their own country, although I think that the reputation of the British Army is better left, as it always has been, to its enemies.
It is an encouraging thing for us to reflect that this article has been recognized as being damaging not only in your Lordships' House but throughout the whole country. Almost the whole of the Press have attacked it, and, if it is a mirror to show us what we ourselves have been doing and have been too apt to do, and if it shocks us into sobriety and self-restraint, I think that we may derive some good from it. You cannot, however, slander any institution perpetually without the slander having some ill effect in the end. After all, our Army is like a great sea wall of which the design has been radically altered against the advice of the experts, and whose half-completed structure has become involved in a prolonged and violent storm. I do not think it is too much to ask the members of the harbour board and the town council and their friends to refrain from abstracting material for their own houses from the half-finished work which alone stands between their community and destruction.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I think it is very necessary that this debate should take place. It would have been a dreadful thing if this article had been issued by a member of this House without any comment coming from this House about it. I am going to ask the noble Lord who wrote the article a question. He must have had some motive for writing this article, and in particular for publishing it in America. I will try to presume that he hoped he was going to do some good in regard to the question referred to in the article. I cannot understand how that could be possible, but I am trying to think that that was his motive. I have always felt that those who are stricken with the disease of class consciousness are really the biggest snobs in the world. I can remember that in the last war—and this point has been mentioned by the noble Lord who has just sat down—there were many men whom one wanted to make officers, men of great courage and of good qualities as soldiers, but who did not want to become officers; they did not want to have that extra responsibility.
484
In my view, and in the view of a great many others, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has, I am afraid, made a great error of judgment. I believe that he has done a tremendous lot of harm to the prestige of the British Army in the United States. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyrrell, said, we have many friends in the United States, but we must not forget that a very small percentage of the people there are British, that there are many people over there who criticize us, and some, I am afraid, who definitely dislike us. What ammunition this is to them! Already I have noticed that there has been in Canada a very serious and violent attack made upon us by an American citizen and a certain lecture he was going to give was cancelled. That is just the sort of thing that arises out of articles such as the noble Lord has written.
I am an old soldier and of course I am antiquated now, when the ideas of the last war are completely superseded, but I think I know enough about it to know that I know a great deal more about it than the noble Lord who wrote this article. After all, he was never a soldier, and I do not think he was very long a sailor. I am just wondering what he would have said to me if I had written an article like this in the American Press about the Navy. I am quite certain should have been chastised very severely by him. This article, as the noble Lord well knows, has been discussed up and down the country. I have been in touch with a good many soldiers, officers and other ranks, and I have heard nothing but condemnation of it. I am going to make an appeal to the noble Lord. He has made a very great error, he has done a great deal of harm, and I ask him now to make amends by withdrawing what he has said on the plea that he made an error of judgment.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I shall keep your Lordships a few minutes only, but I want to put on record that I received a letter more than a fortnight ago from a friend in the United States enclosing a copy of the noble Lord's article. She said she and her friends were greatly concerned about it, and she quoted the case of a woman in the Civil War who, after many rebuffs, managed to get into the presence of President Lincoln and told him of certain serious defects in the Northern Army. Those

485
defects were remedied and, according to her, they made all the difference in bringing about the victory of the Northern Army. The implication was that I should force my way into the presence of the Prime Minister—a very difficult thing, I am told—and inform him of the defects of the British Army, as put forward by the noble Lord in his article.
It is difficult to understand how the censors here could pass an article which has evidently caused a feeling of despondency among the citizens of the United States. I am quite sure that if this was the case with this lady and her friends, all citizens of the United States who read that article must have had the same kind of feeling. Surely if the implications of the noble Lord's article were true—we know they are not, but if they were what good could it do to publish the shortcomings of the British Army in a magazine of a great Allied Nation? It could only foment distrust and bad comradeship between two Armies which may one day have to fight alongside each other. As one of the "British Junkers," not only Conservative but allergic to all change and innovation as quoted in the article—I hope also as a sensible citizen of this country—I must say that this article either was an ill-considered blunder or, if intentional, was a stab in the back to the unity of the Forces of the Allied Nations.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but there is one point which has not been quite covered and to which I should like to draw attention before the debate ends. We all know that there are in the United States certain people who would probably perish from night starvation if they had not by their bedside a nice tasty snack of something to our detriment, but it is not our business to minister to those pleasures. Only last week we had an example of this type of person, Mr. Theodore Dreiser, who described us—I hope I am quoting him correctly—as "lousy, aristocratic, horse-riding snobs." Well, you will observe that Germanity remains the faithful mistress of the over-statement. I personally had not known that there were so many horses in England, but of course the explanation of my ignorance appears very clearly in one of the paragraphs of the noble Lord's article. I, I am afraid, am
486
the half-educated product of the English public school system, and that is why I did not know.
There was another point also which emerged a little later and that was that the "British Junkers" have got all the best places in the diplomatic service. Well, I hate to admit it in public, but I am the son of a very small Victorian landowner, and I know how I got there, but I think that that particular class would have been very horrified at being described as "Junkers." Really, that is pure Keith Prowse—you know that slogan, "You want the best places, we have them." I do not think that is really very worthy. But before we all allow ourselves to be written off as the victims of horses and all sorts of other vices, I really do think we might express the hope that the Press in the United States will refrain from publishing articles which contribute to bad feeling without making at least an equal contribution to good sense.
VISCOUNT CAMROSE: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, and would not have done so but for some words which fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Denman, and I think Lord Tyrrell. They referred to the effect that this miserable article was likely to have in the United States of America, and to what the Press there might say about it. It so happens that it came into my possession owing to a number of statements made about it in the American Press, and I thought, as so much importance is attached to that aspect in this debate, your Lordships might like to hear some extracts from the American Press. I may say that the principal papers have taken no notice of this article, with the exception of the most notorious anti-British papers. The extracts I am going to read are therefore from the smaller papers, papers that have a great deal of influence in the localities which they serve. This is the first of them:
"Radical expressions regarding the conduct of the war and the British ruling class are not new. But perhaps the most significant and disturbing so far is the article of Lord Strabolgi, Chief Labour Whip of the Labour Party in the House of Lords. There is a distinct Communist trend in the article, for much is said of a Democratic Army, a People's Army. But the essential truth behind the fulminations is that the British caste system is to blame for some of the miserable defeats the Empire has incurred."
LORD WEDGWOOD: What paper?
VISCOUNT CAMROSE: It is from a local paper published in Oklahoma. Here is another one:
"In a recent issue of Collier's magazine there is an article written by one of the English Lords who really tells the world what is wrong with the British Army. He tells in plain English that the main thing over in England to get a big job in the Army is to be born a Lord or with some other kind of golden spoon in the mouth—in other words, ability counts for nothing. They want these offices so that they can wear a sword and gold braid to make a hit with the ladies. (We can hardly figure out how this guy dared to write an article like that.)"
LORD WEDGWOOD: What paper is that?
VISCOUNT CAMROSE: Pollock Progress, South Dakota. There is another of a more serious character from a Minnesota journal:
"Recently in Collier's, Lord Strabolgi severely took the leaders of the British Army to task. He stated and demonstrated that English Generals were of the landowning aristocratic class who held their positions not because of ability but because of the class system within the English Army. He points out that the Dukes and Lords have tight control over all the top positions. We think there is much truth to his charges. Now, if these same incompetent men were leading only their own men, it might be presumptuous for us to object to the English leadership; but we have thousands of American boys there in England and their lives and fates will be directed by English military leaders. If these incompetent still hold sway it means the lives of many of our boys will be thrown away by these bungling Lords and Dukes."
In the discussion to which I have listened this afternoon, a good many of the speakers have done the noble Lord who wrote this article a great deal more credit than he is entitled to. They have debated with him questions of discipline and other matters pertaining to the Army, but what the noble Lord has done in his article is to suggest to the American people that the British Army is rotten to the core, that it is in the hands of a decadent portion of this nation, that it is ruled by a clique within a class, and that the result of it is the "miserable failures" which, he says, we have experienced ever since the war began. He does not justify these failures and, in fact, these failures, based on the procedure he suggests, do not exist.
LORD STRABOLGI: I have had to tolerate misrepresentations in the noble Lord's journal, but I do not need to
488
tolerate them here. Will he quote the words that "the British Army is rotten to the core"?
VISCOUNT CAMROSE VISCOUNT CAMROSE I have described the noble Lord's statement in general terms.
LORD STRABOLGI: Untrue
VISCOUNT CAMROSE: What I have quoted here justifies what I have said. As to what the noble Lord has said regarding my journal, I would inform him—what he perhaps already knows—that my journal was the first to call attention to these fulminations. When he wrote and asked for a withdrawal of the statement we made, we flatly refused to give it to him because he was not entitled to it. The only good that has come out of this article has been the flow of perhaps a few hundred dollars to this country. I suggest that it would be a graceful act on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, if he restored those dollars to their original place, and apologize to the people of England for the article which he wrote.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE): My Lords, the very interesting and thoughtful debate we have had to-day, which is now drawing to a close, was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, in a very forthright and vigorous speech which, I think, greatly pleased your Lordships' House. I should like to say how very warmly we welcome his appearance among us and how much we anticipate hearing him soon again. I should also like to assure him that the Commando spirit is very acceptable to your Lordships.
Though the debate has ranged pretty wide over the substance of the article written by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, the Motion itself is of a more limited character and, in effect, asks only why the censor passed it for transmission to the United States. It would be for the convenience of the House if I answered that limited question first. As your Lordships know, in this country we have a free Press. So far as articles are concerned which are for publication within our own shores, there is no compulsory censorship of Press material before publication. It is true that there has been set up a voluntary censorship of which a large number of authors of

489
articles and other publications take advantage, but they have no absolute obligation to refer their documents to it. I should say, of course, that that does not mean that no action can be taken against anyone who produces something dangerous or unsuitable. After publication, action can be taken against those responsible if the article in question offends against the law—say the law concerning official secrets, or the law concerning treasonable matter. In that case they can be prosecuted. Secondly, supposing a newspaper were to indulge in systematic publication of material which fomented opposition to the war, it could be suppressed, as has been done in several cases. That is the system which obtains here, and which has obtained since the beginning of the war. I mention it to your Lordships because it is a very remarkable thing that, even under the stern circumstances of the war, we should have succeeded in carrying on with so gentle a control. It is an immense tribute both to the Ministry of Information and to the Press that such a system should be able to operate adequately and indeed admirably.
But this system, which is perfectly adequate for this country, was not found adequate in the case of Press material sent from this to other countries. For this, as the House probably knows, much more precise regulations have been drawn up involving compulsory censorship. They were put into force early in the war, and they have now been considerably strengthened. The nature of these regulations was defined by the Minister of Information in another place not very long ago—on March 26 of this year—and it would be appropriate for me to read what he said, because he gives very clearly and concisely the conditions under which the censor can stop an article, and that is very relevant to the debate to-day. My right honourable friend said:
"Hitherto, the censorship of Press messages going abroad has been confined to the interception of any information that will be likely to be useful to the enemy in a military sense. This is what we mean when we speak of a security censorship. Secondly, it has always been understood that, except in the case of some serious infringement of security by a publication in this country, correspondents are free to dispatch abroad extracts from anything that had once been published at home. These rules have, I regret to say, proved not altogether adequate for the protection of certain essential interests of this country abroad, where on several occasions
490
the true position here has been gravely misrepresented and stories emanating from London have been published which could only foment ill-feeling between ourselves and our Allies or neutral countries.
"In future censors will be empowered to exercise a stricter control with a view to stopping any Press message calculated to create ill feeling between the United Nations, or between them and a neutral country—a measure which is truly essential in time of war. Moreover"—
which is surely essential in time of war—
"diplomatic exchanges between these countries cannot be allowed to be prejudiced by unauthorized and premature disclosures. Similarly, extracts from home publications which are submitted for cabling abroad will in future be subject to the same rules of censorship as are now to be applied in the case of original material."
These were regulations announced in March of this year, and these are the regulations that obtain now; and it was these regulations to which the noble Lord's article was submitted. I think it may well be suggested by noble Lords and others outside this House that under these regulations this particular article should have been stopped by the censor before it left this country. I think it can hardly be argued—I think perhaps the noble Lord himself would hardly say it could—that it was calculated to promote harmony, trust and good feeling between the two countries. The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, in a speech he delivered to the House this afternoon, said the two countries should speak quite frankly to each other. But sowing distrust of British Generals and of the British High Command in the United States is really not likely to encourage confidence between the two countries any more than it would have been calculated to improve confidence and create trust between the two peoples if the noble Lord in his article, instead of attacking British Generals, had attacked American Generals, at a time when our two nations have to fight together in close unity.
I have spoken to the Minister of Information about this article, and he authorizes me to say that in his view, in this particular case, the censor's interpretation of the regulations was unduly liberal, and that he regrets the article was passed for issue abroad. But the House will recognize, I think, the immense difficulty under which censors inevitably work. It is no good under-estimating those difficulties. We all have a great anxiety to preserve the freedom of the

491
Press and the freedom of expression of opinion. There must be many borderline cases, and when these border-line cases arise it is inevitable that occasionally an error should be made. But I can now assure the House that it is the intention of the censorship authorities to exercise in future the greatest care in operating these regulations, so that they may be effective in preventing harm being caused in the relations between ourselves and other countries and in reducing mistakes to the very minimum. I think a regrettable error was made in passing this particular article; but we must learn by experience and see that such a thing does not happen again. So much for the immediate question which is raised by the Motion.
As, however, is perhaps natural, the debate has ranged a good deal wider than the terms of the Motion, and has touched upon the subject matter of the article itself. About this I do not propose myself to go in any great detail because it has already been dealt with very powerfully in the speeches of other noble Lords; but perhaps I may be allowed to make a few comments of a detailed character on points where I think the noble Lord, I am sure unintentionally, was actually in error. As I understand it, what has deeply disturbed and indeed shocked members of this House, and not only noble Lords here but people outside, is not that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, expressed the views he did—for, as I have said, we are a free country, and it is quite open for people to express views even though other people may not agree with them, and indeed also to indulge, as Lord Wedgwood said, in criticism. Even here, however, I think it is important—and I was glad to have the powerful support of Lord Tyrrell on this—that criticism should be balanced and that it should be based on undeniable facts. That is clearly a consideration to which due regard must be paid, though, with all deference to the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, perhaps I may say that he himself does not always pay quite due regard to it.
But the point on which I think people both inside this House and outside are at issue with Lord Strabolgi is this. It is not that he expressed the views he did, but that he chose the particular medium
492
he did for expressing them. Lord Strabolgi is a member of your Lordships' House, and he is fortunate in that he always has a platform from which he can expound any thesis he likes or urge any course he likes upon the Government. At any time he can table a Motion, he can bring it forward, and there can be a full discussion by those qualified to speak; and we are fortunate in this House in having experts who are qualified to speak on almost all the subjects of importance of this day. But the noble Lord did not take that course. He preferred to state what he must agree were very controversial opinions, reflecting gravely on the High Command of the British Army, in a magazine of another country where no answer could be given to him and where the readers, an immense body of readers, because this magazine has a very wide circulation, had no personal knowledge of conditions in this country and were quite unable to check the statements which the noble Lord made.
I think Lord Wedgwood, speaking this afternoon, said it was very important that we should speak absolutely frankly to each other and regard Americans as almost members of this country and ourselves almost as members of the United States. That there must be a close connexion between our two peoples is clearly right. We are all in favour of the very closest relations between Great Britain and the United States. I think most of us feel that is the only hope for civilization in the future. But the fact remains that the United States are 3,000 miles away, and in the nature of things it is not possible for a great many people there, who do not know conditions here, to appreciate what importance should be attached to individual statements. For that reason if for no other I think the course which the noble Lord took in publishing these rather provocative remarks and statements in a magazine of the United States, instead of expressing them here, is open to very serious criticism, and I suggest that it is the more regrettable because I do not think, if he will forgive me for saying so, that he stated a full or a balanced case. There were some points on which he did not seem himself to be fully aware of the facts, and there were others on which he seemed to have sources of information that are certainly not available to His Majesty's Government.

493
Take the remarks which the noble Lord made with regard to General Wavell. He said that only one British General with the necessary mental equipment and other qualities needed for a great leader, General Wavell, had so far managed to win through to a high position against the obstruction of the governing clique. I do not know exactly what the noble Lord meant about obstructions in General Wavell's career. General Wavell's career has been perfectly normal. In 1932 he was Commander of a Brigade, in 1935 he was Commander of his Division, in 1937 he was G.O.C. Palestine, in 1938 he was G.O.C. in C., Southern Command, and in 1939 he was G.O.C. in C., Middle East. He had the ordinary normal career of a great soldier, and there was no opposition that I know of to his rise. Exactly the same thing applies to General Alexander, to whom the noble Lord referred indirectly, and to General Nye, who rose from the ranks and is now, as the noble Lord knows, Vice-Chief of the Imperial General Staff. On that point, therefore, the noble Lord is really under a complete delusion, and I frankly do not know what he had in mind when he talked about opposition to Generals which they are supposed heroically to have overcome. He went on to say of General Wavell that he had his advice disregarded over the Greek episode. I do not know where the noble Lord got that information from. I should be interested to know, because the exact opposite is the fact. General Wavell was always in favour of the Greek episode and there is not the slightest foundation for the statement—I am sure it must have been unintentional—which the noble Lord made in his article that he had his advice disregarded. I think it is only fair that I should say that—fair to the Government and fair to General Wavell.
Then there were the two cases of Mr. Malcolm Dunbar and General Rommel, whose case has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat. Apparently the intention of the noble Lord in referring to these two men was to draw a comparison between the German and the British Armies unfavourable to the British Army, in the sense that the one recognized merit and the other did not. Let me take the case of Mr. Dunbar. Speaking about Mr. Dunbar the noble Lord said:
494
"In the Spanish Civil War, Malcolm Dunbar rose to be Chief of Staff of the International Brigade, and by his brilliant tactics won the battle of the Ebro. He proved himself a great leader and a brilliant tactician. He joined the British Army at the outbreak of the present war and is still a corporal in the Tank Corps."
The impression given by that—I do not know if it was intentional—was that he was prevented from rising in the British Army, prevented from getting commissioned rank. He is not in fact a corporal, but it is true to say he is still a sergeant. It would not, however, be at all true to say that he was not permitted to rise from the ranks. On the contrary, he was in fact recommended for a Commission and recommended for training at an O.C.T.U., for that purpose. But, greatly to Mr. Dunbar's credit, he himself refused to take a Commission because his unit was mobilized for service overseas and he wished to go with it. Mr. Dunbar, who comes, as the noble Lord knows, of a very old military family and who was educated at Repton and at Cambridge, appears to be a typical case of a young independent-minded public school boy who enlisted to fight for his country in the struggle against tyranny. I hope Mr. Dunbar will rise and that he will fill the place to which his ability and experience entitle him. But the point is that the military authorities have not prevented him from getting a Commission, which unfortunately was the impression which the noble Lord gave to the American people.
A good deal has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, about General Rommel, but I would add a further word. Undoubtedly in what Lord Strabolgi said there was a suggestion that he was an ordinary ranker who by ability and hard work forced his personality into notice and eventually became an officer. The fact is that General Rommel became a lieutenant in the German Army at the age of eighteen, the youngest age at which one can become an officer in the German Army. It is perfectly true he went through the ranks, but every German has to do this for a certain formal period. That is the only time he was in the ranks. He came from the ordinary German military caste, and when that formal period was over he became an officer. It is perhaps lucky for the purpose of the noble Lord's article that he did not know this. If he had, it would have entirely ruined the case he was putting to the American

495
public. At the same time, it is clearly important that this matter should be exposed to your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Such examples of inaccuracy might be multiplied again and again in the course of the two pages of the noble Lord's article, but I do not want to weary your Lordships further. In any case to my mind they are not the gravamen of the charge which has been made against Lord Strabolgi this afternoon. Where I suggest he was mainly at fault, if he will forgive my saying so, and I think other noble Lords have taken the same view as I do, is that he entirely omitted in writing his article to mention one vital consideration which must be taken into account in assessing the success or failure of the British Armies in this war. That consideration is, was it or was it not completely equipped? That, it seems to me, is the essential consideration. British Generals are human like other people and are equally liable to make mistakes; but surely it cannot be suggested that the fallibility of British Generals was the only or even the main cause of reverses which we have suffered in this war. I thought that it was universally recognized that the principal cause of our failure to achieve what we might have hoped to achieve was that our Army was not large enough, was not sufficiently trained and was not sufficiently equipped. For this the Generals and the General Staff are certainly not responsible. For years and years no doubt they have been pressing for improvement in equipment. The people who are responsible for this failure to equip the Army properly are the people in this country as a whole and in particular the political Parties represented in Parliament.
With the shining exception of the Prime Minister, who never erred throughout the whole pre-war period, there is no Party leader who has not a certain responsibility to bear. Some have a greater share, some have a less share; but all have a share. What is more, these leaders did undoubtedly represent the overwhelming body of opinion in the electorate. It is no good burking that fact. Even the noble Lord himself, Lord Strabolgi, must take his share of responsibility. For I do not remember in the years before the war his touring the country in a passionate
496
crusade for rearmament and conscription at the only time when it would have been really useful. We had far better face the facts about this matter. The real truth is that, while the Germans were preparing themselves for war and equipping themselves with all the most modern weapons, we and not only we but all peace-loving nations, including the United States of America, had our minds concentrated on other and what we still think more desirable objects—housing, education, improvement of Social Services, all the things that occupied the time of Parliament in pre-war years. So when the battle was eventually joined we were not ready for it and it has taken us two or three years to get up to where Germany started. That is what I thought was universally recognized as being the main cause of the reverses we have suffered. I do think, if I may say so, that it was very wrong of the noble Lord in writing this article entirely to omit all mention of this most important consideration.
I cannot help feeling that the Army would have a very formidable reply to the noble Lord if they were able to give it. But unfortunately serving soldiers are not allowed to rush into print in the American Press. It is for that reason that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, for raising this debate this afternoon. It would not have been fair to the British Army if this debate had not been held. What is more, the situation, if it had been left as it was, could only have served to create distrust between Allies who are fighting side by side. The noble Lord's article has had a great deal of publicity. This magazine has an enormous circulation and the article was obviously what is called front-page news. It was splashed across the front cover. As the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, said this afternoon, the article did a great deal of harm to this country among people who were not able to judge for themselves. The noble Lord has therefore a heavy load of responsibility to bear.
Lord Tyrrell, in his very wise speech today, spoke about propaganda. Well, I do not think that this article can be regarded as British propaganda: I do not think it can. On the other hand that does not mean that it is not propaganda at all. It has probably served as very powerful propaganda in the hands of isolationists and other people in the United States who

497
do not wish us well. Indeed, I think it could only serve to assist those people who wish us ill, and could only discourage our friends in that country. That, if I may say so to Lord Strabolgi, is the reason why this article is so deeply regretted, not only in this House but outside, and I very much hope that the next time the noble Lord has another such brainwave as this, he will not submit it to the Press of another country but will put down a Motion in this House, upon which balanced discussion can take place and balanced conclusions can be reached.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words before the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, exercises his right of reply. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, will feel a little sympathy for me because I have thought it better to wait till the end of the debate, and I may say now that I am very glad that I did so especially as I waited till the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, amongst others, had spoken. But it has been a great strain to sit and listen whilst being taken to task by one noble Lord after another. However, I am sure your Lordships will be willing to hear my side of the case. Indeed, several noble Lords have been good enough to put questions which I will endeavour to answer presently.
May I say first of all, that I feel myself in entire agreement with certain sentences which fell from the lips of the Leader of the House, amongst others. He said, that he welcomes the opportunity of this debate. I also welcome the opportunity very much indeed. When I knew this Motion was coming on, I wrote immediately to Lord Lovat and told him how glad I was that he was bringing it forward, and I took the liberty of sending him a copy of the article because I rather suspected that he was stimulated into putting this Motion down not by the written article, but by the very mendacious account of it and very unfair and unscrupulous use made of it in the organs owned by Lord Camrose which I will deal with in short detail, if your Lordships will permit me. I am very glad to see that Lord Camrose has come here to-day. I thought that he was not responsible in this matter for the editors of his numerous publications.
VISCOUNT CAMROSE: My Lords, may say that I am responsible for one
498
journal, and one journal only, and that is the Daily Telegraph?
LORD STRABOLGI: I think that is enough responsibility for anyone. I see now that the noble Lord has taken full responsibility for the very great injustice which this particular paper has done to me. I would also like to join the Leader of the House in saying how warmly we welcome Lord Lovat and how great is the admiration which we, as his colleagues in this House, feel for the great reputation which he has made in this war and the credit which he has done to British arms.
Now, if I may, I will answer one or two questions which noble Lords have been good enough to put to me. I may comfort Lord Lovat by informing him that no use at all has been made of this article by the German propaganda authorities—at any rate, not in any broadcasts by the German radio. The reason I know that is that we "monitor" all German broadcasts and—as in the case of others of your Lordships—if anything which I have written or said is mentioned in those broadcasts I am at once notified of it. I am glad to say that the German propaganda agents have occasionally picked me out for special attack, but, as I say, no use of any kind has been made of this article so far as the enemy wireless is concerned. And there is a very good reason for that. They could not really make very much out of it, as I shall show in a moment if your Lordships will bear with me. Before doing so, I would like to reassure Lord Lovat that I did not state that these defeats which we have sustained were due to bad leadership in the field. That would be the last thing that I would wish to suggest. I agree with Lord Lovat and with the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, that, there has not been bad leadership in the field, but in the words of Viscount Cranborne, our Army was too small, insufficiently trained and insufficiently equipped.
As I say, I agree with them in that, but where I join issue with Viscount Cranborne and Lord Lovat is that cannot put the blame for that on the ordinary rank and file of the populace nor on the civilian leaders of the political Parties. I put the blame on successive Army Councils. They were the people with a very big responsibility. They

499
possess expert knowledge and they should have done no less than Lords of the Admiralty have had to do in the past and resign in a body if they could not get their way. The only sentence Lord Lovat uses upon which I must really correct him is that in which he said that I slandered the British Army. I certainly did not slander it—I did no such thing. If he has studied my article he knows that, on the contrary, I paid the highest tribute to the British Army.
LORD LOVAT: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that I am in closer touch than he with messes and ante-rooms of the British Army, and the feeling throughout the Army, quite apart from the particular Commando in which I serve, is that he has slandered the British Army and has done it a great injustice. While I am on my feet I would like to repeat my question as to why he says that Rommel is not the type of man who would be popular with junior officers and N.C.Os. of the British Army? That suggestion, I may say, gave rise to the feeling that Lord Strabolgi was encouraging indiscipline in the British Army.
LORD STRABOLGI: Lord Lovat says that gentlemen he knows in Army messes consider that I have slandered the British Army. That is because they have not read my article. It has only just reached this country, and the magazine in which it appears has not a wide circulation here. What they have read no doubt was Lord Camrose's sub-editors' account of the article which was a complete misrepresentation, as I shall show. It dealt simply with extracts—
VISCOUNT CAMROSE: My Lords, may I explain with regard to what Lord Strabolgi has just said? These extracts were not the result of work by sub-editors of the Daily Telegraph. They were extracts put out by Collier's themselves in America.
LORD STRABOLGI: Your Lordships can judge between me and Lord Cam-rose's sub-editors. I must say I admire his loyalty to his subordinates. Lord Lovat says that they feel that I slandered the British Army. They could have read only these extracts which were published here, and which give an entirely false view of what I said. That is the only reason why they could have held
500
that view. Even so, I may say that that view is not universal; even on the basis of the twisted and deliberately misrepresentative sentences printed by Lord Cam-rose's organ I have had a very large correspondence, including a number of letters from serving officers and soldiers, and the great majority supported my views. I have one here from a serving officer, written after it had appeared in the newspapers that Lord Lovat had put down his Motion on the Order Paper. This man is unknown to me, but he writes: "If anything, your article was an understatement of the actual facts, and you deserve nothing but congratulations and praise from all ranks of the Army, and especially from junior officers and those holding emergency Commissions, like myself." I do not say that that man speaks for the whole of the officers of the Army, but neither do the people who have told Lord Lovat that they think I have slandered the Army. I have had a great many letters from serving soldiers agreeing that a great many of the things I have said are perfectly true, and welcoming the fact that I have exposed them.
I said of Rommel that he was an aggressive type who, unless he was serving under an officer who was looking for leaders—and I said in the article there are many such in the Army—was not the type who would ordinarily get on. I am afraid that it is the case in all the public services that, unless those in positions of responsibility are looking for natural talent deliberately—and there are many who do—and trying to pick out men who will make leaders, it is the so-called safe man who gets on and not the rather exceptional, aggressive type. That is what I meant about Rommel. I agree that I was not strictly accurate about Rommel. I wrote in perfectly good faith. I said he came from the middle class and was not of the regular hierarchy of the Prussian Army, and I suggested that he would probably not have been made an officer in this country. I give Lord Lovat that point.
I do not wish to appear discourteous to any noble Lord who has spoken, and I shall endeavour to answer the other questions which have been put. The noble Lord, Lord Denman, took the usual objection that this article should not have been written in an American magazine. I shall deal with that. He

501
said that it might interfere with discipline in the Army. Discipline in the Army, or in any of the other Fighting Services, depends on the officers, and anything that is written in American papers does not affect the discipline either of the American Army or of the British Army. Good officers can always lead their men, and no amount of fulsome praise or flattery will make good officers out of bad officers. If the system of promotion does not result in finding the best officers, the Army will suffer. There has been a great improvement in that respect recently, but until recently our system of selecting and promoting officers has been defective and has not produced the best men. I am afraid that that is true. The United States Army, as Lord Denman knows, will form its own opinion of our Army. The two are coming into closer contact, and I hope that in the future we shall see a great British and American Army fighting together on the Continent of Europe. I am sure the Americans will form a high opinion of the British Army. Many of the defects in the British Army which existed at the beginning of the war have been put right. The noble Lords, Lord Lovat and Lord Cranborne, know that there were many defects in the Army, and that some have been put right and that others are being put right. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Croft, would not deny that this is the case.
What alarmed me about Lord Denman's speech was his suggestion of a political censorship. He encouraged the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, almost to promise that in future there will be a political censorship in this country. I do not want to debate that now; it is so important that it ought to be separately debated.
VISCOUNT GRANBORNE: It ought not even to be said. I said that Parliament had approved certain of these regulations with regard to censorship, and that the censorship authorities intended to carry out those regulations. I did not say anything about a political censorship; I merely said that certain regulations had been laid down and approved by Parliament and that they would be carried out.
LORD STRABOLGI: Both Lord Denman and the noble Viscount suggested this. If you are going to stop an article not because it contains any military secret—and of course my article contained none
502
—but because you do not like the opinions expressed in it, that is political censorship, and it opens a door through which all kinds of evils can flow, evils which brought down our French Ally. The same question of censorship was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tyrrell. I was surprised that he took me to task on the question of propaganda, because I understand that for many years now he has been the film censor, and all my friends who have been living in Africa and Asia say that a great deal of harm is done to us by the films which Lord Tyrrell has passed.
I should like to be allowed most respectfully to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on his maiden speech, and to echo what the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said in praise of it. I want to tell the noble Duke that what I mean by a "People's Army" is what I hope our Army is becoming and will be in the future. The closest example at the present time of a People's Army—I do not want to go back to the time of Cromwell—is the present-day Russian Army, which, whatever its defects, and whatever things in it the noble Duke might object to, is the one Army in Europe which has been able to stand up on more or less equal terms to the terrific military machine of the German Reich.
When the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, says that all the Press attacked my article, I must respectively inform the noble Lord that he is entirely wrong. The only papers that attacked me were the Daily Telegraph and others from the same stable—papers which are called the house-trained Government supporters. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was good enough to ask me why the article was written. That brings me to the main question with which I wish to deal. If your Lordships will allow me to do so, I wilt explain the genesis of this article and how it came to be written. First of all, with regard to Collier's Weekly, this has a wide influence, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has said. For many years Collier's Weekly has been working, in good times and in bad, for better relationships between the two great English speaking democracies. It has been one of the best friends of this country in the United States, probably a far better friend than the obscure journals, of

503
which no one here has ever heard, referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. It has been a good friend of the British Empire, and one of the strongest advocates of early American intervention in this war. Incidentally, the present Prime Minister has in the past contributed to it.
I was asked to write this article by Quentin Reynolds, who is well known as a journalist and broadcaster, and as a great friend of this country. Before the United States came into the war, his influence was always on our side and in favour of American aid to the democracies. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will not deny that. Mr. Reynolds was representing Collier's Weekly in London at the time, and he told me that in the United States—and I would beg the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to pay attention to this point, because it is important; personal attacks on me I do not mind, but this is important—there was running right through the country an undercurrent of very unfair criticism of the British Army. I have heard the same thing from other sources, and, if noble Lords will listen to me, they will see that this is not a laughing matter. The Americans were saying that the British had lost their fighting virtues. They were saying—no doubt some of them are still saying it—that the British soldier is not the fighting man that his forebears were. They were instancing regrettable examples in this war of setbacks and defeats and surrenders. That, unfortunately, had been spread very widely in certain circles in the United States, and Mr. Reynolds asked me to write an article putting the matter in its true perspective.
Now, before noble Lords jump to conclusions, let me put this consideration to them. It is no use writing an article with that object in view and saying that everything in the British Army is perfect, and painting a rosy picture; to use an American expression, that cuts no ice whatever. You have got to tell the truth if you want to create an effect. There may have been small inaccuracies in the article, perhaps some exaggeration, but fundamentally I told the truth, and that I will defy anyone to disprove. With regard to Malcolm Dunbar, that was a matter about which I took my information from a colleague in another place, who knows this case and mentioned it in a debate in the House
504
of Commons, and I agree with Lord Cranborne that if he refused a Commission for the reasons stated, they were creditable to him. I would rather like to know when it was offered to him, but he was mentioned in debate this year in the Commons. However, I concede that point to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne.
And that was my object. I do assure your Lordships it was with that object that Quentin Reynolds, a proved friend of this country, and myself agreed that I should write on the lines I did. I believe it will be found that this article has done a great deal of good, and will do a great deal of good in the future. And the extra notice given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, will, I believe, do a great service to the Army, of which he is so proud and the soldiers of which I so much admire. A complaint is made that I wrote the article for an American magazine. If any of your Lordships make a speech in the country, or in your Lordships' House, and you say something of interest to the citizens of the United States, that is cabled out to America and appears in all the newspapers there. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, for example, wrote an article recently in the Sunday Times, and that article was widely quoted in the American papers. There is really no substance in that point at all. I am sure the speech of Lord Lovat, in view of his position in the Army and his great reputation, will go into all the newspapers in America. There is no point in that whatever. As my noble friend Lord Wedgwood has pointed out, and as the Prime Minister had pointed out earlier, our affairs have become intermixed and the two democracies are working very closely together. I believe your Lordships will not be in a position to deny the argument that I put forward, that anything your Lordships say that may be of interest to United States citizens will probably be cabled out immediately and appear in a large number of American journals.
With regard to the tone of the article, to which certain Lords have taken exception, this is what the Daily Telegraph's leading article had to say about it—and this apparently is what stimulated the colleagues and comrades of Lord Lovat to make these complaints about it, and what led him to put down this

505
Motion on the Paper. The Daily Telegraph wrote:
"Lord Strabolgi has published in an American periodical a mendacious and mischievous attack upon the British Army."
Well, this was the first sentence of my article:
"Fundamentally, nothing is wrong with the British Army."
I went on:
"The rank and file and the great bulk of the officers and non-commissioned officers of all ranks are good material, willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and, whenever they have been well led, have fought with the greatest fortitude and determination. Thus, to take only one example, a little publicized battle was that fought on the Sitting River in the Burma campaign. There the handful of British troops engaged fought under every disadvantage, including trying climatic conditions, with a bravery and tenacity worthy of the traditions of the most famous troops of the past."
The Daily Telegraph was careful not to quote those words.
LORD TEVIOT: That was not in the article.
LORD STRABOLGI: Certainly, it was the first sentence of the article. Of course, if Lord Teviot only reads what Lord Cam-rose's paper says about the article he will have the same impression as the poor sergeants and subalterns in Lord Lovat's Commando.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: The noble Lord is quoting perhaps from something which suits him at the moment. If you go on a little further you will read at the bottom of the page:
"Why is the prestige of the Navy so high and that of the Army so low?"
LORD STRABOLGI: I will deal with that, and I will satisfy the noble Earl, I hope. I would like to read a few more sentences, if the noble Earl will permit me. After referring to the expansion of the British Army, I said in my article:
"But the key positions are still held by men drawn from a narrow circle. Their influence permeates right through to all ranks. These leaders are brave, public-spirited, and mean well."
Lord Lovat says that that is patronage, but it was not meant in that spirit at all. I do not want to read the whole of the article to your Lordships but I may be allowed to quote this sentence:
"Matters are improving."
Perhaps I should draw Lord Lovat's attention to this:
506
"The framework is there. The British Army has a great asset in its faithful and devoted non-commissioned officers, its sergeants and corporals. They are the true representatives of the old British yeoman class. It has been gradually realized that the mechanically-minded man who understands machines and the handling of them is likely to make a better officer, plus the other qualities, than the half-educated product of the British public school system."
The British public school system gives only a half education, as your Lordships know, and I have heard certain of your Lordships say so in this House.
Now with regard to the Navy, does the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, remember what we in the Royal Navy had to undergo in the way of criticism in the last war? In the last war the Royal Navy started with many defects and weaknesses. They were the result, inevitable perhaps, of a hundred years of peace. Much of the leadership was devoted but untrained for prevailing conditions, our doctrines were wrong in many respects, and we had many material defects. As I say in the article, the great asset remains the courage and devotion of the personnel of all ranks. But we made a very bad show in the Navy in the last war on several occasions, and we came under very heavy criticism in Parliament, in the Press and on the public platform. Many of your Lordships will remember it perfectly well, and so will members of another place, and they will remember the heavy criticism we were subjected to. My noble friend and Leader, Lord Addison, remembers it perfectly well; he was a member of the Government which came indirectly under fire. And we made good these defects in personnel and in methods. In this war, from all the information I have, the Navy is most efficient, its material is thoroughly good, and the spirit of the men remains as high as ever it was. Now we really have benefited—and I would like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, of this—we have benefited in the Navy by criticism; it did us good. It shook up the Admiralty, it led to changes in the higher direction being forced on the Government of the day, and there was a new breath of life right through the whole Service.
After the South African War the Haldane Committee made great reforms in the Army; and now see the result to-day. There has been deterioration. May

507
I refer your Lordships to Lord Gores Dispatches explaining the retreat to Dunkirk? After eight months of war and twenty months after Munich the British Expeditionary Force still had no armour-piercing shells, and was short of ammunition of all categories. Was that the fault of the politician or of the rank and file of the population? If the Army Council did not ask for armour-piercing shells, they did not do their duty. If they did not know, they were incompetent. That was not all. According to Lord Gort, the Army was short of ammunition of all categories—eight months after war had started, twenty months after Munich, three or four years after we were supposed to have begun to rearm. After two days' fighting the fighter strength of the Air component was only fifty machines. We had only 100 infantry tanks armed with machine guns. We still seem to be using tanks as infantry tanks, so far as I can make out, from the pictures of fighting in the Western Desert. Who was responsible for that? I ask Lord Lovat. Everyone knows there were these grave defects in the equipment and training of the Army. They have been referred to as the reason for our setbacks. Who was responsible? The Army hierarchy, the Higher Command, the people thrown up who became members of the Army Council and the heads of the various Staffs.
They were responsible, and they cannot escape from responsibility. They have proved that they were incompetent. They were the military advisers of the Government, they were the people who, two years after the war had begun, were responsible for the fact that we had only 2-pounder guns in our tanks in the big Libyan campaign this summer, when the only tanks with stronger armament were American. We had a 5-inch howitzer mounted on a tank chassis in the last war, and yet we were surprised when Rommel mounted anti-aircraft guns on tank chassis in this war. As for the special landing craft and the tank landing barges, of which we have not enough to-day to begin a real offensive on the Continent, we had these in the last war for operations against the Belgian and French coasts. Who was responsible for this omission? This military hierarchy which I condemn. It is incompetent, it requires thorough reorganizing and re-shaping. We took no steps to provide our troops
508
in Burma with tommy-guns—this campaign was referred to by Lord Cranborne. The tommy-gun was a curiosity in Burma, yet it was all jungle fighting there most suitable for tommy-guns. Who was responsible for that? As Lord Croft knows, we had painful experience of the tommy-gun in the fighting in Ireland in 1920 when the Sinn Feiners got hold of tommy-guns. We learned to have a great respect for them, and yet we started this war without a tommy-gun in the Army—certainly they were not where they were needed. Lord Cranborne speaks of a lack of training. I was amazed to get that confession from him. Whose fault was that? Not the politicians, not the the members of the House of Lords, or the members of the House of Commons. The training of the Army is the responsibility of the Army Council.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I must answer that. I do not agree with a word that the noble Lord has been saying for about ten minutes. Parliament must take responsibility for the provision of armaments for the defence of the country. It is perfectly ludicrous to say that our military advisers are personally responsible. In a democratic country Parliament must take responsibility. So far as training is concerned, what I said was we had not a large enough Army, and clearly if we suddenly expanded the Army at a moment's notice, it would not be adequately trained.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, permit me to add one word of protest against the constitutional doctrine which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has advanced that the Admirals and the Generals have a duty to resign from the Board of Admiralty or the Army Council if they think that provision for defence is inadequate. That would be to make them the ultimate court of decision as to the extent of national expenditure on armaments and would, in the long run, place Parliament and the electorate under the control of a military caste.
LORD STRABOLGI: We have been under the control of a naval caste, so far as that goes, for 100 years and more. One reason why the Navy was strong enough in years gone by, in spite of Little Englanders, of whom Lord Samuel was a great ornament at one time—
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: That is quite untrue.
LORD STRABOLGI: Well then, a Great Englander—was that the Board of Admiralty threatened to resign and, on one or two occasions I believe, did resign in order to obtain naval requirements. The Army Council could have resigned in the same way, and it would not have put the country under a military caste.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It is an extremely bad doctrine that the noble Lord is advancing.
LORD STRABOLGI: Bad doctrines are perhaps better than a hopelessly un-prepared Army in a war of this character. I would rather use a bad doctrine and get a few good guns and tanks and other equipment. I was directing my arguments to the thesis that the military professional officer class, caste, and hierarchy which was responsible for the Army before the war, under the political direction of whoever was Secretary of State for War, failed dismally to prepare the Army for war, and proved itself incompetent accordingly. Not all the blame is to be attached to Parliament. There may have been reasons off tradition and one thing and another, but the fact is that they failed in their duty to prepare the Army for war. Lord Lovat must know that as much as anybody.
LORD TEVIOT: I cannot allow that. Being in the House of Commons in the few years before the war and seeing the way the noble Lord's Party voted at that time, I really cannot allow that. The noble Lord knows perfectly well how his Party voted—with the best intentions in the world, no doubt—but they did everything they could to stop the armaments that were necessary to prepare for war.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not think that Lord Teviot will get away with the alibi of the Labour Party. It was his friends who dominated the House of Commons from 1931 onwards. The responsibility falls on the Parties who controlled Parliament. We voted for token reductions of the Estimates, but the responsibility lay with the Conservative, Liberal, and National Liberal elements who made up the supporters of the Government.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The noble Lord then admits that responsibility
510
rested with Parliament and not with the Army?
LORD STRABOLGI: I said whatever responsibility rested on Parliament. I said that the technical advice that had been given for many years must have been bad and must have been wrong, or we should not have started this war with so many defects, which, as Lord Lovat said, did not give the British fighting man a fair chance. As regards the gallantry and fortitude of the soldiers, he and I are completely in agreement.
LORD LOVAT: I am in agreement with nothing you have said so far.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to take advantage of Lord Lovat's slip there, because he must agree with what I have said as to the bravery and fortitude of the British fighting man in this war. Wherever he has had a fair chance, his behaviour has been as high as ever. That was made perfectly clear in the article. With regard to General Wavell, I hesitate to cross swords here because I do not want to implicate members of former Governments, but it is the fact that General Wavell was elevated over the heads of about sixty seniors, and in the face of great opposition in the War Office, by the then Secretary of State for War; but he got to the position of commanding a great British Army in a primary theatre of war against the opposition of the ruling hierarchy at the War Office. I am afraid that is a fact which can be very easily proved.
I have been under fire from many of your Lordships for a long time. I hope I have not neglected to answer any of the arguments put forward. I have done my best to answer all of them. I have taken careful note of the whole debate. I withdraw not one single word of the arguments or sentiments behind the article, or the meaning to be read into it. Not one word do I withdraw. Leave out any inaccuracy about Rommel's ancestry—that does not affect the main argument in the article—I do not withdraw one word of it. I believe I was studiously moderate in what I wrote. I rather erred on the side of understatement, and I shall not be intimidated into withdrawal, recantation, apology or anything else. I shall continue to agitate and to urge and argue for a reform of our whole system of military command in the Army and

511
promotion and selection of officers, until it does become a People's Army which will win the great victory to which this country is entitled.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Will the noble Lord be entitled to answer this question? Was he paid for this article and if so, how much?
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I have very little to say. I do not often come to the House of Lords, and I am no great judge on these matters, but I should like to say, speaking for the Army, which is an inarticulate body, that Lord Strabolgi's apologia is certainly the lamest explanation I have ever had the misfortune to hear in a debate, ranging from a preparatory school upwards. He has made an attempt, I think a clumsy one, to dissociate me from the Generals. I represent the body of the Army. The Generals in the Army Council represent the heads of the Army. The noble Lord has no hesitation in aiming a bullet at their heads. So far as I am concerned, I reject his plea that he had no intention of slandering the Army. I consider that he did slander the Army, because the Generals are a large and important part of it, a General being as much a part of the Army as a lance-corporal. Before I beg leave to withdraw my Motion I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Denman, for the kind remarks he made about my father, and also the Leader of the House, Lord Cranborne, for the kind things he said about myself. I have had great pleasure in crossing swords with Lord Strabolgi—or shall I say in coming into collision with him this afternoon? I hope he has enjoyed himself as much as I have.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

POLICE PAY.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD rose to ask His Majesty's Government if they are aware of the resentment felt by the Police Forces throughout the country by reason of the continuance of the A and B scales of police pay, and if they are now prepared to put an end to this unjustifiable anomaly; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am afraid that anything I have to say to your Lordships this afternoon must come as rather
512
an anti-climax to the spirited debate that we have just had, but I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships to a different kind of grievance, one which is felt not by the Fighting Services but by that great body of civilians upon whom the maintenance of law and order depends, the police force of the country. As briefly as possible I will explain the position. In 1919 the Committee under Lord Desborough considered the new situation that had arisen and advised a minimum wage for police constables of 70s. per week, rising by annual increments of 2s. to 90s. per week. In addition to this, there were two further increments of 2S. 6d. after seventeen and twenty-two years, respectively, both of which increases ranked for pension. This state of affairs continued with, I think, satisfaction to all concerned until the financial calamities of 1931 when the police, on the recommendation of the May Committee, had their pay very considerably cut, the pay of a recruit then being reduced to 55s. per week, which figure, however, was generally accepted as merely a temporary expedient until the matter could be regularized.
The following year, in September, 1932, the Higgins Committee recommended that new entrants should receive a commencing wage of 62s. per week, instead of 70s., rising in twelve years to 90s.—a considerable reduction if you take the wages as a whole over that period. Furthermore, although the increments of 2s. 6d. after seventeen and twenty-two years' service respectively were to remain, those increases were not to rank in computation for pension. Men who joined before this new scale came into operation still did so at the rate of 70s. per week, which was known henceforward as Scale A. Men joining after that were on Scale B. Now the peculiar and anomalous situation arose from this that you had men joining a force a few weeks, or it might be one day, apart—there are certainly some cases in which the period was a very few days—and who ever since have done exactly the same duties, had the same responsibilities, and have drawn these unequal scales of pay. This has been ever since a burning grievance.
It may surprise your Lordships to learn that in all Britain there are only 60,000 policemen of all ranks of whom approximately one-third are in the metropolitan area. There are only 40,000 more

513
or less for the rest of the country, and upon these 40,000 the maintenance of law and order and the carrying out of an enormous number of various duties depend. The standard required for entrance to the police force is a very high one indeed. The person has first of all to be of first-class physique and irreproachable character and of a very reasonably high standard of education, and up to the beginning of the war it was becoming more and more difficult to secure recruits with the necessary qualifications. Plenty of men came forward, but it was very rare for any force to be able to accept even 5 per cent. of the applicants, and in one of our most important North Midland boroughs in England I believe barely 1 per cent. of the available candidates could be considered suitable. It is the unanimous opinion of police officers of all ranks that this falling off was largely due to this differentiation in scale, because not only did the men who now constitute perhaps 40 per cent. of the whole force feel that they were losing unnecessarily over that first period of twelve years, but also that they were bound to lose for ever afterwards because, even when their time for retiring on pension came, owing to these further increases for good conduct and long service increments not ranking for pension, they would lose 3s. 6d. a week of pension when they retired. Gradually the effect of this has become apparent, and the Police Councils of both Scotland and England, the representatives of all the Chief Constables of county and borough police forces alike, and I think the majority of the local authorities are all agreed upon the advisability of this change.
Apparently up to date it has been the assumption of the authorities that as the ranks of the A Class became depleted so would the cause of grievance die away. But the A men will not disappear for twenty years at least, and possibly twenty-five years, and although their numbers will steadily decrease the sense of grievance will remain. It is for that reason that I ask His Majesty's Government this afternoon, even if they will not consent forthwith to restore the A Scale universally, at least to promise to give the matter their most earnest consideration. In this country we are not a military nation. We depend for the maintenance of law and order upon this very small body of some 60,000 police, and
514
only one in hundreds habitually carries a lethal weapon. It is the respect in which the police officer is justifiably held that keeps this country together in peace and war. If this state of affairs is to continue it is surely necessary that we should have a police force who on the one hand are composed of the élite of our population and on the other hand are satisfied with their conditions. I do not think that dissatisfaction at the present time can be said to be unreasonable. It is for that reason I bring this matter forward, knowing that I have behind me the approval of every policeman in Great Britain, whatever his rank, and that I am supported by the Police Councils and many local authorities. I ask that at least the matter may be further investigated.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the police are public servants of whom the nation is rightly proud. Their reliability and their dependable character represent a valuable asset—an indispensable asset—in the nation's administrative life. The noble Earl is therefore assured of the sympathy of your Lordships in any matter which affects their comfort and their well being. The question on the Paper refers to "resentment" felt by the police throughout the country and it also describes the two scales that exist as an "unjustifiable anomally." I do not want to detain your Lordships very long but the answer of the Government to this complaint must be given, however briefly. I ought to explain why these two scales exist. Before 1919 there was no uniformity in the scales of pay of the police. Local authorities throughout the country decided themselves what they thought was the rate adequate for their own particular district and the rate of pay for constables varied from 21s. to 30s a week at the minimum rising to 26s. and 42s. at the maximum. Then what is known as the Desborough Committee was appointed to consider the whole matter and that Committee recommended, first, that the scales of pay should be uniform throughout the country, and secondly, that the scales should be 70s., with 2s. for each additional year of service up to 90s. after ten years. In addition there might be granted two further increments of 2s. 6d. after a constable had been at the 90s. rate for seven and twelve years.
This recommendation was adopted by the Government and that constituted

515
what is known as Scale A. Then complications arose, as complications always arise in human affairs. First of all, in 1920 and 1921 a temporary bonus was given because of the increase in the cost of living. Then, in 1931, when the economic crisis came, the police were called upon, as many other citizens in the country were called upon, to suffer a deduction. This amounted to 4s. 3d. in the first and 8s. 6d. in the second year, subject to the provision that this deduction should not exceed 10 per cent. in any individual case. These cuts were restored, half in July, 1934, and the remainder in July, 1935. Then a Departmental Committee was set up, known as the Higgins Committee, to inquire whether any alterations should be made in the basic pay for new entrants—that is to say, of men who joined after September 1, 1931. This Committee recommended, so far as new entrants were concerned, that the scale should begin at 62s. per week and rise by increments up to 90s., with two additional increments of 2s. 6d. each after further service. This recommendation was adopted by the Government and that constitutes the B Scale. It is to be noticed, in passing, that the ordinary maximum scale was 90s. in both cases. There were differences, however, in some respects. In Scale B the starting point is lower than in Scale A. It begins at 62s. against 70s. Moreover, it takes twelve years instead of ten years to reach to 90s. and the two additional increments do not count for pension. That is a brief history of the two scales.
The present complaint, as the Government understand, is that these differences are regarded as anomalies and unjust. I am not clear why. Is it that the existence of two scales at the same time is wrong in principle? Suppose, for instance, that a proposal had been made to abolish Scale A altogether. It is not improbable that there would have been an immediate demand that existing Service men should not suffer on that account and you would have had, as now, the two scales. Their position was not in fact disturbed because only new recruits joined on the new scale. For all practical purposes there is at the present time only one scale operating—Scale B. Every constable who joined before October 1, 1931—that is eleven years ago—must by now have reached the ordinary maximum on Scale
516
A and must be drawing at least 90s. a week, unless in some rare and exceptional cases through inefficiency and misconduct his increments have been mislaid. The men who have not yet reached that maximum must all be on Scale B; so in fact there is now the one scale which has any effect as a scale. The anomaly such as it was has disappeared and Scale A could now be deleted from the police regulations without any practical effect, subject to one point—the two extra long-service increments which are pensionable under Scale A and non-pensionable under Scale B. So much for the question of anomaly.
I do not think that that is the really important point. The real complaint, I suspect, is that it is unfair that rates of pay of constables should have been reduced at all in the time of stress. There is a feeling, perhaps natural, that the police force suffered a loss of status, and that the reduction was effected in a time of economic crisis and ought not to be maintained after that period of crisis has passed. It is not any part of my business here to-day to justify any rates of pay of the police force, but your Lordships would perhaps like to know just precisely what the present scale is. For the lowest paid man, that is the unmarried man, pay is at the rate of 67s. 6d. a week. There is a boot allowance of 1s. 6d. a week, a special duty allowance of 13s. 6d., a war duty allowance of 3s., and if the free quarters are valued, say, at 5s. a week, the man's total remuneration comes to £4 10s. 6d. a week. There is also the question of uniform and free medical attendance. Further, there is the fact that constables may look forward to enjoying pensions at a later period of life, and there is what must be a source of not inconsiderable satisfaction to any man—permanent employment.
These are the conditions which exist, and whilst I am not saying that they are adequate—that is not my business here—the position is that the police force has lived under these conditions and the Government feel that they cannot do very much more in that respect. No information has been put before the Government to suggest that the decision taken in 1933 is under present-day circumstances so inequitable that it is necessary to revive during the war the basic rates of police pay. It is true that the local authorities in England and Wales who

517
concurred in 1933 in the decision then taken, and supported that decision up till 1939, have now through their representatives on the Police Council expressed themselves in favour of a departure from the 1933 decision and a reversion to the Desborough scale, and that a few Scottish local authorities have indicated that they are in favour of the abolition of Scale B. But, while the Government are naturally anxious to give the greatest weight to the views of the local authorities, this is a question of national policy for a decision on which the Government must take the responsibility.
Just as the Desborough Committee recognized that the scale they recommended must be open to review from time to time, so the scale recommended by the Higgins Committee and adopted in 1933 must be regarded as capable of reconsideration when circumstances justify such a course. There are, however, obvious objections to reconsidering basic rates at the present time in the midst of the war when some uncertainty must inevitably be felt as to what the economic conditions of the future may be. I will see that the appeal of the noble Earl is put before the right quarters so that the matter may be under consideration. But the Government feel that war-time conditions can most appropriately be met, as they have been met, by allowances of a temporary character, and in the view of the Government no sufficient case has been made out for a change in the basic conditions at the present time.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I may point out, incidentally, that the reply dealt with basic conditions into which I did not enter. I again thank him, and I hope that he will put the views which I have expressed before His Majesty's Government and that they will see their way to take action, particularly with regard to the matter of the counting for pension of the two increments. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SOLDIERS AND THE HARVEST.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD also had the following question on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether
518
they are aware that the harvesting of crops is being endangered in various areas by the temporary removal on manoeuvres of troops hitherto engaged in assisting with harvest operations, for whom no substitute labour can be found; and whether they will forthwith investigate the position.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must apologize for the very short notice which I have given my noble friend Lord Croft of this question, but the matter only came before me very recently. It is a very urgent matter as affecting the harvest, particularly in Central Scotland. We have had, both last year and this, a great deal of very valuable assistance from soldiers. We have had active cooperation from nearly all units stationed in the different areas. This help, which has been absolutely essential in view of the greatly increased acreage under crops and this year especially because of the very bountiful harvest, is now quite indispensable. Unfortunately, for certain reasons which are not clear to the layman, the military authorities have seen fit to send various units bucketing up and down the length and breadth of the country during the period of the harvest. They have been moved at very short notice thereby gravely affecting the speed of the gathering in of the crops. Now this year the hay harvest has run into the corn harvest and the corn harvest has run into the potato harvest. The acreage under potatoes is now some thousands greater than it was before. Our position is going to be very difficult indeed unless we can secure an adequate supply of soldier labour.
Though it may be deemed necessary by the authorities, it does seem a great waste, not only of time, but also of petrol, tyres, etc., to have these troop movements by road all over the country when there is so much hill and moorland available for military training. One has known not merely of battalions but of brigades, and occasionally even of divisions, being sent long distances. I would like the War Office to get into touch with the Ministry of Agriculture in this country, if that is necessary, and certainly with the Department in Scotland, about this matter and take steps to see if units, which have been assisting in the harvest, may be kept in those areas and may be made available for work now so as to ensure that the potato

519
crops are safely gathered in. It would seem that this scheme for giving assistance to farmers is not entirely known to many officers commanding units. In my own area I know that when certain commanding officers were approached they professed to know nothing of the scheme. I must say, though, that they did not seem unwilling to help. I do not, of course, ask for an answer now—that would be unreasonable. But I hope that the noble Lord will bring the position as soon as possible to the notice of the Department.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I most certainly will bring what he has said before the Department, and I thank him for the very reasonable way in which he has made that request. I should like to tell him that so far no complaint has come to the War Office about the arrangements made for the loan of soldiers to assist in the harvesting of crops. This is the first occasion on which we have heard any criticism at all. It was agreed between the Ministries that Army Council Instruction 1655/42 should be published, in which it is stated, in paragraph 2 (c), that the loan of soldiers to assist farmers in harvesting or other agricultural work will be subject to urgent operational training requirements, and that personnel will be made available for loan only on a day-to-day basis from units in the vicinity of the farm. Although the facts were not before me, and it does not alter my determination to look into the whole matter, it may be that owing to the length of the harvest, as explained by my noble friend, there may have been units on the spot which could not, in the opinion of the military authorities concerned, have been retained there for any length of time. I do not know whether that is the answer, and I shall certainly make inquiries.
With regard to the other point, I have had no notice of any formation which has been training in any particular part of Scotland, and I cannot give my noble friend the reason for which he asks, beyond saying that we are taking steps as far as possible to train units in every possible area of the country, so that in case of military operations in the future they will be familiar with the topography.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his reply. Some of the troop movements to which I have referred have been going on since the beginning of August, and therefore it cannot be held that the mere prolongation of the harvest has led to the taking away of the troops; it happened early in the harvest as well as later.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 22nd of July last on the subject of Consolidation Bills, as desired by this House.
  DEER PARKS.
  DEER PARKS.
  COPO, LTD.
  COPO, LTD.