Sitting of 23 June 1943

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Greenock Port and Harbours;" presented by Mr. T. Johnston, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed.—[Bill 43.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  CHINESE GOOD WILL MISSION, UNITED KINGDOM
  Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the possibility of a visit to this country by a Chinese Parliamentary delegation?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Chinese Government has been approached by His Majesty's Ambassador in Chungking and that it is hoped that a Chinese good will mission will be able to visit the United Kingdom this autumn. I have as yet no information showing what the nature and composition of the mission will be. Naturally no formal invitation can be issued until this information is available and I am thereby enabled to consult those particularly interested in this country. But if, as we all trust, this visit takes place, I am sure that the Chinese mission can count on a reception no less cordial than that accorded to our own recent Parliamentary mission to China.

  UNITED NATIONS FOOD CONFERENCE
  Mr. Francis Beattieasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the result of the International Food Conference, held at Hot Springs, Virginia; and whether he will issue a White Paper on the subject?
  Mr. Wilfrid Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will have a report of the proceedings of the United Nations Conference at Hot Springs published as a White Paper?
  Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement in general terms on the recommendations of the Food Conference at Hot Springs?
  Mr. Eden: I am arranging for a White Paper containing the Final Act of the Conference to be laid before Parliament to-day. His Majesty's Government are now examining the valuable results of this Conference, and I hope to be able to make a statement in the near future.
  Sir P. Hannon: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity of debating the contents of the White Paper?
  Mr. Eden: Should there be a general desire for that, I will gladly consider it.
  Mr. Thorne: Will the White Paper be available to Members to-day?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. It will be available to-day.

  POST-WAR RELIEF (UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE)
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the draft Agreement on post-war relief sent out by the United States Government to all members of the United Nations; and whether it is proposed that a conference shall be called to deal with the subject?
  Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government warmly welcome the step which the United States Government has taken in communicating this draft Agreement to the United Nations. The draft has been prepared by the United States Government, in consultation with His Majesty's

  1133
  Government and the Soviet and Chinese Governments, and His Majesty's Government are in full accord with its proposals. The Governments of all the United Nations have been asked to give their comments as rapidly as possible, and I understand that it is the intention of the United States Government to convene a Conference as soon as it appears that the proposals in the draft are generally acceptable. The draft Agreement only purports to create the framework for a United Nations organisation, and the detailed arrangements will have to be worked out by this organisation when it has been set up. But the settlement of this organisation is an essential first step. His Majesty's Government therefore very much hope that the proposals will commend themselves to their fellow members of the United Nations. In view of the magnitude and urgency of the needs which will have to be met, and the widespread sources from which supplies must be drawn, it is only through the earliest possible common action on the part of all the United Nations that an efficient organisation can be created in time to meet essential demands when the moment of liberation comes.
  Mr. Mander: Do I understand that this Conference will take place in the United States?
  Mr. Eden: I understand that it is the intention of the United States Government to summon a Conference, I think probably in the United States.
  Dr. Haden Guest: When will this organisation be set up?
  Mr. Eden: Agreement has been reached among the principal Powers concerned. I hope that the framework of the organisation will be set up soon, but work has, of course, been done in advance.
  Dr. Guest: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman cannot say anything further, for example, as to when the agreement of all the nations concerned will be obtained?
  Mr. Eden: I cannot, of course, because it does not all depend upon us. It depends upon how rapidly the other nations answer. I hope that what I have said to-day will be of some encouragement to them to do so.

  ARGENTINA (BRITISH INTERESTS)
  Sir P. Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that British interests in the Argentine are maintained under the new regime following the recent change of government; and whether the status quo in AngloArgentine trade continues undisturbed?
  Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government do not regard the change of Government which has taken place in Argentina as affecting, up to the present and in any way, the relations existing previously between the two countries.
  Sir P. Hannon: Will the facilities which existed for such trade as already went on between the two countries continue as before?
  Mr. Eden: Oh, yes, Sir.

  GREEK CHILDREN'S EVACUATION (ITALY'S REFUSAL)
  Mrs. Cazalet Keirasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider an approach to the Italian Government through the Protecting Power for safe conduct for a ship to evacuate Greek children from Greece, and to arrange for their reception in the British Empire?
  Mr. Eden: In December, 1941, at the height of the famine in Greece, His Majesty's Government, in consultation with the Greek Government, formulated a scheme for the evacuation of substantial numbers of Greek children. It was proposed to house them in various parts of the British Empire, and arrangements for their reception were made accordingly. It was, of course, necessary to obtain the consent of the Italian Government. After prolonged discussions, however, the Italians rejected the scheme, stating that they could not agree to Greek children being sent to any part of the British Empire. His Majesty's Government and the Greek Government then arranged with the Egyptian Government for the permanent reception of a smaller number of Greek children in Egypt. For this a safe-conduct for the ship which should take the children from Greece to Egypt was necessary, but I regret to inform the House that the Italian Government, after very considerable delay, again refused to

  1135
  grant this. His Majesty's Government and the Greek Government have therefore had to abondon the whole project.
  Mr. Lipson: Does my right hon. Friend think that the Italian Government might be willing, in view of the changed circumstances, to take a different view?
  Mr. Eden: I think our experience in this matter shows that the attitude of the Italian Government on this question is far from humanitarian.

  LOST AIR LINER (DEPENDANTS, COMPENSATION)
  Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he accepts responsibility for the payment of compensation to the dependants of those killed by enemy attack on an air liner flying between Lisbon and Great Britain on 1st-2nd June?
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): K.L.M. operate the air service between the United Kingdom and Lisbon under contract to the British Overseas Airways Corporation, and the arrangements provide that the latter will be responsible for the payment of compensation to dependants of the crews who lose their lives in the course of duty. As the passengers lost their lives as a result of enemy action, the entitlement of dependants of passengers to compensation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions to determine under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme. I am informed that persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom are covered by that Scheme for war injuries sustained while they are outside the United Kingdom for business purposes.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: What rate of pension will be paid to the dependants of the crew?
  Captain Balfour: That is a matter depending upon the terms of the contract between British Overseas Airways and the K.L.M. Company.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Officer Air Gunners (Promotion)
    Mr. Frankelasked the Secretary of State for Air why commissioned air-
    1136
    gunners may not receive promotion to a rank higher than that of squadron-leader, no matter how long their record of service?
    Captain Balfour: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Officer air gunners are eligible for appointment to posts of higher rank than squadron-leader in other fields of employment, and a number do in fact hold the rank of wing-commander at the present time.
    Mr. Frankel: What does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by "other fields of employment"?
    Captain Balfour: Commissioned air gunners may fill posts above squadron-leader in the G.D. operational sphere, and one such officer commands a squadron in Bomber Command with the acting rank of wing-commander. In addition, Bomber Command contemplate filling certain wing-commander posts, when approved, by ex-air gunners and air bombers, after a certain armament course.
    Mr. Frankel: Is it not a fact that commissioned air gunners have not the same rights of promotion as other ranks of the same sort?
    Captain Balfour: No, Sir. I have just told the hon. Gentleman that he is under a misapprehension. Air gunners are eligible for appointment to posts of higher rank than squadron-leader in other fields of employment for which their previous service has made them particularly suitable.

    Non-commissioned Members of Air-crews (Pay)
    Mr. Frankelasked the Secretary of State for Air why non-commissioned air-gunners receive much lower rates of pay than other non-commissioned men of similar rank in air-crews, while commissioned air-gunners receive the same rate of pay as other commissioned members of air-crews?
    Captain Balfour: The rates of pay of non-commissioned members of air-crews vary according to their qualifications and responsibilities. The degree of technical knowledge required and the length of the training period differ appreciably as between one category of air-crew duty and another. Commissioned air-gunners, on the other hand, carry responsibilities and undertake duties and obligations

    1137
    as Officers in addition to their responsibilities as air-gunners. They belong to the general duties branch of the Royal Air Force and receive the rates of pay of that Branch in common with all other officers engaged on flying duties.
    Mr. Frankel: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that that is rather an evasive answer? Would he not look into the matter?
    Captain Balfour: No, Sir, I would not at all agree with the hon. Gentleman that this was an evasive answer. I have endeavoured, as I always do, to give the hon. Gentleman the true facts of the case. Commissioned air-gunners are members of the general duties branch, and when on the ground they carry out such duties as fall to an officer, such as orderly officer, acting flight-commander, member of a court of inquiry or officer detailed to carry out an investigation. The general duties are such as any officer has to carry out, and for that purpose air-gunners are G.D officers.

    Technicians (War Service Gratuities)
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for Air whether post-war gratuities payable to the estates of men killed in the service of their country will include technicians on the ground staff?
    Captain Balfour: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in reply to the hon. Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) on 4th March, 1942, the question of gratuities in respect of war service is one which will have to be settled by the Government of the day in the light of the circumstances then prevailing. I am unable, therefore, to say at the present stage under what conditions post-war gratuities, if granted, will be issuable.
    Mr. Hannah: Will the claims of ground service technicians be carefully borne in mind?
    Captain Balfour: That is for the Government of the day. I am quite sure that the Government of the day will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said to-day.

  MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (MR. ARTHUR GONGE)
  Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Minister of Aircraft Production
  1138
  whether Mr. Arthur Gonge has accepted the post offered him in his Ministry; and whether he can state the nature of the appointment?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Ben Smith): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge) on 10th June, 1943.

  FIRST CLASS PASSENGERS, KING'S CROSS
  Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the indignation felt by the majority of first-class passengers travelling from King's Cross at the practice of scats being claimed on behalf of intending travellers before their arrival at the station; and whether he proposes to stop this practice?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): My Noble Friend gave instructions to the railway companies some time ago that no hotel or railway porter should be allowed to reserve a seat in any railway carriage unless the intending passenger was present when the reservation was made. In view of my hon. Friend's representations, I am bringing the matter again to the attention of the Railway Executive Committee, and I have arranged for a special reminder to be issued to the staff at King's Goss.
  Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that that warning has been totally disregarded, and that only on Friday it appeared that notice was being taken, because one of the hotel porters said, "I have got my passenger with the case today"?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am very glad that the warning has now been effective.
  Mr. Foster: Is my hon. Friend not aware that porters at railway stations take the luggage of first-class passengers and rush into first-class compartments to claim seats, and that there is a general scramble to get seats in the compartment?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I cannot prevent passengers from engaging porters.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not a fact that porters will do that for anybody for a reasonable tip?
  Mr. Taylor: Is it right that porters should claim seats before passengers are there?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. That is contrary to the instructions that have been given.

  EIRE (MERCHANT SHIPPING)
  Mr. Francis Wattasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport how many Allied ships have been lost in conveying cargoes to and from Eire; and how many British and Allied sailors have lost their lives in these endeavours?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret that statistics are not kept in a form which enables me to give my hon. Friend a precise answer to his Question, but, so far as I am aware, no United Kingdom or Allied ship has been lost while carrying a full cargo of goods either to or from Eire on an ocean voyage. I cannot say whether any goods ultimately destined for Eire were being carried in ships which have been lost on their voyages to this country.
  Major Petherickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, what proportion of imports into, and exports from, Eire are carried in Allied and what proportion in Eire vessels?
  Mr. Leslieasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, whether steps will be taken to ensure that all imports and exports to and from Eire will be carried in Eire-owned or neutral vessels, so as to avoid the risks to British seamen?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret that precise statistics are not available, but I am able to state in general terms that a very high proportion of imports from overseas sources into Eire, and of such exports as are sent overseas from Eire, are already carried in ships on the Eire or on a neutral register. The trade between Great Britain and Eire is of mutual benefit to both countries, and the risks to British seamen which it involves are small.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Is it not a fact that Eire ships take advan-
  1140
  tage of the protection afforded by British convoys while ports in Eire are denied to His Majesty's ships?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid I cannot answer that, but if the hon. and gallant Member will address that Question to the Admiralty, I am sure they can.
  Mr. Leslie: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the fact that so long as there is a German Embassy in Dublin there is great danger of spying on the movement of ships?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I am fully alive to that danger, but it is not in my power to end the German Embassy in Dublin.
  Professor Savory: Can the hon. Gentleman state how much butter Eire is sending us in exchange for our best tea and our best coal?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that if my hon. Friend would be good enough to address that Question to the Ministry of Food, he would get an accurate answer.
  Mr. Logan: Has there ever been any representation made to Eire to see whether we can have the German Embassy removed?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: That is not a matter for me.

  MOTOR ROADS, RURAL AREAS
  Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will give an assurance that no decision will be taken respecting the planning of motor-ways in rural areas without previous affirmation by this House?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The construction of new roads, whether they are to be reserved for motor vehicles or not, requires legislation. No new roads can, therefore, be made, unless Parliament has first agreed.
  Wing-Commander James: Could we have an assurance that this highly contentious point so far as rural areas is concerned will not occupy the time and resources of the Ministry until the whole question can be discussed?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I would not like to give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance that no planning will be under-

  1141
  taken in the Ministry before the matter is brought to Parliament. I think that would be very unfair to Parliament.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that far too much planning is introduced before Parliament has been consulted at all?

  ROAD SIGNS, RURAL AREAS
  Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that signposts are being replaced in such a manner as to make them invisible to motor-cars with dimmed lights; and whether he will issue instructions to local authorities on this matter?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am informed that, as a general rule, road signs are being replaced in the positions and on the posts which they occupied when they were taken down. Before the signposts were removed, highway authorities had already been advised to lower signs in rural areas so that they fell within the beam of light from a masked headlamp, wherever this was practicable. I will remind the highway authorities of this advice, and I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for calling attention to the matter.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    Foreign Newspapers, Great Britain (Inquiry)
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Information whether he is now able to make a statement with reference to his inquiry into the activities of newspapers published by Allied subjects in this country hostile to the Soviet Government; and whether the attacks made have now ceased?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Yes, Sir. The inquiry into the activities of foreign newspapers has been completed, and His Majesty's Government have taken measures to ensure that a failure on the part of a foreign publication to observe proper restraint will not be tolerated. In answers to Questions in this House, I have warned editors of foreign journals of the responsibility they owe in return for the hospitality they enjoy. I hope they will take careful note of what I have said,
    1142
    because if any of them defy this warning and attempt to stir up discord among the United Nations, official facilities for the publication of their journals will be withdrawn and their licences to publish will be revoked.
    Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend consider also the advisability of taking drastic action against those responsible for the secretly published and unofficial journals which are sometimes as embarrassing to the Polish Government as they are hostile to the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bracken: I entirely agree with the hon. Member, but I would point out to him that these are not journals but pamphlets. These Poles rush around to printers in various parts of the country, and no licence is required to publish pamphlets. I do not intend to ask the House for power to stop the publication of pamphlets, even though it might put an end to the scandal, because if the Ministry of Information is given too much power, it is bound to abuse it.
    Wing-Commander James: Are we to take it that the converse also applies, and that attacks on the Polish Government will be equally discouraged?
    Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir. I have already had a controversy with a well-known organ called the "Daily Worker" for attacks on the Polish Government, and until that paper learns manners I intend to see that it shall not be sent abroad.
    Captain Peter Macdonald: What is the Paper Controller doing in allowing so many journals and pamphlets to be published which Members of Parliament as well as other citizens every day have showered upon them?
    Mr. Bracken: I have quite enough trouble without answering for the Paper Controller.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that since the Minister issued his warning to the Polish papers they have now extended their activities to publishing an English section, directed towards the English-speaking public, and carrying in this English section slanders against the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bracken: No, I am sure that is not the case.
    Mr. Gallacher: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the papers?

    Members' Broadcasts
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Minister of Information whether he is consulted about the selection of Members of this House to broadcast?
    Mr. Bracken: As I explained in reply to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 5th May, the B.B.C. is under no obligation to consult with me before issuing invitations to broadcast to Members of this House. In practice, they occasionally ask for advice, and sometimes act upon it.
    Sir I. Albery: Does my right hon. Friend also occasionally make representations to the B.B.C. that certain Members of this House should be invited to broadcast?
    Mr. Bracken: No; but occasionally I am asked by Members of this House why their talents are overlooked, and I often promise to pass on their suggestions to the B.B.C.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey a hint to the B.B.C. that it might be as tolerant, at any rate as the House of Commons, of minority opinion?
    Mr. Bracken: I think the B.B.C. are very tolerant of minority opinion.
    Mr. Thorne: Are Members of Parliament consulted before they agree to speak?
    Mr. Bracken: I hope so.

  RAILINGS REMOVAL
  Mr. Fosterasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works the position in relation to the payment of compensation for loss of iron railings; and is the compensation paid to the owner of the railings or the ground landlord?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): Compensation is payable in accordance with the terms of Defence Regulation 50B to persons having an estate or interest in the' fixtures, and if landlord and tenant cannot agree on the apportionment the General Claims Tribunal will decide between them. In practice, except in leases having a long unexpired term, the freeholder is normally accepted by all parties as the effective owner of the railings.
  Mr. Foster: Am I to understand that the owner-occupier whose railings have been taken will be entitled to claim compensation, not the ground landlord?
  Mr. Hicks: Where there is an owner-occupier, and no other possible claimant, the owner-occupier, and not the ground landlord, necessarily has the right to compensation.
  Mr. Leach: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the wholesale removal of railings constitutes a great artistic improvement?
  Mr. Colegateasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, whether he has considered the letter from the urban district council of Oakengates to his Department; and whether he will meet the objections raised by the urban district council to the removal of certain iron railings?
  Mr. Hicks: I have seen the letter referred to and a copy of the reply which was issued by my Ministry's Birmingham Office on 8th June to a letter in identical terms which was sent by the clerk of the urban district of Oakengates direct to that office. I concur in the terms of the reply, and I may add that, while every consideration will be given to the representations of the council in respect of particular railings in their area, in accordance with the general policy which has been adopted in this matter, I cannot undertake to suspend generally the taking of railings until all other sources of scrap metal of varying utility have been exhausted.
  Sir William Davisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works under what circumstances and by what authority was the figure of 25s. a ton fixed as the compensation payable to persons or firms whose iron railings were taken by the Government for use as scrap metal when the market price of such scrap metal was several pounds per ton, in view of the fact that Regulation 50B states that the basis of compensation payable in any case shall be the price which might reasonably have been expected to be obtained upon a sale?
  Mr. Hicks: The Government authorised the offer of the sum of 25s. per ton as being a fair average price for scrap metal

  1145
  in situ for railings taken by requisition. The reference to Defence Regulation 50B, I observe, is incomplete, and omits the important proviso that the sale is "a sale effected immediately before the severance to a purchaser intending to sever them."
  Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the public generally are under the impression that 25s. a ton is the price fixed by the Government for railings and that there is no appeal against this figure?
  Mr. Hicks: That is the price generally paid. I have informed the House many times that if any person thinks he is not getting the proper price there is the Claims Tribunal to which he can make application. But there is, in addition to the railings, for which 25s. a ton is paid, the cost of severance, the cost of removal, the cost of making good, and the cost of transport, which runs out roughly at £3 8s. a ton.
  Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the owner of the railings sells the railings as they are, and that the value of railings in situ is more than 25s. a ton?
  Professor Savory: Am I allowed to put up any form of gate to prevent my garden being overrun by II bullocks?
  Mr. Hicks: Are they Irish bulls?
  Professor Savory: They are being sent Over to feed you.
  Mr. Hicks: I am very grateful.
  Sir W. Davisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works the procedure for obtaining such compensation as will enable persons whose railings have been taken by the Government to erect adequate fencing after the war to replace such railings, including the cost of replacement?
  Mr. Hicks: If the hon. Member will refer to paragraphs (4) to (8) of Defence Regulation 50B, he will see that the Regulation does not provide for the payment of compensation based upon the cost of replacement of the railings or upon the provision of a substitute fence.
  Sir W. Davison: Surely an individual who has to fence in his property for various reasons, including such as that
  1146
  given by my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory), is entitled to some compensation towards the cost of replacement having regard to the fact that Government action has left his property open?
  Mr. McKinlay: Is it the intention of the Government to spread this confiscation of people's property throughout every activity in the country?
  Mr. Hicks: I am only interpreting the Defence Regulation.
  Sir W. Davison: Surely my hon. Friend will think it reasonable that people should be entitled to receive compensation for the cost of replacement of railings which have been compulsorily removed by the Government; and should not steps be taken to alter the Regulation if it does not permit of compensation being paid in these cases?
  Mr. Hicks: That is a matter for the House of Commons. I am only interpreting Regulation 50B.
  Commander Agnew: Is it the hon. Gentleman's intention to introduce legislation which will provide such compensation?

  BOMB-DAMAGED HOUSES (EMERGENCY REPAIRS)
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works what steps his Department is taking to assist local authorities in carrying out emergency repairs to houses in areas where there is bomb damage and a shortage of local labour to cope with it?
  Mr. Hicks: I am glad to have this opportunity of informing the House that, by arrangement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, the assistance of my Department is available to local authorities on request. A regional emergency works staff has been able to render assistance to local authorities by providing supplementary labour and materials for first-aid repairs. Labour is provided through the Works and Buildings Emergency Organisation and from the Department's directly employed men of the Special Repair Service. Where temporary shortages of materials occur the Emergency Reserve of Builders' Materials meets the deficiency. These arrangements, I understand, have been appreciated

  1147
  where additional assistance has been required.
  Mr. Lawson: Do the local authorities take full advantage of this useful organisation for repairing houses?
  Mr. Hicks: All the local authorities are aware of this organisation. The work is the duty of the local authorities in the first instance, and when they require any supplementary help my Ministry is only too glad to render what assistance it can.
  Sir A. Southby: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the advisability of making available to small local builders engaged in priváte enterprise sufficient labour and material to enable them to carry out such work?
  Mr. Hicks: That is a different question.

  BRICKLAYING
  Captain Gammansasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works the additional cost of erection of a parlour-type working-class house on the assumption that a reasonable output for bricklayers for an eight-hour day is 240 and 336 bricks for 4½-inch and 9-inch brickwork, respectively, as compared with normal pre-war output; what will be a fair percentage increase in the time of erection of such a house to allow on this account; and whether his plans for postwar building are based on the assumption that such an output is reasonable?
  Mr. Hicks: In my reply to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) on 9th June, I made it clear that the figures for which I was then asked, and which are now quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans), relate specifically to the basic datum from which calculations of bonus are made, as laid down in the payment-by-results scheme under the Essential Work Order. They do not represent the actual daily output of a bricklayer, but provide the theoretical basis by reference to which the bonus payments for output above these figures are to be reckoned. As the hon. Member may be aware, I am supplying, in reply to a later Question on the Order Paper, standing in the name of the
  1148
  hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), information as to the actual number of bricks which are being laid in a working day, and the hon. Member will, I hope, await the reply to that Question. In these circumstances, the purpose which the hon. Member has in mind would not be served by making, on a purely hypothetical basis, the calculations referred to in the Question.
  Mr. Viantasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works the number of bricks actually being laid per working day under the operation of the system of payments by results; and whether there is any rule laid down by the bricklayers' trade unions which regulates the daily output of their members?
  Mr. Hicks: Inquiry has shown that during the three months ended 30th April, 1943, on 372 sites for which accurate reports have been kept, the number of bricks laid per bricklayer per 10-hour day on brickwork left rough, was: 4½-in. brickwork, 650; 9-in., 780; 14-in., 870. For brickwork pointed one side, the figures were 560, 700 and 790, respectively. I think these figures speak for themselves. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, there is no trade union rule restricting output in any way.
  Mr. Butcher: How do those figures compare with the figures for five years ago?
  Mr. Hicks: I have not got that comparison in my mind.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Officers' Marriage Allowance
    Lady Apsleyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that allowances to officers' wives are paid to the husband, who can, and sometimes does, refuse to make any payment to the wife who is thus left penniless; and whether he will investigate the working of this system with a view to a change in procedure?
    The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): Marriage allowance is a grant paid to an officer to assist him in the maintenance of his wife and family; it is in no sense a grant to the wife herself. It is issued only if the

    1149
    officer certifies that he is living with or maintaining his wife. Apart from stoppage of marriage allowance, the Admiralty has no power to compel an officer to support his wife. The number of cases of difficulty is very small and does not call for investigation.
    Lady Apsley: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the War Office is considering an alteration of regulations in view of the suffering caused to the wives of some officers?
    Mr. Hall: I have been assured that the statement made yesterday does not in any way interfere with the existing practice at the Admiralty.
    Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what justification there can possibly be for a procedure which allows interference with the allowance of a naval rating if he neglects his duty to his wife and child when no such procedure is possible or desirable in the case of an officer? Is it not quite unjustifiable class differentiation and very unjust to the wives and children of officers?
    Mr. Hall: In certain cases ratings or the wives of ratings do not get allowances, and I think that my hon. Friend will find that the percentage of officers' wives who are deprived of their allowances is very much less than that of rating.
    Mr. Mathers: Will the Admiralty arrange to come into line with the other Services when the investigations that are going on now are completed?
    Mr. Hall: The Admiralty is always open to consult with, and be guided by, the other Services.

    Eire (Protection of Ships)
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether ships conveying goods to and from Eire are protected by the Royal Navy?
    Mr. George Hall: Some United Kingdom and Allied ships carrying goods to Eire are protected, but ships of Eire flag do not receive the protection of the Royal Navy.

    Research Establishments (Co-operation)
    Professor A. V. Hillasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether ,he is aware that an Admiralty research establishment of which he has been informed was set up in immediate contiguity to a research establishment of another Department in order to facilitate co-operation between the two; that the former has been entirely separated from the latter by a high wall furnished with broken bottles and barbed wire so that no communication is possible except by an outside road; and that this and further restrictions of access imposed on persons known to be trustworthy greatly impede collaboration; and whether more efficient arrangements can be made?
    Mr. George Hall: The answers to the first two parts of the Question are in the affirmative, with the exception that direct communication between the two establishments without going on to an outside road remains possible. The measures indicated in the Question were necessary in order that a close check might be kept on all visitors to the Admiralty establishment. With regard to the third and fourth parts of the Question, this establishment works in close collaboration with a number of other Government establishments and with firms, and I am satisfied that co-operation is not impeded by these necessary wartime security precautions. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any complaint he has in mind, I shall be glad to make further enquiries, but at present I see no reason for altering the existing arrangements.
    Professor Hill: Does my right hon. Friend realize that, in spite of this theoretical passage, communication is in fact both difficult and restricted, and could he use his good nature and his well-known capacity for persuading people to be sensible to get over this absurd difficulty by which two establishments that are meant to work together in fact do it very little?
    Mr. Hall: I am advised that the difficulty mentioned by my hon. Friend does not exist. I am prepared to discuss the matter with him, and if there are difficulties in dealing with this collaboration, I can promise him that my right hon. Friend will see that they are removed.
    Professor Hill: Does my right hen. Friend realise that secrecy is commonly

    1151
    supposed, no doubt erroneously, to be too frequently used for purposes of avoiding criticism, and could he advise the people in this establishment not to have their motives misinterpreted?
    Mr. Hall: With regard to an establishment of this kind, I am convinced that my hon. Friend will agree that being a little over cautious is much better than being too lax.

    Detention Quarters (Sleeping Equipment)
    Mr. McNeilasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether persons detained in naval detention quarters are provided with hammock, palliasse, mattress or some suitable sleeping equipment and with bedclothes?
    Mr. George Hall: Ratings detained in naval detention quarters sleep as on board ship except in the first stage of the sentence. In this stage they are not allowed bedding except on the orders of the medical officer, but blankets are issued in cold weather. In the later stages, deprivation of bedding may be awarded as a punishment for offences committed in the detention quarters. The question whether the regulations should be altered is under consideration.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: How long does the first stage last? Is it the same in all cases, or does it vary according to the length of the sentence?
    Mr. George Hall: It varies in accordance with the conduct of the person who is detained.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: So that it might be for a considerable time that a man is without bedding or even blankets in cold weather?
    Mr. George Hall: Well, it might be.
    Mr. McNeil: May I have an assurance that men are never deprived of bedding against the advice of the medical officer, even after the penalty has been imposed?
    Mr. George Hall: I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: Seeing that the deprivation of bedding is simply a survival of the practice of civil prisons, which has long been abolished, ought it not to be abolished here?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: When may we expect the result of the inquiry which is now taking place; will it be soon?
    Mr. George Hall: I hope so.

  FRENCH NAVAL SQUADRON, ALEXANDRIA
  Sir I. Alberyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make a statement concerning the French warships recently detained at Alexandria; and whether any other French warships have recently joined the United Nations' naval forces?
  Mr. George Hall: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on 3rd June.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Lord Hailey's Proposals
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether be will now state the views of the Government with regard to Lord Hailey's proposals for Regional International Advisory Councils for Colonial territories in different parts of the world?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): I have nothing to add at present to the reply which I gave to a Question on this subject by my hon. Friend on 24th March last.
    Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether this admirable proposal is under discussion at the present time with the United Nations?
    Colonel Stanley: This was a purely unofficial proposal by one person. There have been many others of a similar character, and the Government are considering the whole broad aspect of the thing.
    Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say when he hopes to be able to make a statement on this important subject?
    Colonel Stanley: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot.
    Major Petherick: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend assure the House, that

    1153
    though there should be the closest collaboration in Colonial affairs between the various Powers concerned, it is very advisable that no action shall be taken which will mitigate in any way the sovereignty of Britain over her own Colonies?
    Colonel Stanley: Both the Prime Minister and I have already answered Questions specifically on that point.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not quite clear that this is not part of the scheme, though?
    Mr. Riley: If and when these councils meet, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind the desirability of including on such councils a proportion of native representatives who are qualified, wherever possible?
    Colonel Stanley: That is another matter.

    Service in Royal Air Force
    Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many men born in the various territories administered by the Colonial Office are serving in the Royal Air Force?
    Colonel Stanley: The records available show that 685 men from the Colonies have proceeded to the United Kingdom or to training centres overseas to join the Royal Air Force, either under approved schemes or under their own arrangements. There has also been local recruitment, mainly for ground duties; and other personnel born in the Colonies are no doubt serving with the Royal Air Force. Details of enlistment of men born in the Colonies in these two categories are not readily ascertainable and full particulars could not be made available without an undue expenditure of time and labour.

    RODRIGUEZ (MILITARY SERVICE)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the extent of the contribution of the island of Rodriguez to the Forces of the United Nations; what proportion of the male population of military age is serving outside the island; and what proportion are serving in the British or Empire Forces?
    Colonel Stanley: It is not in the public interest to give figures, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the Colony
    1154
    of Mauritius, of which Rodriguez is a part, is supplying a substantial proportion of its man-power either for local defence or for overseas service.
    Sir A. Southby: Is it not a fact that the Colonies have responded magnificently to the appeal for man-power for the Services?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, not only in the Services, but in the realm of production too.

    TANGANYIKA (EDUCATION, AFRICANS)
    Major Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sum is being devoted to the education of Africans in Tanganyika for the current year; what this amounts to per capita of the estimated African population in that territory; and how it compares with the previous year?
    Colonel Stanley: The total estimated expenditure from public funds during 1942 on African education in Government and State-aided schools in Tanganyika is 115,835, which represents 5.4d. per head of the African population. The actual expenditure in 1942 was £97,511 or 4.56d. per head of the African population. These figures do not include the considerable sums spent on education in Tanganyika by missionary societies and other non-Government agencies as to which no information is available. A strong Committee with official and non-official (including missionary) representation presented a report in 1940 containing comprehensive recommendations for the expansion of education services in the Territory, and the Tanganyika Government have been asked to prepare in outline a programme for development over a period of five or ten years. It is hoped that substantial financial assistance for the carrying out of this programme will he provided by grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.
    Major Lyons: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend assure the House that this aspect of the matter and such improvements as are practicable are under review front time to time by his Department?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. I am very anxious that improvements should be made, but my hon. and gallant Friend

    1155
    should realise that they depend very much upon buildings, about which there is difficulty in war-time.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister say how the sum per head for native children compares with the amount per head per white children in Tanganyika?
    Colonel Stanley: I have not the figures, and, anyhow, a comparison might not be accurate, because a large proportion of the education in Tanganyika is carried out by missionaries, for whom I have no figures.

    SEYCHELLES (EDUCATION)
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the percentage of illiteracy in the population of Seychelles, which in the census of 1931 was 75 per cent.; what proportion of children of school age are attending school; and what steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Report of 1938, by Mr. C. B. Smith, Director of Education of the Seychelles?
    Colonel Stanley: I have no precise information as to the present percentage of illiteracy in the Seychelles, but I am expecting from the Governor a full report on the educational problem in the Colony. I regret, however, that I have no reason to think that there has so far been any substantial recent improvement in the matter of illiteracy of the population. The total number of children on the school rolls in 1941 was 3,592 out of some 6,000 children. There were also 424 children receiving secondary education.
    As the answer to the last part of the Question is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Adams: In view of the fact that educational standards in the Seychelles appear to be lower than in any other part of the Colonial Empire and that it is five years since recommendations were made for improvements, cannot the matter be expedited?
    Colonel Stanley: The whole question of educational reform is to be discussed with the Governor by my educational adviser, who is now on tour in that area.
    Following is the reply to the last part of the Question:
    The adoption of many of the recommendations in Mr. C. B. Smith's report necessitates extensive additions and repairs to existing school buildings as well as the provision of some new accommodation. In war conditions in the Indian Ocean the provision of such material and the necessary skilled labour must be exceptionally difficult. Financial provision has recently been made for reviving the post of Inspector of Schools, for scholarships to poor pupils from primary to secondary schools, and for improving teachers' salaries on the lines recommended by Mr. C. B. Smith. Assistance is also being given to Missions towards providing midday meals for indigent schoolchildren. The question of educational reform is to be discussed with the Governor by my educational adviser in the near future.

    ELECTORAL REFORM
    Mr. Rickardsasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the undertaking given on three occasions by the Government that an apportunity would be provided to this Parliament, if it so desired, to discuss electoral reform, he will give an opportunity for the consideration of the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Skipton division and over 100 other Members?
    [That this House is of opinion that a representative Conference should be set up to consider the question of electoral reform and to report at the earliest possible date.]
    Mr. Eden: Having regard to the state of public business, it is not possible to give time at present for the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Holdsworth: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider this to be a question of paramount importance? As this Motion has been signed by Members in all parts of the House, ought not time to be given for its discussion, as it is an important matter affecting the constitution of the House of Commons?
    Mr. Eden: What is of paramount importance varies according to the views of individuals.
    Mr. Stokes: When will the report be made available to the House? It was promised months ago?
    Mr. Eden: There is some misunderstanding. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making a statement on our next Sitting Day about electoral machinery.
    Mr. Rickards: Does my right hon. Friend realise that we have had a promise made to us three times? Is that promise by the Government to be a mere scrap of paper?
    Mr. Eden: No, Sir. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making a statement on our next Sitting Day about electoral machinery, and I think we had better await that and see what the position then is as far as a Debate is concerned.
    Mr. Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the promise did not refer to electoral machinery, but the wider question of electoral reform, and that the promise was made three times? Will not the Government give an opportunity of honouring that promise?
    Mr. Eden: If a definite promise has been made, the hon. Gentleman can be sure it will be kept, but my recollection is that no definite undertaking was given to hold such a Debate within a certain period. We shall have to see what is the desire of the House.

    BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
    Major Lyonsasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to avoid the delay and Departmental overlapping, as evidenced by the protracted time-lag between the authorisation and commencement of construction of the 3,000 rural cottages, he will consider deputing to one Minister the task of directing and coordinating the work of the several Departments in any way concerned with any form of authorised emergency building construction in the war need?
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is already the policy of His Majesty's Government that the responsibility for the various types of emergency building work required for war purposes shall be concentrated as far as practicable in the hands of the Minister of Works.
    1158
    But the reference, in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, to the 3,000 rural cottages betrays some misapprehension. These cottages, though they will go to meet an urgent need which has developed under war conditions, have been planned to take their place as a contribution to the rural housing programme of the future. This building work had, therefore, to be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Acts, under which the primary responsibility rests with the local authorities. After the decision was conveyed to local authorities, some time was necessarily spent in selecting the sites, adapting the plans to suit local needs and circumstances, and making arrangements with contractors; but this initial period of planning is now past and I am informed that the actual work of construction will now proceed rapidly. In order to help local authorities to overcome some of the special difficulties of building under war-tune conditions, the Government have arranged that the Ministry of Works will make available certain materials and fittings and, where necessary, will arrange for contractors to undertake the work in areas where satisfactory arrangements cannot be made locally.
    Major Lyons: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask him whether, in view of the appalling time lag which has been manifested in the matter, some machinery ought riot to be available whereby one Minister, without any procrastination, will have the power to put into effect at once the promises which have been made?
    Mr. Attlee: I think the answer I have given shows that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken in imagining that the provision of these houses is just emergency work, to be swept away at the end of the war. I do not think it is possible to disregard local authorities in putting up local buildings.
    Sir A. Southby: As regards the arrangement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, will he see that small contractors, as well as large, are given sufficient manpower and materials to enable them to assist in this vital and necessary work?
    Mr. Thorne: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any arrangements are being made in rural areas for old age pensioners?
    Mr. Attlee: That is another question; perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down.
    Sir I. Albery: May I ask whether cottages of the type now exhibited in the Library are to be regarded as emergency or long-term cottages?
    Mr. Attlee: I am not aware of what the hon. Gentleman is referring to; I have not been in the Library lately.
    Major Lyonsasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to ensure the early reconditioning of damaged houses and the making of preparatory plans and financial arrangements for rebuilding the devastated areas, he will consider handing over to one Minister sole and overriding responsibility for arranging and supervising, in conjunction with local authorities, all such new buildings and reconditioning in both urban and rural areas?
    Mr. Attlee: My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that, in framing our plans for post-war reconstruction, we are keeping prominently in mind the importance of making as simple and straightforward as possible the procedure for enabling local authorities to obtain the guidance and assistance which they require from the central Government in discharging the duties laid on them by Parliament in this connection.
    Major Lyons: Will such information be conveyed in short, intelligible language to local authorities, so that they may know what is the position?
    Mr. Attlee: I hope so, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the difficulties of making legal language intelligible to the layman.
    Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that all avenues will be explored?
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will confer with the Ministers of Health, of Town and Country Planning, of Works and the Chancellor of Exchequer with a view to preparing jointly and announcing an approximate time and progress schedule of the legislation they propose, affecting post-war building regulations, planning and construction for the building industry, so as to ensure that no essential details are omitted and that it moves forward with uniformity?
    The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): I am continuously in touch with my colleagues on the numerous aspects of reconstruction which have a direct relation to post-war planning and building. Some of these will certainly involve legislation, and I am very conscious of the importance of orderly progress in such matters, but I could not undertake at present to accept my hon. Friend's proposal.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that no large industrial concern would ever dream of going forward with such a huge programme as this without a time and progress schedule? In the circumstances will he reconsider his answer?

    WAR CASUALTIES
    Mrs. Beatrice Wrightasked the Prime Minister whether he can now say what are the final figures for Allied and Axis casualties, differentiating between white and coloured troops, in the East African and North African campaigns, respectively; and whether he can give any estimate of the numbers lost at sea?
    Mr. Attlee: I regret that casualty figures for the East African and North African campaigns in the form asked for by my hon. Friend, and corresponding estimates of the numbers lost at sea, are not available.

    FOOD SUPPLIES

      Cherries Order (Corrigendum Slip)
      Sir H. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food on what date the corrigendum slip was issued in connection with the Emergency Powers (Defence) Food (Cherries) Order (S.R. & O., No. 785, of 1943), and why, having regard to the fact that the Order which was signed by the commercial secretary of the Ministry of Food has the force of an Act of Parliament, the corrigendum slip bore no signature?
      Major Petherickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will withdraw the Emergency Powers (Defence) Food (Cherries) Order (S.R. & O. 785 of 1943), having regard to an error in printing in the Schedule, Part 4, paragraph 3 (1), an

      1161
      error recognised in the corrigendum slip subsequently issued; and will he replace it by an Order accurately printed and properly authenticated?
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): The corrigendum slip referred to corrected an error which I regret was not noticed by my Department until the Order was in the course of being printed by the Stationery Office I am advised that, as the corrigendum slip was attached to every copy of the Order issued, it is not necessary that the Order should be withdrawn and reprinted, and that it was not necessary for the corrigendum slip to be signed.
      Sir H. Williams: Is there any prior case of words having the effect of an Act of Parliament being attached to a document which has the force of law although the attached piece of paper bears no authenticating signature?
      Mr. Mabane: I should want notice of that Question.
      Sir H. Williams: But as the answer to the original Question indicates that the matter was looked into, surely the Parliamentary Secretary should be able to say whether there was any precedent?
      Mr. Mabane: Not in the Ministry of Food. I cannot give a general answer now, but I can say that there was no precedent in my Department.

      Milk Zoning Scheme, Oxford
      Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the resolution of the Oxford City Council, of which a copy has been sent to him, protesting against the Oxford Milk Zoning Scheme as having had, and continuing to have, a deleterious effect upon the delivery of clean milk to the citizens of Oxford and condemning the failure of his Department to consult local authorities; and what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. Mabane: A reply has been sent to the Oxford City Council, and I have sent a copy to the hon. Member. While my Noble Friend is prepared to consider any suggestions for improving the scheme, he is satisfied that in general it is working satisfactorily.
      Mr. Hogg: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the complaint was not of the imposition of a scheme for the purpose or saving rubber and petrol but of the placing of the public in the hands of the trade without consulting their proper representatives?
      Mr. Mabane: The milk rationalisation schemes are prepared by the war-time associations which comprise members of the trade. In the preparation of the schemes local authorities have no locus standi.

      National Loaf
      Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the present composition of the standard loaf; and in what direction this is to be further modified?
      Mr. Mabane: Apart from yeast, salt, and the various improvers which are the recognised adjuncts of bread baking, the permitted ingredients of National Flour for making the present National loaf are wheat flour of 85 per cent. extraction, imported white flour, oat products, barley, rye, milk powder and calcium in the proportions authorised. In addition the baker may use potatoes and potato flour as permitted in the Bread (Control and Maximum Prices) Order, 1943. No modification of these arrangements is under consideration at the present time.
      Commander Locker-Lampson: Can the hon. Gentleman say that we shall never go back to the white loaf?
      Mr. Wootton-Davies: Is it the intention to put yeast in the loaf?
      Mr. Mabane: As I indicated in my reply, the inclusion of yeast is already permitted.

      Fish Zoning Scheme
      Sir John Mellorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will give an assurance that no fish, fit for consumption, will be destroyed as a result of zoning regulations?
      Mr. Hannahasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that an acute shortage of fish exists in the Black Country and that Newhaven, Midlothian, has dumped surplus stocks into the sea; and will he take steps to end this state of affairs?
      Mr. Mabane: There is no reason to fear that, as a consequence of the regulations contained in my Department's distribution scheme, any fish fit for human consumption will be destroyed. It may, however, be impossible in the case of exceptionally heavy landings of fish of poor quality to avoid the condemnation of certain quantities of fish which cannot be marketed in a condition fit for human consumption. I am not aware that an acute shortage of fish exists in the Black Country. Reports received by my Department indicate that during recent weeks that district has had reasonably adequate supplies.
      Sir J. Mellor: Has not fish in fact been held up under the zoning regulations until it became unfit for consumption?
      Mr. Mabane: I have investigated very carefully the case referred to by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah), and I do not think that the fish that was dumped at Newhaven would ever have been brought to market in a condition fit for human consumption.
      Mr. Hannah: Was the "Scotsman" mistaken in saying that fish had been dropped into the sea at Newhaven, and will the hon. Gentleman visit the Black Country and make a personal investigation as to the presence or absence of fish?
      Mr. Mabane: The fish was dumped at Newhaven, and at the time of dumping it was unfit for human consumption. With regard to the supply of fish in the Black Country, I am informed that in recent weeks the fishmongers have been able to get all the fish they wanted.
      Mr. Hannah: They cannot get it.

      Milk Distribution (Cost)
      Brigadier-General Clifton Brownasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the criticisms by the chairman and secretary of the Milk Marketing Board at their annual meeting of 11th June that milk had cost more money to deliver in the past six months than at any time in the history of milk selling; and what steps he is taking to correct this?
      Mr. Douglasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
      1164
      Food (1) by how much the cost of distributing milk has increased during the last six months; and what are the reasons for the increase;
      (2) why the price structure for milk gives the larger distributors an advantage of up to 1¼d. a gallon over their smaller competitors?
      Mr. Mabane: Information is not yet available as to the cost of distributing milk during the first six months of the operation of the new system. My Noble Friend is, however, satisfied that, during this period, that is to say, from 1st October, 1942, to 31st March, 1943, the total cost was not significantly in excess of the cost of distribution before 1st October, 1942. A material reduction has been made in the distributors' margins since 1st April last, the total saving being at the rate of £2,250,000 a year. I am advised that there is, therefore, no room for doubt that the cost of distributing milk at the present time is materially less than it was under the system which was in operation before 1st October last year. Moreover, all distributive margins are now reviewed at six-monthly intervals in the light of a continuous costing investigation, so that it will be possible to reduce the allowance for distribution in accordance with the economies which are resulting from the rationalisation scheme. Few such economies had been achieved during the six months which ended 31st March last, as the great majority of the schemes did not come into operation until well after the beginning of the present year. With regard to the suggestion that the milk price structure gives an advantage to larger distributors, I would refer my hon. Friends to the replies which I gave on 21st October and 14th April to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major York).
      Brigadier-General Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the sale of a producer-retailer's business of just under 1,000 gallons a week, the distribution cost £21 a week more to the public and the taxpayer than it did before, and will he look into some of these matters instead of taking the advice of people who do not know anything about it?
      Mr. Mabane: I indicated that during the first six months of the scheme, that is from October to March, the economies

      1165
      were not fully achieved and that, although the information is not yet available, it is possible that the cost of distribution during that period was greater, but since 1st April there has been a most decided reduction in the cost of distribution, at the rate of £2,250,000 a year.
      Major York: Is it not astonishing that while the Chairman and Secretary of the Milk Marketing Board hold the view that the distribution is more expensive than before the new price structure, and these officers have a far longer experience of the subject than the Ministry of Food, the Parliamentary Secretary should now contradict that experience?
      Mr. Mabane: Yes, I thought it quite surprising.
      Mr. Douglas: Am I to understand that there is an advantage to the larger distributors on the ground of their costs being greater?
      Mr. Mabane: I gave very long answers to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon in which the costings investigations were set out and the reasons that govern the price structure. Perhaps the hon. Member will read them.
      Mr. Holdsworth: Would it not be better to do away with this planning?

      BILL REPORTED

        LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
        Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
        Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to—
Bridgwater Gas Bill, with an Amendment.

BILLS PRESENTED
  EMERGENCY POWERS (ISLE OF MAN DEFENCE) BILL,
  "to extend, in relation to persons in the Isle of Man, the powers which may be exercised by His Majesty under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940"; presented by Mr. Herbert Morrison, supported by Mr. Ernest Bevin and Mr. Peake; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 44].
  RESTRICTION OF RIBBON DEVELOPMENT (TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT) BILL,
  "to authorise the making of arrangements during the present war period for enabling development which is expedient in the public interest to be carried out and maintained for the time being notwithstanding the refusal of consent under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, to permanent development; to regulate the effect of temporary arrangements already made for the purposes of that Act during the said period; and to amend Section eleven of that Act"; presented by Mr. Noel-Baker, supported by Mr. Peake and Mr. Henry Strauss; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 45].
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1943 CLASS X
  MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER

    COAL SITUATION
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £90 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Fuel and Power."—[Note.— £10 has been voted on account]
    Mr. David Grenfell: I welcome this opportunity of discussing the situation in the coal industry and the supply and distribution of coal. We have been concerned with this subject for nearly four years, and I had an oppor-

    1179
    tunity of seeing the problem at close quarters for just over two years when I was Secretary for Mines. I want to assure the Minister and his Department that I have the utmost sympathy with the task that they have in hand, and I want to say one or two things during the course of my speech which I hope will be helpful to them. I regard the problem of the Minister as the most serious problem of the State. Coal and agriculture are rivals in the importance that they occupy in the national economy, but there is one point of difference which I think the Committee and the country should realise. If we fail to achieve our full programme of food production while shipping facilities are present, we can augment our supplies from abroad, but we must produce all the coal that the nation needs in this country. There is no possibility of help and assistance under war conditions from any source. It is wondered sometimes why there is this problem of production in a country that has always been a leader in coal production, a country that has produced for over 100 years coal far in excess of its own requirements. We were at one time in recent years exporting one-third of our production. The Minister himself called attention in a reply which he gave yesterday to the changing figures of production and distribution of our coal supplies.
    In the years immediately before the war we were exporting over 20 per cent. of our production. Then came a change to which I must refer, because it is important. We should recognise these changes as they occur. The problem of the Minister of Fuel and Power to-day is not the problem which beset me in 1940 within a few weeks of my advent into office at the Mines Department. The problem then was to find the transport and the markets for the coal which we had in excess production. We had more than enough men. We had more than enough production. Pits were closing down, and our men were standing idle just over three years ago. We had an ample production. There was no gap. There was no shortage. There was no likelihood of shortage in June, July and August of 1940 after the fall of France and the loss of our European markets for coal. There then came something, and it is well to remind ourselves of it. We had a very trying winter in 1940, and a
    1180
    great deal of organisation and patient adjustment were necessary. We had to exercise patience in regard to the maintenance of man-power, for we had surplus men who wanted to go away. We had pits remaining idle which would be required for production. I say without any claim to an excess of virtue in this matter that I warned everybody concerned that we would want these idle pits brought into production; that we should not disperse the men who were standing idle; that if they were given temporary employment elsewhere they were to be brought back on demand by the mining industry for the man-power that belonged to it. That is a very important thing. The man-power does belong to the mining industry. You cannot substitute it by anything else. These men have been trained for it, and as a short-term expedient the training of alternative supplies of labour is impracticable. It was therefore vitally important that we should have kept our men ready on call to resume their work. We should have refrained from stopping pits and particularly those pits in the exporting areas that had received a very damaging blow by the occupation of friendly countries and of our customers' lands on the Continent of Europe. We must take some credit as a Department. I myself, as the head of the Department for the time being, insisted upon the men in Durham and South Wales being brought back to the exporting pits. We have to take into account that there are pits enough in Durham and South Wales, and there are more men than there would have been had we not exercised some restraint.
    One of the things I wish to impress on the Committee once again is that we have not sufficient men now in this industry, and we shall not have sufficient men for the duration of the war. We have to compare our man-power with the task which the industry has to perform. We have barely pit room enough for the tasks ahead. I am handicapped as everybody else is by not knowing how long the war will last or what unknown demands may be made upon us, partly at home and partly abroad. There are war conditions which may make very large demands upon our coal production. In the absence of that information I cannot give figures, but I do give a figure which I gave more than two years ago. It has

    1181
    appeared in reports. I gave a figure of 720,000. I refuse to move from that figure. I still say that if there had been maintained in the industry roughly 720,000 men in the period that has intervened, there would have been no coal problem. I compared coal with agriculture a little time ago. Much praise, due praise, has been lavished upon agriculture. It has done a marvellous job of work. It has been given facilities and encouraged in every way. I cannot say that that is true of the coal industry. Nobody has seemed to regard the performance of the coal industry in its right proportion, but it has done a great job of work. We have to-day in the industry 704,000 men employed—the latest figure given by the Minister yesterday. That is almost 500,000 fewer than at the end of the last war — a tremendous drop. In the number of men fit for work at the coal face the loss is greater still. We are considerably handicapped by the reduced man-power. It is not merely the numerical decline but the qualitative decline of labour that must be taken into account. We have not sufficient men at the coal face. That has been pointed out over and over again. I warned my colleagues on the Committee on Public Expenditure about the probable shortage ahead. Let me say a word of acknowledgment of their Reports. I know nobody outside the Department that has such a firm grasp of the nature of the problem. I have read their Reports and had the pleasure of giving evidence before them, and I am satisfied that they have understood this problem.
    What is the task to-day? Figures have been given, and the Minister said yesterday that output has declined. I am not surprised. I can explain that decline in output in terms of man-power—and not only in terms of man-power. The industry is getting older. It is becoming exhausted in plant and machines; it is tired and therefore less productive. There has been no new equipment in this industry for many years. The industry began the war after a long period of economic attrition. It was beggared. It had jettisoned its capital and its resources in the struggle to maintain production and in competing one unit against another.
    The industry started the war very weak. The man-power to-day is 704,000, an exceedingly low figure. That man-power
    1182
    cannot be relied upon with all the good will in the world to be as good as a manpower which on the average is five or six years younger. It is an ageing personnel. There are men who have stayed too long in the industry for their own efficiency, but they must remain there because we cannot afford to lose them. Our production for last year was roughly 4,000,000 tons less than in the previous year. I am not surprised, and I am sure no blame is attached to the Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Mines Department. There is no blame to be attached to individuals. I would like to examine whether our machinery is the best machinery we could devise, but I would like first to be helpful to the Minister in this great job. I think he can help us. He has had much publicity—I will say too much publicity and not the right kind. I say that in no carping spirit. It has bewildered people in the industry. I have been unable to understand some of the allusions which have been made from time to time to the programme of the Ministry. Now the Minister must have an idea of what he wants. He cannot estimate to a fine exactitude what he will require next year, but he must have made some estimate of the needs of production, and I should be very much surprised if the needs of production next year are not greatly in advance of last year's production. If we produced 203,000,000 tons last year, I cannot believe that the Minister, looking ahead, estimates that a production of 203,000,000 tons next year will be enough to maintain his position. His position is being worsened now by loss of production, and the prospects for the future are being clouded by the fact that everything done so far has failed to bring output up to the level which we deem to be necessary.
    We are now at the beginning of the fourth stocking period since the war began. We were able to stock a considerable quantity in 1940. If the transport had been available in 1940 we could have put by a very large summer production. We began the winter of 1940–41 with 28,000,000 tons of coal in stock. We began the following winter that of 1941–42 with 31,000,000 tons of coal in stock, and we finished both winters with a stock of 14,000,000 tons. I do not think I shall transgress the rules of confidence and secrecy if I say here to-day, in the presence of hon. and right hon.

    1183
    Gentlemen who know, that it was deemed that the stock which we actually had in hand a year ago was more than was really necessary. There were people in high places who thought we were carrying too much stocks. I am glad that we carried that 14,000,000 tons. We were above what was taken to be a safe level, but the output has been declining and consumption must increase, and it is in regard to consumption that I say —and I do not blame the Minister—that the reports from the Department have not been so helpful. I have not seen one report of the actual consumption of the last 12 months. I do not know how that consumption has been spread. I do not know the measure of economy which is due to the Ministry and to the action of the committees who are doing such splendid work for the Ministry. I do not know to what extent consumption has been curtailed, or possibly reduced. I do not believe it has been reduced but I am not to be blamed, if I do not know, because nobody tells me. One depends upon what one is told. But I should be surprised if the consumption has been much reduced. If it has been reduced it has been by economies and by the smiling face of Providence which gave us a far warmer winter than we had a right to expect. I estimate the saving due to good weather last winter may have reached the figure of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 tons. If I am wrong, let us have the correction but I am sure that that has been a substantial saving. We had budgeted each year on a prospective increase of consumption at home at a rate of about 4 per cent. The Minister confirmed that in his speech in October last. He gave figures then showing the increased demand for the production of electricity, for the production of gas and from various other sources. He estimated the scale of increase, the progression in demand, to be at the rate of about 4 per cent. per annum. If that figure stands, and if we get a bad winter and if we have to meet it with a production which is 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 tons less than that of 1941–42, then, I say, nothing but a break-down faces this industry.
    This is a very important matter. It is vitally important. We have mobilised the country's man-power and woman-power. The Ministry of Supply has built
    1184
    factories and set up machines and the Ministry of Labour is taking men and women out to work those machines. Every one of those machines is a coal consumer. Every person who goes to work in war industry requires for each day's work an equivalent daily production of coal from the mines of this country. If we do not produce sufficient coal, the men and women working in the war factories will have to stand idle, and it that happens, there will be something to be said by those men and women themselves, and the country will have something to say to a Government which allows such a thing to take place. It is an awful thing to run that risk unnecessarily, and I say so now because I read a report of a speech made in another place, a very complacent speech, from which I gather that there are to be no more men brought into the industry, that nothing is to be done and that we are to go on next year as we have gone on last year—and this in the light of the fact that production is declining, and that by all the rules we must anticipate a further decline in production, unless something is done for next year.
    I think someone ought to bring these matters before the Committee. I have spoken on many occasions on this subject myself, and generally the House of Commons has been kind to me, but some who did not know have criticised. I hardly dared to speak aloud of some of our problems then. There were certain difficulties of transport, due to the special attention which was being paid to this country at that time by the enemy, and these had to be kept more or less secret. But we are now entitled, I submit, to ask the Minister to tell the Committee what he expects to have in the way of production next year. Will he also tell us what does he estimate to be next year's consumption and give us the ground for any change that there may be in that estimate as compared with last year's? When we get that information, then the House of Commons will have been joined with the Minister in whatever responsibility falls upon us. But this House of Commons cannot share the responsibility—I cannot, with all my knowledge of the difficulties and all my sympathy with the Minister and his Department, share the responsibility—unless we know. So I think my first point to-day must be, that we should now take cognisance of what

    1185
    has taken place, and try to compare the situation of to-day with the situation of last year and of previous years. I say here again, and I say it especially to those who have been too facile critics of the industry, that the years 1940 and 1941 were the best years from a production standpoint, that this country has ever known. Never have so few men produced so much coal as the miners of this country in the years 1940 and 1941. But this qualitative decline to which I have referred must be taken into account. It goes on and is perhaps being accelerated by the passage of every month and every year. Therefore, we must take a really serious view of the prospects and I think the Minister ought to take us all into his full confidence.
    I shall leave that part of the subject for the moment, because I want to know something else. In addition to knowing the prospective demand and the manpower which he is budgeting for, I would like the Minister to lift the curtain of secrecy as far as he can and tell us whether he expects to be called upon to increase largely the amount of export coal during the year. I shall be surprised if he is not called upon to do so, and the export coal can be got only from those districts which are producing coal near docks and the places where the ships are loaded. It is vitally important not only that we should have sufficient coal but that it should be produced in the right areas from the point of view of convenience. If more export coal is needed, then greater attention should be paid to the exporting areas, not only from the point of view of the quality of coal but as regards the convenience of its situation. I always dissented from the idea of regional concentration. I was unwilling to run the risk of putting all our eggs into one basket, having all our bags of coal in the same coalfield. It was not safe. There are human problems involved. It is all very easy to work out on paper, doing little sums in arithmetic, stopping so many pits, moving so many men—but we do not get the coal in that way. In the light of the possibility that we shall want export coal I hope the Minister will pay attention to maintaining the utmost production in the exporting areas.
    I will come now to the question of accidents, about which I am concerned. I congratulate the Minister and all in his De-
    1186
    partment; they are all working together, and there has been an improvement. It has been a fortunate year in some ways. I do not know the exact figures, but we are glad to learn that the casualty rate is lower than it was some time ago, and in particular I am glad to find that we are establishing a greater mastery of the situation at the coal face. This is the most dangerous place in a mine, the most dangerous place known in British industry. Not even on the field of battle is there always more danger than there is at the coal face. It is a highly dangerous place.
    Some two years ago I consulted the inspectorate and it was decided to appoint nine special inspectors, competent, energetic, keen men from within the inspectorate itself to carry out their duties on a narrower and more limited front than in the case of the ordinary inspectors. They were to give the whole of their attention to the problem of supporting the roof at the coal face. In 12 months the deaths were reduced from an average of 10½ a week at the coal face to about 7½. I do not know whether the improvement has been maintained, but it is a good thing for the country to know that by special supervision three good lives have been saved every week. I have read in technical journals some of the reports of the inspectors who are doing this work, and I wish from the floor of this House and on behalf of the House to congratulate all concerned on having done a job of work that was highly essential.
    We have passed into an era of new conditions underground. The rapidity of the processes associated with mechanised mining leaves little time, if the cycle of operations is to be kept up, for the support of the roof immediately behind the men working at the coal face. I am afraid we are tempted sometimes not to finish the packing operations as perfectly as they should be done. We sometimes hurry to get the coal away and neglect the safety of our people. There are special problems, highly technical and apart altogether from questions of personal neglect or indifference, which are being tackled in a way never attempted before. These special inspectors and the Ministry are working with the workmen's inspectors and the officials of the mine; all arc working together and they have been able so far to bring about a very handsome improvement. I hope that improvement will be

    1187
    maintained by still closer and more constant attention to the safety of the men at the coal face. I shall not say more about the general aspects of the safety question, or I shall be going beyond my time limit, but there is one question connected with safety which I cannot allow to pass. I think we are entitled to know something of what has been done to protect the lives and also to protect the health and the-working capacity of the men, few in number, who are doing a job for which no public thanks have yet been rendered —not one word in Parliament, not one word outside, but sneers and nasty comments about the men, quite unwarranted in the view of anyone who knows anything of the industry.
    I must say a word or two about the closing of pits, because that is an important matter. I do not believe that we have pit room enough to allow us to play with pits. We have sunk no pits, we have made no developments, for many years now, and if you close a pit and then wish to reopen it you have not the labour and the materials to-day to do it. Once a pit is closed down it is closed for the duration of the war. Access to it cannot be regained, valuable areas of coal may be lost, and men may lose employment because we carelessly allow a pit to be closed down. In my opinion too many pits have been closed. We must try to examine as a whole the problem of the maintenance of our pit room side by side with the maintenance and reinforcement of manpower. We must see that the pit room does not decrease and that man-power is reinforced if we are to maintain our wartime production. The Minister now has the power to take over the control of mines and I should like to know whether he is finding any difficulty in exercising that control. Can he take over all the mines he would like to take over? I am all for it. I signed the White Paper, and in fact I wrote a large part of the White Paper, and I believe that the power which has been given to the Minister was an indispensable step towards better organisation in war time. Where it is found that production has suffered owing to bad management steps ought to be taken at once to strengthen the management, and if that involves control certainly the Minister should take all the powers he needs to improve the management and to improve production.
    1188
    I warn the Committee that they should not be too finicky about this. Here and there one finds old-fashioned people in charge of the coal industry, and we should not be too touchy if occasionally such people have to be told of their shortcomings. Nobody has ever heard me join in any denunciation of the coal industry. Those engaged in coal mining are a hard-working body of people, occupied in a hard industry, working under adverse natural conditions, subject to all the uncertainties and risks which attend the search for minerals deep down in the earth. It is an industry which calls for much scientific training and in which much courage is needed—day-to-day courage, not the occasional courage called forth by disasters but day-to-day steadiness and courage. The average colliery manager is a fine fellow; I know him very well, and I cannot say too much in extolling his courage and the courage of the men. These are the men who get our coal for us. It is said they are old-fashioned, that they are not progressive. I have my political views, but I say that you cannot divorce the present situation in the mining industry from the past history of the industry. It is what it is because of what it was, and these people are not any worse than the rest of us. I am sure we shall not get the best results from mining without the assistance of Parliament, and I say that not in any derogation of the qualities of those on either side in the industry. This industry must be assisted to its feet. We must make it more productive.
    Let me again intrude my claim upon the Committee. I sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) my scheme for the reorganisation of the mining industry. He left the Government as I did, a little suddenly, and the present Minister without Portfolio came to his place, and I ask the present Minister whether he knows my scheme. The scheme I proposed for the post-war building up of this industry dispenses with private profit and private control. We have reached a point in the engineering growth of the industry at which you cannot work the industry through a thousand separate companies. There must be unification and planning.
    The Minister has a terrific responsibility, and no one has shoulders broad and strong enough to carry his burden, without great concern, for the next 12

    1189
    months. When all has been done that the Welfare Commission and the inspectors can do in war-time when all the magnificent co-operation between the owners and Miners Federation has been fully utilised, and when the Department have properly led both parties as far as they can in the direction they should go, there is still a great need for enhancing good will. I am not blaming either side in saying that, but we must have good will. The industry is on the point of losing its self-respect. It feels shabby, because everybody is criticising it. No Minister has yet got up to say "Thank you" to the mining industry, but it must be done. Our present Minister will be well advised to see whether he can start building up a system which will secure the utmost good will and co-operation among all those in the industry. The scheme to which I have referred was a genuine suggestion on my part, something on the lines of the London Passenger Transport Board, but it does deny the right of an individual company or colliery agent to dictate how a pit shall be worked if the national interest requires that it shall be worked in a different way. Management must rest ultimately under the Minister of Fuel, either the present Minister, whom we all want to help, or some other Minister who may take his place.
    One last word. I am very disturbed. This industry is not attractive. Everybody gets away from it. Fathers and sons get away from it, and no colliery manager wants his son to be in the industry. He wants him to be a doctor or an engineer or a civil servant. We have to try to find some way by which we can retain our people. The Minister must search for every way to get full co-operation. Let him carefully use the labour, materials and machinery and the pit room at his disposal; let him also make a gesture. Let him show some sign that he is in favour of improving the quality of management and of engineering services, which men arc keen to give but which they cannot always give to-day. Let him encourage the engineer and the workman by holding out to them the promise of an industry in the future that will not be the Cinderella, the beggar or the bankrupt industry, but one which will be self-sustaining and which will sustain and support the strength of Britain.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: In general, I have a great measure of agreement with a good deal of what has just been said and more particularly with the note of warning which the hon. Gentleman expressed throughout his speech. We have recently had two reminders of the gravity of the situation. The Prime Minister made a personal appeal to each one of the miners to whom he spoke of the grave dangers which threatened the industry. We have also the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, who were most emphatic in certain of their conclusions, to three of which I should like to refer. The Committee said:
    "There is so far no sign that any increase in total output during 1943 over the 1942 figures will be realised. Second, your Committee see no escape from the conclusion that in the absence of new conditions such as a further release of miners from the Services or their transfer from other industries, the nation must be prepared to face a serious decline in coal production. Lastly, account should also be taken that they will become necessary to support increased quantities of coal."
    All the figures with which I have been able to provide myself bear out those findings. I must frankly admit to all the more surprise at certain of the statements of the Minister within recent months. I would like to refer to three of those statements.
    In reply to a Question in this House on 1st June, he said:
    "Provided we do not get a setback in production, I am confident that we can get the coal we want."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1943; col. 15, Vol. 390.]
    A few weeks previously—to be exact, at Bristol, on 10th April, he was reported as saying:
    "I have been watching production figures in the last few weeks with serious concern. Although there are at the moment more than 5,000 more men in the industry than a year ago, production each week is over 100,000 tons less than in the same week of last year. The indications are frankly not good."
    Finally, in reply to a Question in this House on 8th June, the Minister referred to certain figures which give a completely different appearance to the situation than was given by the last statement to which I have referred. He said seven of the first 22 weeks of 1943 showed a higher output than the corresponding weeks of 1942 and the average output per man-shift for the first three months of 1943 was higher than in the corresponding period of 1942. I do not think those figures substantiate that

    1191
    statement made at Bristol to which I have referred.
    What are the facts? So far as I can gauge the situation, in the first quarter of the year, that is to say, up to the end of March, production was 50,770,000 tons, which compared with 50,920,000 in the previous year. If we take the 20 weeks up to 15th May, we find that production was 77,890,000 as against 79,084,000. There was a drop of well over 1,000,000 tons during that period. On the average there was something between 5,000 and 6,000 more men employed in the industry in the later period. Let me make another approach to these figures. What is important is the aggregate produced in a year and the total output per man employed. There again we are up against the same position. In 1940 we produced 230,000,000 tons, and the output per head was 307 tons. In 1941 the total production dropped to 213,000,000 tons, and the output per man had dropped to 305 tons. In 1942, we dropped still further to 211,000,000 tons, and the output per man dropped rather sharply to 297 tons. In the first 19 weeks of 1943 we were producing at the rate of 209,000,000 tons per year, and the output per man had dropped to 293 tons. There is just one other approach to the problem that I would like to make, and that is the output per shift. In 1938 we produced 22.9 cwts. per man per shift. That figure had dropped in the period to which I have just referred to 21 cwts., and it has since then dropped to under 21 cwts.
    In the light of those figures I find it difficult to reconcile the statements of the Minister. We should be much wiser to face the facts. There is no reason to suppose that this Committee is not prepared to face facts as they are, and no one in the industry has any objection to plain speaking. Output has dropped, and the demand for coal is going up. If we escaped the major disaster last winter, it was entirely due to the mildness of the winter and to the economy exercised by householders and industrial users. Another point of which we are apt to lose sight is that winter production was maintained on a slightly higher level than in the two previous winters due to the mildness of the weather and an absence of the conditions obtaining during the bad weather of the previous winters.
    1192
    I would like to attempt to analyse the situation, in the light of the White Paper which was presented to Parliament just over a year ago. Before I do so, it is desirable that we should see the matter in its true perspective. A great many recommendations in that White Paper had been under consideration since the latter part of 1940. The Mines Department and successive Presidents of the Board of Trade had given this matter a great deal of thought, and what was embodied in the White Paper was the outcome of these deliberations and a good deal of spade work in the way of organisation which had occurred. It is completely fallacious to suppose that the present Ministry of Fuel and Power took over from scratch, that there was no organisation in being, and that no views and no statistics or facts were available at that moment.
    For the purpose of reviewing the White Paper I propose to refer to these matters under the three main headings of men, management and machinery. The first factor in regard to men is the question of men who have opted for the industry, and there the Select Committee have reported quite definitely that the results are practically negligible. Likewise we must recognise the fact, to which the former Secretary for Mines has referred in his speech, that there is not only the annual wastage of between 25,000 and 28,000 men, but that the industry is becoming year by year older. There are more men over 50 in the labour force than there were when the war started. We have these two factors, that men are not coming into the industry and at the same time that the industry is losing men and those who are staying in the industry are getting older.
    We now come to the very vexed question of absenteeism and I am not going to approach it in a controversial spirit. I wish merely to refer to one or two aspects of it. I think it is indisputable that there is a small section of the industry, mostly among the young men, who do absent themselves. There are reasons for it. We might as well face up to those reasons. We have had cases during the past week-end in the collieries in which I am interested in which men were presented with their Income Tax claims, amounting in some cases to between £60 and £80. The effect on the individual man, particularly a young

    1193
    man, is undoubtedly one of making him feel, "If I work an additional two days or one and a half days a week, or whatever it happens to be, I find myself using up possibly a certain reserve of my strength, and at the same time I find myself in due course liable for a lump sum demand for Income Tax, and I find it very difficult to reconcile that with my extra work." I put that forward for consideration. It might well be that the Government will think out some other means of producing these Income Tax demands on the men. The fact is that there is absenteeism, and it is in great measure confined, I think, to a certain section of the industry. Whether or no we have been very imaginative in our approach to this problem is another matter. After all, a man absents himself for a great many reasons. These vary from complete reasonableness to wilful absence. Each separate case is a problem on its own.
    I wonder sometimes whether we could not take a leaf out of the experience of the Ministry of Supply in matters of that sort, and consider whether something in the nature of Labour Managers to deal specifically with this problem might not be helpful. After all, the colliery manager himself is at this moment a tremendously over-burdened individual. He is trying to keep up production, and at the same time he has to keep his eye on development work. He has this continual problem of a shortage of labour, particularly at week-ends, owing to absenteeism; there is a high accident rate which usually accompanies war-time conditions; there are all the difficulties of dealing with labour at this moment under the Essential Work Order—we might as well recognise that—and in addition there are the various Controls of materials, all of which add to the problems and complexity of the work which confronts the colliery manager. It may be we can evolve some additional means of helping him out where this question of absenteeism presents itself.
    The pit production committees, as a result of the introduction of regional investigation officers, certainly for a short time lost a certain amount of authority. On occasion they have not been too constructive in their viewpoint. Equally I think colliery managers have not always been as anxious to make use of their
    1194
    services as they should have been. I feel strongly that these committees must be encouraged and supported by all the means we can use, not only supported by trade unionists or colliery managers and those engaged, in the industry, but supported so far as possible by Parliament. This is a means by which the men can progressively over a period take an increasing part in the conduct of the industry. I have no personal experience of them, but I am told that wherever Works Councils have been instituted and have got into their stride, after an initial period before they settle down to their work, they have practically invariably proved successful. That is something which has been proved in most other industries. Our means of doing a similar thing lies, I think, to our hand in these pit production committees, and I should like to feel and to see that as time goes on everything is done to encourage them, so that by that means more and more men in the industry can feel, and rightly so, that they can play their fair part in controlling in some way or other the industry which, when all is said and done, means as much or more to them than to anyone else concerned.
    Now just a word about medical advisers. Many Members may remember that one of the recommendations in the White Paper was that there should be medical advisers in every one of the regions. Actually, I think, the number suggested was one per region. That hardly seems to me sufficient. Certainly, we have not got very far yet. Only six of these medical advisers have been appointed, and those all within the last three months. Surely in the light of the increasing age of the men in the industry, and the strain of war-time, we should be well advised to push ahead with the appointment of medical advisers as quickly as we can. A word about malnutrition. There have been suggestions in the Press, particularly lately, that malnutrition is a cause and a reason for absenteeism. I cannot speak with authority about malnutrition throughout the country. I do know that in the Midlands there have been researches into this matter, and I believe it is a fact that the medical profession are quite definite that there are no signs at present of malnutrition among the men. I believe that the number of men who avail themselves of meals in colliery canteens is still small

    1195
    —about 29 per cent. Certainly in many collieries these canteens are available, and I think it is very much to the credit of the Ministry of Food that they are able to supply the considerable amount of food which men require. It is there if they want it, and frankly I do not think malnutrition, except in a very small percentage of cases, can be considered as an excuse for absenteeism.
    In the White Paper a year ago the question of concentration of production was stressed, and time after time Questions have been asked in this House. Certainly I have not seen any replies which dealt with the matter sufficiently clearly to enable me to satisfy myself that this is occurring. Figures which I have quoted already and the statistics I have had available do not support the view that this matter is being pushed ahead anything like quickly enough. I do not know whether the Committee are aware that there was in the White Paper a very definite recommendation for the appointment of a Director of Production. For the last five months there has not been such a person in the Ministry, nor am I aware that there is anybody else at the Ministry who can take his place, who has either the knowledge or experience or ability, purely from the engineering point of view, to give to the Minister the advice he must require. This question of production is primarily a mining engineering problem, and that there should be at this moment no Director of Production at the Ministry seems to me to indicate that this matter of production, whether from the point of view of concentration or any other kind of view, is not receiving the attention that it should.
    I know we have had a similar gap in the Midlands recently. There, by the initiative of the Regional Controller, we have set up a panel of mining engineers to help and advise, and it has worked perfectly satisfactorily, but we have not for one moment lost sight of the fact that expert advice at this moment, particularly in regard to the concentration of production and the intensification of mechanisation, is vital. I cannot understand why the Ministry can go on month after month disregarding the necessity of having someone of expert engineering capacity in their Department. Mining engineers are at this moment very over-burdened men for the
    1196
    reasons I have mentioned, and for the reason that there are unfortunately far too few of them. That may well be the fault of the industry. We may not have made their calling sufficiently attractive to recruit the numbers that have been necessary. The fact remains that we are short of mining engineers, and that there are at this moment a certain number of these men in the Army. There are very few coal-getters in the Army, whatever people may think. There are a few colliery engineers. I had occasion to ask for the release of a particular one quite recently, and my request was turned down by the Secretary of State for War. The individual referred to had a fine record, and had become a field officer in a Service unit, and no doubt he is very useful in the Army; but, from the point of view of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, I cannot see why they are not insistent upon that man returning and taking his place in the war effort where he can do the greatest good. He represents tens of thousands of tons a year in production. A man with years of mining experience, capable of dealing with labour on a large scale, cannot be left in the Army, whatever the requirements of the Army may be, at such a moment as this.
    A year ago I referred to the introduction of power loading machinery from America. I do not propose to-day to deal with that question, except to say that the reports we have had from visiting mining engineers from America fully bear out the conclusions some of us had arrived at. Leaving aside for the moment the question of American machinery, I am by no means satisfied, nor do I think anybody connected with the industry is satisfied, that we have probed this question of mechanisation in the industry anything like to the full. We are lagging behind every large coal-producing country in the percentage of coal won and conveyed. I think we obtained something like 59 percent. of our coal production before the war by mechanical methods. That compares with between 80and 90 per cent. in Germany, Belgium and Holland, and about 98 per cent. in America. As I said a year ago, the United States are producing 1,200 tons per man per year. Whatever natural advantages they may have in America, the disparity between that figure and our figure of 300 tons per man is far too large. We can go much

    1197
    further in mechanising our pits. The whole question of the priority of machinery must be kept continually before us. There are two matters to which I would like to refer in that connection. I am told that the timber merchants say we are getting very close to the exhaustion of our present timber stocks. We are relying practically entirely on timber from this country, and I am told that we have not much more than nine months' or a year's supply. Unless arrangements are made to obtain timber from Canada or from some other source, we are going to be faced with a very grave problem. Also, we are increasingly using at present synthetic rubber in our conveyor belts. This does not compare with the rubber that we had before the war, and breakdowns in those belts are getting worse and worse. The conveyor belt is the main artery of output in a colliery and if anything goes wrong with one of those belts, everything else stops at the same time.
    I have dealt very briefly with some of the matters which arose in this White Paper, but I hope I have said enough to indicate that the problem is not only very complex, but very grave. We are faced with a difficult situation. Despite that, I feel that it can be solved. I have the utmost faith in the industry. If I lack faith in the Department, it is because I do not see in it that sense of urgency which is required. I have indicated in this brief survey some of the factors which I feel might bring improvement. It has occurred to me and to a number of other people that we might contemplate not only the immediate situation, but the post-war situation, from a psychological aspect. I have very little doubt that the demand for coal will continue, at any rate for four or five years after the war, at its present high level. Would it not be possible to work out some scheme to guarantee employment for miners, at any rate, for five years after the war? That would do something to allay the awful spectre of unemployment which hung over the industry before the war, and would give parents an additional inducement to consider this industry as a calling for their boys. Recently we have tried out an experiment in regard to absenteeism. By agreement with the men's representatives, absenteeism is dealt with summarily by the Regional investigation officer. That method has some merits. The time lag is cut out, the necessity of
    1198
    referring the matter to another authority is done away with, and the stigma of the courts is taken away. It enables a man to recover his fine if he attends regularly subsequently. But this is only one approach to the problem. We have to be more imaginative in our approach to this problem as well as to others. We have had the report of the Foster Committee some eight months, but we have done very little to implement it. There is a strain at present on mining engineers, and mere engineers in the industry are necessary. Then there is the whole question of mechanisation. I feel that thereby lies the solution in great part if we would only tackle it finally. I would like to join in the appeal which the Prime Minister made to the miners, "fighting with your tools in the mine, to think of your countrymen in arms, to stand solidly behind them, and to cut more coal."
    Mr. A. Bevan: Might I ask, for the convenience of the Committee, at what moment the right hon. and gallant Gentleman intends to intervene? The speeches would be Much shorter if we had the facts from him.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): If it would be to the convenience of the Committee, I should like to intervene in about three-quarters of an hour.
    Mr. Foster: I believe that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary and the staff of the Ministry have done their very best to make this scheme a success; but the facts prove that the scheme has been a failure, that, instead of production being increased, it has gone down, not only in the aggregate, but on the average per man-shift. It is for us to point out the causes of this decline. I wish to put before the Committee what are in my opinion some of the main causes. I have heard the Minister of Fuel and Power described by the miners as being a Minister of Fuel without Power. I have heard him described by consumers and others as being a Minister of Power without Fuel. The latter is really the result of the former. I contend that the reason we have not got increased production is that the Minister has not the power to do what he would like to do. As a result, the miners have no confidence whatever in this form of control which is at present applied to the industry. They

    1199
    have no confidence in it, because it is too one-sided. It works not in the interests of the workmen, but in the interests of the employer, in many ways. It is not surprising to anyone who has practical knowledge and understanding of the industry that output has gone down, either in the aggregate or per man-shift. The miners are discontented, and their discontent is growing, because of the application both of this scheme and of the Essential Work Order.
    When this matter was debated here 12 months ago some hon. Members criticised the scheme because it did not go far enough. They said it would not conduce to good relationships between the employer and the worker to have dual control in the industry. I can assure hon. Members that most of the troubles which have developed in the industry, and which have resulted in a huge loss of output, can be traced to this dual control. The criticism which was made of this scheme in June last year has been fully justified. Why are the miners discontented? In the first place, by the application of the Essential Work Order the miner was partially tied to his job. He could move to another job in another pit only if he conformed to certain regulations. If advantage was taken of him by the employer, he was able to go to another pit. Anybody who has worked in a pit knows that when the management takes a dislike to a workman it has 101 ways of making his life uncomfortable. The Ministry of Fuel and Power have interfered with this liberty of going from one pit to another. They are advising the appeal boards not to grant applications to transfer from one pit to another unless the man desires to go to a pit with a higher average output. Because of that, coupled with the conditions under the Essential Work Order, a man is chained down to his job. The result is that the coalowners, through the managements—I do not put all colliery managers and owners in this category; there are some Who might be described as being good employers, but they are very few and far between in the mining industry—have taken every advantage of the fact that the miner is tied to his job. You therefore have any number of miners working in the pit who are discontented and would like to get away from it, but they cannot.
    1200
    Owing to the way that the owners act towards the miners, now they have got them in chains, there are more irritations, provocations and pinpricks in the mining industry than in any other industry in the country, resulting in many stoppages of work by one man or many men for a day, a week or more, and we are losing a huge quantity of coal. This new power of the coalowners has also manifested itself in disputes and grievances at the collieries, and it reflects itself in negotiations when we attempt to solve these problems from time to time. Our experience in the Lancashire coalfield is that the owners are now like the young boy whose father, when he tried to teach him to be temperate, told him that he must learn to say "No." The Lancashire coalowners have learnt to say "No," and no matter what dispute or grievance we have, the coalowners generally reply "No." Therefore, we have no means of redress or of having the difficulty attended to. Under these conditions the man in the pit, because of his nature and the nature of his work, is bound to revolt against tyranny and repression if that is the only way and means of showing his resentment against the pressure that is used against him. You find from time to time one or more revolting against these conditions.
    This is what happens. A prosecution takes place, the man being prosecuted for loss of output, and we find that the Minister of Labour, in conjunction with the Minister of Fuel and Power, has a one-sided policy. They prosecute the man for loss of output in these circumstances, but they never prosecute the employer or manager for loss of output. The explanation of that is that neither the Minister of Labour nor the Minister of Fuel and Power has any powers at all to prosecute the manager or employer. The Ministry of Fuel and Power have, within the scheme, the right, if they think fit, to remove a colliery manager, or they may take over an undertaking, but they can only do that provided the colliery manager has refused to carry out the directions of the controller. The Committee can take it from me that, whatever action may be taken in that connection, the employer, through his colliery manager, has a thousand and one ways of negativing any action that may be taken by the Ministry of Fuel and Power.

    1201
    I would like to give, by way of illustration, one example of this unfair treatment in prosecuting the workman and not prosecuting the employer or manager for loss of output. We had a case in North-East Lancashire where 100 men revolted against the conditions and were prosecuted by the Ministry of Labour under the Essential Work Order at the local police court. Much play has been made of the fact that, through their solicitor, the men made an apology for the action which they took and undertook that they would not do it again in order to get out of being fined perhaps £10 or £20 each for the action which they took. This is what actually happened in another case at another colliery. A man at one of those collieries was sacked by the employer, and he appealed against his discharge under the Essential Work Order to the National Service Officer and later to the Appeal Board. Directions were issued that the man should go back to his employment, and the employer was prepared to employ him, but six deputies, who are part of the management, refused to work if the man was allowed to come back again to his job. There was a loss of 450 tons of coal, and 250 men had to play, but no action was taken against those men by the Ministry of Labour, and they got away with it. It would seem that there is one law for the coalowner and management and one law for the workman, and the workman always gets the mucky end of the stick.
    In my opinion there is only one solution to this problem, and it has been referred to to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) in his opening statement. That solution is the taking over of the industry completely by the State. If that is not done—and you need it in the present situation and under the present form of control—you will continually have this conflict, first between the management and the Ministry of Fuel and Power and, secondly, between the workmen and the management and the coalowners and the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The man is the bottom dog all the time, and he has come in conflict with three powers which are attempting to control him—the management, the coalowners, through boards of directors, and the Ministry of Fuel and Power. That cannot continue and the men remain contented in the industry. If the Ministry of Fuel and Power were the one
    1202
    employer, I believe that it would be possible to build up good relations between the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the workmen so as to avoid these difficulties.
    I would like to deal with the question of absenteeism. It has been mentioned to-day, and a lot of light as been focused upon it in the mines, but those who are continually drawing the attention of the public to the question of absenteeism in the mines are doing it for the purpose of placing the blame on the miners for the shortage of coal instead of placing it in the quarter to which it should be directed. The fault is not with the miners at all; it is to be found in the present form of control and not in any single individual. The Minister of Fuel and Power gave a complete answer to the charge of absenteeism when replying to a Question in this House on 8th June. This is what he said to an hon. Member:
    "I have never excused absenteeism in any industry, nor has anyone else in this House, but I would like to point out that this is the only industry which has this limelight upon it. As I have said before, there is no evidence that absenteeism is worse in this industry than in any other."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 8th June, 1943; col. 507, Vol. 390.]
    That is the Minister himself, and he should know, with all the data that he has before him. But how many Members inside this House and people outside who have no knowledge of the working conditions in mines understand the problem of absenteeism? I am speaking as one who has had 30 years' experience in the mine, and it is absolutely wrong for anyone to lay this charge against the miners in the way it has been laid. I would like to ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to this Debate to tell the Committee how the figures of absenteeism are made up. I would like to know whether the Department just exclude shifts which are lost through sickness and accident or whether they make any allowance for any other shifts which are lost. In order to augment or support that point, I would like to inform the Committee, if they do not already know it—there are Members on this side of the Committee who do know it—that to-day there is more overtime being worked in the mines of this country than at any other time.
    Mr. Wragg: And more short time.
    Mr. Foster: That is not applicable to the point that I am going to make, if the hon. Member will listen to what I am about to say. This overtime which is being made in the mines is being made by men who work at the coal face, and it is due to the shortage of men and to mechanised mining. Those who understand the workings of the pit know that in mechanised mining the management have a certain length of face, it may be 100, 200 or 300 yards, and there is a cycle of operations. The face is cut, scufted, drilled and blown, and where the coal has been extracted, is packed and so on. That means that each operation in the cycle must be completed before the next cycle can take place. What happens is that if on the coal filling shift—and it happens on some of the other grades of work—there are some colliers off work out of the number of men who have been allocated to the face to remove the coal, the number who ordinarily remove the coal are depleted. They cannot remove the coal from the face and complete the operation within the specified time, and the result is that it is a common thing in every mechanised pit to see men going home two, three, four, five and six hours after their ordinary working time. There are men working six, seven, eight, nine and even 10 shifts in order to clear the coal face and maintain output. But if a man under those circumstances happens to lose a shift during the week, although he may have put in seven or eight shifts, that is entered into the books as an absentee shift.
    Thousands of shifts have been lost under these circumstances and have been published by the Ministry as figures for absenteeism. In Lancashire, when we dealt with this matter with the employers, we argued that if a man worked in a pit for six days a week, he had done as much as, if not more than, could be expected of him, whether he worked on ordinary shifts or overtime. We reduced the employers' figures in Lancashire by about 8 per cent. by coming to agreement with them to exclude from their calculation any shifts lost in those circumstances. I can assure the Minister that if he will go into this question and will calculate the figures on a different basis —the one I have suggested—he will find that absenteeism will drop by about half.
    1204
    I know that some men in pits do neglect their work. It is the same in other classes of employment; it is not peculiar to the mining industry alone. It affects nearly every industry, even this House. If the absenteeism of Members of this House was tabulated, I do not know what the voters in the constituencies would have to say. If attendance at this House determined output, very little output would be achieved. I hope the Minister will taken note of the point I have just made.
    Another point I would like to make in connection with this problem of absenteeism is the policy which is being pursued by the Ministry of Labour—the Minister of Fuel and Power is, perhaps, not responsible—through their National Service officers, of prosecuting men for absenteeism and sending miners to gaol.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Shame.
    Mr. Foster: Fines of £10, £15, or even £20 are inflicted on the men. That, in my opinion, is a mistaken policy.
    Mr. Kirkwood: It is a dirty trick.
    Mr. Foster: At local police courts—and I have experience of this—the majority of magistrates have no knowledge of underground working conditions. They are influenced by their patriotic feelings, and it is the easiest thing in the world for them to send a man to goal for three months or fine him £10 or £20.
    Mr. Wragg: Is it not a fact that in mining areas the great majority of magistrates are members of the Labour Party? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They are in my area, anyway.
    The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I am rather doubtful whether that point is in Order, and I think we might leave it.
    Mr. Foster: Perhaps I might be allowed to give an illustration in answer to the hon. Member. In opposition to the policy which is being pursued on this question of absenteeism, when we had a young man before us, charged with being absent from work on certain days, I was able to influence the two other magistrates to agree to adjourn the case for two months on the understanding that I should tell the young man what we expected of him. The result has been that this young man

    1205
    has put in every shift since then and is still putting in the maximum number of shifts he can work. I submit that the corrective policy is far better than using the whip. Some people are not satisfied with having the miner in chains; if he happens to escape from the chains, they want to whip him as well. I hope that policy will not be continued. When figures of absenteeism are given they generally include the number of shifts which have been lost, but I notice that no hon. Member of this House has complained of, and criticised, the coalowners for the thousands of shifts lost every week when workmen, who are available for work, are paid a guaranteed wage. If ever there was a scandal in this country it is the fact that coalowners have exploited the guaranteed wage fund in order to save costs and pursue profits. I put a Question to the Minister some time ago regarding the number of shifts which are being lost. At that time the Ministry had been in existence about eight months. The figure given to me at that time was 242,000. This number of shifts had been lost during the period in which workmen had been paid their wages and employers had not found any work.
    Mr. Wragg: They were very lucky.
    Mr. Foster: Employers have used the fund for their own purposes, and it is difficult to detect them doing it. I would like to say a few words about the concentration of the industry. Is the Minister satisfied that it is the right policy to close pits which are in production and transfer men to other pits? Is he satisfied that this policy has resulted in increased production? In reply to a Question put to him the other day, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary stated that the number of pits which had been completely closed was 33, while 14 had been partially closed, making a total of 47. I do not doubt that, taking the long view, concentration may be the best policy, but I doubt very much whether it is the right policy to pursue at the moment and during the war. We have to remember that when a pit is in production it is producing coal and that when the pit is stopped and men are transferred to another pit production is not necessarily increased.
    I will give an instance of a colliery in my district which was closed. This pit
    1206
    employed 600 men on the surface and underground. The production was 2,500 tons per week. The pit was stopped, some men were transferred to two other pits controlled by the same undertaking, and others were allowed to go to other pits, while some who were employed on the surface were permitted to leave the industry. There was an immediate cutting off of 2,500 tons per week, and there has been no increase in the tonnage from the other two collieries. What must have happened at the other 46 pits which the Minister has closed? The present policy is a mistaken policy unless the Minister can satisfy himself that men are being transferred to pits where there is room for them, where faces are ready and where there is the necessary haulage and winding gear to deal with the extra output. Unless these conditions prevail, it is the silliest thing in the world to close a pit and lose immediate output and run the risk of output increasing at another colliery.
    The reason this concentration scheme is being applied is, I understand, in order to maintain and increase production for war purposes. We want increased production now, not in two, three, four, five, six or seven years. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, replying to a Supplementary Question recently as to increased output as a result of this policy, said that it was as yet too early to judge but it was most encouraging. Is that satisfactory? Is not a bird in the hand worth two in the bush at any time? We must have lost thousands of tons of coal weekly as a result of this policy. The Ministry, I know, is advised by local people, some of whom seem to think they are doing big things if they carry out the White Paper policy, start reorganising and concentrating and openly stating at public meetings that it is their intention to have further concentration—all this in spite of the reduction of output. One of the major contributory factors in reducing output is this rushing into concentration of pits before the position has been fully investigated. I know that the answer will be that a full investigation is made, but it is a one-sided business. Only the owners and the Ministry are consulted before action is taken by the Regional Controller, who makes the decision to close the pit. The men have no voice in the matter.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Even under this dispensation?
    Mr. Foster: Even under this dispensation. I know that when men complain their complaints are investigated, but it does not make the slightest difference. In the case I have mentioned the men's objection to the closing of the pit was most bitter and was justified by the result, which is the loss of output and the upsetting of their ordinary social life. One can understand that the owners are always ready to close pits if they are not making a profit. All the negotiations went on between the employers and the Regional Controller in the first instance and it was practically decided before we knew anything about it. The output was down to 13 cwt. per man shift, yet the very week that it was closed it had gone up to 15 cwt. and was still rising, and the average for the county was only 17 cwt. Here you have a loss of output. In my opinion it ought never to have taken place.
    I finish, as I began, by saying that loss of output, though it can be attributed to other factors as well, is in the main due to discontent prevailing in the mines for the reasons that I have stated. There is no confidence whatever between the men and the management. The manager has a most difficult job to try and satisfy two bosses. He has to try and satisfy the board of directors, and he is expected to carry out all the directions of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. When the Ministry intervenes the owners or the agent, the directors and the manager, can in a thousand and one ways which are only known to those who work in the pit circumvent anything that the Ministry tries to do in regard to the management of the pit. One could give any number of instances showing that the coalowners to-day, just as they were yesterday, are in the industry for one purpose only, and that is the pursuit of profit. The output of coal during the war is not their primary consideration. Under the Coal Charges Order the owners are guaranteed a certain rate of profit. I have figures from the Ministry that in my county thousands of pounds are being paid out in order that nine collieries which are necessitous undertakings may be solvent. Under war circumstances coal should be got whatever it costs to get it. Coal is the basis of our war effort and private profit, or
    1208
    private greed, should not determine what shall be done in the getting of coal. If the basic motive for producing coal was removed from the industry by the pits being taken over by the State, I feel sure that it would free the minds of our men from the suspicion that they are being exploited in the interest of profit and greed, and it would result in a better relationship between the workmen and the State and we should achieve the highest possible production.
    Major Braithwaite: I am grateful to the Government for providing a further opportunity of debating the coal situation. There appears to have been some hesitancy in certain parts of the House as to the desirability of having a Debate on this important subject. I was amazed to find Members not wanting to have the matter publicly ventilated. This House is the ventilating chamber for our difficulties and, if there is one serious situation, it is the coal situation. It is likely to do us irreparable harm if it is not put right, and it is our duty to take whatever measures are necessary. I am not concerned to-day with the merits of nationalisation or unification of the mines, but I think we have to take some measures to pull the industry together to give everyone confidence in it and to work it in the best possible way. The production of coal is steadily falling. In spite of increased numbers of men in the pits, the tonnage of coal raised goes down and war demands grow weekly. You cannot carry out a successful invasion of Europe, or anywhere else, unless you have a reserve of coal. The demands of Tunisia may reach the region of 5,000,000 tons a year. France and Belgium and the countries that take our seaborne coal we have always supplied, and may need up to 20,000,000 tons. It will be a practical impossibility to consolidate this situation unless there is an increase in the amount of coal raised. I have lived my life among the miners, and I think I know them as well as anyone in the House. I was chairman of the first co-operative mine in Great Britain, which was run by the miners themselves. Owing to cutthroat competition, they were unable to carry on for very long. They were destroyed by the pits round about them. There is something wrong with the psychology of the industry. Why should the coalowner and the miner be constantly at one another's throats? Why

    1209
    can they not work as a team? What is preventing the reasonable appreciation of one another's difficulties?
    Mr. Colegate: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there has been a national agreement for the whole of the country and that this is the only industry where maters and men have agreed and in which resort to a national arbitration tribunal has been unnecessary?
    Major Braithwaite: That does not alter the fact that there is continual disagreement. I have seen strikes going on in my county all this year—[Interruption] authorised and unauthorised.
    Mr. Colegate: I challenge that statement. There has been no authorised strike in the industry since the beginning of the war.
    Major Braithwaite: Thousands of men have been away from their work through some form of pettifogging dispute which ought never to have interfered with coal production. [Interruption.] It does not matter whether it is authorised or not. It is losing coal production. We do not want to be debating fine points as to why these things happen. It is wrong in the middle of a war in which thousands of men are laying down their lives, when coal is needed to win the war. Anyone who restricts the production of a national commodity that is necessary for the winning of the war is doing something against the country and against those who work in the industry. No one can challenge that statement. The miner has as much patriotism and is as courageous as any other section of the community. This inherent hostility in the industry can only be removed by Parliament, and it is our duty to see if we can correct what is wrong. I want to examine some details of what I believe to be the fundamentals. Is the pay commensurate with the risks? Do the hours of labour give the best results? Does a six-day week underground give the maximum result? Would not a five-day week give us more production? I am not at all sure. These are points which everyone should examine. Are the mines being properly mechanised? It is no good half doing the mechanisation job. If you mechanise at all, you have to mechanise fully to get proper results. I wonder if machinery is being produced in sufficient quantities
    1210
    to deal with the matter. Coal mining has been very much slower in mechanical development than most industries, and, now that we have these new facilities, they ought to be employed as quickly as possible. Have the measures brought about by the National Government improved the coal position? From the production point of view, we have not seen it yet. I know the Minister has done everything he could, by encouraging these various committees, to get a better spirit into the industry, but I am seriously alarmed that we have not seen the result reflected in the production. I hope that in the next few months, with increased mechanisation, we are going to have some real results, but this House has a responsibility to the country and to the industry to remove whatever difficulties are in the way and to get coal mining back in such a position that the nation can thoroughly depend upon it.
    I should like to refer to the scheme of open cast mining. We commenced this operation with the idea. of helping the nation through the coal shortage, and I gave the House some estimates of possible production, which I will repeat. I said there were certainly 50,000,000 tons of coal lying near the surface which could be got by excavating machines and, if the machines were available, we could get 10,000,000 tons a year with a labour personnel of not more than 5,000. These figures were accepted in the House and in the country rather sceptically and were said to be exaggerated, but I have no reason to retract them. I believe the Ministry of Works has now definitely proved and got ready for recovering over 8,000,000 tons of serviceable surface coal. During the last 12 months, in spite of having only a quarter of the machines that hoped we should have, 2,000,000 tons have been raised. Production at the moment, which is the most favourable time of the year, is running at the rate of 100,000 tons a week. It is under the capable control of Lord Portal and the Ministry of Works, which has organised this work in a first class manner, and is making a great drive forward to help the country through this year. I do not want to attach any particular blame to the Government in connection with the past year's operation. Practically no new machinery was available; indeed, military requirements necessitated some of our machinery being taken away.

    1211
    In the 8th Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure a possible loss of £1,000,000 is forecast for last year's operations. I do not know how this forecast was made, but I can give the Committee some details of the firm of which I am a director, Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Co., Ltd., which is doing a substantial amount of this work. According to the figures of the accountant of the firm, this one company, to which, I think, the coal using industry and public are indebted for putting its entire mechanical resources at the disposal of the Government, raised 600,000 tons of coal starting from scratch in the last 12 months. That will compare very favourably with many big mines and big groups of collieries. This 600,000 tons of surface coal has been raised, including transport to the station, loading, stacking and a certain amount of prospecting, at a cost to the Government of 19s. 11d. per ton. This does not include Government on-costs such as royalties, compensation, surveying, screening and the overheads. The only reason for a loss of £1,000,000 on 2,000,000 tons of coal is either that the overheads have been particularly high or that the coal has been disposed of at too low a figure. I shall be glad to learn how this forecast was arrived at because I do not want the Committee or the public to be misled by a figure of this sort.
    As to the future, the Government have commenced to secure a number of large excavators. These are not yet in operation but they will be before the autumn and they should make a good deal of difference in carrying the work through the winter. I confidently expect a useful addition to the tonnage in this direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) was hoping to raise on the Adjournment the other day the question of amenities in connection with this scheme. I want to tell him that every piece of civil engineering when it begins does make some sort of scar, but on every site I have seen where the coal has been extracted and the land reinstated the amenities have been restored to the fullest extent. I am hopeful that this scheme which has been started will be able to make a useful contribution to the war and at the same time leave behind it no disfigurement.
    1212
    Much has been said about the desirability of bringing men back to the pits from the Forces. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) that it is doubtful whether there is pit room to take back many men. It would take some time to put them in the pits if they were brought back. There is a potential source of further coal. When these outcrop schemes run to the stage when it becomes uneconomic to excavate the overbearing on the coal, that is to say, when it gets to above 50 feet of cover, it is possible to go underground. There are many of these sites with perhaps 400 to 500 yards of exposed seams of coal from 2 feet 6 ins. up to 6 feet thick which are available for men to go in. It does not need the sinking of a shaft. They can go straight in and the coal can be got out by day holing methods. There may be many miners who may not be able to work deep underground who could be usefully employed there. I estimate that a production of a ton per man per day can be got there and that 2,000 men would give us another 500,000 tons of coal a year. I hope that the Government will give some consideration to this. There are men coming out of the mines who cannot for one reason or another go back deep underground and who might be able to work in this way, and I believe that the civil engineering industry could be able to help if arrangements could be made with the mining community.
    I would express the hope that Parliament will make the most strenuous efforts to put this industry right at once. Now is the time to do it. It may be too late if things are not corrected. Unless we do something those miners who are in the Forces will not want to come back after the war to coal mining. They will not want to return to the pits unless they are made attractive for them. They would rather go out to the Empire and other parts of the world than go back to an industry if hardships and strife still exist. It is my firm conviction that it is our duty to devote ourselves to the preparation of a virile, attractive, safe and remunerative coal-mining industry on which this nation can confidently depend in the strenuous years that are to come.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I rise to speak on behalf of over 800,000 engineers who empowered me to state to-day that we are standing by the miners

    1213
    at this juncture. We shall support action that the mining members in the House of Commons are prepared to take in order to defend the miners who are being ostracised, criticised and villified by colliery owners in this House. So far as we engineers are concerned, I want to refer to a question which I have raised time and again with the Minister. It is in regard to the inspectorate. The mines are becoming more and more mechanised every day and my own country of Scotland is the best section for mechanisation in the mining industry. The inspectorate is a disgrace and it is important that it should be strengthened with engineers. I know that I am knocking at an open door with the present Minister of Fuel. I am not flattering him and I have no axe to grind when I say that he is most capable and courageous and I want to assure him that we will back him in defending the miner.
    That brings me to the question of absenteeism. Why is there all this cry about absenteeism in the mines. It is because it is the most hellish job that any man has to do. When we raised this question in the House not long ago, we were told by Members opposite that the absenteeism was due to the young men. Of course it is the young men and we do not apologise for them. The reason is because the young men have not been crushed down and because they know of something better. We have 40 mining Members of Parliament and there is no more patriotic section in the House just as there is no more patriotic body of men in Britain than the miners; yet there is not one Member of Parliament who has a son at the coal face. There is not a miners' leader who has a son at the coal face. There is not a colliery owner who has a son at the coal face. That cannot be said of any other industry. Take my own industry of shipbuilding and engineering. One of the men best known to us, Sir James Lithgow, who is in charge of shipbuilding of this country, went through all the grades of work in the workshops. He went through the drawing office and through the whole gamut so as to understand the industry. Time and again employers of labour in all industries have put their sons into their businesses, but never did a mineowner send his son to be a coalminer. He would commit suicide first. That is the explanation of absenteeism.
    1214
    The men have got to be handled in a different fashion. Here is an industry of loyal and courageous men, whose record in the last war was irrefutable in the way they carried out the most dangerous deeds. Praise was heaped on them. Different generals have said to me in the House, "It was a joy to work with them. It did not matter what you sent colliers to do, they never hesitated a moment although bullets and shells were being showered on them." These are the men we are dealing with. We must have a different approach to them. I expected that when Labour had some power in the Government there would be a different approach, a collier's approach, a worker's approach, but, no, it was the same approach—" If you dare absent yourself you will get gaoled," just as if they were criminals. That is the wrong approach, particularly to miners, to men who are doing this terrible job. The young fellows feel that the job is degrading. I got men who came out of the mines in Lanarkshire jobs in an aircraft factory, but the Minister of Labour took them out of the factory and put them back into the mines. They said to me, "Davie, I would as soon go to hell."
    That is the state of affairs, and I want this Committee to approach the question from the standpoint of the actual facts. I wish those were not the conditions in mines. I wish mining were as pleasant a job as shipbuilding and engineering, although shipbuilding is not such a pleasant job in the winter. I wish people would not put it all on to the men. I wish the Minister and his understudy, who at the moment happens to have been a miner, would approach the situation from the standpoint of the conditions that do prevail and deal kindly with these men. Let them try to create the same atmosphere as we try to create about our soldiers, about our sons who are prepared to give their lives in defence of their native land. Why do we not treat the miners in the same way? Mining is a most important industry. We can win neither the war nor the peace without the miners, and yet we are antagonising them, but that is because their lives and their conditions are as foreign to the Government as night is different from day. We have no idea about them, and therefore we go on treating the industry as though it were a beautiful industry carried on with the sun in the sky above

    1215
    and the larks whistling overhead. But there the men are, down in the bowels of the earth. There are men in this Committee who have had the hellish experience of working in the mines and have run from it—fled from it as from the wrath to come. They have no wish to go back to the coal face.
    I have no desire to stand in the way of my miner colleagues putting their case across, but I wanted to put the situation as I see it, I who have only been down mines occasionally. Once when they could not get the coal cutters to go they got me to go down there, but only for a week. No; I have seen the miner at work. I have lived with miners all my life, and I know the reward the country gives the miners. I know the colliers' rows as I found them as a young man, saw them with my great colleague the late John Wheatley—single-apartment houses, 200 back-to-back houses, with no conveniences, none. That is what the colliery owners have done. They sowed the wind, and we to-day are reaping the whirlwind. That whirlwind is the healthy discontent of our virile manhood, which is the best asset this country or any country can have if it is properly handled. It is there for the handling, and it is for the Government to do the handling.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): If I may say so, the atmosphere in which the Debate has been conducted has been all that it should be, that is to say, the Debate has been conducted in a very calm atmosphere. That is a great improvement upon some of the Debates which I have heard, and I only hope that we shall be able to continue in that atmosphere until the end.
    Mr. Gallacher: Why? We want some life.
    Major Lloyd George: Because I believe there is quite enough atmosphere in this industry already without our creating any more. It is about a year since the White Paper, the document that contained certain proposals for the reorganisation of this industry, was brought forward. In particular it contained a proposal for taking over the operational control of the mines and outlined the machinery necessary for that purpose. The responsibility for that new organisation was entrusted to me. My hon.
    1216
    Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) has almost tempted me to follow him into further fields of organisation, but I am going to resist that temptation. I may have my own views about what they should be. Fortunately the Committee does not know them, because I have never spoken of them since I have been here, so I will resist that temptation to-day and deal with the organisation which Parliament entrusted to me. Whilst it will not be possible in the time at my disposal to deal with all the points raised I hope I shall be able to deal with the main ones, and the Parliamentary Secretary will cover some of those which I may have to leave out.
    Before I come to the White Paper itself, I think I ought to deal with the most urgent problem with which that White Paper dealt. The problem as stated there was that the war-time demand for coal continued to increase and, as they said, output tended to decline. I do not want to criticise the work, the very hard work, which my colleagues put into that White Paper, but after being at the Ministry a long time I should regard it as an understatement, that "tended to decline." As soon as possible after I was appointed to the Ministry I caused a careful estimate to be made of the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower said that he had been bewildered by some of the statements made, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster) said the same thing. I only make the statements and the speeches, and I know the difficulty, in these days of shortages, of printing a full statement, but on no occasion have I ever stated anything which I need withdraw with regard to output at the present time.
    When estimates are made the actual trend of output at the moment is taken, with any up-trend there may be in the autumn, and so forth, the future manpower position is also taken into account, and the actual consumption is estimated, with possible increases owing to war demand. When that has been done the estimate is presented. Last October I had to say to Parliament that consumption would exceed production at that time by 14,000,000 tons or more, but by de-stocking certain utility undertakings and so on we had brought that figure down to 11,000,000 tons. That was the position

    1217
    when I gave the estimate to Parliament. I told Parliament that I was satisfied that producers and consumers would respond to an appeal, the one to produce more and the other to consume less. I was warned from many sides that it was a very foolish thing to hope for, but I thought I was justified in the belief. Some time ago I was able to announce that the deficit had been wiped out, and that both consumers and producers had played their part in bringing that about.
    I had hoped to get rid of that deficit of 11,000,000 tons—and believe me that was no figment of my imagination, it was the most careful estimate which could be prepared—by getting 3,000,000 tons more from the producers than it had been estimated that I should. In fact, in part owing to the man-power remaining slightly higher than we had anticipated, but at least as much owing to extra effort, we produced 5,200,000 tons more than we had anticipated. My hon. and gallant Friend seemed to suggest that the fine weather in January and February had something to do with that but output in January and February was not as good as in the previous year. The great spurt in output came in the autumn of last year. As for the consumers, industrial and domestic, I hoped they would produce economies amounting to 8,000,000 tons of coal, but, and this is a remarkable fact for those who have been slightly pessimistic, it was not an economy of 8,000,000 tons they contributed but 11,000,000 tons. So the producers produced 5,200,000 tons more instead of 3,000,000 tons more—and that is my answer to those who say the producer has played no part whatever in this battle—and the consumer contributed economies of 11,000,000 tons instead of 8,000,000 tons.
    I referred to pessimists just now, and I am sorry to say that I have been inclined to include the hon. Member for Gower among them; but lie was not the only one. I was told that I could not get through the winter because we had not got the stocks to meet the consumption demand. Not only have we met the consumption demand, but we have added substantially to the tonnage in stock at the end of this winter. This extra saving—I want to emphasise this—which has gone to stock is due undoubtedly to the finer weather we had, particularly during January and February. There is one
    1218
    thing I want to urge upon the Committee, and it is one of the difficulties, I confess it frankly, in giving figures about the industry. If they are favourable they immediately react throughout the country; if they are unfavourable they react probably far too much the other way. Therefore, when I say that we not only cut our consumption last winter but added to our stocks, I do not want that to be taken as a reason for thinking that everything is lovely, because it is not. Rather should it be taken as an example of what can be done. Next time there will be a diminishing man-power, we may have a more normal winter, and there may be further demands for operational purposes.
    While listening to this Debate, I wished that hon. Members would look back upon the position last year and be good enough to study the Debate last year and, if they have time, also some of the organs of the Press. When I hear these criticisms today I say to myself, "How many hon. Members were there, or how many people outside were there, who thought we would have seen last winter through?" I should be very surprised if any hon. Member thought it was possible to produce the result that has been produced. The Committee will not therefore charge me with exaggeration when I say that the achievement I have just announced can be regarded as substantial.
    I would like to ask hon. Members to look at the position as it was then and as it is to-day in certain other respects. At the time the White Paper was published, the industry was affected by a serious wave of disputes. In many cases they were started by boys and they affected nearly every part of the coalfield. At one time they became so serious that 120,000 tons of coal were lost in one week, and the average for the six weeks prior to the publication of the White Paper was about 60,000 tons. Industrial relations are now happier, I am glad to say. Since the publication of the White Paper the tonnage lost has been almost at the lowest level since the war. It is true that there has been a slight rise recently, but, taking that slight rise into account, the tonnage lost is only about one-third of what it was during the bad time last year.
    We come now to man-power. I doubt if anyone last year would have thought it likely that there would be almost as many

    1219
    men in the industry at this time. At the moment, we have actually only a few hundred less than we had at this time last year. It was announced that special measures would be taken to fortify or reinforce the man-power in the industry. The fact that the situation to-day is, relatively speaking, as good as it is, despite the wastage of 25,000 a year, is partly as a result of the mild weather but mostly as a result of the economies effected by the people of this country. We have ended the winter with a considerable tonnage more in stock than we had a year ago. Having said that, may I once more warn the Committee that this stock is a reserve and an insurance against known and unknown risks?
    Another comparison which is of great significance is in the consumption of coal. The White Paper pointed out that owing to the increasing war-time demands for coal those demands were increasing all the time. At the time when we were discussing the White Paper home consumption was rising considerably above that of 1941. The percentage increase which had been taking place has been greatly reduced. The percentage increase was less and less as the year went on, until, by January, it went below. It has continued below since, and we are not yet finished with the economies which can be produced in this country. I am glad to say that the increase which was apparent last year has gradually declined until it has become less. One comparison which is not favourable is with regard to production. Not only do I wish that were greater, but I know it can be greater. What are the facts? I shall try to give the Committee information which will be not only of interest but of importance in regard to man-power and production.
    The miner is working to-day more shifts than he did before the war. That point is not remembered often enough. He is working one-third of a week more than before the war. The output per shift is 1.045 tons, as against 1.036 last year. It is the first time that the downward trend of production has been reversed. The output per shift is generally regarded as one of the best indications of the efficiency of the organisation of the industry and of the efforts of those engaged in coal production. In spite of all the difficulties which have been encountered in
    1220
    the fourth year of the war, the output per man-shift has been successfully maintained and is higher than it was a year ago. The Committee may therefore wonder why the total coal output is less than it was a year ago. The answer is that fewer shifts are being worked or, in other words, that absenteeism is rising. I will deal with that point later at some length.
    I want to approach this matter in an atmosphere of calmness, and I would ask the Committee to remember that we are nearing the end of the fourth year of the war. The Lord President of the Council said, in the Debate last year, that there was no doubt that a proportion of the men, and especially those working at the coal face, were beginning to suffer from the effects of continuous strain. May I remind the Committee that in the year that has gone by those men have continued working hours longer than in peace-time? Mining is probably the hardest physical toil of all. It has suffered grevious losses in the younger groups upon whose energy so much has depended in this industry, and it has suffered very heavily in other ways. More than 20 per cent. of the mine workers of this country are over 50 years of age. If you compare the output in this war with that in the last war, taking 1938 as comparable with 1913 and 1917 as comparable with 1942, you find that in 1917 the output was 5 per cent, below 1913 and in 1942 it was 1 per cent. below that of 1938. If you take 1918 against 1943 as far as it has gone, you will find that the figures were 11 per cent. down in 1918 and only 3 per cent. down in 1943, which is something to remember, because it is the first time that the downward trend has been reversed, and it happened at the end of last year.
    I would like to come to the measures undertaken for the control of consumption and production. Let me take consumption first. It falls under two headings, domestic and industrial. The savings due to the fuel efficiency campaign in industry have been great and will continue to increase, because they are cumulative. It is not a campaign which attracts much public interest. It is rather a matter of hard slogging and of educating technical staffs by instructions and advices given by the fuel efficiency committees, which were set up in London and the other regions of my Ministry. I

    1221
    am very glad to have had the opportunity of meeting many of them, and I would like to pay a tribute to the value of the work they are doing. It is excellent work, and voluntary at that. With the help of these panels and of no fewer than 650 highly skilled engineers, who are all serving voluntarily, they have visited about 11,000 factories, with a consumption of 29,000,000 tons of coal per annum. As a result of their efforts, a saving of 10 per cent. has already been achieved in those factories. This campaign is cumulative, and this saving of 3,000,000 tons is only the beginning. In view of the enormous consumption by the industries of this country, I expect much greater economies from them in the ensuing months.
    I turn to the domestic consumer. Hon. Members will remember the intensive propaganda campaign which was conducted last winter. There was some criticism or scepticism about the appeals, but what I may call the Ormskirk experiment was a very striking success. The amount of solid fuel delivered to domestic consumers last winter was less than that which would have been required to meet the coupons under the rationing scheme. Domestic consumers made a real contribution to the savings made by gas and electricity undertakers. It is not easy to divide these savings, but I will give an idea of what they were like. This winter I shall again appeal to the domestic consumer. There were last year also certain restrictions on the delivery of all solid fuel. Those restrictions, which will continue, are reviewed from time to time. They establish a maximum over-all total, beyond which consumers will not be able to go. Under this ceiling, they should, and indeed they must in the national interest, exercise all possible economy.
    Next winter I shall ask them, and I shall do my best to show them how, to make considerably greater economies than they made last year. In the meantime I advise them to stock up as far as they can with the qualities of coal available. They are not doing it so far, particularly in London and the South.
    Mr. A. Bevan: They cannot get delivery.
    Major Lloyd George: That is not really so. There are certain cases which I have come across, but, taking the country as a
    1222
    whole, that really is not so. I know the reason for the South, but I want people to realise that where they can stock up it is in the national interest that they should do so. Last year I stressed the importance of stocking in order to relieve pressure during the winter. I was most anxious that as much coal should be stocked as was allowed. Then the labour, which is my greatest difficulty in delivery, and the transport, will be available for the smaller man who has to have small amounts. The arrangements made proved very satisfactory last winter, and I had very few complaints indeed about delivery. Perhaps I might quote one London mayor who said he had no complaints at all last winter. That was a thing quite unique since the war started.
    This scheme will apply again during the coming winter, and I hope it will be still better than it was. As a result of our experience the small consumer will again be assured of priority in the winter months. This makes it all the more necessary for those who can stock to stock now. If they are large consumers, they must apply for the necessary licences. In the distribution of coal the guiding principle is that no coal must go unaccounted for. Hence its allocation to industry has been accomplished by means of an elaborate machinery bf area control and programming by which individual units in an industrial framework are given the average weekly delivery they require of each grade of coal, enabling them to meet their essential minimum consumption and maintain the appropriate levels of stocks. Programming is now being extended to a greater number of industries, indeed to the Service Departments themselves.
    I am referring elsewhere to outcrop coal, but I should say that the use of outcrop and other alternative coals is becoming increasingly important. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to large coal of high quality. Large coal and high quality coal are needed for military operations and for certain industries of high priority rating. The need to husband these coals and make use of alternative fuels applies not only to industry but to the domestic consumer. That is a very important point. The coal used by the housewife in her grates is very largely the type needed for operational purposes such as ships' bunkers, locomotives, and the Fighting Forces.

    1223
    I now turn from the field of consumption to that of production, in which the most important element is that of manpower. I know my hon. Friend said he thought in 1940 they had sufficient manpower. Under the circumstances I wonder whether the situation was not altered very seriously and whether that would be true to-day. I think the whole question of man-power goes far beyond the begining of this war. That is one of the problems we have to face.
    Mr. Grenfell: There was a net loss of 75,000 in that year.
    Major Lloyd George: If the circumstances had remained the same I think my hon. Friend would have been hard put to it to meet the needs to-day, because the question goes further back. It is one of the gravest questions facing the industry, not only during the war but after. I mentioned that the man-power position last year was not unsatisfactory. Indeed it was better than one dared to hope at one time. The number is only a few hundred below last year, due to three causes. First, the scheme for the return of miners to the mines from the Forces and other industries went on longer than was anticipated. Instead of getting 11,300 men, we got 25,000. Secondly, coalmining has been added to the list of those industries which can be chosen in preference to military service. This scheme was brought into full operation last September, and up to date 2,500 men have been placed in coalmining employment.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Below or on top?
    Major Lloyd George: They cannot go below, of course, until they have had training. The Committee will be interested and reassured to know that in order to deal with these optants as well as with other new entrants to the industry, a provisional but carefully planned training scheme has been brought into operation. Thirdly, the measures foreshadowed in the White Paper to reduce the number of men leaving the industry on the production of medical certificates has already had an appreciable effect.
    Mr. Sloan: Will the Minister say where training schemes have been brought into operation?
    Major Lloyd George: I can give the hon. Member the information, and I can assure him that they are in operation now. The schemes are being put into operation though it may be not in the same way over the whole country. I am dealing with the men who are affected by the new medical certificate arrangements. The establishment of a medical service and a tighter control of man-power have reduced the wastage by a figure which exceeds a rate of 3,000 a year. This should be further reduced as medical and rehabilitation services are extended. The rehabilitation services have been extended appreciably this year.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Would the Minister say in more detail how the medical service works and how it has added to the man-power of the industry? My hon. Friend has questioned the Minister. We know very little of the work of that service.
    Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member will appreciate that I am trying to cover many points rapidly. My hon. Friend will give greater detail on this matter. I have said that the figure is 3,000 better than it was. As regards rehabilitation centres, last year there were only two in the whole country. I hope we shall have 11 working very shortly. I need not explain to hon. Members who know the industry what an advantage and boon they are to the industry as a whole. I am sure also that those Members who represent West Wales constituencies will be interested in a committee which has been set up to enquire into pneumokoniosis. Juvenile recruitment has risen from 10,000 to 12,000 per annum. As a result of all these factors the wastage, which last year was at a rate of 25,000 annually, is now reduced to 19,600, and if the optants are included, to 17,000. That is the rate at which we are running at the present time, which is a great improvement though I am not saying it is anything like enough.
    As a part of the longer term policy, the fruits of which will obviously not be realised immediately, steps are now under consideration to implement the recommendations of the Foster Committee for improving the intake of boys into the industry. It is important to realise that the question of intake to the industry is not confined to this country. I think it is

    1225
    found in most coal-producing countries in the world, particularly Germany. One of the reasons why at this present time it is extremely difficult to raise the number of juvenile entrants, leaving out the question of the history of the industry, is the availability elsewhere owing to the war of many more attractive opportunities for this type of labour.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: It existed during the depression.
    Major Lloyd George: The rate of intake before the war was about three times as high as it is now. The Foster Committee will tell the hon. Member that if he looks at their Report. Nevertheless, I regard the recruitment of youth into this industry as the most important long-term policy which this Ministry can pursue, the most important problem facing the industry, and consequently one of the most important issues affecting the economic prosperity of this country. I am therefore setting up a special branch in my Ministry to give this question undivided attention. This is not all. Steps have been taken to increase the number of miners in production work by upgrading and by transferring surface workers underground. It is satisfactory that the proportion of shifts worked at the face has been more than maintained at the figure at which it stood a year ago after recovering from the serious decline following the fall of France—36.1 in May last year and 36.3 in May this year.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: What is the average age?
    Major Lloyd George: I cannot get that figure, because it is not given.
    Mr. Griffiths: It is a very vital point.
    Major Lloyd George: I quite agree. The corresponding figure in December, 1941, was 35.97. Over 2,700 surface workers between 18 and 25 have now gone underground, the vast majority voluntarily. This is essential, since quite apart from increasing the labour force I must see that the men in the industry are used in the most effective way possible, and it is the concern of myself and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to see that surface workers who are willing and fit are transferred to work underground. The question of giving a chance of working in the industry or going into the Forces is a question of far-reaching principle
    1226
    affecting the principles of organising the nation's man-power, and is therefore one which my right hon. Friend must decide. As far as I am concerned, I cannot recommend that young surface workers should be given the option of going into the Forces at a time when the industry is faced with a very serious shortage of young men for underground work.
    Mr. Bevan: Does that apply to the clerical staff too?
    Major Lloyd George: The clerical staff does not enjoy the advantage which the surface worker does of a blanket deferment. A surface worker is not liable to called up for service. There is a great difference, because if you are deferred you cannot be called up but you may be directed to any work. This industry is the only one in the country which has a blanket deferment covering the whole lot.
    Thus, to make the most of our manpower, we are giving attention to health, to recruitment and also to training, upgrading and transfer underground. In addition we have followed a policy of concentration, the urgency of which I have impressed upon my Regional Controllers, in view of the decline in man-power. This policy falls into two parts, first of all to concentrate within a pit wherever possible, and, secondly, to move men from less productive pits to pits where the output is higher than the one from which they are transferred. That is the aim of the policy, the one within, the other without. I never anticipated that this policy would produce quick results, but the efforts made over the past year are now beginning to show themselves and, I hold, have been encouraging.
    Every pit in the country has been examined, and 50 schemes of concentration, in which pits have been closed or partly closed and the men removed elsewhere, have been put into operation, and at over 40 pits plans of internal concentration have been carried out. Although most of these schemes have only been put into effect since the beginning of this year I estimate that the gain from the present rate will be about 1,000,000 tons a year. I indicated last year that this policy would not be an easy one to carry out, as human as well as technical problems were involved. For instance, low productivity cannot always be the test

    1227
    for closing a pit, because certain types of coal which are in short supply must be mined even when productivity is low.
    It is important to overcome the opposition from both sides of the industry. As a result of consultation in the regions, great progress has been made this year in overcoming that opposition. Together with that policy of concentration we have been pressing ahead with the installation of machinery. Inevitably there has been difficulty in increasing manufacturing capacity. The actual application of machines to the pits is a very big problem. The development of power loading and the installation of machinery—examples of which are now in operation in Nottinghamshire—continue. Where power loaders, of one type or another, are satisfactorily applied there is an increase of output per man-shift, releasing colliers for other productive work. An encouraging feature is that the men who are trained to work these machines are enthusiastic about their work. One may hope that this aspect will aid us in attracting youth to the mines. Finally, we have made progress, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) mentioned, in the working of coal by open-cast methods. This has been undertaken, as he said, by the Ministry of Works, on my behalf. The Ministry works in the closest co-operation with the Regional Controller of my Ministry. The number of these open-cast mines is 62, with an average life of 30 weeks. Many others have been or soon will be tested and proved. In the last coal year over 2,000,000 tons of this coal was produced, and I hope that this year the amount will be very considerably increased. I cannot leave the field of general production without mentioning the new conciliation machinery. It is difficult to estimate how much this country owes in the output of coal to the promptness and imagination of Lord Greene and his Board in devising the wages award of last June. An even greater achievement is the establishment of a national wages machinery for the coalmining industry, the existence of which will do much, I hope, to prevent a repetition of the unhappy conflicts of the past.
    Despite the undoubted progress that has been made on many of the points referred to in the White Paper, I am faced, as is inevitable, with a number of
    1228
    problems of varying degrees of importance, which somehow I must endeavour to overcome. One which has been raised frequently during my visits to the coalfields is the question of food. It has been raised here to-day. I must say this. I have said it to the workers themselves whenever I have been asked questions on the matter. The miners at their canteens have access to more food than the rest of us; yet again and again at canteens which I personally visited, at which I had meals, I heard that they were patronised by one-third or one-quarter of the miners, despite the fact that those mines were equipped with pithead baths. Where canteens are provided, it is fair to expect that they should be used. I do not suggest that miners should be put to inconvenience—if it deserves so hard a word—to eat good, plentiful, and cheap food at their canteens rather than at home. As compared with the West End restaurant, the miners' canteen receives 100 per cent. more meat, 67 per cent. more fats, 60 per cent, more sugar, and 25 per cent. more fish.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: To how many canteens does that apply?
    Major Lloyd George: That is beside the point, if I may say so. The complaint is that the miner does not get enough to eat. My answer is that where there are canteens which supply these things they are patronised by only one-third to one-quarter of the men. [Interruption.] We have more canteens than my hon. Friend thinks. It is a service not only to the men but to their wives—far more so than some people believe. I sat next to one miner's wife at lunch. She told me that she had six sons, and she was delighted that they sometimes took their meals at the canteen. If shortage of food is the argument, there is no excuse for not taking it where food is supplied. It is not good enough to say, "I must take it at home" Another point is, at how many of the pits are these canteens available? Very shortly, sit-down hot meals will be available at 60 per cent. of the collieries of the country, and counting snack bars, canteens exist at over 90 per cent. at present. I know that where there are no pithead baths it is a more serious problem, but I emphasise that where they exist the canteens should be used. I am thinking of one particular case where the canteen is only 25 per cent. used.

    1229
    A point which is always referred to in coal Debates, and which is inclined to generate heat—which I think is a pity—is the very important question of absenteeism. I would like the Committee to examine with me this question, on which, so far as I know, no considered statement has ever been made in this House. So many statistics are produced from different quarters, all rather coloured, according to the view of the gentlemen putting them forward. I long ago asked for the most comprehensive figures to be made available to me. I have kept them very closely under review. Many of them were never available before. I expect that some of these facts will be very new to hon. Members. Most people are familiar with the statement that absenteeism in the coalfields is running at about 11 per cent., or a little more. That is the general statement. The first thing I asked was, "Percentage of what?" The answer was, "Shifts which were not worked, as a percentage of the total shifts which could have been worked under war conditions." It was a purely mathematical calculation, including weekend shifts and overtime.
    I asked that this percentage should be divided between shifts lost for reasons within the control of the individual, and shifts lost for reasons outside the control of the individual, such as illness, injury and certain other causes. They show that 4.47 per cent. of the total man-shifts possible were lost through avoidable causes, and 6.98 per cent. through unavoidable causes. These figures may surprise the Committee. It is not generally realised that in the man-power force of this industry of 708,000 men, there are in. any week 50,000 men who do not work through sickness or injury. That means that the effective man-power in this industry of 708,000 men is only about 660,000. The absence of these non-effectives is, and always has been, included in the absentee figures. I need not explain why the number who cannot work through sickness or injury is so great—certainly not to hon. Members opposite. Many Members may not know, however, that the number of absences reported each year involving absence for three days or more is between 150,000 and 160,000—that is, on an average one man in four suffers injury involving absence of three days or more, at least once in the year. There are in a year 135,000 cases
    1230
    involving absence for eight days or more. The industry has a very high rate of occupational sickness, while the miner is more prone than people in most other industries to rheumatism. Taking into account the number of men not employed in the industry in any one week, the effective rate of voluntary absenteeism is not more than 4½ per cent. It is not possible to compare this figure with that for any other industry, since comparable figures are not in existence. The miners as a body suffer from the fact that there is a statistical searchlight on their attendances and absences such as exists in no other industry. I have thought it right to indicate what the statistics available to me really show. To put it in another way, it is the shifts worked, and not a statistical percentage, which produces coal. If we take the men actually employed week by week, the average number of shifts worked exceeds 5¾. These figures should be taken into account whenever accusations are made against miners as a body.
    But I am not attempting to hide the fact that there is an irresponsible minority, mainly composed of young men, and others who absent themselves particularly at week-ends, and I do not need to remind hon. Members with a knowledge of the mining industry what an effect it has on the cycle of operations if the weekend absenteeism is heavy. That irresponsible element bears a heavy responsibility at the present time. When I used the term, "only 4½ per cent.," I did not mean that it was an insignificant figure. I simply meant that it was 4½ per cent., and not 11 per cent. If the 4½ per cent. who are guilty of voluntary absenteeism to-day would decide to reduce their absenteeism by only half, this country would have 4,000,000 tons more coal per annum. Surely this is not much to ask, when most of them are the younger men in the industry. Were it the older men, you could say that the physical strain tells on them much more; but it is not the older men. It is not much to ask these younger men by voluntary effort on their part to reduce the absenteeism by half.
    Mr. Foster: Does that 4½ per cent. include shifts lost by men who are already working over six shifts, as a result of overtime? Does the Minister expect men to work the whole of the shifts in addition to their overtime?
    Major Lloyd George: No. The figures used to be made up in that way. I had cases where men had worked eight shifts and were still included as absentees. That has been completely stopped. These are really the bad boys, you can take it from me. When we have asked, and got a response from, every class in this country, rich and poor alike, for, I will not say hardship—we do not inflict hardship upon them, but certainly we have inflicted inconvenience upon the public by our fuel economy campaign last winter—is it too much to ask that these young men should really play their part in seeing this country through its difficulty? The country has a right to expect that these young men shall do their duty in this field, as other young men are doing it throughout the Empire.
    Mr. Gallacher: We agree with that. Now tell us something about the mine-owners.
    Major Lloyd George: I will develop my speech in my own way. I am endeavouring to tackle this matter by the method laid down in the White Paper, which ensures continual approach to all habitual absentees. But this matter, I am certain, cannot be equalled in any other industry in the country at the present time. In addition, I am proceeding with experiments—details of which I will not give out at the moment but which are not without promise and it may be worth recording, as evidence of the difficulty of finding a solution of this problem, that the most critical who share my anxiety in this matter have not yet been able to provide me with any new suggestion. To face the fact that unwarrantable absenteeism exists is not to be resigned to its existence, but I thought it right to let the Committee know that the great majority of the mining representatives of this country are putting their backs into the job. The others, whose irresponsibility I do not condone—nor does anybody I have come across in that industry condone it—we must remember, are still coal-getters. The right approach to them, I am convinced, is to try and persuade them of the serious need for coal and to tie up their lives with the lives of the men who are fighting at the front. There are some who pin their faith entirely to harsh punishment measures alone. I am not suggesting that severe
    1232
    measures may not sometimes be necessary. I have not been afraid of taking them, and I shall not be afraid of taking them in future, but I shall continue to regard it as my duty to use in coal-getting all the labour that is available to me.
    Mr. MacLaren: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that point may I ask him whether the position has been put to him with regard to the effect of Income Tax upon these young men as against the older men with families, who are able to get remission of Income Tax; and is he aware that the young men are rebelling against this Income Tax?
    Major Lloyd George: That is a question which has been put to me at many meetings I have addressed, but I do not think that my hon. Friend would persuade me that that really has anything to do with this problem.
    The last question that I come to is that of pit production committees. It is a field in which I am convinced that progress can and must still be made. It is a very important matter. It is not possible for a Minister to keep in touch with every individual in the coal industry, but I do try to keep in touch with the pit production committees. I have personally addressed the committees of collieries of nearly 1,000 pits in this country since I assumed this office. I have always encouraged as free a discussion as possible, and I have never been disappointed. I do not as a rule address them for any length of time, because I simply say that I would like to hear their views. As a result of these discussions—and I have enjoyed them all, free as the discussions might have been—I have learnt the views of the men themselves. I have had many useful suggestions, and I do hope that in some way I was able to clear up many points which they were in doubt about. But I do not think yet that what I can say is one of the most valuable things from the point of view of the men in the industry, namely, the pit production committee, has been appreciated by the managements. From a survey that I have made—it is not a complete survey—one in four of the pit production committees is functioning really effectively, but, on the other hand, one of the remaining three is almost ineffective for the purposes for which it was set up. There are a number of circumstances which affect the useful-

    1233
    ness of pit production committees—industrial relations in the area, the character of the regional control and, above all, the attitude of managements, which in the nature of things must come all the way to meeting representatives of the men. The management have a complete knowledge of plans and developments, impending difficulties and so on; the men's representatives naturally begin as a rule only with the knowledge acquired in their working experience. Both sides must come to these meetings in a spirit of good will, otherwise they can never function, and it is not a coincidence, I feel, that, speaking broadly, there is a direct relationship between a good pit production committee and a good output. I do not think that it is altogether a coincidence, and I regard the question of pit production committees as one of the most important as far as this new organisation is concerned.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: May I ask the Minister whether, in his tour of the country, he realised the dual position in which a manager finds himself in having to carry out the dictates of the controller and at the same time come under the purview of his directors?
    Major Lloyd George: As far as pit production committees are concerned, while that obviously has been raised, curiously enough, it was not one of the most prominent features of the discussions, and I think the reason is that, quite rightly, the committees are accepting the situation which exists at the present time. All points of that character, even as the Government themselves pointed out last year, would be reconsidered in the light of circumstances, but that is not one of the most important points raised.
    Having discussed some of the main events with regard to the White Paper, I will say one word in conclusion about next winter.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Does not the Minister find that the majority of the workmen's representatives on the pit production committees feel that they are resented very much by a tremendous number of the managements?
    Major Lloyd George: That really would not be very dangerous as a general statement. That goes back to what I said when I remarked that an awful lot de-
    1234
    pends on the management. My experience, frankly, of pit production committees has been not only that there has not been that difficulty, but that the greatest difficulty was to get the management to speak at all.
    Mr. Griffiths: It generally says "No."
    Major Lloyd George: That would not do any good. I was not in the chair, but at any rate I was very near it. With regard to next year, I have had the most careful estimates made again of the position, and I will say this,.provided—and it is a very important proviso—that there is no serious decline in output per man, and if the economies secured last year are not only maintained but increased, as they can be, we shall see next winter through. It has been said that the only solution is more man-power. That certainly is an easy solution, and it would make it very much easier for me. I am not someone to reject something which makes my life a little less difficult, but while it is my duty to see that we have enough coal for our war effort, it is equally my deity to see that everything possible is done to fulfil that demand without weakening our war effort in any direction. The time may come when, owing to alterations in the war situation, such demands will be made as cannot be met with existing resources, but until that situation is abundantly clear, it is surely our duty to make every effort to meet our requirements with the means at our disposal. A year ago most people feared that we had not the means to meet the requirements during that winter. I do not think that people have quite forgotten some of the things said last winter.
    Mr. Grenfell: Did not the Minister himself tell us that last year he received 15,000 more men?
    Major Lloyd George: I did not say 15,000 more men. It was 14,000 more men than I expected to receive.
    Mr. Grenfell: The Minister himself said that during last year he received 15,000 more men, and will he be able to get thorn next year?
    Major Lloyd George: My estimate was based on man-power as I know it to-day. They did not come all at the same time, and the amount of coal I attributed to these men who came

    1235
    in is something in the neighbourhood of 2,000,000 tons, and 3,000,000 tons contributed by those already in the industry. But it was thought, and much more strongly than it is to-day, that we could not possibly see last winter through. Lots of my friends felt very sorry for me, and I was very grateful for their sympathy, because I needed it. The facts that I have presented to the Committee to-day show that these fears were not in the event justified, but only not justified because of the determined effort made by everybody concerned, both consumers and producers alike. To those who have given expression again to those fears I would only say this, that if the same determination and wilingness to co-operate are shown this year as were shown last year, we shall realise 12 months hence that we have safely completed one more stage of our arduous journey.
    Sir Arnold Gridley: We have listened with attentive and sympathetic interest to the long statement which we have heard from the Minister, but whether we can find ourselves in agreement with his final sentences is another matter. I am afraid that those of us who have been charged with the duty for the third time of making an examination into the general state of the coal industry find our greatest anxieties as to how the Minister and those assisting him are going to provide the nation here and overseas with its requirements during the coming winter. The last winter we safely weathered, as the Minister has explained to us to-day, by the contribution of all partners in it—first, the miners, who, if I understood the figures referred to for the first time, secured over 3,000,000 more tons of coal than estimated and to the consumers who reduced their consumption by something of the order of 11,000,000 tons, whereas it was only expected that they would reduce it by 8,000,000.
    Major Lloyd George: Five million two hundred thousand tons was the increase in production.
    Sir A. Gridley: So much the better. I I want to give the industry and the miners who go down the pit every bit of credit which may be their due.
    I feel to-day a special sense of responsibility in intervening in this Debate, for the reason that in conjunction with hon.
    1236
    colleagues from both sides of the Committee we have made a most careful review of the position and the developments that have taken place since the setting-up of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Nearly all the points which the Minister touched upon in his statement were not, I think, new knowledge to us, although to the Committee no doubt some of the facts have been divulged for the first time. The Minister achieved great success during last winter in bridging and closing the gap, which seemed an alarming and almost an impossible one at the time. He was assisted to a very great extent by the most excellent work carried out by the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall), and by the humorous "fuel flashes" of Freddy Grisewood, which had a great deal of influence on housewives. We only wish that equal success had attended the efforts of the new Ministry in achieving what the White Paper led us to anticipate. I would like to refer to the Debate in which the present Minister took part in October last, because he said then one or two things about which we should remind ourselves to-day. He said:
    "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."
    Later, he said:
    "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."
    Again, referring to absenteeism the Minister said:
    "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 … it does not excuse the small minority of men who are not working with the urgency required for this present situation. With this minority I say at once I have no sympathy. I doubt whether anybody in this House has any sympathy for them 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 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 …. In a large

    1237
    number of collieries … 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.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st October, 1942; cols. 961–972, Vol. 383.]
    May I make this observation in passing? I think it is a mistake to make the comparison which the Minister has made more than once between absenteeism in this industry and absenteeism in other industries. It may not matter very materially if you have a high percentage of absenteeism in filling factories or in an industry of that kind where we have, possibly, ample stocks. But in the coal industry we have the foundation of all other industries' efforts and the foundation of our total war effort and, therefore, it is of vital consequence to cure all voluntary absenteeism. There are many who say—and there is a good deal of substance in this—that voluntary absenteeism from the mines is as grave a matter to the country in present circumstances as absenteeism from the Forces.
    Later, in our last Debate on this subject, the Minister went on to refer to the delays in dealing with these offenders and indicated that he was satisfied that the alteration in the procedure for dealing with such cases would reduce delay and give the results which the whole industry desired. We pointed out in the Report we issued from the Select Committee on National Expenditure last month, that the methods of dealing with these offenders were still most unsatisfactory and far too slow. I could not agree more than I do with what was said by the hon. Member opposite who emphasised the futility of taking men to court and imposing upon them sentences of imprisonment and heavy fines. That is the wrong way to deal with these matters in these times. The way to deal with absentees, so far as we can make any suggestion at all, is for their colleagues in the pits to deal with them. We made one suggestion in the Report, of which those who have read it will be aware. Although we have been charged by some newspapers with not having made as many constructive suggestions as might be possible, Select Committee are sometimes accused—and I think not without justice—of going outside their terms of reference on matters of policy. That we tried to avoid.
    1238
    I want to refer for a few moments to the White Paper itself, because I do not consider that the present Minister is responsible for the position in which the industry finds itself to-day. The White Paper we had before us last June was a Government White Paper and, if my memory serves me aright, the present Minister was not then appointed, or if he had been appointed it was only a very short time earlier and he could have had little responsibility. I may be wrong but I do not think I am. The Government said in paragraph 22 of the White Paper:
    "As a result of these measures"—
    that is the addition of 11,300 underground workers, the working of outcrop deposits and measures to increase efficiency by enforcing their scheme of Government control—
    "the Government look to a substantial increase in output during the coming year."
    Well, we have had the figures to-day and they show that no substantial increase has been forthcoming. Referring to the demand expressed in all quarters of the House in an earlier Debate for a return of more men from the Services the White Paper said:
    "The Government have decided that it is not necessary, particularly at this stage of the war, to withdraw any further men from the Armed Forces for work in the mines."
    Let the Committee note that it was the Government in June last which looked to a substantial increase in output during the coming year. It was not the Minister of Fuel and Power. The net effect, as a result of the measures taken by the Government and in spite of appeals by the Prime Minister, Field Marshal Smuts and many others, including miners' leaders, who have done everything they can to secure increased production, is that production is waning, at a time when, as the Minister said in the last Debate, railways, important munition industries, gas and electricity undertakings are needing a substantially increased quantity of coal.
    In addition to these demands—and this is what frightens me—we may have to export many millions of tons of coal. Indeed, we have already sent hundreds of thousands of tons to North Africa. That supply will have to be maintained even if North Africa is removed from the fighting arena because the coal which North Africa used before our troops

    1239
    occupied that part of the world came from France when the Vichy Government was in control. Now that supply, which we have had to replace, will have to come from this country. Everyone is anxious to see, and all are daily expecting to hear of, new big moves being made to open a second front in Europe. Who can tell what quantity of coal will be needed for the life-and-death purposes of our Forces? Who is to go short if the vitally urgent needs of our Fighting Forces are to be met? I cannot think that any young miner, if this point were hammered home to him by his colleagues, and if he realised how vitally important every ton of coal is not only to us here but to our Allies overseas, could possibly absent himself for a day. When I spoke in the last coal Debate I quoted Russian opinion about those who do not pull their weight and I daresay a great many Members read, as I do, the "Soviet War News" which is issued daily from the Soviet Embassy in London. I have in my hand the issue for 25th May from which I think I ought to quote to the Committee. The references I want to quote are as follow:
    "War is war; it demands iron discipline at the front and at the rear."
    Then, referring to absenteeism and loafers, it says:
    "These absentees and loafers are stealing from the Red Army. They are depriving it of a certain amount of arms, ammunition, equipment, bread and meat. During March several dozen workers absented themselves from their duties in one mine in the Kuzuetsk Basin. The absence of even one miner deprives his country of no less than a dozen tons of coal and we need every ton of coal as much as we need air. Absentees interfere with the battle against the enemy; in fact, they help the enemy by their disgraceful behaviour."
    Referring to the duty of organisers—and I quote the following sentences because here management comes in—the paper says:
    "In war-time the full force of the law must he directed against that handful of backward and unenthusiastic workers whose absenteeism interferes with the people's honest labour. Every day's absence from work is a crime against the front and the Motherland. How can one speak of honest absentees?— What sort of men are those so-called directors who do not censure loafers and who try to excuse the violators of discipline? The parties of Lenin and Stalin always attached tremendous importance to inculcating iron discipline among the masses."
    I will make no comment on that——
    Mr. Kirkwood: Before the hon. Member goes any further may I ask does he not see the difference between miners in Russia and miners here? In Russia the mines belong to the Government, whereas in this country they belong to the mine-owners who run them as a means of making profit and not for the good of the country. That is the difference.
    Sir A. Gridley: I should probably be out of Order if I attempted to reply to that point which was made the last time I spoke. The fact is that the mines in Russia belong to the State and the same trouble exists. The men absent themselves from work when they ought to be at it.
    Once more may I urge on the Government, in spite of what has been said by the Minister, that there is very great necessity for finding more personnel, and particularly more face-workers, for the mines.
    Mr. David Adams rose—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): If the hon. Gentleman does not choose to give way——
    Mr. Adams: I merely wish to ask what was the proportion of absenteeism in Russian mines compared with. this country.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been using Russia as a perfectly fair illustration, but, if we went into the whole details of it, obviously it would be going beyond the bounds of the Debate.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Surely it is in Order, when a very serious point is being made, for an hon. Member to ask for further information. He surely has a right to have the point elucidated in a friendly manner.
    The Deputy-Chairman: As far as that is concerned, the hon. Member did rise to put his point, but I repeat that, if you carry elucidation very far, you will never get on with the Debate at all. In saying that I have in mind the very large number of Members who want to take some part in the Debate.
    Sir A. Gridley: I was appealing for more personnel to be provided in the mines. The Minister said that no one would welcome that step towards the solution of his difficulties more than he would

    1241
    himself. I have not forgotten the speech of the Lord President of the Council in winding up the Debate last October, when he purported to show that the number of miners in the Forces overseas was quite small—something of the order of 3,000 or 4,000—and many speakers were reluctant, rightly or wrongly, to accept those figures as accurate. But, be that as it may, I particularly want to call attention to a Question addressed to the Lord President by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who said:
    "The Minister of Fuel and Power has accepted a responsibility that he will bridge the gap of 11,000,000 tons by voluntary saving and existing man-power. Are the Government satisfied that that can be done? "
    The reply of the Lord President was:
    "We are satisfied that it can be done for this winter with good will all round. It will not be done beyond this winter."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 6th October, 1942; col. 1184, vol. 383.]
    That forecasts a critical situation facing us next winter, when we cannot expect to get the mild weather that we enjoyed last winter. I hope we shall not hear anything to-clay either of a demand for rationing on the White Paper coupon system. The. Minister got through last winter amazingly well. I only ask those who still seem to hanker after a coupon system, what would be the feelings of the people who had been granted coupons to get coal by the cwt. or two cwt. bags and who found all over the country that stone was mixed with the coal? That would have damned any coupon scheme. A coupon presupposes that you will get whatever the coupon represents. With a coupon for coal, you should be able to get coal and not half coal and half stone. I know how reluctant those in command in the. Services are to have their units broken up by releasing men to go back to the mines but, when there is serious fighting, battalions must suffer casualties and have their organisation broken up. Surely it is no less difficult to re-form battalions in consequence of casualties than in consequence of returning men from the Fighting Forces to the coal front.
    To sum up the position as I see it, there appear to be only three alternatives facing the Government. The first is to bring back more coal face workers to the pits from wherever they can be combed out. The second is that the existing personnel must produce more coal. That can be done by
    1242
    reducing absenteeism. The third is that the consumption of coal, gas and electricity must be further reduced next winter both as regards domestic and industrial use. In other words, it is either more miners, or more output from those now in the industry, or reduced output, with very considerable hardship on householders, the majority of whom are engaged in war munitions production. The Government have grave decisions to take. We must never forget that it is not only British interests that are at stake but those of our Allies, whom we must not and dare not let down. I beg the Government to face these issues and to come to wise decisions. In my view they have not an hour to lose.
    Mr. Clement Davies: May I begin by congratulating the Minister upon his concise and comprehensive statement, in the style to which we have now become accustomed? But I am afraid the subject is far deeper than would appear from the sort of surface gloss which has been put on it. In many ways this is the most amazing of all the industries in the country, and in many ways it is the most tragic. The wealth of the country in all kinds of directions has depended in the main upon this industry. It has often been pointed out that we are an island, and we should not have enjoyed the prosperity that we have enjoyed these last 150 years but for the fact that coal was to be found in so many parts of it, which has built up new industries and has enabled us to be the pioneers throughout the rest of the world. Then, having supplied the wealth for the rest of the country, it became a sort of plaything of finance and, at a time when finance wanted other outlets rather than coal, that is the very moment when the industry is deserted and allowed to suffer. As an hon. Member said just now, we have sown the wind, and we are now reaping the whirlwind. Let the Committee think what has been the position. At the beginning of the last war we were producing a fourth of the total consumption of coal in the world, and, what is more, we were exporting a tenth of the world's consumption, and you had 1,250,000 people working in the coalfield. We come to the beginning of this war, when we were producing a little over 200,000,000 tons, as compared with 292,000,000 tons in 1913, and let it be

    1243
    remembered that in 1913 there was very little mechanisation. By 1938 that had grown to something like ten times what it was in 1913, but the number of men employed had fallen from 1,250,000 to 800,000, practically 500,000 had gone.
    That is the situation that faced us when we entered this war. Why? For several reasons. But one which is not emphasised sufficiently is the treatment that has been meted out during the last too years to the workers in the industry, the houses built for them, the places where they had to live and the wages paid them—the most patriotic of all in the last war, the first to volunteer, volunteering in such numbers that they had to be called back. When they were called upon to hurl coal at the head of the Kaiser in place of shells, they did it. That patriotic group of men between the two wars has suffered more from unemployment than any other set of men. We are indeed reaping the whirlwind. Reference has been made by Member after Member to the fact that no Member of the House who was brought up in coal has a son working at the coal face to-day. I have had a long experience now of my fellow countrymen and the traditions of coalmining in the Welsh valleys, where there are families in the fifth and sixth generations of miners, but what mother is there in the whole of South Wales who is encouraging her boy to work in the mines? If she can possibly find him something else to do, she is sending him out to do that something else. Now the call comes for younger men. The Minister has given us the figures showing that 20 per cent. now are over 51. Many of us live an active life, having to go here, there and everywhere, but what one of us, having reached these years, is prepared to go down a mine and put in the work that these men are putting in between the ages of 50 and 70, and, what is more, putting in more shifts than they have ever put in before? During that bad period there were days when they could not work. To-day they are called upon, and have been called upon for the last four years, to work every possible shift they can, and they have done it. But a war weariness is bound to come upon them.
    Where is help to come from? The Minister rightly has taken consolation from the fact that he has come through this year as well as he has owing to the amaz-
    1244
    ing saving by consumers of over 3,000,000 tons above what they were expected to save, and an extra production of 5,000,000 tons, which is 2,000,000 tons more than was expected. What about future consumption? The hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) rightly called attention to the greater call there must be by industry, electricity and gas, but there is also the much more likely call to come for export. At the moment what do we export compared with what we may be suddenly called upon to provide to keep up the morale of those peoples whom we will be freeing? There will be a greater call for consumption. It is on the figure of production that I would challenge the figures of the Minister. May I remind him that he got that extra production through extra work put in by men who were already tired, who had already put in three solid years of hard work and have now put in a fourth? He got in addition 14,000 fresh men from industry. They can only be taken once. There is no steady trickle of men back to the mines of those who have been absent for two or three years. Where is the reservoir for the future? All the Minister can do is to hope that the young men will come along and that his system of training will secure him a few thousand, but how will that few thousand compare with what he is bound to have in order to make up for the wastage? After four years of war and with 20 per cent. of the men over 50, the old average of a net loss of 25,000 and a gross loss of 35,000 is bound to happen, and I cannot see how the Minister is to recruit this year the fresh hands that he will require. There is no other reservoir such as he has had this year to draw upon. What is to be the inducement for the young men to come in?
    It seems to me that much more drastic steps are required than those mentioned by the Minister in order to meet the labour position. I can never understand why, if one advocates in this House the continuance of the status quo ante, it is non-political, but if one tries to suggest a reform which is necessary at once, one is talking politics in the middle of war. If it is necessary in order to get production to take much more revolutionary steps, I hope that the Government will take them. I am sure that it does not lay in the hands of the Minister to do anything. The policy has been laid down by the

    1245
    War Cabinet; he has to carry it out, and well does he carry it out with the tools that have been given to him. May I use a phrase that was used by the Prime Minister in an appeal that he made to America? "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job." I am hoping that the Minister will demand that the War Cabinet gives him the tools that will finish the job, and I am sure that he can do it. So much depends on the outlook and approach with regard to these matters. At the present moment what is the outlook for the miner? All he can see is that for the duration of the war he is working at coal which has been controlled by the Government. It is still owned by the mineowners and the full intention apparently is that it shall go back to them at the end of the war. The position will then be exactly the same as it was in 1919. Seeing this, the miner says to his son, "In the last war I was told to go into the mines because the country wanted coal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was then the Prime Minister, came down and talked to us in language which moved us and told us that it was the most patriotic thing we could do to go back to the mines and produce coal. I believed him and I went back, but what pay did I get between 1919 and 1939? You know, my boy, of the years of unemployment that your father suffered and that your friends' fathers suffered. There is a call for you now to go and work in these mines. If you are patriotic you will listen to it, but if you are only thinking of yourself and comparing it with what your lather went through, then, before you go, demand some better guarantee for yourself than your father got."
    Mr. Holdsworth: How can any revolutionary step alter the world economic position or make the miners' position any different?
    Mr. Davies: What is the attraction now for the young miner to go into the pit when he has that history in front of him? It would make a world of difference if the mines were being worked for the community and the community was standing behind the miners.
    Mr. Wragg: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of any industry that is
    1246
    any better for working for the community?
    Mr. Davies: When men realise that the work they are putting in is benefiting the community as a whole and not one particular individual or company, and when they realise that there will be a guarantee behind the industry, that the whole community will be responsible for it and that it will not be dependent on the wealth or bankruptcy of particular firms, their outlook will change. Their whole treatment with regard to housing and amenities will alter. I hope that the view taken by the Minister will be justified by events, but I fear greatly that the demands of consumption will be increased. What I fear still more is that in spite of the patriotism and hard work of the miners there will be a fall in production in the coming winter. If that happens, it will be a major disaster in fighting this war.
    Mr. Wragg: When I spoke last on coal in this House my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said that I hardly ever spoke on any question except coal, and that I reminded him of the silversmiths of Ephesus, who only began to talk when their craft was in danger. I make no apology for speaking on an occasion of this sort, because the mining industry is one which vitally affects many of my constituents. I was interested to listen to the eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), but from my experience of barristers I find them not very reliable in figures. It would take me a long time to go into the various figures to show how wrong he was. Before the great war of 1914 the number of men employed in the mining industry was not 1,250,000, but 1,100,000. The output was 287,000,000 tons. In 1920 the output had gone down to 220,000,000, but the number of men had increased to 1,200,000—an increase of 100,000 men and a reduction in output of 67,000,000 tons. That does not seem to show that State control was any great success in the last war. In fact, State control was the rock on which the industry almost foundered.
    To talk as if there was not a proper wage paid to the miners at that time is absolute nonsense. The miners were paid 25s. a shift on the average during that period. In 1920 the wage cost per ton of coal was 25s. 9d., and the price at

    1247
    which the coal was sold was 37s. 5d. The output per man-shift had dropped from 21 cwts. in 1913 to 15 cwts. in 1920. For the three months of 1921 before the great strike of that year the wage costs had mounted up to 29s. 8d. and the price had gone down to 33s. 1d. There was a loss which was borne by the State of 6s. 11d., and that was what brought about the crisis in 1921. During this period the price at home was controlled, but the export price was free. We managed to get 37s. 5d. in 1920 for home and export coal, but the home price being less we got it by robbing foreign countries and charging countries on the Continent which were short of coal £3, £4 and £5 a ton. As soon as those foreign countries got their own mines going and got their electricity from water-power undertakings in operation, they no longer wanted our coal, and that brought about the crisis. I am only hoping that control in this war will be better than it was in the last war, and that the after results will be better.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member says the men were getting 25s. a shift. I say that if he were offered 25s. an hour, he would not be a miner.
    Mr. Wragg: I really must be allowed to make my speech in my own way. I try to be calm and not to emulate the example of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in his vociferous speech. Many statements have been made about colliery directors and mine managers not going to work at the coal face which are entirely wrong. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) stated that a mine manager did not send his sons to work at the face.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I never said anything of the kind. I said mineowners did not.
    Mr. Wragg: I was referring to what the non. Member for Gower said. He said that mine managers never sent their sons to work at the coal face. All I can say in reply is that in one small district in South Derbyshire I can find three managers who have sons in the industry. One is working at the face, and the two others are mine managers. They are following in the footsteps of their father.
    Mr. Sloan: Because they have to get a certain amount of practical experience. They have to do it.
    Mr. Wragg: But it shows that they think the mining industry is one which is worth going into. [Interruption.]
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Give him a chance. Do not rag him.
    Mr. Wragg: I am not accustomed to being suppressed by clamour from either Communists or Socialists. I have attended many meetings of miners at election times which have been much more stormy than this gathering. We had the crisis in the mining industry in 1921, and then there was the strike, but between 1921 and 1938 output was actually increased from 15 cwt. per man per shift in 1921 to 24 cwt. at the outbreak of the war. It has now gone down to about 21 or 22 cwt., a decline of about 10 per cent. since the beginning of the war.
    Mr. Sloan: The hon. Member will admit that an hour was put on the working day?
    Mr. Wragg: I am dealing with 1938, when there was a 7½-hour day, and 1921. I say that in 1921 the output per man per shift was 15 cwt. and by 1938, as a result of mechanisation by the wicked coal managers and their colliery directors, whom the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has repeatedly said ought to be shot, and the men, all credit to them, all working together, output had been increased from 15 cwt. to 24 cwt. at the outbreak of the war.
    Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. Member is giving credit for increased output to the coalowners, I would ask what actual part the coalowners played in coal production?
    Mr. Wragg: I was particular to mention both the wicked coalowners and the mine managers, and I incidentally mentioned the men. The men cannot get the coal without the management. I said they were all working together. I cannot understand why Members like the hon. Member for West Fife should wish to be setting one section against the other, setting the mine managers against the men and the men against the mine managers, and the two against the coalowners.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Away with them.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Give him a chance.
    Mr. Wragg: I am quite accustomed to this sort of thing, all these interruptions,

    1249
    but I should like to make my speech in my own way. What are the reasons why output has gone down? One of the real reasons is that the number of men working at the coal face is altogether out of proportion to the number of men on the surface and the number of men working underground but not at the coal face. Many of the younger men working at the coal face, on whom the output of a colliery depends, were called up at the beginning of the war for the Territorial Force, and in many of our collieries in the Midlands we suffered a great deal owing to that happening. It is said that mining is the Cinderella among the industries. That is absolutely untrue. It is said that men will not go into the mines, and that boys will not go into the mines. There is no difficulty in South Derbyshire, Leicestershire or Nottinghamshire in getting men to go into the mining industry. The difficulty is that there is so little difference in the remuneration of a man working on the surface and doing a light job and a man working underground. In Leicestershire a banksman on the surface, owing to the bonus that he is getting now, and owing to the flat rate, is receiving £5 13s. 9d. for a six-shift week, and if he goes underground he gets only £5 16s. 6d. for a six-shift week. The ordinary man at the age of 21 or 22 with a light job on the surface does not feel inclined to go down the pit for an extra 3s. a week. [Interruption.] I am not saying whether the man getting £5 13s. 9d. is overpaid or whether he is underpaid. All I am saying is——
    Mr. Toni Brown rose—
    Mr. Wragg: I have given way several times, and I cannot give way again.
    The Chairman (Major Milner): An hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt unless the hon. Member who is speaking gives way.
    Mr. Wragg: The difference between the pay of the man on the surface and the man underground is due to a great extent to the Greene award. It has been found to be favourable in some districts, but it made the great mistake of giving a flat-rate advance to the men working on the surface as well as to those working underground, whereas in the opinion of many mining people there should have been a difference. There is comparatively small difference in the pay of a man doing
    1250
    an easy job on the surface arid a man doing a responsible job—in many pits.
    Next I will deal with the question of absenteeism. In Derbyshire, which I know something about, and in Leicestershire there is very little absenteeism indeed. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Fife will take note of this, that in South Derbyshire the avoidable absenteeism at the coal face is only 1.06 per cent., and the percentage of absenteeism among all employed is only 0.83 per cent. If other districts were as good, there would be no difficulty in the coal industry. In Leicestershire the absenteeism is 3.24. if they can do that in Derbyshire and Leicestershire, they could probably dc it in Scotland and Wales.
    Mr. Gallacher: Give the figures for Fife. The absenteeism there is the lowest in the country.
    Mr. Wragg: I cannot deal with every county. I simply say that the position in regard to absenteeism is very good in the Midlands. Along with other Members of this House and with people interested in the mining industry who appreciate the great work which is being done by everyone connected with the mining industry, I deplore the taking of men to court and fining them, and sometimes sending them "down the line," as they say, for absenteeism. I would much prefer to see it dealt with by the pit production committees, subject to an appeal to, say, the Regional Controller. What happened before the war, when absenteeism was not so bad as it is to-day? If a man was a good manager, he knew his men, and if a man who was a good man stayed away and said he did so because he was tired, the mine manager, who would know the man, would know that he wanted a rest. On the other hand, if a man who was continually shirking took a day off, when he came back he would be told, "You have had a day off for yourself, and now you can have a day off for us." I say that that is a more humane way of dealing with the matter than by taking men into the police court, but such cases should always be subject to appeal to the Regional Controller, if the men want to take them to appeal.
    Coal control causes a great deal of trouble and is not liked by a great many of the men. One of the great ideas seems to be to get anything which is black, whether it is coal or not. In lots of pits,

    1251
    propositions are being put forward of a very doubtful character. Take a pit producing 25 cwts. per man-shift of excellent coal from one seam. There is another seam close by where men could produce 27 or 28 cwts. of inferior coal. "The management are asked to take men out of the seam of good coal and put them into the other seam. It ought to be realised that it is not the weight of the coal which counts but its calorific value, or the heat which it gives out. We have therefore objected in many districts, in regard to pits with which I am connected, to regional controllers coming round to us with such requests. It is of no advantage to the country to turn out a larger quantity of a poor class of coal.
    I come to the question of outcrop coal. I see that the Select Committee on National Expenditure say that 1,300,000 tons of outcrop coal have already been raised, and the loss has been about £1,000,000, but I think that will probably turn out to be an under-estimate. Whenever I mention a question of this sort to anybody, I get the answer that money does not count. Mr. Harold Skimpole in "Bleak House" was indifferent to money, and the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has also told us that pounds, shillings and pence are mere symbols. The feeling often expressed is, "If we must have the coal, what does it matter what it costs?" If it does not matter what it costs, we have no right to take the savings of the people, and we ought to be honest and to tell them that at the end of the war their money will not be worth what it is now and their savings will, in effect, have gone, because of the extravagance of Governments during the war. Money does count. There is far too much extravagance at the present time, not particularly in the mining industry but in every industry. Last September I had correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I wrote to him on these lines: "The Select Committee on National Expenditure holds post-mortem examinations, after the money has been spent, but I am going to advise you before the money has been spent, to save extravagance in this particular case."
    Outcrop coal is being raised in my constituency and I should imagine that it costs anything from £2 to £3 per ton,
    1252
    without allowing for compensation for loss of crops, and damage and other things. Before it is finished it will probably cost £4 per ton. It is being sold at £1 a ton. It is being stacked in thousands of tons, and when it has had a winter of snow and frost, it will probably be slurry, and I do not know who would care to give £1 a ton for it. Perhaps money does not count; if so, we ought to tell people so. I see my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) here. He is a great advocate of outcrop coal. I will give him credit by saying that at one place in the Midlands, I saw the best proposition I have yet seen in outcrop coal. There are several kinds of outcrop coal. There is one where you have a seam nine-foot thick. You can work it with excavators at £1 or 30s. a ton, and it is a reasonable proposition, but when you come to seams three foot thick of poorish waterlogged coal and you have to remove a lot of rock off the top and then put it back, it becomes an impossible proposition—and then, money counts. That sort of venture ought never to be undertaken. I do not hold with the opinion of my hon. and gallant Friend that you can get a great many millions of tons from this outcrop coal.
    I am sure that some Members will be very glad that I am bringing my remarks to a close. All I can say is that I feel sure there will be more co-operation between miners, managements and owners, and that everybody in the industry will do his level best to get the coal which is urgently needed for the prosecution of the war. It ill becomes hon. Members to say that this or that colliery-owner, at this or that pit, wants to stop it because he is losing money, or that another colliery-owner who is making money, therefore wants to go on with it. If hon. Members argue in that way, what is the poor colliery owner to do to be saved, except to hand over his pit to syndicalism or to some form of nationalisation? That sort of extreme speaking, and the heat engendered in coal Debates, will not impress the people of this country with nationalisation or with handing over the management of the pits to hon. gentlemen opposite, and will bring no good result in the future. I am glad to have been able to say these few words and I hope that I have been able to convert the hon. Member for West Fife to doing his best.
    Mr. Henry White: I am happy to be able to follow the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Wragg). It is the first time in my life that I have followed him. In my early industrial life I worked for him. He has displayed to-day the mentality that permeated his firm when I was young, because I worked for that firm for 6s. 6d. a week when I first started. He has talked of the industrial area where he lives, and of the harsh treatment meted out to those who have been sufferers from absenteeism and has said that most of the magistrates are Labour people. He knows that that is far from true. He knows of the representation made not only by my party but also by my industrial union, to the powers that be, for more representation on the magistrates' bench in that county.
    Mr. Wragg: I should like to interrupt my hon. Friend——
    Mr. White: I think the same treatment is due to the hon. Member for Belper as he has meted out to us.
    Mr. Wragg: The hon. Member's statement is not correct.
    Mr. White: Furthermore, he made the statement that South Derbyshire and Leicestershire are so attractive that the young lads in that particular area are scrambling to get in the pits round Church Gresley and Swadlincote and elsewhere. I happen to know that area. I have three brothers who worked for the firms with which the hon. Member has an association, and he is stretching the point when he goes our of his way to say that one manager has a son at the coal face and two others are managers. He forgets to say it is their desire in life to recreate their personnel and their class of managerial outlook. Having said that, I would also like to mention that one is not prepared to accept even his version of open-cast mining. I have seen up and down the country and in his particular area as well a seam of coal that could be got within a reasonable price. Only three weeks ago, on his very doorstep, or his industrial doorstep, I witnessed the winning of coal that was of such a value that it would help the war effort and also take the burden off my colleagues in the coal-mining industry.
    I rose to make a special point to the Minister in respect of the question of concentration. It has been laboured somewhat to-day, but I want to draw the
    1254
    attention of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to the question of concentration in relation to its effect on the transport difficulties of this country. It has been thought fit in my particular area to close a colliery. Four hundred men at that colliery have been directed elsewhere—to two more productive pits than the one which has been closed and one with a little higher productive capacity. This step not only meant the misfortune of not having proper travel facilities when the transfer took place, but it also had a bad effect upon the mining community in North-East Derbyshire. We have lost the National Production Director, who has not been replaced. In my region the Regional Production Director has not been replaced. There are seven men working on a panel. The Minister himself, in reply to a Question of mine, admired their public spirit in coming forward to help in this piece of work. Some of these men must have been in some degree connected with the closing of this colliery, with the result that the men who were working at the colliery which has been closed have been directed to the pits where some of those Production Deputy Directors are engaged on the production side. This has a bad psychological effect on our men. There is a feeling that they are being toyed with, with the result that there is resentment.
    A fortnight ago I spent the whole of a week-end trying to avoid a stoppage of work because of the lack of facilities provided for transport and also because of this bad psychological effect. Therefore I want to appeal to the Minister that in future when concentration takes place some regard should be given to proper travel facilities being put into operation before the final direction is given to the men. In my particular area there is a feeling also that from the Yorkshire side into Derbyshire financial interests are creeping in and getting a hold of, and controlling, the pits where direction is taking place, with the result that you have not only got men and masters at variance, as has been suggested here to-day, but there is a feeling that there is a scramble of interests controlling the mining industry itself, and that our chaps are getting the wrong end of the stick every time. I say that this petty irritation has got to cease.
    I warned this Committee 12 months ago what would happen to the concentration

    1255
    scheme. I put my point then, and what few concentrations have taken place in my particular area are proving to the hilt what I said then. It disturbs our village life and our community of interests, our men and our organisation, and there is a feeling that due consideration is not given to the man-power in these particular cases. I am very much afraid that after all the concentration we will not get in the long run an increased output. We might get it now, but it will prove in the long run that the disturbance caused will create such a psychology among our men that the output will decrease according to the man-shift worked. Let me give a case of the concentration that has taken place in North-East Derby. The men had a bus service. They were directed to another pit, and straight away the bus service that took them to this pit was refused them for travelling to the other pit, which was further away than the first one. This is too ridiculous for words. Apart from that, the furthest of the two pits to which they were transferred was 10 miles away. This means an expenditure in petrol, rubber, etc. We know we want coal, but the fact remains that these men had worked in a pit where total recognition of a trade union was accepted. They were directed to a pit where total trade union recognition as we understand it was not, in essence, accepted, where the company maintained and stuck to the letter of the law, with the result that these men have gone there 10 miles away and have to work a little longer, being expected to see the job finished.
    I had a case last week of men who should have finished work at 10 p.m. staying a little longer to complete the job, with the result that after this had been done there was no bus to take them home 10 miles away, and then they were expected at work on Sunday morning. They told me the colliery manager had said, "If you do not present yourself for work on Sunday morning, you will have to appear before the investigation officer." They asked me my opinion. I said, "Go before the investigation officer." That is the position regarding concentration in my particular area. I hope that when further consideration is taking place the Minister will give full consideration to transport difficulties and other unsatisfactory features.
    Mr. Lewis Jones: I was greatly interested in the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, and I could not help pricking up my ears when he said that he hoped next year to see the country through without any trouble, provided two things—that the output per man-shift were maintained, and that economy were still greater in industry and in domestic consumption. I agree with those Members who have expressed doubts about the optimism of the Minister. I thought the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was wrong when he said that the miners had produced more last year than in the previous year. The figures which the Minister gave yesterday disclosed that the production was down 308,000 tons on the previous year, that is, 6,000 tons a week. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that, instead of a reduction last year, there had really been an increase. I know that the country has to face the fact that during the coming year there will be a fall in man-power in the collieries by 16,000, and I estimate, on the assumption that each miner produces five tons a week, that that will mean a reduction of at least 4,000,000 tons in the output of coal. I think the position is rather alarming. I am not going to pursue that argument now, but I want to make one or two suggestions which might assist in the solution of this problem.
    It is rather tragic that the coal industry is practically alone in British industry in being in this dire state. It is so easy to fling bricks and venture criticism to the right or to the left; I have no desire to do so. I have been watching the operation of the Greene bonus award very closely since its inception, and I have come to the conclusion that this output award is a failure. I need not remind hon. Members that the scheme was first recommended to the employers and the employees by the Greene Board, as, in their own words:
    "an inducement to the miners to make a special effort to increase production "
    It was decided in the first place, after conferences between the owners and the miners, that this scheme should be operated for an experimental period of six months, and that at the end of that period, last March, the position should be reviewed. I gather that when the scheme was first discussed it was advocated on one side that the bonus should

    1257
    be on a district basis, and on the other that it should be on a pit basis. It was decided to adopt a district basis. There are in the British coalfield 25 coal-producing districts. It is remarkable that in only four of them has the output bonus been earned. A target has been fixed for each district, and the total of the district targets may be reckoned as the national target for the British coalfield. In not a single week has the national target been reached. Indeed, in 10 of the large districts, including South Wales and Yorkshire, in not a single week has any district reached the target. Those 10 districts are responsible for 48 per cent. of the coal of the country. Figures have been published showing the earnings under this scheme on 15th May, and on that occasion just over 7 per cent. of the employees of the whole of the coalfield had had the bonus. It is unsatisfactory that only 55,000 miners out of 710,000 have qualified. What is the reason?
    Mr. Sloan: The targets were too high.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Member has been interrupting all through the Debate; I hope he will let me go on. I take the view that if a pit target had been adopted the situation would not have arisen. You may have a district bonus paid on an output of 105 per cent. for the district. Some of the collieries in that district may have reached only 95 per cent. of the target, but they will have the advantage of the bonus. Another district may have produced only 98 per cent., and some of the collieries in that district may have reached 105 per cent., yet, because the district percentage is below 100, the men in the collieries producing 105 per cent. get nothing. It must be very unsatisfactory to the miner who has made a special effort to increase production. You may have a pit which has done remarkably well, where a very active pit production committee has successfully encouraged miners to increase production well above the target, but they fail to secure the bonus because another pit in the district has fallen well below the target. The incentive which inspired people will have disappeared, because they have gained no bonus. I urge the Minister to look into the matter, and to see whether he does not believe that an improvement could be effected by the adoption of a pit basis. I am surprised that no miners'
    1258
    representative has dealt with this point——
    Mr. G. Griffiths: We have had no chance.
    Mr. Jones: —and that the Select Committee has not dealt with it. It seems so obvious to me. I am convinced that if the Minister would examine this matter afresh he could provide an added incentive to miners.
    Mr. Sloan: Does the hon. Member know that the Miners' Executive has recommended that?
    Mr. Jones: I did not know that. I thought that, as agreement had been reached on the Greene award, they had accepted the district scheme. It was not Lord Greene's Committee that decided on the district points. District points were decided at a conference between mine-owners and miners.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: The Miners' Federation put forward the very point that the hon. Member suggested months ago.
    Mr. Jones: I was not aware of that, and it only confirms my view of the position. On the question of canteens, those of us who are interested in, and associated with, the heavy industries realise that it is very desirable that everything should be done to supply the workers with additional rations. I have seen these canteens at work not only in the coal industry but also in the steel industry, and I can understand the disappointment that is caused when these canteens are not more freely used. It is indeed disappointing when every effort is made to provide good meals for mineworkers to see such a small percentage of workers taking advantage of them. I know of a case where only 20 per cent. of the miners took advantage of such a provision. I am confident that if we could persuade the operatives in these difficult rationing days to take advantage of this additional rationing system available at very reasonable prices, it would materially help to maintain the physique of all concerned. If we coupled that simple suggestion with the incentive of a pit production bonus scheme, it would provide an incentive for a material increase in output.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: This, I believe, may be a red-letter day as far as the coal industry is concerned. We have

    1259
    listened to the Minister with great pleasure because we did not expect that he would have been able to give the figures that he has given to-day, either in regard to production or in regard to the saving by the consumer. We were very pleased to hear that last winter stocks were added to, but it will be generally accepted that if there was one lucky man in this country it was the Minister of Fuel and Power. He was congratulated. The sun shone upon him, but it would be a mistake to bank too much upon the sun always shining, just when we want it. I am pleased that the tone and tenor of this Debate to-day have been such as to warn the Minister to take further steps, in addition to those he has suggested himself.
    There is one thing about which I am very pleased. I am glad that the Minister has come down on this question of absenteeism and I hope that we shall have no more humbug about it. There are Members in this Committee who have done almost irreparable damage in the coalfields by the strictures they have made here and the unfair things they have said about miners, by and large. The right hon. Gentleman gave the figure of 4.47 of avoidable absenteeism and of 6.97 of unavoidable absenteeism, but, taking the industry generally, during the war period and considering the time that we have been at war, I make bold to say that there is no other industry in this country that can be compared with the mining industry. Mind you, the miners have no lunch-time "Music while you work." The only music that our men have is the clank of the conveyor belt, and the rate at which they are working is the rate at which the conveyor belt is working.
    Recently, while on the way to London I found myself riding in a bus with a miner from Newcastle. I did not know him but he knew me, and I know the colliery at which he works. He said, "The trouble at our pit is that we are getting too old." Nobody can question the patriotism of the miners. Lift the barrier and you would not have many young men left in the mines; they would be in the Forces. My miner friend said, "With all the good will in the world, we are tired before the week is out." These men are over 50 years of age. They have been working continuously now for some years, but before then they did not work regularly.
    1260
    Because of the insane cut-throat competition of the coalowners in this country, our men were partly idle and working only half-time. The coalowners were not underselling the foreigner; they were underselling each other. That is where the mistake was made in the coal trade; that was where the fatal blow was struck, and it is that from which we are suffering now. There were thousands of men who could not find work in the industry and they came trooping down here because of the insane policy of building factories round the Metropolis. That was one of the mistakes and one of the means by which we drained the industry. The figure of 4.47 of avoidable absenteeism in my view is probably too high, because men who may be idle one day do not put in a doctor's note and do not report it and therefore it is classed as avoidable absenteeism.
    I want to emphasise a further point about the 5¾ shifts that our men work. Our men have not only been working hard for four years; they have been working hard since 1936. When the coal industry at last used common sense and reason and began to lay the basis in the industry which provided definite wages, it was able to create full-time employment. Our men have not only been working strenuously during the war period; they have been working strenuously since 1936 and some of the elderly men are getting tired and weary.
    Now I want to tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman where he is making a big mistake. I do not think he is to blame, because we have had similar pronouncements from other Members of the Government. He is not in favour of men coming back from the Forces, unless something very serious happens that necessitates their return. Why run along the edge of the precipice in danger of falling over? If something serious happens which will necessitate their return, the damage will have been done. Although consumption demands may have been lightened by economies, we are all expecting that in a short time—and the sooner the better, if it is wise to do so—we shall go further afield and that there will be tremendous actions to try to finish the war as quickly as possible. We have heard how much coal has been taken to North Africa. How much more will it take to supply the other places to which we shall go? It will take enormous quantities. Time is marching

    1261
    on and winter is approaching and I say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is too optimistic, he is taking too big a risk and in certain circumstances the House of Commons will not forget. They may continue to love him, but if he is wrong, they will not forgive him. No failures are forgiven, although perhaps I had better not say that——
    Mr. James Griffiths: Some who have failed have even been promoted.
    Mr. Taylor: I pass from that to say a few words about surface and underground workers. There was never any bother in the old days when boys used to go to the mines to work underground. At that time they were buried away in colliery villages, without any semblance of the decent amenities of life. They were satisfied because they did not know any better. But now, thank God, times have altered. They are not going down the mines. It is no use throwing statements across the Floor of the Committee that colliery managers' sons do not go down the mines. The sons of Members of Parliament do not go down either. But we need those who want to go underground. This is the crux of the situation. One of the things which handicaps output now is that if a non-producer is idle, or if you are short of boys, you have to bring in a man from the face, which means that you have to bring in a young man.
    I want the Ministry to be careful. It is true that there are many boys underground who did not want to go to the coal face. In future, why not give boys a reasonable training and an opportunity to go clown below and let them join the Forces if they do not wish to go underground, instead of hauling them before the courts? Some lads in my district, before they went to court, were walking about for weeks doing nothing. There is no sense in that. Do not be too hard on these boys and young men now. Remember they are the product of the dole period in this country, when Members on the other side, in 1931 and onwards, insisted on a means test for our people and allowed coalowners and companies to leave industrial districts for other districts, so creating derelict areas. If fathers were on the dole their sons were subject to a means test and their standard of life was kept as low as possible. If the son was working and the
    1262
    father was idle, there was hardly any standard of life in the house. I will not say that miners are the finest men in the land—we are all Britishers and brothers—but they are not the least finest. Yet they were treated as callously as though they were aliens or prisoners of war. In our discipline, let us be careful what we are doing.
    I do not suppose it is generally known except by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Wragg) how miners' wages and conditions operated. The same thing is going on to-day to a greater or lesser degree—grasping one penny a ton here and 2d. a score there, so creating irritation. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster), earlier to-day, put a very pointed question to the Minister about the operation of the control and asked why coalowners are never in the dock. The question I want to ask is: Are you close enough to the coal-field? You do not produce coal in London or in a regional office. I had a case brought to my notice recently of lads who had been idle for a day.
    Nine of them at least were working double shifts every day. If you had a pony that would not work, it held up the other lads who wanted to get on and there was trouble. This has been going on for a month. I believe it is settled now, but you ought to know all about this. If a pit is employing 1,500 stops for one day it takes a good deal of absenteeism to make up for that. Therefore I am asking that my hon. Friend should keep as close to the coalfield as he possibly can. I believe this Debate may have done good, hut, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that men will be brought back from the Army, we may have a very serious situation to face in the future.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): I do not think anyone, especially on this side, could complain of the temper of the Debate that we have had. I remember that when the White Paper was under discussion my right hon. and gallant Friend and I sat here without saying a word. When the House accepted the White Paper we said to ourselves, "These are our terms of reference." When we got down to the new Ministry, a Ministry for the first time in the history of British mining and not a Department, we knew that we had a task that was going to

    1263
    demand the best from all of us. We knew that there was an estimated gap between production and consumption and, as my right hon. Friend told the House on 1st October last, that gap could only be bridged if certain things were done. The Committee has had to-day what may be termed a progress report. As one who has been privileged to take some little part in the economy campaign in different parts of the country, North, East, South and West, both industrial and domestic consumers, deserve a word of thanks. Long before the spell of fine weather came, consumers had become economy minded. I could tell of exhibitions that took place in different parts of the country to which scores of thousands of people went. They not only knew the value of coal in time of war, but were prepared to put up with some little discomfort. By the elimination of waste and by economy industrial consumers have done well. With regard to production, it is only right to say that the producers have done well. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) that it is far better to give credit where credit is due and sometimes give the producers a pat on the back than concentrate all the time on the small minority who are not quite playing the game.
    Twelve months ago we had a good many strikes running. One morning I counted about 34 running at the same time, most of them set down by boys, before the increase of wages under the Lord Greene award came about. What made me laugh one morning, when there was only one left, was that it happened to be a pit which 38½ years ago sacked me for the same thing. So I got my own back. When the Greene award came it certainly brought a good deal of tranquillity into mining, and, while there have been repeated unconstitutional strikes, as we call them, in certain parts of the country, it is only true to say, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) said, that there has been no strike authorised by the trade unions since the war started. Why? Because the miner is a patriotic being. From the beginning of the war miners have been prepared to see Fascism and Nazism downed. I do not think anyone can charge the Miners Federation with not doing all it possibly can to secure the coal and everything else necessary to bring about victory.
    1264
    With regard to the man-power problem, I do not think that the hon. Member for Gower will dispute that in 1941, from that side of the House, I did a little to focus attention on the decreasing manpower. It is true that since the White Paper was issued we have had men returned to the industry from the Forces, from the ground staff of the R.A.F. and from other industries, but since the beginning of this year up to date there has been a decrease in man-power of something like 4,300, and the man-power problem, as my right hon. Friend said, is one that we have constantly to keep in mind. Someone asked me whether we had pit room. My right hon. and gallant Friend and I would be very happy if we had all the present pit room tilled. I think I am right in saying that at present we could find work for at least 20,000 coal face workers, and, given a little preparation, We could find work for another 15,000 at the coal face. Therefore, from our particular point of view, we shall not complain of anyone focusing attention on the man-power position. I agree with my hon. Friend, because, when I was his P.P.S. in 1940, we used to talk of the minimum necessary in mining, and we agreed that 725,000 was the minimum that was safe. At the same time we have to remember that we are in the fourth year of war. When miners have been in the Army for three or four years, the Army do not like to lost them. They are pretty good scrappers. It is also true that the Government decided that as from the end of last year no more could come back to the pits. But the Committee may take it that we are constantly considering this question and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Hutchinson: How does the hon. Gentleman propose to deal with the normal wastage, which will amount to 19,000?
    Mr. Molson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the number who returned from the Armed Forces, how it came about and what additional number could be brought back?
    Mr. Smith: I have not a good grasp of the figures, but I was coming to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). In mining you have almost inevitable wastage. When the White Paper was produced it predicted an annual net wastage of 25,000. My

    1265
    right hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned that that figure has been got down to 19,600. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) asked what the explanation was. There has been a tighter control of men trying to get out of the industry. That itself has been responsible for something like 3,000 fewer people going out. In addition to that there is a wastage of men through age, accidents, illness and so on.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I was promised a little further explanation of the question I put to the Minister when he was speaking. Would the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by tighter control and how the medical services have contributed towards that tighter control?
    Mr. Smith: If my hon. Friend will let me make my speech in my own way, he will get the information.
    Mr. Davies: I would not have interjected if my hon. Friend had not already left the point.
    Mr. Smith: I was not leaving the point but was coming on to the medical service in its proper sequence. With regard to the closer control of men getting out of the industry, there were large numbers who were getting out on medical certificates some of which looked a little doubtful on the surface. When we set up the Mines Medical Service with a doctor in each region, one of the things we expected him to do was to pay some attention to that matter. We are not saying that all the 3,000 were due to the activities of the Mines Medical Inspectorate, but they have had something to do with it. Taking all in all and having regard to the fact that there is a shortage of doctors, we have done remarkably well to get the Mines Medical Service set up. While we had large numbers of doctors making application for the posts, we wanted to get the right type of doctor to deal with the kind of cases that mining brings and we wanted men who would be prepared to go underground if necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Bernard Taylor) has asked me whether anything was being done with regard to dermatitis. When there were any alleged cases among underground workers our medical officer lost no time in getting in touch with the committee of eminent skin specialists in order to go into the whys and wherefores. Therefore, I can
    1266
    only say to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr that the number who come out on medical certificates is down to 3,000.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: In what regions have these medical officers worked? [Interruption.] I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend, but by implication a charge has been made against medical practitioners in some coal pits, and we are entitled to have the matter cleared up. In what regions are these medical officers functioning?
    Mr. Smith: I cannot give the eight regions off-hand, but I am prepared to supply my hon. Friend with the information. I made no charge at all against the medical profession. What I said from this Box last October was that you had to be particularly careful before you disagreed with a doctor's diagnosis, and I quoted the case of a man who played rugby although he was certified to be suffering from heart disease. I have argued this matter with some of the doctors, and some general practitioners themselves have told me that they have felt on occasion that they have let men go when they perhaps should not have done so. The Mines Medical Service and the doctors in the regions will pay some attention to this matter.
    On the wastage question again, we were promised in the White Paper that there should be rehabilitation of fracture cases. In 12 months we have had more rehabilitation of injured mineworkers than we have had in the last 40 years. The one thing that pains me as an old mineworker who has always been pretty strong is that it usually needs a war to focus attention on some of these human problems. Let us see what we have done under the rehabilitation scheme. Men from the four Scottish coalfields are being treated at Gleneagles, which I have seen only once, and that was at the opening ceremony. We are getting centres going in the other coalfields, and it is generally admitted by those who know what has taken place that the Miners' Welfare Commission since it undertook to do this work has done remarkably well. It takes far more to rehabilitate a mineworker for his original work than to rehabilitate a man for lighter work, and when we get this thing going we shall have it as a permanent part of the mining industry.
    Mr. E. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend mean that only one centre is open?
    Mr. Smith: No, but I did not want to go into details. There are Gleneagles for Scotland; Mansfield for Notts and Derby; Wakefield for West and South Yorkshire——
    Mr. Bernard Taylor rose—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): If the hon. Gentleman is allowed to make his own speech, we shall get along more quickly.
    Mr. Taylor: I do not often interrupt, and I only wanted to say that the Mansfield centre was established long before the White Paper was issued.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend knows that I am aware of that. It was due to his activities and the activities of Dr. Nichol at Mansfield that this scheme broadened and developed. I have already paid handsome tribute to the work that Dr. Nichol has done.
    Mr. Taylor: That is what I wanted my hon. Friend to say.
    Mr. Smith: With regard to industrial disease, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower and his colleagues of South Wales that we lost no time in legislating on pneumokoniosis? We have a three-way method of dealing with it. First, by compensating the victims and by a benefit scheme, and I am pleased to say that the regulations were signed yesterday. Second, there is a committee set up in South Wales of eminent medical men and others who think out how best to rehabilitate the victims of this disease. I can say as one who was at the first meeting that the committee is extremely keen on its work. Third, and perhaps most important, are the preventive measures underground in order to allay the dust. May I pay a tribute to the inspectorate and to those who are assisting the inspectorate for the work they are doing in trying to allay the dust? With that three-way drive into pneumokoniosis all that was accomplished within 12 months. When my hon. Friend twits me about its being time, let him remember that it took years upon years of agitation both outside this House and inside to get silicosis recognised as being an industrial disease for the purpose of workmen's compensation.
    1268
    With regard to the question of whether people will go into the mining industry, I say frankly and sincerely that I know why lads will not enter the industry. I am going to be frank and blunt about it. I do not like to be personal, but I am one of the best illustrations there can be. My father was a miner, and he said that I would never go to work in the pit while he lived. I did not until he died, and then I had to go into the pit. What he said was what thousands of mineworkers have said: "My lad will never go into the pit if I can stop him." They are still saying it. They want to see the lads have "a better crack of the whip" in this world than they themselves have had. During the two or three years I spent on the Miners' Welfare Scholarship Scheme Committee I saw evidences of the tremendous amount of ability among the sons and daughters of British miners, but I used to be appalled when the question was put to these young people, "Wouldn't you like to become a mining engineer?" "Oh, no," they used to say, and when they were asked why they would say, "My father developed silicosis, my uncle got killed," and so on. They wanted any kind of profession but mining. I have great faith in British mining, and I want to see new entrants into British mining not merely during the war but in the future, but a lot of things will have to be done if we are to encourage boys to go into the pits.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Buck rose (Major Braithwaite) talked about making the industry more attractive, and in that I will give him all support. Let me mention one or two of the things which will have to be done. In the first place, there will have to be good wages and good working conditions, and provision made for good training. An hon. Friend asked me where training was taking place. In Northumberland, at one particular pit, Ashington, there is a scheme of training which has been copied by other collieries. The kiddie coming from school, after being given a few lessons in elementary geology and getting a little knowledge about gas in mines, is taken down the pit and allowed to play with a pony and a tub, told of the working of the endless rope, told how to put the clip on in safety and so on. From that he graduates to other work, on to the conveyor along which the coal

    1269
    is taken, and so on right the way through. The lads are given training so that when they do go into the workings they have at least sonic: knowledge of what it is they are likely to meet. What happened when we went into the pit? Nobody had given me any training before I went down for the first time. If the pony would not pull, somebody came out and gave you a good cursing and sometimes more than that. We shall have to give these boys training and, more than that, give them a chance of promotion, so that they may have something to look forward to.
    Also, we must stop talking down mining. Everyone who writes a book about mining writes about the sordid side. Miners have been looked upon as being not quite as good as other people. They are as good and no better. If we put mining into its rightful place in our national economy, we shall stop its being the Cinderella among our industries, we shall recognise mineworkers as being as good as anybody else, and we shall make progress. Then, as soon as possible after the war is over, we shall have to make our colliery villages a jolly sight more bright than they have been. We must make the environment better, make them villages from which the young people will not run away as soon as their brains are developed. And when we have done that we shall have as much difficulty to get as many boys working underground as we have had before.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Would the hon. Member include in his condemnation the system by which a boy is valued at less than a pony if an accident occurs?
    Mr. Smith: That brings in other matters, which I do not wish to deal with now. What I am saying is that if British mining is to live, we must have new entrants to the industry, and with the increase in mechanisation and with newer methods we want boys who have been, say, to the secondary schools and who have some mechanical knowledge. Anybody who can visualise the future of British mining will know that these new methods have come to stay. Questions have been put about concentration and new methods, which I would like to answer. Everybody who knew anything about mining knew that concentration would give rise to difficult problems. There were the social consequences, the
    1270
    uprooting of people from the villages, and so on. I can give this assurance forthwith. There is consultation when it is proposed to close down a pit.
    Mr. Foster: Whom with?
    Mr. Smith: The Regional Controller and his officers are always ready for consultations with the owners and the men. My hon. Friend quoted a particular case during the Debate, and I will make inquiries, but I can say from my own knowledge of the district in which I worked that there was the closest cooperation with the branch, with the management, and with the pit production committee, and there certainly should be.
    With regard to power loading, which was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for the Fylde division (Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster), I would ask hon. Members when they are talking about power loading to keep a sense of proportion. The hon. and gallant Member spoke about the American who came over here. I met him at one of the hon. and gallant Member's pits, and we had a long chat about the differences between British mining and American mining. In America the pits are more shallow, they usually start on the surface. They usually try to finish a pit in 20 years. They have less gas than we have. When talking about putting power loaders into the pits, here we must keep a sense of proportion. In the South Yorkshire coalfield, in the Barnsley area, there is a seam of coal 750 to 920 yards deep, gaseous coal, some of it liable to spontaneous combustion. If power loaders were put in there we should have to introduce shot firing in order to blow the coal to the side, so that the power loader could handle it. Unless a good deal of discrimination is exercised the introduction of power loaders may have serious consequences. I speak as one who spent some little time in one of the pits where 45 men were killed. The Committee can take it that all these factors will be borne in mind before power loaders are introduced.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. Can we have an assurance that before these power loaders are introduced in any particular pit there will be consultation with the men there?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend may take it that before power loaders go down any pit there is consultation, and I can give the assurance that consultation on anything that is going to make for better coal production is desirable. There is only one other question I would like to deal with in the time at my disposal, and it is that raised by the hon. Member for Gower in regard to accidents. Let us be perfectly frank. The appointment of nine additional inspectors to go into the matter of roof control was a step in the right direction. There has been some little reduction in the rate of fatal and serious accidents, and while it cannot be attributed solely to the appointment of those nine inspectors, their appointment has certainly helped. Without giving a lot of figures to the Committee, it would be interesting for them to know that in 1940 there were 923 persons killed and 3,237 seriously injured, in 1941, 925 killed and 2,990 seriously injured and, in 1942, 877 persons killed and 2,809 seriously injured. The conclusion to be drawn from those figures, despite the drive for production, is that there has been no conscious weakening in any of the safety measures.
    When we come to look at the main cause of fatal and serious accidents at the coal face, we get the comparison which is as follows: In 1940, 433 were killed at the coal face, in 1941, 431 and in 1942, 371. The respective figures for serious injury were 1,270, 1,218 and 1,085. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower and the Committee generally can therefore take it that while there has been an improvement there is still room for a great deal more improvement, and that there will be no slacking off in safety measures, whatever may be the demand for securing the production of coal. I am entitled to say, when one remembers the kind of work that a mines inspector has to do today in addition to what he had to do in peace-time, that on the whole the inspectorate have done a marvellous job of work, and in each district the joint committee going into the question of falls of ground with workmen's inspectors, under Section 16 of the fifty-fifty arrangement, has done a remarkable job. We shall continue to try to secure still further reduction in all forms of accidents underground. Twelve months have gone. What we are all concerned about is the future. To me it is not a question of the arithmetic between production and consump-
    1272
    tion but of getting all the coal we can and using it to the best advantage, because we do not know where we shall have to send this coal before the war is over. I therefore say to the Committee and to the industry, whether to the men, the managers or the officials, that we want tranquillity, good will and co-operation, in order to produce the necessary amount of coal which we hope is going to blast us to victory as quickly as possible.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again "—[Major Sir James Edmondson]—put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

SOFT DRINKS INDUSTRY (CONCENTRATION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]
Mr. Linstead: I wish to invite the attention of the House to soft drinks, and in particular to the concentration scheme for the soft drinks industry which is partially in operation at the present time and is about to 'be completed. That scheme is worked by means of a War-time Association governed by a committee, and the whole of it is under the supervision of the Ministry of Food. There are two schemes involved. One is a scheme for the concentration of the industry and the other is a scheme for the election of the committee which is to run the concentration scheme. On both, the concentration scheme proper and the scheme for the committee, the Government have a majority of votes and can at any time impose their wishes on those responsible for the two schemes. To-morrow, the second of the schemes, that is the scheme for the approval of a method of electing a committee, has to come before a general meeting of the Association.
The matter I wish to bring to the notice of the House has a very topical significance at the present time. The serious difficulty, it seems to me, with which the industry is faced at the present time is that quite a number of firms of standing in the industry honestly believe that this concentration scheme is not being fairly operated. We have all, I think, received letters indicating that there is, among firms of consider-

1273
able standing in the industry, doubt about the way in which the scheme is likely to progress. That atmosphere of suspicion is the matter to which I want to direct the attention of the House. I think we can understand how it has arisen only if we take the point of view of one of the firms that is likely to be subject to this concentration scheme. From their point of view, they remember that in April, 1942, they put up a scheme of concentration of their own which was rejected. They remember that the articles of association of the War Time Association have never been submitted to a meeting of members for their approval. They remember that the first committee of 12 members was put to the Association on the nomination of the Minister, with very little opportunity for the Association to put up its own nominees. They have just recently found that there is a proposal to amend the scheme by which members of the committee are to be elected. They have asked for an independent chairman, and the Minister has not found it possible to grant that request. For all these reasons, it is understandable that there is within the industry at the present time a feeling of suspicion about working the scheme.
It is not surprising that a man who is worried by war-time troubles in the conduct of his business and who then discovers he may find his business closed through the operation of this scheme, is likely to feel, with this sort of history in the background, that the dice are loaded against him. In such circumstances it is surely the duty of the Minister and of this House to reassure the industry that it is getting a square deal. If the Parliamentary Secretary is able to give the assurances which I am certain he is in a position to give, I am sure that those of us who have been called in to the aid of the industry should use our best endeavours to remove this atmosphere of suspicion. The Parliamentary Secretary could do a great deal to reassure the industry by giving an explanation of two facts and assurances on two rather simple points. So often a public explanation can do a great deal to remove misapprehension. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will find it possible to explain why the request of the industry for an independent chairman could not be granted, and why it is not possible for the Minister to say now that he will not use the Government votes at
1274
the meeting to-morrow to decide on the scheme for the election of a committee of the Association. That is a purely domestic matter, one would think, and it should be possible to leave the Association to conduct its own affairs without the intervention of the Government votes.
Then there are two assurances that I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give. They are extremely simple, so simple that it is almost an impertinence to ask a Minister of the Crown to give them, but, knowing the suspicion that there is in the background, I ask for these assurances, without making any suggestion of mala fides or anything of that sort, because I think they will help. I hope that he will give an assurance that there is going to be no interference with the present appeals machinery, whereby a firm served with a notice to close a factory has a right of appeal, and that when the election for the committee comes on in September firms will be completely free to vote for whomsoever they like without any pressure. To us in the House those assurances could be almost taken for granted, but to the industry a statement on those lines will do a great deal. It will remove the worst misunderstandings, and will, I am sure, bring about an improvement in the atmosphere. The sad thing is that this industry is split into two. The sooner we can remove the reasons for the split and get the industry working on the concentration scheme, the better for all concerned.
Major Procter: I am sure that everyone who is interested in this matter has been struck by the very moderate way the case for the opposition to this scheme has been put forward. I regard this whole measure as jiggery-pokery from beginning to end, and I do not propose to mince my words. I am certain that if this House had considered this scheme before it came into operation, it would never have gone through. The scheme of concentration as a whole is an obnoxious scheme. It is the worst form of the application of—I was going to say Socialism, but it is far worse than that. Here is a limited company. It was pointed out in the last Adjournment Debate that the whole of the goodwill and assets of hard-working manufacturers has been put for the entire duration of the war into the custody of highly-placed, important competitors. In my opinion, this scheme will be used—and it is being used—in order to

1275
enable a monopoly to be created in the soft drinks industry which will crush out for all time the small men. It was very quietly and courteously asked that, instead of the head of a most powerful group being made the chairman of this organisation, there should be appointed as chairman a man who had no axe to grind whatever and who could deal with all the interests of both the big and little men from the judicial point of view.
I want to know why it is that this powerful group has been able to persuade the Government to place the livelihood of hundreds of men into the hands of monopolists and powerful competitors who can use this scheme to crush them and keep them out of this business altogether. In the election which is to be held in a short time the voting is to be on gallonage, that is, according to the number of gallons produced since the war. Is that reasonable? Many of the people who comprise this Association did not want to come in; they are in it against their will. The awarding of voting power on gallonage appears to be opposed to every democratic instinct in this House. They are also going to draw out of the scheme according to their profits. If you are going to be anti-democratic, you ought at least to be fair. Why not have the same scheme in each instance? It is based on the last year's trading, which benefits the firms which did not have their factories requisitioned during the early part of the war and which have not gone partly or wholly on to work more directly concerned with the war effort. It penalises the firm which, since the war, has put the war effort first and encouraged its staff to do the same. It penalises the firm which kept faith with its customers. It benefits the firms who, by selfishness or any other methods, took advantage of the opportunity, including the calling-up of managers and staffs, to increase output during war-time. Intimidation is being used in the way that this election is being carried out. There have been letters, and here is one from the Sheffield and District Mineral Water Manufacturers' Association, the chairman of which is on the committee. This is what he said:
"You will possibly have received your form of proxy by to-day's post. Please note that this is not the official form sent on by your Association and should be ignored. The form of proxy should be received by 23rd inst. and is the only official form."
1276
I maintain that the small men are being bullied and prevented from having a voice at the election. If they go to the meeting to-morrow and put up their hands, they can be kept out by the articles of association. Those who have the proxy vote will rule the day. I ask the Minister to see that there shall be a democratic vote and that there shall be an independent chairman whose job it will be to preserve the businesses of the small men for those who return after the war.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): I am not quite certain which voice I should listen to of the two voices I have heard in this brief Debate. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) put his case with consideration and in such a way that the differences in this industry to which he referred might have been smoothed over, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Accrington (Major Procter). who, on a previous occasion, made a speech in violent language on this subject, has used some of that language again to-day. The House ought to be aware of the unfortunate timing of this Debate. To-morrow, 24th June, a meeting is to be held at which this War Time Association is to take certain decisions. Certain motions will be submitted to it, having regard to the scheme which was submitted by the existing Committee on 28th February, I think the House will appreciate that it would be improper for me to say anything to-day that would in any way prejudice the decisions to be taken at that meeting.
Major Procter: Would the hon. Gentleman excuse me a moment, because——
Mr. Mabane: No, the hon. and gallant Gentleman interrupted me a great deal last time I spoke on this matter, and the consequence was that I was not able to complete a rather important statement, which led to misunderstanding afterwards. I was very careful not to interrupt him while he was speaking just now. Let me tell the House of the circumstances which exist. The existing Committee of the War Time Association were required by their constitution to submit a scheme for the election of a Committee to succeed the present temporary Committee. They submitted proposals, as required, on 28th February last. After full consideration of the views of the Committee, and of the

1277
trade association and other bodies, the Minister approved the proposals for the constitution of the new Committee, with certain amendments. To-morrow an extraordinary general meeting of the Association is to be held in order to consider the scheme as amended. I feel it is greatly to be regretted that certain members of the industry have thought fit to send a circular to members of the Association in what I think is most immoderate and unreasonable language. For instance, this document says:
"We look to you to judge whether or not we are entitled to stigmatise these proposals as jiggery-pokery."
The hon. and gallant Member for Accrington used that phrase in his speech to-day. It is a very serious accusation to make either against the Department or against a number of men who have had the highest and most honourable reputation in business. The circular goes on to say:
"Human nature being what it is, such circumstances inevitably promote wire-pulling, the play of personal friendship, the paying off of old scores, or the unconscious giving effect to personal prejudices."
Again, those are most serious charges, and I think that if those charges are to be. levelled against any one man, and the hon. and gallant Member mentioned one man, if not by name, then in such terms that everyone can recognise him, then they ought to be made openly so that the man accused can face those charges. Then:
"We regard the manner in which the proposed change in the constitution of the Association has been incorporated in the new scheme … as a piece of jiggery-pokery which insults the intelligence of the members of the industry."
This document was circulated with the heading in large type, "The Soft Drinks Industry (War Time Association) Ltd.," and there is reason to think it has been mistaken by some persons into whose hands it has fallen as a document issued by the Association itself. With this document there was enclosed a form of proxy headed, also in large black type, "The Soft Drinks Industry (War Time Association) Ltd.," and there is reason to think that some members of the Association have mistaken this for a proxy issued by their own Association. I have a selection of letters from members of the Association who received this and in some cases, not appreciating that it was not the proxy of
1278
their own Association, signed it. Here is one:
"As we have no desire to be associated with this branch of the Soft Drink Industry we shall be pleased to have fresh voting card."
Here is another:
"This is to certify that the proxy we sent … was sent by us in error. We therefore revoke same."
Another writes that he was misled by fie proxy addressed to him by the hon. Member's friends. Another writes:
"It was not until we discovered that this second card had been posted … that we were aware that we had been deceived by the similarity of the two cards."
It is important that the House should appreciate that this is the effect that has been produced on the minds of some members of the trade. In general there is no doubt that the trade supports the scheme, as is evident from the emphatic and repeated comments in one of the independent journals of the trade itself. At present the industry is passing through something comparable with a General Election, and no one takes too tragic a view of this kind of document at the time of a General Election. Had the hon. Gentleman not mentioned these particular matters and initiated this Debate on the eve of this extraordinary general meeting I should have thought it undesirable to make any observations on the way this propaganda has been conducted. I do not think it will have much influence on the minds of those who are taking part in the meeting to-morrow.
A considerable part of the document is a criticism of the Minister on the ground that he has a controlling vote. There can be no doubt whatever of the enthusiasm of the industry in giving the Minister this vote. [Interruption.] There can be no doubt whatever of the enthusiasm of the industry. They thought that, by this means, the interests of the minority and the interests of individual firms would be adequately safeguarded. My Department is very much concerned in the success of this and other concentration schemes. It is better to have a scheme which will enable closed factories to be compensated than to achieve closure by the withdrawal of man-power, so that they will be unable to carry on the business and have no compensation. It is when the selection of factories to be closed arises that difficulties

1279
begin. Every owner thinks there is good reason why his factory should not be closed down.
In some respects this scheme is more favourable to closed firms than other similar schemes. There is one respect in which it is different from other concentration schemes with which the Ministry of Food is concerned. The Association itself is more closely identified with the administration of the scheme, and particularly with the selection of the factories to be closed down in the future. Experience during the last 18 months has shown that the War Time Association through its existing Committee who are members of the trade has done an extremely good job of work, but it is inevitable that people who are doing that job should be open to far more criticism than those who do not have such responsibilities as they bear. The Department is very grateful to those who have co-operated in endeavouring to do their best to make this scheme workable. Provision is made for appeal to an independent tribunal and from that to the Minister himself. The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance on that point. I cannot understand why he should ask for an assurance, because there is no reason why anyone should imagine that this independent tribunal was going to be taken away. It is an essential part of the proceedings. I should not, however, be justified in binding the Minister for ever or to suggest that he would not at some future time consider any proposals that might be submitted to him by the War Time Association for modifying the arrangements in this and other respects. They might want another kind of tribunal or two tribunals, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I know of no reason for any anxiety on the part of any member of the Association in regard to the existence and continuance of the tribunal arrangements. He asked me to give a certain assurance about to-morrow's meeting. Before that he asked me another question. Some of his questions were framed in the historic form of "When did you stop beating your wife?" He asked me why it was not possible for the Minister to grant the request for an independent chairman. There has been no such request from the industry.
Major Procter: I submitted it myself on behalf of the industry.
Mr. Mabane: I said that there had been no request from the industry. I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was the official representative of the industry. Is he? I do not think he is. I stick to what I said, that there has been no request from the industry. With regard to to-morrow's meeting, I cannot go beyond saying that the officers of the Department who will represent the Minister have been instructed in the course they should take, and I am not authorised by my noble Friend to give any information as to the nature of those instructions. To do otherwise would clearly prejudice the proceedings.
If any hon. Member is sufficiently interested in this subject to read the manifesto dated 11th June to which I have referred and then read the circular dated 17th June issued by the existing Committee, I think he will have little doubt where the merits lie. I hope that the wish of the hon. Member for Putney will be realised and that peace will come to this industry. I hope, too, that accusations by innuendo will cease. We want to secure that the industry is concentrated in such a way that the maximum of economy is assured and that everyone is doing as well as he can in the circumstances. If accusations are no longer thrown about it will be of benefit to the industry and the country.
Major Petherick: I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend who has replied on behalf of the Government. I think that the mistake he made was in appointing as chairman of this Association a most eminent and highly respectable man in the industry who is chairman of Kia-ora and Schweppes. It created a feeling of uncertainty among the smaller firms when they saw their biggest competitor as the chairman of the War Time Association which is responsible for the organisation of the trade.
It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  SEYCHELLES (COST OF LIVING AND WAGES)
  SEYCHELLES (COST OF LIVING AND WAGES)
  EAST AFRICA (NATIVE SOLDIERS, REHABILITATION)
  EAST AFRICA (NATIVE SOLDIERS, REHABILITATION)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  War Taxation
  War Taxation
  Atlantic Charter
  Atlantic Charter
  FIJIAN COMMANDO TROOPS
  FIJIAN COMMANDO TROOPS
WEST AFRICA
  Railway Workers (Conditions of Service)
  Railway Workers (Conditions of Service)
  Nigeria (Labour Recruitment)
  Nigeria (Labour Recruitment)
  WEST INDIES (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  WEST INDIES (FOOD SUPPLIES)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Defence Regulation 55AA
  Defence Regulation 55AA
  Hendon Paper Works Company, Limited (Contract)
  Hendon Paper Works Company, Limited (Contract)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Fresh Fruit (Prices)
  Fresh Fruit (Prices)
  Milk (Distribution)
  Milk (Distribution)
  Fruit Preservation
  Fruit Preservation
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES (TOBACCO)
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES (TOBACCO)
  ARMY OFFICERS (ACCOMMODATION, GLASGOW)
  ARMY OFFICERS (ACCOMMODATION, GLASGOW)
  WAR-DAMAGED PROPERTY (GROUND RENTS)
  WAR-DAMAGED PROPERTY (GROUND RENTS)
  ACCIDENT, WESTMINSTER
  ACCIDENT, WESTMINSTER
  MAMMALIAN PESTS, CONTROL (HUMANE METHODS)
  MAMMALIAN PESTS, CONTROL (HUMANE METHODS)
  SUB-POSTMASTERS (ANNUAL LEAVE)
  SUB-POSTMASTERS (ANNUAL LEAVE)
  MIDDLE EAST SUPPLY CENTRE
  MIDDLE EAST SUPPLY CENTRE
  THE PHILIPPINES (UNITED NATIONS)
  THE PHILIPPINES (UNITED NATIONS)
  SERVICE PERSONNEL (RAILWAY ACCOMMODATION)
  SERVICE PERSONNEL (RAILWAY ACCOMMODATION)
  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS
  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS
  FLOWERS (RAIL TRANSPORT)
  FLOWERS (RAIL TRANSPORT)
  LAND (COMPULSORY REQUISITIONING)
  LAND (COMPULSORY REQUISITIONING)
  JETTISONED BOMBS (DAMAGE CLAIMS)
  JETTISONED BOMBS (DAMAGE CLAIMS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Defence Regulation 55AA
  Defence Regulation 55AA
  National Trade Balance
  National Trade Balance
  CHILDREN, DEATH RATE (SCOTLAND)
  CHILDREN, DEATH RATE (SCOTLAND)
  FORESTRY COMMISSION WORKERS (WAGES)
  FORESTRY COMMISSION WORKERS (WAGES)
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
BRIDGWATER GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FOUNDATIONS OF PEACE.
THE EARL OF DARNLEY THE EARL OF DARNLEY had the following Notice on the Paper: To urge on His Majesty's Government that, if civilization is to be saved, a most vital necessity now exists for visualizing and promulgating a New Order for humanity on completely novel lines; without which all planning, and all schemes for social security and a better future are useless and a waste of time; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I fear that my Motion has followed a somewhat erratic course on the Paper, but I would like to say in extenuation that the last time I postponed it I did so in deference to what I thought would be your Lordships' wishes to keep May 18 for the sole purpose of expressing gratitude and thanks to brave men; and to that sentiment, of course, then as now, I wholeheartedly subscribe. But one of the tragedies of this world seems to me to be that bravery alone cannot encompass lasting peace. If it could have done so, this country surely would have established it many times over. So we are forced to look at it in what in film parlance is called "a short," taken from a very long film of history which has extended very far back into the past and is going to extend into the dim future. Therefore as, on an occasion like this, the present is perhaps sub judice, one has to examine the past very carefully in order to try and ensure that the future does end, like any good film should do, on a happy note. As your
60
Lordships have always welcomed discussion on the settlement of this future, I hope you will extend a welcome to yet another plan for its settlement, although it may sound somewhat cold-blooded in view of present events, and that it may form the subject of a useful and necessary debate. My one object in bringing forward the Motion is faithfully, truthfully and without prejudice, to explore and destroy the causes which have turned this year of grace into a hell upon earth and to prevent their recurrence.
I have been told that the words of my Motion sound vast and profound, and therefore possibly not profitable for discussion, but I did not mean them to be. I meant them to be rather more simple. But the world's sufferings are also profound and vast, and I venture to say are not going to be relieved on the basis of data of the last few years or the last generation. It wants something more far-reaching, something in the nature of a complete revolution and change in human procedure. It needs an earthquake for all, and not sticking plaster for a few. I hope that noble Lords like Viscount Cecil, who have worked so long and arduously for peace, will not think I am trying to supersede anything they have done or to do better. All I want to do is to dig deeper, much deeper. Although feeling as I imagine Daniel must have felt in the den of lions, nevertheless I submit with due respect and no vestige of hostility, that no plans I have heard so far are adequate to produce lasting peace, because they do not show evidence of sufficient guidance from the faulty processes which have existed through the long years of human strife, nor sufficient signs of dissociation from them.
In debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House on this subject, especially in the one initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, the results arrived at seem to be embodied in that portion of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in reply, in which he said:
"There must be behind a peace system a backing of an overwhelmingly strong armed force. That is the final sanction of law and order in international as well as domestic spheres."
With very great respect I believe that this statement has been entirely disproved by history. It has been tried for a thousand years to create a lasting peace by force and it has never succeeded. In fact the

61
converse is the case. Every new out-break is much worse than those which have preceded it. And the reason is this. Nations are not like schoolboys. They will not admit the authority of the hand that smites them, and they will never adjust themselves to doing so. In fact they always react violently from it sooner or later. The nations that pose as judges to them always remain, not as judges but as rivals. So unless a deputation arrives from Mars it is probable that no human authority will ever convincingly establish an enforced judgment between nations.
Therefore, perhaps, the best solution is to start at the other end to attack the causes for a change instead of the results, and, with that purpose, to root out this old intolerant order that has obtained between nations for generations and put something new in its place. That is the way in which I believe that all future aggressors might be pre-natally killed, because the Old Order has been in the past their birthplace, their nursery and their school. So it is possible that way that the film of history might end, after all, on a peaceful fade-out. I believe that without something new, some kind of New Order, it is useless to hope, to make promises or even to pray for lasting peace.
In connexion with this matter I may say that I looked at the records of the debate for the corresponding period exactly twenty-five years ago. To be accurate it took place on June 26, 1918. The subject of the debate was the proposed League of Nations. The first thing that I noticed was that a noble speaker said this:
The old diplomacy is doomed. The world is prepared to bring to an end its … bloody past."
Well, although there has been such a long interval I think that the only suitable and possible response to that is a very whole-hearted "Amen". I do not think that anyone could deny that during the last century of what has been called the Christian era, civilization has been brought to the brink of disaster, and it is possible that another war in another generation could finish it. It is not because cause some have been right and some have been wrong that that always happens. It is because of the subversive methods that have been adopted to settle the disputes and the even more subversive after-effects.
Many nations have been victims during this period, but there has always been one victim and that is civilization. This has never been noticed sufficiently. If several men live in one house it does not much matter if they have an occasional fight with fists in the attics, or even throw a few stones at each other on the first floor; but when they start using pickaxes and gunpowder in the basement then there has got to be a change. Something has got to be done if civilization is to be saved. There has been caused a climacteric for civilization, and the choice now for the world is either to lose civilization or have a New Order without further destruction or losses. This destruction is now being increased every day by the aid of science. I think that even if this is thought to be idealistic, fantastic or impossible, it has got to be at least visualized now before it is too late. Moreover, the magnitude of the evils and horrors of to-day leave no excuse for a moment's delay or for proposing an extension of methods which have been a failure in the past. The worse the horrors are to-day the worse they will be in the future, and therefore the greater the need for a change.
If I could take your Lordships in a flight of fancy to the bull ring at Madrid, you would see horrors galore—the ground soaked with the blood of horses, and picadors and every kind of imaginable cruelty. But it. is no use blaming the bull or killing him, because there will be another one along in a few minutes; the only way to stop it is to get up an agitation to stop bull-fighting and go to the local government about it. I believe that such ghastly and awful attacks as we have seen made lately on the world by the aggressors are a proof that, if the world is supposed to be evolving, it is really going the wrong way, and possibly backwards. It is a counsel of despair to believe that such attacks have no basis in the facts of the past, or are unpreventable. The only hope is to believe that they are based on long-established evil precedent, that they are a link in the very long and old chain of intolerance, and that they are another swing of that blood-stained see-saw, all due to the Old Order. I suggest, therefore, that the world ought now for a change to stop blaming individuals — blameworthy though they are—and start to blame the primal culprit, the old wrong and faulty

63
international system, and try at last to get something new to replace it.
What have we got so far? There is Hitler's New Order. That has got every possible fault that the Old Order ever had, magnified to the nth degree; in fact, it is the apotheosis of them all. He is seeking to make a new continent, a new world and a new order by the use of every variety of brutal force and compulsion, and all he can create, of course, is a multitude of resentful and revengeful serfs. There are other plans for the future which cannot be spoken of in the same breath as this; nevertheless they do, I venture to say with due respect to their originators, have a little suspicion of the Old Order about them. They say that they are going to provide a successful and peaceful world for half the world by disarming and educating the other half. But does anybody ever learn anything under compulsion, except the desire for revenge? These New Orders and new plans are based on the faulty idea that the world has so far been a kind of paradise, and that aggressions of the sort we are seeing are something new, whereas the aggressors, however pleased with themselves they may be, or however ashamed they ought to be of what they have done, must know at least that they are only the last at the end of a very long list. Moreover, surely these measures are going to assume some form of totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is the thing against which the United Nations are fighting.
Even if this plan is successful or possible, it is still only half the story. What about the rest of the world—the United Nations and the neutrals? I seem to remember somthing from my long-ago education which fits the case. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who is going to look after them? The noble Viscount said, in the speech that I quoted before, that if they stand together peace will be preserved, but that if, by an evil chance, a rift should come between them, the world would collapse into chaos. I must say that that does not sound very confident. Indeed, I do not see how anybody can be confident that there will not a rift one day; and, if there is, what possible precedent can they have for settling it except the Old Order, unless in the meantime it has been completely devalued? It is not necessary to tell your Lordships that our
64
Allies in the last war included Italy and Japan. If anyone had got up at a similar period to this in the last war and said that we must have a peace treaty of a kind which would stop Italy and Japan making an aggression in the next generation, he would have been said to be mad. Yet it was necessary then, and it is equally necessary now.
The New Order has to be a world order, and it has to keep every nation secure and safe from every other one. I think that this New Order has to have axioms of this kind applied to it—that there will not be any peace as long as there is any possible casus belli in existence, and that there will not be any freedom until all are free. There will not be any peace as long as the see-saw is tilted at too steep an angle in any direction. You can render people impotent by taking their arms away; we all know that. If two men have a fight in a field, and one knocks the other down, takes his stick away, and stands proudly on his chest, the man on the ground cannot do anything; but the man who is standing on him cannot remain there all day and all night; he has to go home to tea at some time or other. Nations will wait fifty or a hundred years to arm if necessary, until the generation of those who disarmed them is dead, and until their successors are forgetful. I think it can be said, therefore, that aggressions will stop when they are completely purposeless and for that reason cannot command support; that arming will stop when it is superfluous; and therefore that a long-term survey has to be made of the world in order to get a long-term peace. When all nations have an equal level of well-being, this see-saw will be stabilized and aggressions will cease.
This has to come about one day; cannot we antedate it? This may not sound a very attractive programme just now, and possibly it is not. All that I am trying to do is to state the pre-requisite conditions for lasting peace. If a lasting peace is really wanted, pre-requisite conditions of this kind have to be secured; there is no getting out of it. The Old Order to which I keep referring is the practice of intolerant and forceful self-assertion, and it has failed so far for two reasons. The first is the reason that I have already given, that force has accomplished more in the way of destruction

65
than in the way of advance. The second reason is that people have had such a great belief in this force at their elbow that they have neglected preventive pre-cautions. The time has perhaps come now when, if civilization is going to be saved, these preventive precautions have to be watertight. It is very difficult to make anything watertight; as the noble Viscount said the other day, we do not live in a perfect world. We all know that, and we know that the Old Adam exists in everybody, and is not to be driven out. But, if that is the case, and the Old Adam has to stay, then let us starve him; do not let him be given any of the sustenance which he requires for his outbreaks. It seems to me that the world has been very remiss in this, and the Old Order has been the most consistent caterer that the world has ever seen; but it must now be put out of business.
In case any noble Lord is inclined to think that it is possible for evil and aggression to have any justification, let me say at once and whole-heartedly that there is no possible justification for evil at any time. Everyone has free choice, and can do what he likes. But, as this Old Adam does exist and cannot be got rid of, and as human beings are subject to combative reactions, surely it is the duty of the world to see that there are no causes which are going to supply a basis for any damage to civilization in the future? This side of the question has so far, it must be acknowledged, suffered neglect. The American Ambassador to this country, Mr. Winant, said something in a speech on October 9 last which I think bears this out. He said:
"It is not enough to beat our enemies on the field of battle; we must discover and correct those conditions in our world which made their reactions possible."
Is that not the crux of the matter? Are there conditions and causes or are there not? If there are not causes, we had better give the whole thing up, and never talk about lasting peace again; the future is hopeless by evil necessity. But if there are causes, and we do not investigate them, the future is equally hopeless, but for a very much worse reason—by evil neglect. I think that the world has now to take on a united responsibility for saying that these causes have existed in the past, and that they shall not exist in the future. That adoption of responsibility for these two double objects is perhaps the
66
only barrier now left between civilization and barbarism.
I used the analogy of cancer before, and I should like to refer to it very briefly again. Nobody knows its cause, but I think the cause of it could be generally described as being a revolution in some part of the body against unrealized faulty processes. Surely that is a very good description of the causes of aggression and evil-doing. And yet cancer gets very much the best treatment. The doctors are all for restricting mutilation as far as they can and for going whole-heartedly into prevention. And yet in the case of nations they rush, sometimes blindly, into mutilation, and prevention remains unexplored. There is a lot of money being spent now on cancer prevention. I think I saw a figure something like £600,000 or £700,000 a year. The noble Lord, Lord Horder, said the other day that the cure for it was in sight. Possibly one day's expenditure on the war would bring it into full vision. I believe that a cure for aggression and these evils could be envisaged by accurate thought and investigation. Because it is a remarkable thing that under the Old Order, if you read the history books of the nations which fought in past wars—not our history books, but theirs—you will see that there are no initiators of aggression: nobody has ever done wrong, they have always been Crusaders and the other man has been the devil. If that proves anything it proves that they suppose they have been intolerantly treated; therefore it is the thought that has caused the war, and that thought has got to be treated as well as the actual truth. Doctors have proved this because they have made a great ally in their profession of psycho-analysis.
I would like to go with your Lordships, if you will bear with me, into some of the causes of these complexes and grievances among nations in the past, and to look at some of the damage that has been done to civilization by them. Take the last war alone. In Russia it caused two revolutions and the greatest famine in history. The first revolution was against the leading classes and the second was against the religious orders, and both, to put it briefly, disappeared. I am not saying anything against Russia, because it is impossible to blame people under those conditions and nobody would want to do so. They staged their first revolution against the leading classes who, they imagined, had

67
driven them into war and into defeat and, as it was said, largely armed with sticks, possibly against the religious orders who had failed to rescue them. And the method they took was to destroy everything that was connected with that particular branch of the Old Order. That sort of thing is catching and, like a virulent disease, it flowed out all over the world. Like virulent germs, it created violent antibodies in different parts. In Spain it caused the civil war; in Italy it caused the Fascists and Mussolini who, like most people who get too much power in this life, got above himself. In the rest of the world it caused instabilities in Governments and in finance, general unrest, high taxes, strikes, unemployment, false booms, false depressions, lack of security, apathy and drift, and—perhaps worst of all—that ghastly rule of non-co-operation, everybody for himself, which spoilt the economic flow between the nations. Last of all, in Germany it caused the rise of Hitler and his particular attack on the Old Order which you can now see in full operation. That is pickaxes and gunpowder for you in the basement if you like, and that is the certain result on civilization.
Of course, there are many other causes of this complex. There are overcrowding, poverty, economics, dismemberment of countries in the past which is now forgotten, altered boundaries, segregated minorities, secret treaties, power politics and many other causes. These have got to go, however impossible of attainment this may seem to be. There are lots of pessimists about just now who say that wars have got to go on, though they tell us no way of getting rid of them—they just have to exist no more. I think William Pitt dealt with the idea of necessity when he said it was a plea for every infringement of human freedom; the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves. We have got to set our face against it, we have got to abolish the Old Order.
My Motion has nothing to do with peace proposals. The present is sub judice and will not be mentioned. I know your Lordships do not like this little bird in your House just now. Although you are quite willing to discuss chickens and their eggs, the little bird of peace does not get much of a hearing. Possibly it is quite
68
true that a proposal of peace on anything like the basis of the status quo which has existed for two thousand years is quite useless, but that appears to be no reason why this little bird should not have prepared for him when he does come back a proper, secure and established cage. And this time he should not be lied to by the world, which has either got to say to the bird this time, "We slam the door in your face, we do not want you any more, we are always going to have what we want, whether good, bad or indifferent, by force"; or else it has got to promise a proper aviary in the new world so often promised but never realized under the Old Order.
It is proposed to establish something else which I think is more important still, and that is hope. Hope is at a very low ebb in the world just now—not hope of victory, but a hope of something more important still—what is going to come afterwards, the possibility of survival in a tolerable form. It seems to me that the motives governing the world now are rather more of hopeless necessity than those of hopeful achievement, but that, all the same, there is at the back of everybody's mind—and I believe that this possibly applies to all the worst aggressors and evildoers as well —a feeling that these things should not be, and that everybody, these people included, is longing for a time when some-thing will be found that is superior to the Old Order of disappointment and misery, something which really does give some kind of promise that these things will not go on recurring into endless generations in the future for our children and grandchildren. I do not believe that anybody at this moment is convinced that such a panacea is in sight. If I may respectfully say so, I do not think that hope has been a very frequent speaker in some of the debates that I have heard here in your Lordships' House lately on the subject of the tortured nations—the Poles, the Jews, the Greeks. On the 17th December, the noble Lord, Lord Addison, said:
"The Declaration made between Great Britain, the United States, Russia and other countries will, save to those who are immediate and likely victims of their cruelties, bring infinite relief."
And in a more recent debate it was sought to bring evacuee Jews to this country. Well, it is, is it not? a melancholy fact that these humane efforts can only reach

69
a very small percentage of the victims, and that they cannot be rescued as long as the Old Order is in full swing. But it might be possible that tinder a New Order such melancholy debates would never be held again.
I suggest that the army of planners, of which there is an orgy going on all over the world now, need also a great deal of hope. The Governments to-day are in a very difficult position because they have, with the ordinary supply of money, to do three things: they have to pay for the war, they have to pay for the destruction caused by the war, and they have to pay for all these new plans which are quite supernumerary to anything that has ever been done before. The lack of confidence has been stressed in this House. I suggest it is due to the Old Order. There cannot be any confidence as long as the Old Order remains. Take social security. Everybody ought to have social security all over the world, but I suggest that the word "security" is like a play that has been written, put on the shelf and never performed. You cannot have security until the Old Order is done away with. It is no good giving a man or a woman £2 a week for his or her old age unless you can more or less guarantee them to have an old age. It is no good giving them £10 for a grand oak coffin if you are not going to be able to find enough of them to fill a matchbox.
I seem to remember, when I was very small, that the working man took an endless pride in telling you all he had achieved in the way of social security, that he had saved up money for his wife, educated his children, possibly bought a little bit of land or a house. He cannot do that now. He cannot save anything out of unemployment or part unemployment or the "dole." He has got to have security again, but I suggest he must not lose his freedom and initiative at the same time. He will not be content to live very long under bureaucratic control, just as everybody else united in fighting for freedom will not be content for very long to remain under the long list and chain of rules and regulations that may be necessary to pay for the war but afterwards will be a soul-killing indignity. Just to take one trade which I know something about—food production—if your Lordships find the tomatoes on your plate this season look a bit jaded, you
70
will know it is because they have already had to jump through as many paper hoops as many a retired circus rider has had to do.
Then there is the housing question. Surely the Old Order is responsible for the fact that this country as well as many others—I have seen it in France too—is covered with hideous villas and bungalows put up all over the place without any kind of design or plan or even good materials and certainly without architectural control. At the end of the last war there was a large housing shortage, and these houses had to be rushed up in a hurry. There is no doubt also that the Old Order caused a delay in slum clearance because everybody was too busy, had too much else to do, and there was no time. A good housing system, I submit, wants time, security, and money. The first aim should be to see that anything that is built is not knocked down again within the same generation. Then there is agriculture and land management. Of course this has suffered during the last generation, and the Old Order is responsible for it, although the landlords usually get the blame.
It has to be remembered, nevertheless, that the landlord in the first place, during the somewhat long interval in the not so serious Old Order of the past, reclaimed the land, maintained it, put fences round it, built commodious farmhouses and, as the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said the other day, created that skilful and cooperative profession of land agents; built their own houses which are now the pride of this country and, incidentally, gave their time, money, and great skill to their tenants. I believe that these people, headed by such figureheads as Coke of Norfolk, could have dealt with the flood of cheap food which is supposed to have been one of the great causes of deterioration. There is a great outcry against the monopoly of land now. All the same I believe that land, like every other profession, is best administered by those who have given the most time to it and know the most about it. Possibly the best solution in the end, as John Bull has always worn country clothes, is to get him another suit of country clothes—not an office suit and a top hat—and let these clothes be made, not of utility cloth but of security cloth, with possibly in one of the pockets a little bit of paper, if not

71
for the future, at any rate in memory of past services.
Then there is education. Everybody since the time of Aristotle has known that the world's future—I think Aristotle said "Empire's"—is in the minds of the children, but the Old Order has completely ruined this. In Germany and its allied countries it perverted their education to the necessity for revengeful force, and elsewhere, owing to the strenuous and unfair competition in life, to the rule of non-co-operation and everybody for himself. There are a hundred things you have to teach children, but possibly the most important one to re-establish is co-operation. Whatever you teach him has got to be confirmed later on by the security of future events, and thus solidified, or else will be discredited and disavowed. In conjuction with social security and education there is health. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, in the debate he instituted in your Lordships' House the other day, made an excellent generalization which I should like to quote. He said:
"There is a real truth in spiritual healing. If a man or woman who is ill in soul recovers, his or her body recovers. There is a real truth that an absorbed and interested mind makes for health."
Those who agree with this (and I am sure it must be the majority), will see that only by a New Order of real security can the ravages on health made by the sadness, worry, and difficulties caused by the Old Order be lifted and a basis given for the positive or medicineless health so ably advocated by the noble Lord. For the purposes of health the hospitals need security from blast and need to be assured that the funds of those who have so generously supported them will not be mulcted to pay for the Old Order. Similarly with the falling birth-rate which has also been discussed in your Lordship's House. This can best be maintained when security of employment, if not of existence itself, offers more inducement to potential parents, as the noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn, advanced.
Lastly there is economics. There is a new scheme for this by every post and in every column of every newspaper. It has been debated here and in another place with great skill. Whatever economic system you have, surely there is one thing necessary—as a non-economist I
72
hope I may be permitted to suggest it— and that is that the world's capital funds have got to remain perfectly unimpaired and under co-operative control, and comply with the laws of supply and demand, and stop over-production in different areas. These united funds produce not only employment but also the producer and exchanger goods, which are the world's income and therefore the index of individual prosperity. The Old Order deals very rapidly with this question by boosting up wages to a position where they cannot possibly remain and mulcts the world's funds to the extent of several millions to pay for itself. So normal economy has to be shelved and a fake one takes its place based on tariffs, blocs, and enclosed systems which, in their turn, create sweated labour, price-cutting, and various forms of economic crises and grievances. Money cannot do two things at once. It cannot pay for fireworks and produce income. So, if economy is to be restored, it must be necessary for the capital funds to roll up again in security and for co-operation in administration to be established in order that the normal flow of income may re-assert itself. Then economics may obtain at least in part a semi-automatic regulation again, and if it is arm in arm with bancor or moneta, or whatever it is to be called, so much the better.
I know these are big questions. I am not trying to dictate in detail to those experts whose province it is to deal with them, but just to say that there must be this time a proper basis of security, so that their efforts may obtain the results they deserve and not be all washed away and useless. I would also say quite seriously that by proper security I mean one that is not based on the faulty processes from the past, which have failed. I know that your Lordships know all the things I have mentioned and know them better than I do. I have emphasized them only in order to show that this time there must not be, and there cannot be, another failure. Is it not possible for the world to admit these things now fairly and honestly; to admit that the Old Order of destruction has proved destructive of civilization and must be replaced; that the Old Order has always been a perfect breeding place for villains and if it remains it probably always will do so; that the Old Order is the primary culprit of all the horrors of to-day; that the Old Order

73
cannot protect the small nations because it usually causes them to be made battle grounds; and that whoever starts a war in the future it will be a confession of failure and will not save civilization?
Planning is useless under the present insecurity. I believe that if these things can be admitted that there is some chance for a New Order to achieve birth. Obviously it has got to be exactly the opposite of the present one and so there has got to be complete co-operation in place of the old destructive competition. This is the only method that cannot and will never produce causes and complexes. Perhaps such a plan requires three stages: first, to be visualized as possible and trustworthy; then to be promulgated to the world; and afterwards to be maintained. Visualization is perhaps the easiest of all because of the terrible discontent with the present mess and muddle, and it must be easy at least to visualize something else taking their place. Proof as to its trustworthiness and power has surely also sufficient allies, and I would like to suggest later some proofs of this to your Lordships. Promulgating requires extensive preparation in teaching by every nurse, governess, teacher, schoolmaster, preacher, writer and, last but not least, every speaker who must set it forth to the world, and later on it must be promulgated to the world by some Government or group of Governments. Maintenance requires the complete abolition of all grievances that exist to-day and the creation of some machinery to keep them permanently in abeyance. All this should be after the shortest possible period following the conclusion of hostilities.
It may be said that such an order is a tall order as well as a new one, but there is the Old Order lying at your feet and perhaps a tall one will stand up better in the future. There is nothing tall or preposterous in the idea of producing prosperity for the whole by the prosperity of each part. General Eisenhower recently described the taking of Tunis and Bizerta as due to everyone being one hundred per cent. for everyone else. That motto would succeed also in peace, and it is a fine one for the New Order. There is nothing highfalutin or idealistic about this. No nations are asked to merge their ideologies or their personalities. They are only asked to do this, to combine for the very practical
74
and simple purpose of paying the bill for the plumber and a few masons to come into the cellar and basement of the house of civilization and repair it in order that people may live there in the future and not be turned out into the cold to live in caves and sheepskins again.
As to maintenance, there has been a lot of discussion in your Lordships' House as to some kind of international body, and it has not been decided, I believe, what form it shall take exactly, or what its size shall be. If it is to take the form of an International Police Force I believe there will be a lot of difficulties. To start with, if it has to keep the peace between all peoples it has got to be at least as large as the army of any possible aggressor, that is to say, a million or two, and as it is to be in operation for several years those composing it may have to take their wives and children with them, a fact which will demand, as the Americans would say, "some barracks." It has also got to consist of every nation in the world or of very many nations. Therefore supposing that this rift that the noble Viscount spoke about did occur, they might take sides and have a sort of side war on their own. Also it has got to be an intensely mobile force because it may have to move about. If it remains in its own countries, by the time it gets a move on the war might have started. This I think applies whether it is on the ground or whether it is up in the air, in the noble Lord, Lord Davies's aerial police station.
I suggest that this international body ought to be a band of investigators, people selected by every country and supported by them, but not with sovereign powers. It should constitute a clearing house for disabilities, injustices and grievances with full authority to investigate at first hand, to propose remedies and send them to the respective Governments. I think such a plan might succeeed because everybody wants it, but if it resorted again to any form of sanctions, power politics or groupings it would be deserted as formerly. The Palace of the League of Nations is there at Geneva. This time it could be filled with a purpose that is obviously beneficent, that every nation would have to join it and adhere to it. If this were done there could be established a New Order by co-operation, and it would establish a process of what I am going to call absorbent toleration. I

75
believe there is much good evidence for its possibility and power. There is first of all the law of cause and effect. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, denies this law to Germany. He says that they have always been spontaneous and unprovoked aggressors. But even if that is true it does not cover other aggressors in the past, Italy and Japan of the present and the unknown ones of the future. Surely if it is true about Ger-many all it proves is that for a very long time the world has been unable to deal with the problem of a recalcitrant member, and that is a sorry admission to have to make. Possibly, therefore, it is as useless to dilate upon it as it is to propose further methods of a similar kind to deal with them. Either the law is true or not. If it is true, then it must be treated as true, and it is also good evidence for the contrary, that where satisfactory causes are removed, aggressions must cease.
Then, my Lords, there is the evidence of the law of internal justice as practised in this country and other countries which aims at prevention rather than punishment and cure rather than embitterment. The noble Viscount referred to force in domestic spheres, but surely he does not call a policeman an emblem of force. The policeman is armed with a piece of stick and a whistle and gets his effect partly from his own tolerant and persuasive character and partly because, not being armed, he demonstrates the agreement of the people of the country that the laws made for them are good and are to be upheld and that breaking of them is disliked and repudiated. So he can claim relative immunity from attack by criminals, compared with some of his confrères abroad who fairly bristle with armour and swords and revolvers. Surely, if that is the case, bad laws can produce increased crime. I do not think that our friends in America would mind my saying that prohibition was a bad law. The people in the country did not want it; they thought it impinged too much on their moral choice, and it certainly created a great increase of gangsterism and racketeering. They very soon repealed it. Must it not be the same with the international system? And the converse must be equally true and good evidence that when the international system of justice is bettered, aggressions will be lessened.
Then, of course, there are the religions of the world. It is not necessary to say that all the principal religions of the world, Christian, Jew, Hindu and Mahomedan, have rules which, if obeyed literally, do produce peace and security and harmony and do support that policy of co-operation by absorbent tolerance. If you want something entirely secular, take water. The Chinese say that water is the strongest thing in the world because of its successful absorbent tolerance of any disturbance. If a rock or a stone falls into it the water by its complete elasticity absorbs it and the corpus of the water is uninjured. Yet in the form of a stream or a waterfall it can wear everything away, and it has been noticed, I think, in Germany lately what the power of a vast amount of water means. Of course, by absorbent toleration I do not mean that you should tolerate everybody who is an enemy or who has done wrong, but that you should tolerate him before he can become an enemy or can do wrong. It does not mean lying down before a charging enemy any more than a matador lies down before a charging bull. He must join in the agitation I mentioned before, and stop bullfighting. Conversely, I suggest that forceful threats and peace fronts and power politics have the effect of strengthening aggressors' influence with their supporters and inflame their mind. Even the policy of being well armed, which is always supposed to be a water-tight prevention, is not completely so, because history is full of accounts of very gallant attacks by inferior forces on those vastly superior. Nowadays, if you are the last to start you can always get level by the very simple process of putting every man and woman into the war effort.
I believe that the advancement of some such proposal by a qualified statesman or group of world statesmen to-day would be warranted, not as a unilateral concession but as a universal necessity. It would have much better results than any peace proposal for it would give universal hope of something really worthy of trust and likely of success for a future now carrying much doubt and distrust. Thus the difficult post-war period would be deprived of much of its distress and danger. Moreover, it would remove support from the aggressors, and possibly vastly shorten the war. Later it would have to be confirmed by the peace treaty, which though naturally not bearing this

77
clause might well imply it, signed by every nation: "We, the undersigned, hereby bury the Old Order. As we have all contributed to it either in the past or present and either by commission or omission, we will co-operate in bearing the disabilities it has caused and preventing their recurrence. But not one iota of it shall be kept alive to murder the future. "Then the little bird of peace might find at last a worthy and guaranteed aviary.
I hope I have not detained your Lordships too long or been didactic, or given the impression of trying to usurp the privileges of skill and experience. I have not wittingly done so. I know every mind has exactly the same direction, although possibly not the same course as mine. What I do want to emphasize is the fact that there is now sweeping through the world a vast, if un-spoken, desire for an absolute new existence in a new form together with an equally vast discontent with the Old Order and its possible continuance. If you do not agree with me then take it from a boy killed in Africa who put it in a letter to his father read out by Captain Balfour. He wrote:
"There is, I feel, both in England and America, a tremendous surge of feeling which, for want of a better word, I call 'goodness' —the heartfelt longing of the middling folk for something better. I have heard it so often —that craving for a new life. This feeling is no less powerful or significant than the Renaissance was, and will, I hope and pray, surge over the whole world in a tidal wave. That is the ideal for which we are fighting."
So, my Lords, I dare to make what may seem a somewhat bold statement, but which nevertheless I believe to be a true one, that if His Majesty's Government together with the other great Powers now united for freedom and lasting peace could make in the face of all evil, doubt and difficulty a statement that universal co-operation will be entertained at the first possible moment after the war, coupled with a disavowal of the Old Order of the past, they would render the greatest service to humanity that history has ever known, and devise, moreover, a method of satisfying the world's needs which, though untried, could have more chance of success than the somewhat laborious methods now under contemplation. They would be taking the only means of educating those who require education and the only means of robbing
78
murderers and aggressors of their present support. It may be possibly the only means or at any rate a very good means of shortening the war, and of ensuring that civilization, the world's most precious possession, could be re-established and indefinitely assured. I hope I may have your Lordships' support in this plea and I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULE-BREDE: My Lords, I want to detach only one point on which to enlarge in the Motion which has been moved by my noble friend. I think his Motion is sufficiently comprehensive to allow me to speak on my one point without being called to order for irrelevance. He has covered a very large area of ground very eloquently, but I wish to go back to the debate of three months ago and to detach from it a point which I regard as extremely important. Your Lordships will remember that on April 14 my noble friend Viscount Cecil initiated a debate concerning the sort of international body that should take the place of the League of Nations. The debate was continued on April 15, and, when he was withdrawing his Motion, Viscount Cecil said: "My hope is that this will not be the last debate of this kind which we shall have in this House." And I hope so, too.
I do not think my noble friend will mind my referring to that debate now, because in the two days' discussion one important factor was omitted. The necessity of a powerful international force to prevent aggression was accepted by practically everybody as axiomatic. That is my particular point, for I regard this as completely fatal. I think that I can enlarge on this point for there can be no doubt that it would come under my noble friend Lord Darnley's "New Order for humanity on completely novel lines." To give up force to ensure peace would be something quite new. I think that your Lordships' House happens to be, in the world just now, particularly well qualified to discuss this matter, if only because of the presence in it of my noble friend Viscount Cecil, who, in years of strenuous work, has always examined, encouraged, promoted and, when he could, tried to correct the League of Nations, and of my noble friend the Earl of Perth, who was the first general secretary of the League, and, I suppose, knows more of the inner work-

79
ings and inner difficulties and handicaps with which it has had to contend than any other living man. The presence of those two noble Lords really enables this House to put forward authoritatively proposals which would be listened to by any of the other countries.
I was not here for the whole two days over which the previous debate extended, being unfortunately prevented from being present for part of the time, but, in the speeches which I heard, I noticed that this question of international force was referred to as if it was not worth debating because everybody agreed that there must be an international force. Nowadays the doctrine of force has received tremendous strength and diabolical power. Nations are supposed to desire its aid in making other nations keep the peace. Strange! I will not go through all the expressions which were used in the course of the debate, but time after time there was reference to the overwhelming force that would, of course, be behind the League.
Now, alliances to achieve military victory are by no means the same thing as complete accord to prevent aggression and maintain peace. Schemes for conciliation can never be as popular as plans for war. My noble friend Lord Addison said: "It is easier to mobilize good will in time of danger than it is when the danger is past." It is no good waiting for a crisis; we have got to get on and make preparations when there is no crisis. We must make our plans in advance, and a great military victory should be regarded as clearing the way for a new order in international relations, not as just a short cut by which force can be established as an instrument of domination for the victors. The public men, the man in the street, the paragraph writer are all thoroughly impressed with the immense strides which have been made in the destructive power of weapons. So profound is the impression that it is thought that if only we can get enough weapons we can prevent anyone doing what they ought not to do. We are told that the bombs which are dropped to-day will be mere child's playthings compared with those which will be dropped in three or four years' time. Poor old Nobel thought that dynamite was going to stop war. It did not do anything of the kind, so he had to found a Peace Prize.
80
We are now reviving the exploitation of that futile failure which was called at the time, though one does not hear the expression used now, "collective security." It was not collective, nor was it security. We have had examples of it comparatively recently. I know that political memories are very short, but I think it is really worth bearing this in mind so that we do not make the same mistake again. It is really within comparatively recent times that there arose the question of Italy's aggression against Abyssinia. A great deal of indignation was aroused concerning it. That poor, undefended Abyssinia should be attacked by Italy was a monstrous thing; it was quite obviously an act of aggression that must be stopped. There was a desire shown to support Abyssinia. As a matter of fact Abyssinia does not occur in the list of conquests of the latter part of the nineteenth century. It only occurs incidentally. We never took Abyssinia, which we could have had at any time, because we did not want it. Economic sanctions were laid down. You cannot have economic sanctions without force, as we very soon found out, and even economic sanctions cannot be made watertight. In the case of Italy, the great sanction was against oil; nobody was sup posed to supply Italy with oil. But the commercial people made their plans and found where the leakage was. They saw quite well how they could supply Italy with just as much oil as she wanted.
In the meantime, the various Committees of the League said: ''This is monstrous aggression, and must be stopped." They all held their hands up with enthusiasm. But when it meant war, what happened? We were alone. We were the only nation that was really determined to carry out what was laid down in Article 16 of the Covenant of the League. Not a ship, not an aero plane, not a battalion was forthcoming from the others; not because they were breaking their word in a very diabolical way—nothing of the sort—but because nations have to think of self-interest. Some of these nations were very close to Italy. Some, like France, had just made an arrangement with Italy after a good deal of struggling, and did not want to break with Italy. Everybody had his own version of the good will which must be preserved with Italy, so that although they held up their hands none of them

81
came forward when action was required. I think that the failure of collective security was a prelude to the war started by another aggressor later on, who saw that he had nothing at all to fear from collective security in a League of Nations.
I want to quote the remarks of a few people who have condemned this. My noble friend Lord Stanhope, who was, I think, Leader of the House at the time— at any rate he was in charge of foreign affairs—said this:
"… if the League is eventually to take its proper share in the affairs of the world, and to attempt to stop aggression and to bring forward conciliation, every nation must take its part."
My noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood, in an article which he may have for gotten, used a sentence which struck me very much:
"The existing Covenant of the League may be neither perfect nor complete, but, unless a nation's word is its bond, the most perfect Covenant cannot conceivably work satisfactorily."
That is perfectly true, and that is the trouble. A little earlier, Sir Samuel Hoare, then Foreign Secretary, said at Geneva:
"The obligations of the Covenant remain. Their burden on us has been increased manifoldly. But one thing is certain: if the burden is to be borne, it must be borne collectively. If risks for peace are to be run, they must be run by all. The security of the many cannot be ensured solely by the efforts of a few, however powerful they may be."
That is perfectly true. Real collective security, with every nation's: word as its bond, would, of course, be magnificent. But nations are not of that disposition; unfortunately, they are on a rather lower level than human beings. The trouble is that you cannot depend on them. You must not, therefore, pin your faith too high, or think that you are, in the new world which Lord Darnley wants, going to construct a body which is going to be successful. It will not be successful if it aims too high or attempts to accomplish too much.
My noble friend the Leader of the House, as your Lordships will no doubt have noticed, has a way of listening with great attention to the arguments brought forward by almost every speaker, so that his summing up of a debate is really a most excellent epitome of all that has taken place. He did not have to deal, on the occasion of the last three debates,
82
with the contention that force should not be accepted as the ultimate sanction of a new international authority; he made no reference to it, because nobody had suggested anything of the sort. But he did say this:
"If we are to create a more effective League, we must evidently examine not only what was good in the League but also what was bad."
I think he was right there, and I want to bring to his notice that this idea of an international force is thoroughly bad. He also said that we must learn the lessons of our experience of the League of Nations, and hope to avoid some of the pitfalls next time. There is no doubt at all that this was an experience of dire failure and it certainly ought to be avoided next time. I do not want to deal with an international force at any length at this late hour. I have always thought it to be an entirely impracticable proposition, not on account of its cost, which would easily be collected, but for other reasons. What about its recruitment, its membership? Where is it to practise? Who is to arm it? That is going to be one of the most difficult questions. It has to have by far the most up-to-date, immense, and what is called "overwhelming" force that the world has ever seen. Who is going to have the privilege of making those aeroplanes and those tanks? I do not think people have thought out what an International Police Force means. At any rate it is not wanted. I am certain that the world is not going to be governed in that way.
I do believe very much in what my noble friend Lord Samuel just touched on in an extremely interesting speech—the International Labour Organization. How few people know about it, what it has done, how it is constituted, or even of its existence! All that is to the good. The best things are never done on the house top, but quietly, by people talking together and tackling the real difficulties of the world. This admirable Organization is described in a little threepenny pamphlet called The International Labour Organization, written by Mr. Harold Butler, the second Director, who was Director from 1932 to 1938. It is astonising to see what this Organization has accomplished and the good which it has done. I believe that 850 ratifications of Conventions have been registered. There has been no force about this. It has

83
been a question of talking the matter over, and of the delegates talking matters over with their Governments, and gradually there being a consensus of opinion that there should be real reform with regard to wages, and hours, and pensions, and youth, and all the rest of it. As Mr. Harold Butler admits, it is very slow but we accomplish something that really counts and matters.
The public mind nowadays in all these affairs is so distracted by the headline and the photographic process. A very keen supporter of the League of Nations in former days, a very prominent man, Mr. C. B. Fry, told me the other day that he used to go about speaking for it. He said he remembered going to a very large meeting in London and saying: "Before I begin talking to you about the League of Nations, will those of you who have read the Covenant of the League of Nations just hold up your hands?" Out of 3,000 people three hands were put up. If things are dull and unspectacular and you cannot have photographs about them they are ignored nowadays. We have got vulgar minds creeping on us more and more. We cannot get people really to study things to see what matters and what does not matter.
I have ventured to bring this one point forward with the greatest emphasis that I could because I believe that if we are going to slip back into this bad mistake on the part of the League, and furbish it up in a new fashion with International Armies and Police Forces, we are simply going to make the future worse than the past. Very great attempts have been made during the centuries by peacemakers ever since that magnificent figure Grotius in the seventeenth century: they have all fallen to the ground one after another. Is ours, because our victory is going to be so great, going to follow the same track? I hope not, but I do have misgivings when I hear people thoughtlessly holding up their hands, or anyhow their voices, in favour of such a disastrous project as was accepted the other day in the debate.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am in a little difficulty in joining in this debate because the two speakers who have preceded me have talked about entirely different things. If
84
my noble friend Lord Ponsonby will forgive me, I do not think there was a single word in his speech which had any bearing at all on the speech of my noble friend Lord Darnley, except that he might possibly have accepted—though he did not say he did—the central idea which I gather ran through Lord Darnley's speech. As I understand Lord Darnley, he conceives that there is a thing called the Old Order. He did not define exactly what the Old Order was, but I gather it was responsible for all the wickedness and all the injustice and everything that is wrong in the present world. That, he says, exists and you cannot do anything at all until you get rid of the Old Order. And, at the end of his speech, he contemplated a great international meeting at which all the representatives of all the States there should pass a solemn resolution declaring, "We hereby bury the Old Order." I hope my noble friend will not think I am disrespectful of him if I say that that was the only positive suggestion that I could trace in the whole of his speech. I am afraid that is not likely to produce any very great effect in the present position we are in.
He will no doubt remember the original Holy Alliance founded by the Emperor Alexander of Russia, and roughly speaking consisting in a general declaration of all the Powers—everybody practically except this country—to the effect that they would make the Sermon on the Mount the rule of their policy in the future. As far as I know, that undertaking had no kind or sort of effect in any international question after it was made, and the Holy Alliance, or its successor, ultimately drifted into an alliance of three or four of the despotically ruled States against any progress of democracy in their States, or indeed anywhere else. I venture very respectfully to appeal to my noble friend not to be satisfied with these vague, general remedies. They are really no use at all, and even less use in an international gathering than they are in the singularly tolerant atmosphere of your Lordships' House. It will be no use going to talk to a lot of hard-boiled foreign diplomats or foreign statesmen and saying "What I wish you to do is to bury the Old Order." They would think you were a dangerous lunatic. They would say, "Well, what on earth do you

85
mean?" Then they would say, "The suggestion is no doubt extremely interesting, and we trust that we can refer it to a Commission," and you would never hear any more of it in that gathering. I am afraid that we really do not get forward at all by anything of that kind. My noble friend said that he wanted an earthquake, and a little later he wanted a tidal wave, which was to sweep away everything that belonged to the Old Order, and he said that was because he wanted to supply the great reed of the present day—he wanted hope in the world. I really do not see that that helps us at all.
THE EARL OF DARNLEY: Might I interrupt? The intention was not to sweep away all the Old Order, it was only to sweep away that which was wrong in the dealings between nations, the international mode of settling disputes—that is all.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am still a little vague, but I certainly thought there was a considerable part of the noble Earl's speech which dealt with things like town planning, wage and economic questions and so on, which I understood all belonged to the Old Order which was to be swept away by the earthquake and the tidal wave.
THE EARL OF DARNLEY: All I meant to say was that those things were dominated by the Old Order, and that in future you ought to have a new one to keep them established—positive, not negative.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I want very much to come down to what I think is the bottom of my noble friend's thought—namely, that the cause of war is the existence of want of security, as he continually repeated, and social injustice. I entirely agree that it is one of the great functions of statesmanship to get rid of social insecurity and social injustice. In hard fact, it was not want of social justice or want of economic security that produced the last war nor, as far as I remember, was it the cause of any of the wars during the nineteenth century. I may be wrong about that, because if you commit yourself to such a big proposition you generally find you have overlooked something. But, broadly speaking, it was not social injustice, it was a political demand on the part of the Nazi, Fascist, and
86
Japanese Governments that produced this war. This war was a purely political conception. No doubt they hoped that great social advantages would flow when they had established their new political order, but it was purely political in origin.
You will not find any suggestion that they would have been met in any way by an enlargement of what my noble friend Lord Ponsonby properly praised—the International Labour Office. As he knows very well, the Germans resigned from the International Labour Office at the same time as they resigned from the League of Nations. They certainly attributed no kind of importance to it from their point of view, because what they were out for— and it is really not a matter of dispute at all—was world domination. There is no doubt about it at all. You cannot get round it. Not only have they said so again and again, but their actions and the whole of their policy have been directed to that purpose. That was the great reason why this war created such intense excitement, because everybody felt that their liberty and everything they valued were at stake. Even now it seems incredible that any Government should demand such a thing. I am not going into the historical reasons why it was possible to find a German Government actuated by a conception of that kind. As Lord Vansit-tart, with perhaps over-emphasis, has pointed out, it goes back many years in German history, and it is based fundamentally on the conception of idolatry of the State, that the State can do no wrong, or rather that there is no wrong or right outside the decisions of the State. That is the basis of the whole of the German system at the present moment, without any question of doubt.
I saw in the last issue of a very useful and interesting publication which I hope your Lordships read as regularly as possible—a thing issued by the Ministry of Information called The Spiritual Issues of the War—a description of the German marriage service as set out in a German printed book at the present time. I shall not go through the strange and fantastic details of that service, but substantially wherever we put the Deity, they put the German State right through. That is the thing we are up against in this case. It is fatal to the whole conception of our civilization, and we are perfectly right to say that until that idea has been abandoned, with its attendant idea that the

87
State is entitled to pursue by force all its desires, there really is no hope of peace or progress, of New Order or anything that is desirable. I do not propose to go further into that because I find myself fundamentally at issue with my noble friend Lord Darnley. It is no use going into details regarding his interesting arguments because of my preliminary objection to the whole.
I come now to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. He was in a more fortunate position because he had not any positive proposal at all to make. That is always much more convenient. His suggestion really was that force never did any good, and collective force was worst of all. I do not quite know why collective force should be worse than any other kind of force, but I gather from his argument that that is so. I should have thought that collective force is not only a possible plan, but is the only possible plan. You have got to face the practical difficulty. What are you to do with a country like Germany with a Fascist policy? How are you going to stop it? What is your plan? Are you each going to fight? That is madness. Quite evidently we should have been in a most perilous and difficult position in this war if we had had to go on as we began without any other considerable Power assisting us. We should never have been able to stop the Germans in any circumstances by our own single strength, and it is evident you never can.
If you get a powerful country like Germany, or even Italy or Japan, setting out some such general policy as they have pursued in this war, it is quite clear that no single Power will have any chance of defeating them, still less of preventing them from attempting their dangerous policy. You must have collective security. There is no other plan. We are having that at this moment. We have now got the great advantage of the United Nations all fighting with us, and without that advantage we should have very little chance of victory. Perhaps that is putting it too high, but we should certainly be in great difficulty. Lord Ponsonby said that collective security was a complete failure, and therefore it is no use going back to it. There is no other plan. He certainly has not suggested one by which you can defend yourself in the last resort, except by collective action. My noble friend Lord
88
Darnley indeed said he was in favour of universal co-operation. It may be he would include in that collective security if it became necessary, but my noble friend Lord Ponsonby is not in favour of any such action of any kind. I hesitate very much to go further into his argument, because it would involve my repeating what your Lordships were kind enough to listen to on the occasion to which Lord Ponsonby referred, but I will just say a word about Abyssinia since he mentioned that particular case.
Abyssinia is not a case where collective security failed—not at all—nor is it true to say, as he said, that when it came to any question of exerting military force we were left alone. Nothing that has been published would justify any such statement as that. On the contrary, in all the preliminary steps of coercion which we took, we had the support of a great many of the Powers—not carried very far, because if I were to go into it I should have to say that the whole policy was halfhearted and consequently ineffective. But as far as it went it is quite untrue, and very unjust to the smaller Powers, to say that they left us without any assistance. On the contrary, the great mass of them did everything we suggested should be done, only what we suggested was quite ineffective to stop the Italians. I believe still quite firmly that if we had carried out the whole policy contemplated by the Covenant of the League of Nations in such a case, and had exerted our immense power even then, particularly on the sea, we should have had the support of practically every country in Europe except Germany who, if she was not prepared to support us, was not at that time prepared to oppose us. If we had been able to speak with a united mind as we might have done, and if we had given the proper lead at the time, I am confident the Italians would have abandoned their expedition. They would never, for the sake of what was really valueless when they did actually conquer it, have risked a major war with the great Powers of Europe. I am sure they would have abandoned that plan, and if they had abandoned that plan the whole history of Europe subsequently would have been different. There is no question at all that it was the failure to stop the Italian invasion of Abyssinia that encouraged the Germans on the first steps of their path

89
which ultimately led to the invasion of Poland and this world war.
I apologize to your Lordships for having said even so much as that, because I said it all once before and I know how impatient your Lordships are, and rightly so, with any repetition of previous arguments. To my mind there is only one thing that we can do as far as direct keeping of the peace is concerned after the war. I am quite sure that our whole policy must be designed to prevent aggression in the future. I do not agree with my noble friend that force has always failed. I think historically that is quite untrue, but whether it has failed or not this is not the case of one country against another country, it is the case of a great combination of countries acting not for their own particular interests but for the establishment and maintenance of peace. That is the fundamental idea. I see no reason to suppose that that has ever failed, and I have no reason to suppose that that would not succeed if it was tried. When you have established the proposition that aggression is to be ruled out altogether from international politics, then I have no doubt you can proceed to set up a new system and a better system, a New Order if you like to call it so, based on the great principles of freedom and truth and justice and things of that kind, which will gradually grow and gradually create a far happier and better state of things than we have seen so far. I know that it is going to take a long time and I am quite sure that you must have at the back of it a proper organization of the forces of the peaceful Powers to insist that aggression and attack shall not take place, to insist that whatever the grievances of countries may be they must be settled by discussion and ultimately by arbitration in some form or another.
Until you get that system established and accepted—and I believe it is very generally desired at the present time by the populations of Europe—I do not think there is any prospect of any considerable or widespread social or economic reform. I take a different view from a good many of my noble friends and others on that point. I do not believe that social and economic reform of a wide character is the kind of thing you merely have to suggest and all the countries of Europe will spring up and accept it. I do not think that is at all likely
90
to be true. Conditions in each country are so different. History, prejudices and classes are so very diverse that it is most improbable that any considerable revolutionary reform such as my noble friend suggests would receive general agreement. On the contrary, my belief is the result would be exactly the opposite. If you start with that and have no system of keeping the peace behind it, you will merely occasion a whole number of new disputes which may easily lead you into war. Therefore my strong recommendation is that you should first establish your peace-keeping machinery, get that into working order, get that generally accepted so that you have behind it the immense majority of the popular feeling of the world, and then, when you have that established, build on that secure foundation your system of economic reform which undoubtedly will help, once you have got the system of peace established, to make it more secure in the future.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I rise to reply to this debate, although, after the very moving and to my mind conclusive speech to which we have just listened from my noble relative Lord Cecil, there really seems very little that I can say which has not already been much better said by him. It is frequently said of your Lordships' debates that they cover a great deal of ground, and that I think is certainly true both of the Motion which has been tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, and by the speech with which he introduced it. That Motion, as your Lordships know, urges on His Majesty's Government "that, if civilization is to be saved, a most vital necessity now exists for visualizing and promulgating a New Order for humanity on completely novel lines."
As Lord Ponsonby said in his speech, two months ago, there was a debate in this House on the nature of the international authority which should be set up after this war. That debate, as your Lordships will remember, led to an extremely interesting and I think important discussion by noble Lords with long experience in international affairs. I would not say that those who took part in that debate were in agreement about everything, but I think there were certain broad principles on which it could be said

91
there was practical unanimity, and one of those principles is relevant to our discussion this afternoon. It was this, that if law and order are to prevail, in the international as in the domestic spheres, there must be behind them the sanction of collective force. As Lord Ponsonby said just now, that proposition was, I think, universally accepted in the debate as being the lesson of recent years. The League of Nations failed, not because it was materially too strong, but because it was materially not strong enough, and not sufficiently united in the use of the strength which it had at its disposal. I think it was accepted, too, that after this war, if peace is to be preserved, we must construct a system so powerful that no one will have any incentive to break the law. That I had quite understood was the unanimous conclusion of those of your Lordships who had studied this question. It now appears to-day that that was not so. This afternoon, the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, has made it perfectly clear not only that he differs from those conclusions but that he rebuts the whole chain of reasoning by which those conclusions were reached.
He suggested and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, supported his view, that force never has established peace and never will; indeed that force is the whole cause of our troubles. He said we must eradicate the idea of force, whether individual or collective, from our minds and remodel civilization on an entirely new basis which excludes force. I do not think anyone would complain that the noble Earl should have approached the most fundamental of our problems from an entirely new angle. After all, this is no time for limiting ourselves to stereotyped ideas. It was said by a British statesman of the last century:
"The commonest error in politics is clinging to the carcasses of dead policies. We cling to the shred of an old policy long after it has been torn to pieces, and to the shadow of the shred after the rag itself has been torn away."
We do not want to fall into that error at a time like this. On the contrary, I think there has never been a time when there has been a more vital necessity for original thought in forming plans for the post-war world.
At the same time it is equally essential that we should not fall into the alternative
92
error of disregarding all the experience of the past. There is a tendency nowadays—I thought I detected it in the speech of the noble Earl—to say that anything new must be good. That, my Lords, was, of course, the pretended appeal of Hitler's New Order—and look where it has brought Germany and the world—although I do not for a moment suggest that there is anything in common with Hitler's New Order in the New Order as suggested by the noble Earl. At any rate, if we are to be ready to examine Lord Darnley's proposition—as we must—the onus is surely on him to prove to our satisfaction that the reasons which led him to his conclusion are sound. He must make his case: and that, with all due deference to him, I do not think he succeeded in doing this afternoon. First of all, I do not think he proved—and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, proved either— that it is the lesson of history that collective force rightly directed has always failed in its task of maintaining law and order. My noble relative, Viscount Cecil, has already dealt very powerfully with that point in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I only add a few words because I understood Lord Ponsonby to say that I had not made my views clear, in the recent debate, on the question of the use of force for the maintenance of law. I certainly thought I had done so.
I did say in the course of my speech that for a successful international peace system there must be behind it
"the backing of an overwhelmingly strong armed force. That is the final sanction of law and order in international as in domestic spheres."
Further, if the noble Lord's point was that I did not make clear what sort of force it was to be, I would remind him that I quoted the words of the Prime Minister, in which he said
"the new League should be supported by armed forces, national or international, or both, held ready to enforce its decisions and present renewed aggression and the preparation of future wars."
I should have thought that was perfectly clear. But, if my noble friend wants me to repeat it, I am very glad to do so, and I say here and now that I do not for one moment accept his contention that force has in the past failed to sustain law or that there should not be an overwhelming

93
backing of collective force behind any new international organization. On the contrary, I think it absolutely essential that there should be that basis of force and I would maintain that that is the lesson not only of recent events, but of the whole course of history, however far you go back.
There was a time, in this country, when the King's Writ did not run, when the strong bullied the weak to their hearts' content and when cruelty and injustice were rampant. But gradually, with the passage of time, public opinion was marshalled and law and order established by collective action. Nowadays, though crimes and disorder do occasionally occur, they are extremely rare and when they do occur they are immediately punished. This happy situation, for it is a happy situation, is only assured by the existence of a code of laws and by the presence of a large efficient police force to ensure its enforcement. The noble Earl, Lord Darnley, seems to regard the policeman not as an emblem of force. I was extremely surprised to hear him say that and I believe every one of your Lordships here would take a very different view. He certainly is an emblem of force. If to-day he does not carry a weapon with him it is because law and order has been so firmly established that he does not need to have that weapon. But he is, by his very existence, the emblem of collective force, and even in this country, unless the police force were kept in being and the laws rigorously enforced, there is no doubt at all that we should soon relapse into the morass of misrule from which we so painfully rose. Evilly disposed persons would begin again almost at once to murder and rob their fellow citizens without fear of retribution. Indeed, my Lords in this and many other countries I should have thought it absolutely indisputable that it is force administered justly and efficiently by the officers of the community that has largely eradicated crime and disorder.
It is perfectly true, of course, that that desirable result has not yet been achieved in the international sphere.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I be allowed to interrupt for a moment to suggest that surely it is because the policeman does not burn down the house of the criminal or murder his wife
94
and family but confines his attention to the criminal himself?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is no doubt a point, if the noble Lord likes to make it. But the fact remains that the criminal by some means or other is immediately punished. It is true that wives and families at the present time are suffering from the war, but that is because criminals cannot be got at without their being involved. None of us likes to think that wives and families are suffering. But if the alternative is the triumph of chaos and anarchy, this is a misfortune which I think, in the view of the great majority of us, must be endured. Of course, as your Lordships know, attempts have been made again and again to construct machinery to establish security on a basis of respect for law. But up to now, I am afraid, it is perfectly true that defects and weaknesses have rendered that machinery ineffective. Surely, however, that is not a reason for abandoning our efforts. On the contrary, I should have thought that what we need now is to profit by our experience, to educate public opinion, and to strengthen our international machinery until eventually it is powerful enough to do for the community of nations what it has done in our own and other countries.
Nor can I see, although I have tried very hard, that the noble Earl, Lord Darnley's New Order is like to produce any better result. He indicated that all that is necessary—if I understood him aright—is to remove the disabilities of nations and then, he said, they will not want to go to war. What does that in fact mean? In very simple words it means that every nation must be given what it wants and then everybody will be happy. That is really what it comes to. That assumes that the disabilities of any one nation can always be remedied without creating greater disabilities and hardships for another nation. But that assumption unfortunately is not true. It is not so easy as that to remove the casus belli. The desires, the ambitions and the needs of nations, as of individuals, constantly conflict and it is no use ignoring that fact. In this connexion I should like to recall to the noble Earl's mind the story of Naboth's vineyard which seems to me to be very much to the point. The House will remember how when King Ahab demanded. Naboth's vineyard on the ground that he

95
needed a garden of herbs near his house, Naboth replied: "The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee." Thereupon, on the ground that he was suffering under a disability, King Ahab arranged to have Naboth murdered, and this was done. King Ahab was, thereupon, immediately, and very severely and properly, rebuked by the prophet Elijah. That story is one example of conflicting needs.
If the noble Earl wants a more recent example, one which is a little bit nearer home, I would refer him to the German demand for Lebensraum. Germany claimed, as your Lordships know, in the years before the war, that she would be suffering under an almost unendurable disability unless she was allowed to absorb within her borders the territories of all her neighbours. Her neighbours, on the other hand, fairly claimed—and who shall question their claim—that they would be suffering under an unendurable disability unless they were allowed to retain their independence. The noble Earl, Lord Darnley, seems to assume that if they had all been able to get together round a table they could have come easily and happily to an agreed conclusion without injury to anybody. I do not see on what he bases that comfortable theory. It is certainly not based on the evidence of the experience of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Albania and Poland. It seems to me that the one inevitable result of his policy as expounded to-day would be to cause unending conflict throughout the world. First of all, the great nations would absorb the small nations, and, when that stage was completed, the great nations would fight each other, and each time the aggressor would justify his action on the grounds of some disability which must be removed.
The noble Earl may argue that that is the position at present. But, if he does, surely the answer is this; our recent disasters have occurred, not because international machinery existed, but because that machinery broke down. What we need to do now, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has said, is to re-establish it and strengthen it. That is the only hope of peace. If we cannot do that, if we fail, our present unhappy situation will be perpetuated, and will go on until our civilization is completely destroyed. If a man were to kidnap the
96
child of the noble Earl, or the child of any other noble Lord, and were to plead in his defence that he was suffering from a disability in that that noble Lord had a child and he had not, surely the noble Lord, himself, would not regard that as a justification for setting up a new order legalizing kidnapping. On the contrary, he would, of course, point to the immediate necessary for strengthening the law and increasing the penalties against kidnapping. That would be the view of all of us I am sure, and it must surely be the lesson of recent events in the world.
No one, of course, would defend the proposition that no effort should be made to remove the cause of war. To adopt the attitude of Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire's Candide, that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, in a situation like the present, would clearly be quite absurd. We should all of us agree that we must seek to promote friendly co-operation and collaboration between nations. That has been fully recognized in the Atlantic Charter which states, among other things —I will only quote one article:
"After the final destruction of Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want."
That is the view of the signatories to the Atlantic Charter, and it is emphatically the view of His Majesty's Government.
The recent broadcast of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and recent speeches by the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers, show that constant thought is being given to the construction of machinery for solving international problems by peaceful means and so promoting human welfare. There are the plans for a new system for the regulation of international exchanges which have been put forward on both sides of the Atlantic, and are now under examination. There is the conference which has just been concluded in the United States of America, which was attended by delegates from all the United Nations, for the purpose of ensuring the future provision and distribution to the peoples of the world of food in larger quantities and of greater nutritional value than in the past. Examples in this connexion could be multiplied by your Lordships. I do not suppose that there has ever been a time when

97
there was so much unprejudiced inquiry going on as to means of removing causes of war. But there is one essential element in all these schemes. All nations great and small must agree to solve their problems by peaceful and legal means. They must agree to do all in their power to restrain any nation that attempts to adopt methods of violence. The strong must not impose their will on the weak. There must be justice for all. If we once abandon that position, the world will inevitably, in my view at any rate, relapse into chaos.
There is, of course, as your Lordships know, another school of thought which is equally opposed to force but which takes a different view from the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, though I shrewdly suspect that Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede has some sympathy with it. This school does not delude itself into thinking that the abandonment of the sanction of force will lead to prosperity and security for all. Indeed, I think Lord Ponsonby has indicated that this afternoon. Adherents of this school think, quite simply, that it is wicked to fight, however good the cause may be, and they are fully prepared to accept all the consequences involved in that view. That is the Pacifist attitude. It is held, as we know, by many extremely high-minded and excellent people. But emphatically it is not the attitude of the British people as a whole. As your Lordships know, there are things for which the people of this country will always fight, for which they are fighting now. We in this country believe that liberty and justice are the foundation of all true civilization: we believe that without those two great principles life is not worth living: and, if they are threatened, we always fly to arms in their defence. We did so in the days of Philip of Spain, in the days of Napoleon, in the days of the Kaiser, and again now. The British people, perhaps above all other peoples, wisely distinguish between liberty and anarchy; and it is because the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, however well meant, is bound to end in anarchy that it must, I am sure, be rejected both by His Majesty's Government and also by your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF DARNLEY: My Lords, having detained you for Such a long time to-day I cannot possibly do more than spend a moment or two now in saying two things. First of all, I am very
98
grateful for the courteous way in which my Motion has been received and answered by the noble Viscount. It would be much simpler if one could make one's speech and propose one's Motion at the end of the debate instead of at the beginning, because there is a great temptation to answer at some length all the things which have been said by the noble Viscount; but I cannot do that. The second thing I want to say arises from the fact that I am interested in gardening and know a little about it. If you pull a tree out, you pull some of the roots out with it, but some are left behind. The only thing I claim about my Motion is that I know something more about the roots which are left behind. When I go away from here, I shall dig them up and examine them and put them in a glass case, and I hope to re-present them to your Lordships in a more suitable and better explained form at a future date. All I can do to-day is to ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOME GUARD OFFICERS' STATUS.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that many of the Home Guard have definitely taken their place alongside the Regular Army in the defence of the country and that their responsibility for the defence of the country is increasing and growing heavier, His Majesty's Government will now give instructions to treat officers of the Home Guard on the same basis for travelling and hospital treatment as officers of the Regular Army and thus remove what is a source of discontent and irritation to all those concerned and a differentiation in treatment which has no justification and is inequitable and derogatory to their status as officers holding the King's Commission.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, before I answer the question on the Paper, I hope that my noble friend will excuse me if I give a very brief sketch of the history

99
of this question, which has been raised on several occasions both here and in another place. When the Local Defence Volunteers were formed in May, 1940, men of every class and age enrolled in a spirit of national comradeship. Every member was treated alike, without special privileges or financial discrimination of any kind, and this fundamental principle of service in the Home Guard has remained unaltered. When Commissions were granted to Home Guard officers in November, 1940, it was made clear that this was being done as there would otherwise be difficulty in bringing the Home Guard under the operational control of the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, if they were called on to fight side by side with the Regular Army, but that the grant of Commissions would involve no change in the original basis of equal treatment for all.
The possibility of abandoning this principle in the case of railway travel and hospital treatment has been carefully considered on several occasions since then. The change would logically lead to the abandonment of the principle in other matters, for example of allowances of various kinds and pensions. I would emphasize that the objection to the noble Viscount's proposal is not primarily financial, but is based on the fact that the acceptance of the proposal would change the conception of the nature of this Force.
With regard to hospitals, arrangements are already in force whereby Home Guard officers are, as a rule, treated in special wards or rooms reserved for Home Guards, and not in wards with other ranks of the Regular Forces. The Home Guard is a local force, and not many of its officers have to travel long distances by train, but, when they do, they will often find at the present time that officers and other ranks are compelled to share the available accommodation. For these reasons, I regret that it is not considered that a change in the present system is justified.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, arising out of what I regard as a very unsatisfactory answer I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that Home Guard officers all over the country feel this very strongly indeed. I can speak with knowledge of Scotland, but I
100
cannot speak for England to the same extent. I should like to ask him, in spite of what he has said, what reason there is for creating first-class Commissions for Regular officers and third-class Commissions for Home Guard officers who are performing the same duties, and who are liable to the same risks and injuries. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government further to consider the question.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, if I am in order in replying, out of courtesy to my noble friend, who I know has this matter very much at heart, I should like to assure him that all the points that he has made so eloquently on this and previous occasions have been given every consideration, and I am afraid there is nothing I can add to my statement in answer to his question.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I should like to ask a question arising out of that answer. I should like to ask the Government to look at this matter in another light. It is too late now for the Government to say that they are not going to discriminate between the officers and men of the Home Guard, because they have done it already. They have given officers their rank, and the insignia of their rank. There is no record in history of a military force which has reached the highest pitch of efficiency and in which there has been no discrimination between officers and men. This is being done in the Home Guard, and I want to ask the Government whether they will not reconsider their attitude. It will cost them nothing, and will do away with a feeling of irritation which exists in the commissioned ranks of the Home Guard.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I can only assure my noble friend that I will see that what he has said is conveyed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, in order that once more every consideration may be given to these points.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee read.
The Report was as follows:
"That the Committee, in view of the opinions expressed in the House on 5th

101
May last, does not now recommend any change in the existing practice regarding starred questions."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report of the Select Committee be now considered. Your Lordships will remember that a short time ago we had a considerable debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in regard to a possible alteration in the practice regarding starred questions. Various views were put forward in that debate. A considerable number of noble Lords were doubtful about the proposal which was then laid before the House, so much so that your Lordships proceeded to a Division and a reference back of the proposals to the Committee was decided upon. That took place, and the Committee have met again and discussed the question. They have come to the conclusion which they now venture to lay before your Lordships. In doing so I think I may say that I am voicing the views of the Committee— although there are not many of them here to contradict me—when I state that the recommendation which they now lay before your Lordships represents what they believe to be the general feeling of your Lordships' House.
The recommendation is briefly that things should remain as they are, and that starred questions should be continued, but the practice which was laid down twenty-five years ago should be adhered to, in that they should so far as possible be confined to mere question and answer. If your Lordships then wished to continue the debate you should adopt one of the many other forms of introducing questions to your Lordships' House, but the starred questions should remain as they are, consisting of question and answer, with very limited scope for explanation. I beg to move that the Report of the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee be now considered.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not desire to oppose the Motion at all but I do wish very much to represent to the Government and to my noble friend the Chairman of Committees that anything that increases the
102
opportunities for the ordinary member of this House—by which I mean a member who is not a member of the Government or a member of past Governments but just a member of the House of Lords— anything that increases his interest in the proceedings of the House, or gives him an opportunity for taking part in those proceedings, is immensely to be desired. Because we cannot conceal from ourselves if we are at all honest that the present condition of the attendance at your Lordships' meetings is not very creditable to the Peerage as a whole. It is no exaggeration to say that less than 10 per cent. of the Peers habitually attend, or practically ever attend, except on some very-exceptional occasion. Therefore I am personally a very strong friend of anything that can be devised which enables them to feel that they are taking part in the government of the country, and not coming here merely to listen to speeches. I just wished to make that observation for the consideration of those who have the control of these matters.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am sure we all agree with my noble friend. I do not know whether he wishes to convey that the Report of the Committee would curtail the opportunities of noble Lords to take part in the business of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No, I was personally in favour of the original suggestion of the Committee, and that would, in my view, have increased the opportunity for useful and interesting work to be done by the members of this House.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not know whether I am in agreement with my noble friend, because that original suggestion was to confine questions to a quarter of an hour. Would that increase the interest of your Lordships in the proceedings?
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I am sorry the Committee have come to the conclusion that they have done, and I cannot help feeling that they permitted extraneous matter to be introduced into the whole question. The matter is a very simple one; it is simply a question of the convenience of members of the Government who are to answer questions and of members of the House who ask them, and whether the starred questions should have

103
priority on the Order Paper so that they may be disposed of at the beginning of business. That obviously is for the convenience not only of Ministers but of members as well. When starred questions were introduced by Lord Curzon, the Leader of the House, twenty-five years ago he laid down that they were to come first on the Order Paper, so that they could be disposed of. So there is no question of principle involved, it is simply a question of convenience and expediency. In the last debate all sorts of extraneous considerations were introduced. We were said to be aping the procedure in another place and destroying the atmosphere of this House. All sorts of entirely irrelevant considerations were introduced into that debate. I sincerely hope that in spite of the recommendation now made the Committee may yet proceed to follow what is obviously a sensible procedure in the interests of Ministers on the Front Bench—-that was why Lord Curzon introduced it in the first instance—and for the convenience of the ordinary members of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of the Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF DEBATES.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name on the Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, how many copies of the Official Reports of Parliamentary Debates arc now distributed among public libraries and other similar institutions; and whether, in view of the importance of encouraging the general public to interest themselves in Parliamentary proceedings, they will favourably consider the possibility of providing all such libraries with copies of these documents free of cost.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, daily parts of the Reports of your Lordships' House are purchased by nineteen public libraries and two public institutions. In addition, the Reports in volume form are purchased by seven libraries and six institutions, which do not obtain the daily parts. Public libraries may obtain Government publications, including the Official Report of Debates, at half price. The concession is well known and is considered a sufficient inducement to those libraries which find there is a local interest in verbatim reports of debates.
LORD DAVIES: May I ask whether it would be possible in future to offer copies of the Official Report without any payment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the view that has been taken, and as far as I know is still maintained, is that the half price is a concession of which advantage is taken, as I have illustrated, and I do not think it is the view of those responsible that they would prefer to distribute the Report for nothing.
House adjourned.