Sitting of 23 September 1943

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the County of Northampton with the Soke of Peterborough (Peterborough Division), in the room of David George Brownlow Cecil, Esq., commonly called Lord Burghley (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. James Stuart.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

    Unemployment, South Wales
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider providing employment for the substantial number of unemployed men in the valleys of South Wales and, in particular, a very substantial body of registered non-mobile women, instead of extending his control to women in the older age categories?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): With the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production, I am continually seeking to have new war production placed in districts where there are immobile unemployed workers. Unemployment in the Welsh valleys has been greatly reduced since the outbreak of war, but there are still in certain districts men and women anxious to obtain employment on war work and I will naturally call upon these men and women before making demands upon older women in the same area.
    Mr. Edwards: Is not the Minister aware of the grave social problem of women being taken into employment and their husbands being left on unemployment assistance and then unemployment assistance being taken away, with the result that the husbands have to live on the earnings of their wives? Surely this is a problem which should have greater attention than it has received? Will be
    358
    make another effort to see what he can do to deal with these pockets of unemployment?
    Mr. Bevin: I will make every effort.

    Women of 45–50
    Sir William Davisonasked the Minister of Labour what inquiries were made of women's organisations before the decision was arrived at for the registration of women between 45 and 50 years of age; in particular, was the Women's Consultative Committee of the Ministry of Labour consulted in the matter; and what was their advice?
    Mr. Bevin: No special inquiries were made of women's organisations. The Women's Consultative Committee has discussed this matter on different occasions; the advice given to me by this Committee is confidential.
    Sir W. Davison: What is the object of having a Women's Consultative Committee of the Ministry of Labour if they are not consulted in such a highly controversial matter as the registration of women between 45 and 50 years of age?
    Mr. Bevin: I can add nothing to the answer I gave.
    Mr. Hammersley: Is the Minister aware that graver anxiety arises in this matter from the fact that the evidence to the country is to the effect, in general, that the step is not necessary?
    Mr. Bevin: I think my hon. Friend had better wait for the Debate.
    Miss Rathbone: Would the Minister agree that the raising of the registration age will really facilitate the release of women who have genuine household duties and make available for paid employment women who have not household duties and are at present idling?
    Mr. Bevin: I think I would ask hon. Members to await the Debate, when the facts can be ascertained.

    Domestic Service
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state the proposals of the Government for the organisation of domestic service after the war?
    Mr. Bevin: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 24th June.
    Mr. Mander: Will the Minister bear in mind in this connection the importance of securing standard conditions as regards pay, hours and holidays?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, the whole of that is being considered.

    Employee, Edmonton Trolley Bus Depot (Facilities)
    Mr. William Brownasked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to avert the danger of the stoppage of the Edmonton trolley-bus depôt, owing to the favourable treatment given to the local chairman of the Transport and General Workers Union in the matter of late turns and total attendances?
    Mr. Bevin: I understand that it has been the practice of the London Passenger Transport Board for many years to allow its employees all reasonable facilities to carry out duties falling to them when acting in a public capacity. I am informed that the facilities granted to the employee in question, who is both an officer of his union and a Borough Councillor, are similar to those granted to other employees and subject to the same conditions. I have no evidence to support the suggestion that he has received more favourable treatment than his colleagues.
    Mr. Brown: Is it not the case that the facilities given to this man are completely withheld from officials of other unions under the L.P.T.B., and that this gives rise to grave discontent? Will he see that there is equality of treatment?
    Mr. Bevin: I understand that facilities are given to every union that has an agreement with the Transport Board.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister not aware that there are minority unions in this industry?
    Mr. Bevin: I understand that there is one breakaway, union, which is most unfortunate.
    Mr. Brown: May not that be due to the character of the union from which they broke away?

    Factories Order ("Luminising")
    Sir Reginald Clarryasked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the intended meaning of the word "Luminising" in the Emergency Powers (Defence) Factories Order S.R. & 0., 1053, of 1943), having regard to the facts that this word is not in common use and that the Order contains no explanatory memorandum?
    Mr. Bevin: This Order amends the principal Order of last year in which the expression "luminising" is defined. I am sending a copy of the two Orders to my hon. Friend.
    Captain Strickland: Can the Minister explain where he got the word from?

    Expectant Mothers
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that an expectant mother was recently prosecuted by his Department for refusing a direction to work under the Essential Work Order; that the case was dismissed by the Salford police under the Probation of Offenders Act; and will he consider issuing instructions that expectant mothers are exempt from such proceedings?
    Mr. Bevin: The officers of my Department already have instructions not to place any pregnant woman in employment against her wish. In the case referred to by my hon. Friend the woman concerned gave no intimation that she was an expectant mother until her appearance in Court for failure to comply with a direction.
    Mr. Davies: Did I understand the Minister to say that there are instructions against doing this?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

    Building Tradesmen (Contracts)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the desire felt in all parties to protect the interests of the small tradesman, when such protection is not at the cost of the general public, he will consider, both from the immediate and long term point of view, the establishment of agencies or the utilisation of employment exchanges, so as to enable the ordinary person to get into easy direct touch with such tradesmen as carpenters, plumbers, painters, etc., without resort to firms of builders or contractors whose

    361
    intervention removes the personal touch between the client and the tradesman and doubles the cost of the services rendered?
    Mr. Bevin: I presume my hon. Friend has in mind, not an engagement under a contract of service, but the making of a contract direct with an individual building tradesman for the performance of a particular piece of work. It is not normally the function of the Employment Exchanges to act as intermediary in such cases.

    Labour Transference
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women transferred to other parts of the country from the North of England and from Scotland and Wales, respectively, since the beginning of the war?
    Mr. Bevin: The numbers of women of registration age who were transferred to other parts of the country between 16th May, 1942, and 17th August, 1943, from Employment Exchanges in the Northern Region, Scotland and Wales respectively were 5,494, 3,652 and 1,950. These figures do not include women called up to the Women's Auxiliary Services. Information is not available as to the number of men who have been transferred nor is it available in respect of women prior to the date I have named.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Can the Minister supply the House with the separate figures for Wales?
    Mr. Bevin: I will pick out the Welsh ones and let the hon. Member know.

    Women (Overtime)
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in Government Departments, and in industry, women are in many cases retained at work on overtime pay, although the work they have to perform could be completed in shorter hours: that most women resent this and desire to be efficiently employed; and what action does he propose to take?
    Mr. Bevin: The efficient employment of women in Government Departments is primarily a matter for the Treasury. With regard to women employed in industry, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Moss Side, Manchester (Mr. Rostron Duckworth) on 20th April, 1943.
    Sir I. Albery: Even if employment in Government Departments is a matter for the Treasury, is it not the Minister's concern to see that all persons are efficiently employed and that no labour is wasted?
    Mr. Bevin: It is my duty to see that they do not get too many, if I can resist their demands, which I keep on doing.

    Young Married Women
    Sir R. Clarryasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the widespread resentment felt against a certain type of young woman married to serving officers in this country who are without any domestic ties or family responsibilities who are at the present moment occupying accommodation at the hotels adjacent to their husbands and who avoid calling-up and do not undertake any useful war work; and what steps he proposes to take to follow up and utilise this potential labour?
    Mr. Bevin: I am aware that there has been criticism regarding cases of the kind described, but special inquiries which were made last year did not disclose that any substantial number of women were avoiding their obligations in that way. Existing instructions provide that a woman found to be living away from home with her husband should be considered for employment in the area in which she is living.
    Sir R. Clarry: Is it possible to get the co-operation of commanding officers through their officers as to the location of their wives?
    Mr. Bevin: I would ask the hon. Member not to impose any more difficulties on us.

    Works and Labour Managers and Welfare Officers
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Labour whether, arising out of the discharge of a labour manager from the General Electrical Company, at Wembley, the National Service officers and appeal boards are instructed, when dealing with cases concerning works managers, labour managers or welfare officers, to take into account not only the responsibility of these officials to the companies or organisations that employ them, but also to the general welfare of the community and the employees under their control; and whether it is his policy to encourage a code of independent professional conduct among such officials?
    Mr. Bevin: National Service officers are already instructed that labour managers and welfare officers should have the confidence both of the firm and of the workers. In my view, this is the only basis on which persons attempting to fufil these functions can do so successfully, and this fact is generally recognised by the members of the profession. I do not issue similar instructions to local appeal boards, but I have no doubt that they have these considerations in mind.

    Laundries, Oxford (Labour Shortage)
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the shortage of labour in laundries in Oxford; and whether he is in a position to announce any policy?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. My local offices are doing their best to overcome this shortage. Women are not being withdrawn from laundries under the National Service Acts or under the Registration for Employment Order, and it has been agreed with the Board of Trade that special steps should be taken to restore wastage where essential work is affected.

    Prosecution, Oldham
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that his Department recently prosecuted Edith Buckley, age 21 years, a cotton operative, of Oxford Street, Oldham, for having gone on holidays with her family without the permission of her employer; that she bad been absent from work for only four days in four years through sickness; that, in imposing a nominal fine of 5s., the magistrate's clerk declared that, in view of the woman's good record, it was disgraceful to bring her to court; and whether he intends taking disciplinary action against the officers of his Department for instigating this prosecution?
    Mr. Bevin: My attention has also been called to this case by the trade union concerned. I am having special inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Davies: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend's officers to be given instructions not to proceed in cases where it is obvious that the magistrates will not convict?
    Mr. Bevin: The difficulty in this case is that the magistrate did convict, in spite of
    364
    making the comment. Therefore, I must make special inquiries.
    Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the magistrate imposed only a nominal fine because he was compelled to do so.
    Mr. Hammersley: Is it not a fact that the magistrate said that this was a case which ought never to have been brought.
    Mr. Bevin: I am not going to accept without inquiry comments from the bench in any case where my officers are concerned. Magistrates often make comments which are not warranted.

    Reinstatement
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government has yet decided on the position of employers and employees in regard to the reinstatement of serving men in the posts they vacated on being called up, especially with reference to the common occurrence that such posts have been filled twice since the war started by men and women who have now joined the colours; and what is the position in this respect of those who voluntarily joined the fighting forces?
    Mr. Bevin: Proposals are under consideration which I hope to be able to bring before the House in the near future.

    Underground Mining
    Sir Charles Edwardsasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and boys who have been directed to go to underground work and the success which has attended this direction; and the number of volunteers for work in the mines since the option was given for this or the services?
    Mr. Bevin: With regard to the first part of the Question, I regret that the information is not available, and could not be obtained without disproportionate expenditure of effort. With regard to the second part of the Question, up to 31st August the number of men who had effectively opted for underground mining in preference to service in His Majesty's Forces was just under 5,000. Of these, 3,099 had up to that date been placed in employment in coalmines and 1,103 in mines other than coalmines.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Minister of Labour whether, pending the adoption of a general system of conscription of young

    365
    men for the mining industry, he will suspend the practice of directing youths employed on surface-work in collieries to work underground without giving them the alternative of joining the Services?
    Mr. Bevin: As this matter comes within the scope of the forthcoming Debate, I would ask my hon. Friend to await my statement on this subject.
    Mr. Cocks: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and will await with interest what he has to say. But will he bear in mind that the suggestion contained in this Question represents the almost unanimous opinion in the coalfield?
    Mr. Bevin: I thank my hon. Friend for awaiting my statement I do not think his Question is really based on the facts.
    Mr. Sloanasked the Minister of Labour the number of youths in the 17-years-old group who registered in the city of Glasgow on 18th September and opted for the mines; and how many youths of the same age group attending public schools in England volunteered for the pits?
    Mr. Bevin: I am obtaining the available information, which I will send to my hon. Friend, but I should mention that separate figures are not obtained as between one school and another.
    Mr. Sloan: Will by right hon. Friend give me any information on the first part of the Question, as to how many registered and how many opted in the city of Glasgow last Saturday?
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot tell; it is too early to get the information.
    Mr. Sloan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I could give it to him?

    Cadet Camps (Leave of Absence)
    Major Nieldasked the Minister of Labour whether he has issued a notification to employers recommending that they should allow leave of absence to those employed by them who are members of the Army Cadets or similar organisations to attend camp; and, if not, whether he will consider issuing such a notification?
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, but I understand that the Inter-Services Cadet Committee recently issued a circular after consultation with the National Production Advisory Council of the Ministry of Production, in
    366
    which, while the needs of production are recognised, employers of young persons are asked to do all in their power to enable them to attend camp. I do not think any action on my part is called for.
    Major Nield: Does my right hon. Friend agree with such recommendations?
    Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

    Unofficial Strikes
    Major Conantasked the Minister of Labour whether he contemplates any action against individuals or associations organising, in war-time, strikes unsupported by the appropriate unions, designed to exact an amendment of the law or withdrawal of an Order in Council?
    Mr. Bevin: I have certain powers to deal with individuals who take part in a strike in connection with a trade dispute or who absent themselves from work without good cause, and I am ready to use those powers in appropriate cases according to the particular circumstances. Strikes of the kind to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers definitely impede the war effort. If necessary, the law will have to be strengthened.
    Major Conant: Will my right hon. Friend, in addition to using such powers as he has, suggest to the official unions in these industries that they should regard men who take part in unofficial strikes in the same light as they do those who refuse to take part in official strikes by the unions?
    Mr. George Griffiths: In making these inquiries, will my right hon. Friend go deeply into the question of whether the strike arises from the manager mis-managing the concern?
    Mr. Bevin: The point is that in this country there has been built up joint machinery, through which practically every grievance in industry can be dealt with, and unofficial strikes are definitely impeding the war effort, and going a long way towards destroying the effectiveness of the unions themselves.
    Mr. Cocks: In what way can my right hon. Friend take action against a body of 15,000 or 16,000 men on strike?
    Mr. Bevin: I am not suggesting that, but I think something should be done against those who for the moment supersede the executive and disregard instructions.

    Aliens
    Miss Rathboneasked the Minister of Labour to what extent arrangements have been made to utilise the services of the large number of aliens now in this country?
    Mr. Bevin: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's consent, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Does my right hon. Friend think of employing German prisoners in this country?
    Mr. Bevin: I would like notice of that question.
    Following is the answer:
    (a) Service in the Armed Forces.
    The Allied Powers (War Service) Act, 1942, gives me power by Order in Council to conscript into the British Forces male allied nationals of military age who have not joined their national forces or been exempted from service by their own Governments. This Act has already been applied to men of Belgian, Czechoslovak, Greek, Netherlands, Norwegian, Polish and Yugoslav nationality, and arrangements are in hand for its application to United States nationals in this country. It is not possible to call up to the British Forces aliens of enemy or non-allied nationality, but considerable numbers are serving as volunteers. Though I have no power to call up foreign women for the Armed Forces, considerable numbers are voluntarily serving either in the Women's Auxiliary Services attached to the Armed Forces of our Allies, or in the British Auxiliary Services.
    (b) Civilian Employment.
    Provision was made in the International Labour Force Registration Orders of 1941 to register the industrial particulars of all men and boys between the ages of 16 and 65 and all women and girls between 16 and 50 of Belgian, Czechoslovak, Netherlands, Norwegian, Polish, French, German, Austrian and Italian nationality,

    Table showing progress of review of employed aliens registered under the International Labour Force Registration Orders, 1941.

    No. of cases examined.

    Found to be already in work of National importance or utility.

    Students or unavailable for transfer.

    Transferred to work of greater importance.

    MEN:

    11,432

    7,602

    1,423

    2,407

    WOMEN:

    13,460

    11,047

    1,669

    744

    24,892

    18,649

    3,092

    3,151

    and I have recently made further Orders to provide for the registration of Greek, Yugoslav, Danish, Bulgarian, Finnish, Hungarian, Rumanian, Japanese and Siamese nationals in the same age groups. This registration has recently been carried out. Further, under powers conferred on me by Regulation 58A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, I can direct into suitable employment persons of any foreign nationality in the same way as I can direct British subjects. A review of those registered under the International Labour Force Registration Orders, 1941, taken shortly after registration, showed that 82.5 per cent. of the men and 60 per cent. of the women were then employed, the majority in work of general utility, and a considerable number in the production of munitions and military supplies. A considerable proportion of the women who were not in regular employment were engaged upon household duties at home. Since 1941 it has been found possible to increase the opportunities open to aliens to engage in war work, and the number who now remain unemployed is negligible. It includes some who by reason of health, inability to speak English or unadaptability by reason of previous occupation, are well-nigh unemployable.
    A review of all those who when registered were already in employment is now taking place in order to ensure that the best use is being made of their services and that, so far as is practicable, those without military obligations are dealt with similarly to British subjects registered under the Registration for Employment Order. This review of some 75,000 cases is not yet complete, but the results so far (summarised in the table below) indicate that the consistent efforts of my officers, of the various refugee organisations and of the aliens themselves are resulting in a considerable change-over from non-essential employment to valuable productive war work.
    In a detailed scrutiny of a sample consisting of 5,000 German and Austrian men's registration cards, it was found that nearly 3 per cent. were under r8 years of age, approximately 18 per cent. between DS and 35, and the remainder between 36 and 65, nearly 23 per cent. being over 55. It was also shown that, in spite of the preponderance in the upper age groups, there had been a considerable changeover from sedentary and professional occupations (for example, lawyers, journalists and clerks) to manual work; on the other hand, a large proportion of men in the sample group with high professional and technical qualifications were found to be employed in their normal occupations; for example, of 184 physicians and surgeons all but nine are employed in the medical profession; of 55 dentists all but two are employed as dentists; all dental mechanics are employed in their trade; of 88 teachers, 83 are teaching, and of 94 scientists 65 are engaged in scientific work. The Government Training Centres to which I decided to admit selected aliens have already trained approximately 2,600 in about 20 different engineering operations, and these include a considerable number of individuals formerly holding important professional positions in their own countries. Sixteen different nationalities are represented amongst the trainees, approximately 750 of whom are of allied, 1,500 of enemy, and 400 of non-allied nationality or stateless condition.
    At first there was difficulty in placing these foreign trainees after their training had been completed, but that difficulty was soon overcome, and the great majority have not only responded well during training but have subsequently proved a valuable addition to our total labour force. I am happy to say that the experience of my officers shows clearly that the great majority of the aliens in this country are anxious to play their part in the war effort of the United Nations and to advance our cause in whatever way is appropriate to them.

    Trainees (Wages)
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, at a Government training centre a local unmarried trainee of 21 years of age or over receives, under the.wages scheme, 71s. 6d. per week, while a local single disabled ex-Service man of
    370
    the same age, working at the same bench, receives only 475. 6d.; and what steps he proposes to take to end this differentiation, which is not fair to men who have sacrificed limbs or health in the country's service.
    Mr. Bevin: Trainees, whether disabled or not, receive the same wages if they are taking the same course. Special provision is made for disabled persons who are not fit to take the ordinary courses, and these receive allowances, together with payment of daily travelling expenses. The allowances are not subject to deductions for Income Tax or insurance, as are the wages paid to ordinary trainees, but they are in general somewhat lower than the net receipts of the trainees receiving wages and the rates of allowance are at present under review.
    Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to come to any decision soon on that matter?
    Mr. Bevin: Oh, yes.

    Mineworker (Appeal)
    Sir C. Edwardsasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered a letter from the secretary of the Nine Mile Point Colliery workmen about Howard Seymour, who had been dismissed from the colliery because of a dispute about the safety of his place and the absence of timber to make it safe, and whose appeal was heard but no decision given for six weeks or more, during which this man was idle and then directed to go to the Pontymister steel works, where he is now doing labouring work; and will he take steps to see that cases of this sort are dealt with more promptly and the services of such men retained in the mines?
    Mr. Bevin: Inquiries are already being made into this case, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  COLOURED SUBJECTS (DISCRIMINATION).
  Commander Bowerasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that on the refusal of Mr. Constantine, a British subject of high standing and integrity, to leave the Imperial Hotel, Russell Square, at the request of the manager, Mr. Constantine was persuaded to leave by a

  371
  high regional official of the Ministry of Labour; and whether the action of this official was taken with his approval?
  Mr. Bevin: I presume the reference is to a colleague of Mr. Constantine on the staff of my Department who was on leave at the time and was one of the party for which rooms had been booked at this hotel. Any action which he took was taken in his capacity of colleague and friend and neither received nor required official sanction.

  EDUCATION

    Recruitment of Teachers (McNair Committee)
    Mrs. Cazalet Keirasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will see that before the introduction of the Education Bill the Committee presided over by Sir Arnold McNair will have reported?
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I cannot give any undertaking that this Committee, which is engaged with a review of the long-term policy for the training and supply of teachers, will report before the introduction of a Bill; though its findings will be made available directly they are completed. I can well understand that my hon. friend will desire to have as much information as possible on the subject of the future recruitment of teachers. No doubt opportunities will occur from time to time to give the House the latest news on this subject.
    Mrs. Keir: In view of the fact that about 80,000 additional teachers will be required, does my right hon. Friend not think it would be far better to have the report of the McNair Committee on teachers before us before we start to discuss the question?
    Mr. Butler: I do not think my hon. Friend quite appreciated the tenour of my reply. We do not depend on the McNair Committee alone for the supply of teachers. We depend on them chiefly for giving us long-term plans for the future recruitment, as well as the supply, of teachers. If I have additional information on Government policy for the recruitment of teachers, the importance of which is vital, I shall certainly give it to the House, and, if possible, before further steps are taken.
    Mr. Shinwell: When will this long-awaited Bill be introduced?
    Mr. Butler: There is a Question an the Paper about that.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: What machinery now exists to deal with the temporary, or emergency, situation, apart from the long-term policy? My right hon. Friend has dismissed that question, apart from the Committee's Report.
    Mr. Butler: That is just what I did not do. I said that if there was additional information to be given on Government policy, apart from that contained in the Committee's Report, on immediate plans for swelling the teaching profession, as far as it can be done in wartime, I would certainly impart it to the House, because I realise the importance of the matter.
    Mr. Lindsay: That is apart from the McNair's Committee Report?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Linstead: Should not the Committee be asked to present an interim Report, which would be available to the House for discussion?
    Mr. Butler: No; I would rather do it in the way I have said, give separate information on the recruitment of teachers, and let the McNair Committee finish their job without being rushed to a certain date.

    Evacuated Children
    Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the bad effects of the halftime education given to evacuee children or to children in the reception areas to which other children have been evacuated, he will now take steps either to have evacuee children brought back to their own schools or to take over adequate buildings in the reception areas?
    Mr. Butler: It has generally been found possible by the hiring, where necessary, of additional accommodation or by other temporary expedients to provide both evacuated and local pupils in reception areas with total weekly periods of instruction which at least approximate to normal. If, however, the hon. Member has evidence that in any particular reception area this is not the case, I should be ready to investigate the matter.

    Milk in Schools
    Major Lyonsasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is satisfied that medical officers of health throughout the country are ensuring that the milk supplied to school children is clean and of good quality; that periodical tests, are being carried out; and that in doing so they are co-operating with the county war agricultural committees?
    Mr. Butler: I am satisfied that medical officers of health take all practical steps by carrying out periodical tests and otherwise, to ensure that the milk supplied under the Milk in Schools Scheme is clean and of good quality. I understand that in county areas generally suitable cooperation exists with the county agricultural committees. My noble Friend the Minister of Food and I are proposing in the near future to conduct a census of the type of milk supplied to all schools in order to make provision for heat-treated or tuberculin tested milk where this is practicable and desirable and where neither of these types is now supplied.
    Major Lyons: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate how frequent these tests are?
    Mr. Butler: I shall want notice of that question.

    Use of Countryside
    Mr. Keelingasked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to give effect to the recomendations in the Scott Report for educating the public in the proper use of the countryside?
    Mr. Butler: I am considering this recommendation in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

    Secondary School Pupils
    Professor Savoryasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give (the percentage of pupils proceeding from the primary to the different categories of secondary schools in England and Wales during the years 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942?
    Mr. Butler: Of the pupils who in 1938 were in the age group 11–12, at which the primary stage normally ends, 9.5 per cent. proceeded to secondary schools, 2.5 per cent. proceeded later to junior
    374
    technical and similar schools, while the remainder continued their education in public elementary schools: Of those who remained in elementary schools, about half were in reorganised senior schools or departments. I regret that no figures are available for the years subsequent to 1938.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Water Supplies
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied with the water supply in the Dursley rural district; and what steps he has taken to improve the situation?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): A scheme for the utilisation of an additional source to remedy the recent deterioration in the water supply position in this area has been put forward by the Dursley Rural District Council, which is the responsible local authority. It has received my approval, has been given all necessary priorities and is now being carried out. I am advised by the local authority that the pipeline is virtually complete, that all other components are on the site and that it is expected that the scheme will be operation in a few days time. The water will be chlorinated before being put into supply, and regular tests will be made.
    Sir W. Davisonasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in surveying the water resources of the country, so that full information may be available in connection with the selection of sites for new towns and the making of any necessary changes in the location of industries?
    Mr. Brown: Information as to the availability of water supplies from public undertakings is readily obtainable by industrialists and other prospective consumers from the undertakers themselves. There is close liaison between my Department and other Departments including the Ministry of Town and Country Planning who consult my Department as requisite. The work of the Inland Water Survey, which consists of recording, collecting and publishing measurements of flow of rivers and, in conjunction with the Geological Survey, estimates of yield of underground services, has been generally suspended during the war as the

    375
    central and local personnel concerned have necessarily been engaged on work more closely related to the prosecution of the war. This work, which must be on a long-term basis, is of great value and I hope that it will be possible to develop it on a larger scale when conditions are more favourable.
    Sir W. Davison: What has happened to the several reports by the Central Advisory Water Committee, the Water Pollution Research Board and the Inland Water Survey Committee? Is it not desirable that the reports of these Committees should be co-ordinated so that the public could have some general information on the matter?
    Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend will look at the Report recently presented by Lord Milne, he will find that a great deal of that information is there. If he wants more, I shall be glad to furnish it.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the Minister satisfied that his Department is the best Department to deal with the water supply?
    Mr. Brown: I have no doubt about it.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the suggested water undertakings to be created will be under municipal or national ownership?
    Mr. Brown: I could give no pledge about that, but the issues involved in the Milne Report will come before Parliament in due course.

    Maternity Allowance
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee on National Expenditure with regard to maternity allowances for women engaged in industry; and if he is aware that his delay is having serious effects on the health of women who tend, through economic necessity, to stay too long at work?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have been making inquiries to ascertain the extent to which women engaged in industry do in fact remain at work to a late stage in pregnancy or return to work too soon after childbirth. These inquiries are nearly complete, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

    Emergency Medical Service (Maternity Benefit)
    Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Minister of Health, whether he will consider the granting of maternity benefits to women employed in the Emergency Medical Service?
    Mr. E. Brown: Women employed in the Emergency Medical Services who are insured under the National Health Insurance Acts are, subject to the fulfilment of certain qualifying conditions, entitled to payment of maternity benefit in respect of confinement.
    Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is it not a fact that these disqualifications largely prevent these women getting benefit?
    Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is thinking of those who are excepted from compulsory insurance. If that is so, I shall be glad to give him a precise answer about that.

    National Health Service
    Mr. McNeilasked the Minister of Health when the White Paper on the Re-organisation of Health Services will be published?
    Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to say.

    Shell Shock (Treatment)
    Mr. Hewlettasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to new methods of treating shell shock now being tried by the medical profession?
    Mr. E. Brown: All the modern methods of treatment are used at the special neurosis centres set up under the Emergency Hospital Scheme. These centres are kept abreast of the latest developments of medical knowledge on the subject through my consultant advisers on neurology and psychiatry and in other ways. If my hon. Friend has in mind any particular method of treatment, perhaps he will communicate with me.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is it not a fact that Lord Horder's Committee stated clearly that the term "shell shock" is an entire misnomer?

    OLD AGE PENSIONS
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Health what practice is to be adopted by the Assistance Board with

    377
    regard to pensioners in receipt of supplementary pensions when these pensioners enter rate-aided, rate-maintained and voluntary hospitals?
    Mr. E. Brown: The Assistance Board inform me that their normal practice is to continue payment of a supplementary pension after a pensioner is admitted to hospital in those cases where the pensioner has commitments such as rent or the maintenance of dependants which cannot be met out of his basic pension or other income and in other cases to suspend payment. To safeguard the position of widows under Section 4 (2) of the recent Act, however, the determination will in all cases remain formally in force for at least six months after the pensioner is admitted to hospital.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to announce when the Assistance Board will make a report on the codification of the scales of supplementary allowance to old age pensioners?
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Health (1) when it is expected that the Assistance Board will issue its promised codification and simplification of the whole body of regulations;
    (2) when it is proposed to introduce new regulations regarding increased payments to old age pensioners?
    Mr. Brown: I understand from the Assistance Board that their consideration of proposals for the amendment of the existing Regulations on supplementary pensions has reached an advanced stage. I am not, however, in a position to forecast at what date revised Regulations will be submitted nor what the content of these Regulations will be.
    Mr. Tinker: When can I repeat this Question, so that we shall know definitely?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down when we return.

  HOUSING

    Local Authorities (Rent Rebates)
    Miss Rathboneasked the Minister of Health, which local authorities for housing have adopted schemes of granting rebates on the rents of subsidised houses in proportion to the number of the
    378
    tenants' children or to the extent to which their incomes fell below a certain amount per member of their families; what percentage of the population these local authorities represent; and what steps have been taken to induce local authorities who have not yet adopted such schemes to do so?
    Mr. E. Brown: I regret I have no information which would enable me to supply the details asked for, but the matter is being considered as part of the general review of the housing problem which is at present being made.
    Miss Rathbone: In view of the hardship from which many householders are suffering owing to the tendency of landlords to refuse tenants with children, will the right hon. Gentleman really take strong steps to encourage this system of rent rebates, so that at least the houses towards which the general ratepayers and taxpayers have contributed shall be available for families with children?
    Mr. Brown: As I have said, we are reviewing that matter in connection with the whole housing question.
    Mr. MacLaren: Would it not be a relief to these people to take the rates off the houses, never mind the rents?
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not possible to give consideration to the suggestion that in respect to houses owned by local authorities the first class of people to have consideration should be those with children?
    Mr. Brown: I will send my hon. Friend the Circular governing the matter, and he will see that there are special obligations on local authorities.

    Policy
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Minister of Health whether he can give an assurance that as soon as practicable after the war every inhabitant of these islands shall be decently housed and give a broad outline of the methods to be adopted to achieve this end?
    Mr. E. Brown: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements I have made both in Debates and in answer to Questions in the House. I am not in a

    379
    position to add to these statements at present, but shall do so as and when circumstances permit.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: On several occasions I have taken exception to there being no forward policy by the right hon. Gentleman's Department as far as housing is concerned. How much longer are we to wait?
    Mr. Brown: I do not accept that suggestion.

    Industrial Workers
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Minister of Health whether he intends to get the views of industrialists on the housing of their workers; and can he give any statistical evidence of the loss of efficiency in industry due to bad housing?
    Mr. E. Brown: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir" and to the second part "No, Sir."
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: When the right hon. Gentleman asks for advice from industrialists on housing, will he ask some women, because they will advise him not to put central heating in larders?
    Mr. Brown: I am not asked about women here, but the fact is that the committee and sub-committees concerned have taken a mass of evidence not merely from individual women but from all kinds of organisations of women.
    Viscountess Astor: How many women are on the committee?
    Mr. Brown: Five on the main committee and an additional five on the subcommittees.
    Viscountess Astor: And how many men?

    Slum House (Definition)
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Minister of Health whether there is an official definition of a slum house, as no Housing or Public Health Act gives such a definition?
    Mr. E. Brown: The term "slum house" is one generally understood, and commonly used by those not wishing to resort to legal language, as describing a dwelling defined in the Housing Act, 1936, as one which is unfit for human habitation and is not capable at a reasonable expense of being made so fit.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not possible for the Department to fix a definite life for the property—such a life as will prevent slum conditions prevailing?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot discuss that on this Question.
    Viscountess Astor: Does it not depend a great deal upon the inhabitants of the property?
    Mr. Brown: I think my answer was a definite and precise one.

    Agricultural Workers
    Major Lyonsasked the Minister of Health whether the construction above ground level of all the houses under the 3,000 agricultural cottage building programme has now commenced; and whether any have yet been completed and occupied?
    Mr. E. Brown: The latest progress returns made by the local authorities show that of the 2,730 houses for which tenders had been approved by the end of August, 1,644 were under construction at that date and 1,055 had reached various stages from dampcourse level upwards, 293 having reached first floor level or a more advanced stage. The number now under construction is 1,974. Two houses have been completed but are not yet occupied and others are on the point of completion.
    Major Lyons: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that these two houses will be occupied, and was the flourish of trumpets last week largely futile?
    Mr. Brown: The rural district council asked me to go down, and I went, as I felt it was my duty to do, and saw two very good houses.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can we have an assurance that, when the next two are completed and there is an opening ceremony, the right hon. Gentleman will make arrangements with the Minister of Fuel to prevent so many cars being present?
    Mr. Brown: That is not my responsibility. The only cars for which I was responsible were one for myself and my staff from Whitehall and one from Tunbridge Wells for the regional staff. There may have been as many Press cars as. any others. That headline story was a sample of the basest kind of journalism.
    Major Lyons: How many persons who had nothing to do with the building of the cottages were present?
    Mr. Brown: I am sure that question will be regarded with indignation in the district, because most of the people who came were vitally interested both in agriculture and in local government there. This kind of sneering does not do any good.
    Mr. De la Bère: If it takes seven months to build two cottages, how many centuries will it take to build 3,000?
    Mr. Cluse: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge that in any new housing he is likely to undertake, provision will be made for cupboards?
    Mr. Brown: There are cupboards in these houses, but my hon. Friend will understand that just now one of the most difficult problems in housing or any kind of building is, timber.
    Major Lyons: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Sir, whether the Minister is in Order in referring to a supplementary question on a matter of fact as a sneer?
    Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members would speak up, I might perhaps hear. I have not heard a single word so far.

    Building Material (Chalk)
    Sir I. Albertasked the Minister of Health whether he has now had investigations made into the use of chalk, in suitable areas, for post-war housing?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to him on 25th March, 1943. I understand that a report on the subject is, at their request, being prepared for the committee which I mentioned in that reply.

    Tenancies (Ban on Children)
    Mr. Brookeasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered a letter forwarded to him by the honourable Member for West Lewisham, written by a firm of owners or owners agents offering particulars of certain small empty houses in Camberwell to a possible weekly tenant, but stipulating that they do not desire any children on the property; and what action he proposes to take about stipulations of this character in relation to
    382
    the public interest and the needs of a nation at war?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, and I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for bringing this correspondence to my notice. My attention has been drawn from time to time to similar instances of landlords who refuse to let their premises to tenants with children. Restrictions of this kind are obviously not in the national interest, especially at the present time when there is a heavy demand. for housing accommodation in most parts of the country. If they are to be maintained, private rights must be exercised with a full sense of responsibility, and if the practice referred to spreads, I shall certainly consider a drastic increase in the powers which I have recently delegated to local authorities to requisition empty houses to provide accommodation for families inadequately housed.
    Major Sir Derrick Gunston: Is it not in the national interest that the name of this firm should be published?
    Mr. Brown: I will confer with my hon. Friend about that.
    Mr. Cluse: Would it be possible for the Minister to acquaint these house agents that actually they are acting as agents for birth control?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will see that the Question and answer may help in forming public opinion about it.
    Mr. Walter Edwards: How many cases of this description have to take place before the Minister decides to take any action?
    Mr. Sorensen: Is not the Minister aware that the refusal of factors to let houses to people with children is widespread, and cannot he take action immediately?
    Mr. Brown: We must see how the present plans develop.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even men in the Services with children are unable to get houses?

    TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)
    Mr. Purbrickasked the Prime Minister, in view of the position of high

    383
    national importance of Members of Parliament and the fact that they have to judge how the duty of service in the Legislature can best be performed, whether Members of Parliament are entitled to travel in and out of the country as long as it does not involve subversive action against the State?
    The Deputy-Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. I gather that my hon. Friend's Question arises out of a refusal of an application by him for a permit to visit Eire primarily for a. change of air and environment. The question of travel by Members of Parliament to neutral countries has been considered by the Government on several occasions, and their view has always been that in this matter Members should be subject to the same rules as other persons. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not think that the high national importance of a Member of Parliament's position, or his duty of service in the legislature, would be in any way enhanced by granting him special facilities for leaving the country.
    Mr. Purbrick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement with regard to me personally, that the main reason was that I wanted to go for the benefit of my health, is entirely incorrect and misleading the House? It was one of the reasons and not the entire reason, which is set out very clearly in the correspondence with the Home Secretary, and therefore is it not very wrong to make a reflection upon an hon. Member in this fashion?
    Mr. Attlee: I understood that that was the principal reason why the hon. Member wanted to go.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not the case that the privilege of Members of Parliament is not personal and that it is not an advantage personally to hon. Members, but that the privilege is the privilege of their constituents, and King's officers have no right to hinder a Member of Parliament from doing what is, in his judgment, part of his public duty?
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true to say that the privilege of hon. Members is confined to this country?
    Commander Loeker-Lampson: But is not the hon. Member's health a national asset?

    WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Prime Minister, whether his attention has been drawn to the grievance on the part of those serving in the anti-aircraft units in the United Kingdom that their active service has not been considered by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals in time of war; and whether this matter is under consideration?
    Mr. Hewlettasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider extending the grant of the general 1939–43 medal to members of the Air Transport Auxiliary in view of the danger they ran from enemy air attacks whilst carrying out their duties, particularly at the time of the Battle of Britain?
    Mr. Attlee: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave yesterday to Questions on this subject.

    MINISTERS' SALARIES (INCOME TAX)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any further statement on the question of Ministers of the Crown being permitted to claim as deductable against salary any expenses arising out of the performance of their duties as Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Attlee: This matter has been considered, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not propose to make any recommendations to the House on this subject at the present time.
    Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this small class of persons should be the only people in the country who are taxed on money which is not income, when every other citizen is entitled to deduct from his remuneration the expenses necessarily arising out of his job, and why is this precluded in respect of these people?
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as conditions now are, it does not pay an hon. Member of this House to draw his salary as an Under-Secretary?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Sir A. Southby: May I have an answer?
    Mr. Attlee: I am quite aware of these things.
    Sir A. Southby: The right hon. Gentleman might have answered it, anyway.

    EX-ENEMY COUNTRIES (ASSISTANCE)
    Sir R. Clarryasked the Prime Minister to what extent the Government are making provision for the feeding, fuelling and clothing of ex-enemy countries on the Continent of Europe during the coming 12 months; whether such provision will entail further sacrifices by our own people in this country; and is he aware that any substantial further sacrifices for this purpose will cause widespread resentment?
    Mr. Attlee: Clearly, the problem whether the local production of food, fuel and clothing in ex-enemy countries during the next 12 months will be sufficient to meet the basic necessities of the population depends largely on the course of the war. But His Majesty's Government, in consultation with the United States Government, have for some time past been studying the whole problem and are endeavouring to make such provision as may be necessary to ensure that there is no interference, due to unrest arising from want, with the operations of our Armies in such countries. No commitment in regard to these countries has been entered into which would involve further sacrifice by our own people and I need hardly say that the prior claims of our own people as well as those of occupied Allied territory will not be disregarded.
    Sir R. Clarry: Is it contemplated that there will be any further additional sacrifices male by our people to meet the needs of people in foreign countries?
    Mr. Attlee: I have already answered that.
    Mr. Bartlett: Is it not a fact that our people are quite prepared to bear further sacrifices if they help us to get peace after the war, and, further, is it not a fact that we cannot hope to get such a peace if there are large parts of Europe starving?

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister without Portfolio whether he is primarily responsible for preparing any legislation which may be in contemplation arising out of the Uthwatt Report or, if hot, which Department is primarily responsible?
    The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): The Ministry of Town and Country Planning is the Department primarily responsible for the preparation of legislation arising out of the main recommendations of the Uthwatt Report.
    Mr. Parker: Is the Ministry actively preparing legislation?
    Sir W. Jowitt: The hon. Member had better put that Question to the Minister.
    Mr. De la Bère: What are the Ministry of Town and Country Planning doing? I have never discovered what they are doing.
    Mr. Lawson: Have the Government arrived at any decision upon the Uthwatt Report?
    Sir W. Jowitt: That question and the question as to what the Ministry are doing should, I think, be addressed to the Minister.
    Mr. Lawson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that every Minister tells us the same thing?
    Mr. MacLaren: Is it not generally accepted that the policy of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning is dictated by the Minister without Portfolio?
    Sir W. Jowitt: If that is generally accepted, it is wholly wrong.
    Mr. MacLaren: But has not the Minister without Portfolio stated publicly that it is his business to see that other Departments take the necessary steps?
    Sir W. Jowitt: I certainly stimulate them, but I do not dictate their policy.
    Mr. Hammersley: Could the Minister increase the stimulation?
    Mr. MacLaren: Did not the Minister without Portfolio give it out to the House on two occasions that he was in control of these two Departments in so far as policy was concerned?
    Sir L. Lyle: Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman be called "The Minister for Stimulation"?
    Sir W. Jowitt: If the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) will verify the facts he will find that I said that before the Bill for the appointment of the Minister of Town and Country Planning was passed.
    Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister aware that the House is greatly concerned about his stimulus being so ineffective?

    DEMOBILISATION AND RESETTLE- MENT
    Sir Arnold Gridleyasked the Minister without Portfolio whether in view of the probable inadequacy of coal production after the cessation of hostilities to meet the needs of this and other European countries and of the need for immediately resuming the business of exporting coal, it has been decided to give the miners serving in the forces the highest priority in plans for demobilisation?
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister without Portfolio whether His Majesty's Government have come to any decision on plans for the demobilisation and resettlement in civil life of non-regular members of the Armed Forces at the conclusion of hostilities; and, if so, whether the House can be given an indication of the general framework of such plans?
    Sir W. Jowitt: On 1st December last I announced that the broad principle on which the Government had drawn up plans for demobilisation was that discharge would be based in the main on age and length of service. On 22nd April, in response to pressure from hon. Members for special weight to be given for service overseas, I undertook that this aspect should be further considered and a general re-examination of the demobilisation plan is now proceeding. We fully appreciate the post-war needs of particular industries, such as the mining industry, but it has to be borne in mind that demands for priority for special groups of workers, if pressed too far, might endanger the general principles of a scheme based on age and length of service. Definite conclusions, however, have not yet been reached. The question of resettlement is mainly within the province of my right
    388
    hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, who is engaged in working out plans to deal with the matter.
    Mr. Bellenger: But does not the Minister understand that what the men and women in the Forces want is more knowledge of the Government's plans as to their future? Will he take an early opportunity of consulting Members of this House, who are the elected representatives of these people, so that we shall know whether one Minister who says, "First in, first out," is right or whether another Minister who says, "Age and length of service," is right?
    Sir W. Jowitt: Certainly, I anticipate that this House will be consulted, but there is the rather difficult question of timing. We do not want at the present moment to create the impression that the war is won, or even nearly won, by embarking on a discussion on demobilisation, but when we can settle the question of timing the House, I hope, will be consulted.
    Sir H. Williams: Then the declaration made the other day by the Minister of Labour and National Service was not authorised and does not represent the final conclusions of His Majesty's Government?
    Sir W. Jowitt: I have not seen the full report of what my right hon. Friend said, but I should imagine that he was drawing attention to the fact that the scheme so far prepared was based primarily on age and length of service.
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of the desire not to have a discussion on this matter now, will the Minister try to induce his colleagues in the Government not to make statements like that which was made by the Minister of Labour the other day."
    Major Petherick: Is it not obviously premature to consider demobilisation plans before there is knowledge as to exactly in what order the war will end and precisely the number of troops who may be needed for the Army of Occupation in Germany?
    Mr. Shinwell: On the question of Government pronouncements on this subject, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that although some Members may not desire

    389
    a definite pronouncement, men in the Forces are very anxious to know what is to happen?
    Sir W. Jowitt: We quite appreciate that.

  AGRICULTURE

    Post-War Policy
    Mr. de Rothschildasked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to state to the House what is the post-war agricultural policy of the Government?
    Mr. Attlee: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in reply to Questions by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) and others on 3rd August, the subject of post-war agricultural policy raises large issues. These matters like other urgent subjects are under constant consideration. I am unable at present to say when it will be possible for a statement to be made.
    Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. Friend say what was meant by the "conflict of interests" on this subject to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday?
    Mr. Attlee: I am not aware to what the hon. Gentleman is referring.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does not the whole matter want clarifying?
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety among the agricultural community in this country to have the postwar policy discussed, and cannot he possibly find a suitable date when the House can discuss it?
    Mr. Attlee: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that Question to the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is impossible to determine post-war agricultural policy unless you determine the broader principles of post-war economic policy?
    Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend is quite right.
    Major Manningham-Bullerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to state the Government's post-war agricultural policy?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to-day by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild), to which I have nothing to add.

    Sea Defence Work (Labour)
    Colonel Medlicottasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in regard to post-war employment plans, he will bear in mind the desirability of making appropriate labour available for schemes for protecting the coast from erosion and for reclaiming land previously lost to the sea and for draining and developing land from which the sea has receded?
    Mr. Hudson: A certain amount of sea defence work for combating coast erosion has been carried out by the catchment boards constituted under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, where these works were necessary for protecting the drainage systems under their jurisdiction, and these works have been aided financially by my Department. No doubt catchment boards will have to carry out further works of this character after the war, and I will certainly bear my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestions in mind.
    Colonel Medlicott: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that East Anglia has particular problems in regard to this danger, and will he also bear in mind the possibility of reclaiming the Wash?

    Women's Land Army (Colour Discrimination)
    Mr. Walter Edwardsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that Miss A. E. King, III, John Scurr House, Stepney, London, E.I, whose father and brother are serving with the Merchant Navy and Royal Navy, respectively, was rejected by the Essex County Committee for service with the Women's Land Army because of her colour; and what action he intends to take upon this question?
    Mr. Hudson: Miss A. E. King was interviewed and considered for membership of the Women's Land Army. The Land Army does not itself employ the volunteers, but places them with agricultural employers. Careful inquiry has been

    391
    made into the possibility of finding employment and a billet for Miss King, but when it became apparent that this was likely to prove extremely difficult, she was advised to volunteer for other war work where her services could be more speedily utilised.
    Mr. Edwards: In view of the insult which has been passed out to this girl and to her father and brother, both of whom are doing valuable war work, cannot the Minister do something about the farmers who are responsible for this position?
    Mr. Hudson: I do not employ members of the Women's Land Army. It is not like other Women's Services.
    Viscountess Astor: Speak up, we cannot hear a word.
    Sir Percy Harris: Will the Minister make it clear that in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown he does not endorse the colour bar in any way?
    Mr. Hudson: It is perfectly clear.
    Earl Winterton: What is clear?
    Mr. Hudson: That I do not endorse the colour bar.
    Mr. Shinwell: If farmers employ Italian labour, why cannot women labour be employed?
    Mr. Hudson: I do not force Italian labour on to farmers.
    Mr. Edwards: In view of the fact that this will obviously impede recruitment for the Women's Land Army, what action does the Minister intend to take?
    Mr. Hudson: Recruitment for the Women's Land Army has been completely suspended.
    Mr. Lawson: Why cannot the Minister be explicit? Is he not aware that the world listens to matters of this kind, which affect the integrity of the British people?

    Prices
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brownasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of his plans for production, and the orders being given to farmers, by war agriculture committees for land to be ploughed up by them each year till 1947, he will now guarantee farmers a remunerative price for their products at least for
    392
    the next four years taking into consideration the rising costs of labour and machinery to enable them to carry out his plans; and whether he will expedite a Government announcement of agricultural policy in these matters?
    Mr. Hudson: The Government have guaranteed that the present system of fixed prices and an assured market will be maintained for the duration of hostilities and for at least one year thereafter, I would draw my hon. and gallant Friend's attention to the words "at least."
    Brigadier-General Brown: Is it not putting the cart before the horse to ask producers to make plans for 1947 without insuring these conditions?
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the period of hostilities is not confined to Europe alone?

    Workers' (Home Guard Duties)
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will investigate the possibility of releasing farm labourers from Home Guard duties when they work 60 hours a week or more?
    Mr. Hudson: Arrangements have been in operation for some time whereby agricultural workers may be excused Home Guard duties when they are working long hours. There is close co-operation between county war agricultural executive committees and Home Guard commanding officers in this respect, and the actual arrangements in any district depend on local agricultural and military circumstances without reference to any fixed number of hours of work a week. Any agricultural worker who has difficulty in regard to Home Guard duties may explain the circumstances to his war agricultural executive committee and ask the committee to approach his commanding officer on his behalf.
    Mr. Higgs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that agricultural workers are not aware of those facts and are being worried to attend to Home Guard parades when they are working as much as go hours a week?
    Mr. Hudson: Perhaps the Question and my answer will serve to enlighten them.

    Dispossessed Farmers (Appeals)
    Major Conantasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the improvement of farming standards and the fact that less urgency attends the displacement of an indifferent farmer than at the time of the setting up of the war agricultural executive committees, he will consider the formation of local appeal tribunals?
    Mr. Hudson: I do not agree that the displacement of farmers who are not cultivating their land properly is any less urgent than it was, and I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers given by me on 22nd April and 15th July last to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Loverseed), and to my statement in the Debate on the Adjournment on 9th October, 1941.
    Major Conant: Does not my right hon. Friend think that all the more urgent cases should have been disposed of already?
    Mr. Hudson: I wish I could think that. It reflects badly on the individuals concerned that after four years of war they have to be dispossessed, but unfortunately it is the case, and I see no reason in the present state of our food supplies why we should discontinue the practice which has been carried out hitherto.
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Will my right hon. Friend see that in any policy that is adumbrated there will be an appeal for farmers?
    Mr. Hudson: That is another matter.
    Mr. Loverseed: I beg to renew the notice I have given that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Cereal Acreage, Cumberland and Westmorland
    Mr. Wilfrid Robertsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the great difficulty experienced in harvesting cereals both this and last year, he will reconsider the acreage of cereals to be grown in Cumberland and Westmorland for next year?
    Mr. Hudson: That matter is already under discussion with the county war agricultural executive committees concerned.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity to come up to Cumberland and see the difficulties for himself?
    Mr. Hudson: I am well aware of the conditions that prevail.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: On a point of Order. Yesterday we had two Ministerial replies referring us to an answer that was to be given to-day by the Home Secretary on the question of the colour bar and the legal obligations of hotel keepers. The Home Secretary has had no opportunity of answering a series of Questions on this important point, and I would like to ask whether he could make a statement to the House to-day, seeing that the Minister referred to the answers which were going to be given?
  Mr. Speaker: I have had no notice that any statement was to be made. My permission has not been asked, and I should naturally like an opportunity to consider the matter before consenting to a statement.

INDIA (FOOD SITUATION)
Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement on the present food situation in India especially in Bengal, Cochin, Travancore and Bombay; and whether he is aware that the present situation has been aggravated by delay of the Central Government in introducing remedial measures and their lack of firmness in dealing with hoarders and the failure of Provincial Governments to co-operate?
Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement respecting the food shortage in India; in what areas or provinces this prevails; to what extent deaths are occurring or are expected through hunger; what steps have been and are being taken to deal with the situation; and what is the price of rice and grain in the districts most affected and in comparison with prewar prices?
Sir Stanley Reedasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the existence of a considerable measure of destitution in

395
Calcutta; and whether he has any statement to make on the food situation in Bengal and in the Bijapur district of the Bombay Deccan?
Mr. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will now take the initiative and obtain for the transit of food to India shipping facilities, so that wheat from Australia and maize from South Africa may be made available there?
Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a full report of the Bengal food conference; whether any concrete demands or requests were made at this conference; whether it was representative of the people of Bengal; and what action is proposed to be taken?
Mr. Sloanasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a full statement on the famine situation in India, particularly in Bengal, Malabar, Behar and Assam; and whether any large shipments of grain and other food are on their way to India from this country or America or will be sent shortly?
The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I will reply to these Questions by a short statement, with the permission of the House.
My earlier statements as to the nature and causes of the failure of food supplies in certain parts of India hold good. Amongst those causes have been poor rice crops in Bengal, loss of the Burma imports, withholding of some portion of their crops from sale by 50 million peasant producers and doubtless some merchant hoarding, coupled with some clashes of provincial and national interests and some local failures of administration. The areas mainly affected are parts of Bombay and Madras where crops are always precarious, Cochin and Travancore, areas mainly dependent on imports by sea, and above all, Bengal, with the vast city of Calcutta as its core. In all these areas there is the menace of famine but Bombay at least, by establishing a rationing system in the city last May and by co-operating with the Central Government, has held its own so far.
Elsewhere the position generally is not so serious, but heavy concentrations of population such as those in the coalfields
396
and Jamshedpur in Bihar, and Indore, Mysore and Bangalore, are all a constant source of anxiety.
A new and growing source of difficulty is that heavy calls on the main granaries of Punjab and Sind to replace rice in Bengal and the South have left shortages of wheat for other areas normally dependent on them. Moreover, high food prices have created difficulties elsewhere for salaried people and those who earn cash wages—a much smaller proportion of the population than in England but many millions of the people nevertheless.
Bengal, including Calcutta, is unquestionably the centre of trouble at this moment. Reports have been received of distressing scenes both in the city and in the districts, the death rate in Calcutta in the last seven months has been 30 per cent. above normal, and there is real ground for anxiety. The problem which faces the Government of Bengal, which, I would remind the House, is a Government of Indian Ministers responsible to the local Legislature, and which is statutorily responsible for food administration, is to obtain sufficient supplies from sources in Bengal and elsewhere and to distribute them adequately. Statutory powers exist for the extraction of excessive merchant stocks, but it is taking time for them to be put into full effect, and the province is compelled to rely upon the grains brought by the Central Government from the Punjab and elsewhere in order to make up for the deficiencies of home grown rice. Measures of control have brought the price of rice in Calcutta down to Rs.24 per maund (about 5½d. per pound) after being as high as Rs.37. The pre-war figure was approximately Rs.4 per maund. Elsewhere wholesale prices are lower and range from Rs.18 in the Punjab to as low as Rs.8 in Madras.
One thousand seven hundred tons of wheat per day are being brought into Calcutta by the Central Government. Provided effective distribution can be arranged, this is more than enough to feed the city itself on a tolerable ration basis, but supplies have to cover some of the country districts also. As regards distribution, rationing is being organised on the Bombay plan. The Central Food Department are giving their assistance in the organisation of these plans, but it is expected that it will be a month before

397
rationing in Calcutta is working. Meanwhile the Provincial authorities have organised free relief on a considerable scale and are seeking to deal with the problem of destitute persons who find their way to the city. It is fortunate that jute factories and other organised industries here and elsewhere have been able to keep their employees supplied and have eased the general problem by so doing.
His Majesty's Government are giving such assistance as they can by way of facilitating import of foodstuffs into India, but the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) will recognise that considerations of security make it undesirable to give detailed information as to sources of supply. Hon. Members will realise, too, in the light of the passage in the Prime Minister's recent statement which dealt with the shipping position, that the extent to which such assistance can be given without serious repercussions in other directions is not unlimited.
While these measures are being taken to deal with the short-term problem, the All-India Committee appointed by the Central Government in July to consider long-term measures has made its report. This was presented yesterday, and I await the Government of India's statement of the findings and their recommendations upon it. I trust that it will be possible to find, in the light of its recommendations, a basis on which the Bengal Government, the Centre and His Majesty's Government can successfully co-operate to meet the threat to Bengal and elsewhere.
Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that until recently an impression was given to the general public that the shortage in India was not so severe as has obviously been the case, and that it was largely, if not entirely, due to hoarding; and may I further ask why the measures now being taken by the Central Government in India were not taken months ago?
Mr. Amery: The Central Government in India began taking the matter in hand a great many months ago, and I can assure the hon. Member it has been engaging the watchful attention of the Government of India for something like a year past.
Mr. Sorensen: What action have they taken?
Earl Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the powers which the Government of India possess under the Defence of India Act to intervene in any case where a Provincial Government is not doing its duty for the defence of India are being properly exercised; and can he at some future date supplement the information he has given to us and tell us whether a great deal of this shortage is not due to the most shameless profiteering and hoarding on the part of certain people in India?
Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, the Government of India would certainly not hesitate to use their powers to the full, if necessary, and have already done so to a very considerable extent. There has undoubtedly been a great deal of profiteering in India, but my right hon. Friend knows well how difficult it is to deal with these matters through the various organisations, the Governmental organisations responsible, and above all how difficult it is to deal with hoarding on the smaller scale including the keeping back of small fractions by the peasant on his own holding.
Mr. Graham White: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is within India, or in sight through the arrangements he has taken a sufficient supply of the basic foodstuffs to put an end to the terrible state of need he has described in Bengal, and can he say whether, if other measures fail to break the hoarding, he will try the method of importation and distribution where hoarding is most prevalent? It would possibly be the best way.
Mr. Amery: The problem is undoubtedly; in the main, one of distribution. Measures have already been taken during the past year for considerable importations, and I understand that the Committee to which I have just referred has recommended that the situation will require to be dealt with by considerable importations.
Mr. Mack: In view of the fact that apart from the loss of supplies through enemy action in Burma the problem appears to be one of selfish and shameful hoarding by elements in India, will not the Government take serious and immediate steps, if necessary, to requisition what supplies are available, in view of the terrible scourge of famine? This appears to be one of the most vital matters.
Mr. Amery: The Bengal Government have already requisitioned on a considerable scale.
Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the world that this awful situation is not the fault of the British Government? I would ask him to bear in mind the anti-English propaganda that is going throughout the world about India.
Mr. Amery: The primary and statutory responsibility in this matter has been that of the Provincial Governments where those Governments have enjoyed self-governing administration.
Mr. Silverman: Is it not the case that the weight of anti-British propaganda comes from the existence of these conditions, and does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the quickest way to bring it to an end is to end the present situation? May I further ask whether an important element in the maldistribution of food has not been the failure of the Central Government to take adequate measures for price control?
Mr. Shinwell: Could there be anything worse than disclaiming responsibility? Is it not possible to say that we accept responsibility, in spite of the constitutional position in India, and that we shall do everything possible? Ought we not to tell the world that, having accepted our responsibility, we shall do everything practicable in order to relieve this situation?
Mr. Amery: It must be obvious to hon. Members that this House has, after long discussion, assigned great responsibilities to self-governing institutions and that we should not be unduly hasty in revoking or over-riding them, but at the same time I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government of India will not hesitate to take whatever measures are necessary.
Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider releasing Gandhi and his friends?
Mr. Sorensen: May I ask for an answer to the first part of my supplementary question, in which I asked whether it is not now quite clear that whatever hoarding may have taken place, the basic cause of the shortage is quite other than that; and may I also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will arrange for a Debate on this subject at the earliest possible date?
Sir W. Davison: Who are the persons who have been hoarding?
Mr. Amery: I could not gather the question of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen).
Mr. Sorensen: I asked whether it is not now obvious that the cause of the shortage of food in India is other than hoarding, and whether under the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would arrange for a Debate at the earliest possible date?
Mr. Amery: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Sorensen: Could not the Secretary of State for India reply to the first part of my supplementary question, and if he was ready to do so, could he be given the opportunity?
Mr. Amery: I am afraid that even at the second time of asking I did not really hear the question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the future Business of the House?
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business for the first week after the Recess will be as follows:
First Sitting Day.—The Adjournment will be moved, and a Debate will take place on the coalmining situation.
Second Sitting Day.—Second Reading of the Wage-earners Income Tax Bill.
Third Sitting Day.—Second Reading of the Water Undertakings Bill [Lords].
Mr. Greenwood: If during the course of the first Sitting Day in this next series of Sittings, it appears that there is need for an extension of the discussion, will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind as a possibility? I am not asking him to give any definite undertaking now, but if it should appear that the House desires a longer time for this Debate, could not arrangements be made accordingly?
Mr. Eden: I had better tell the right hon. Member frankly what my difficulty is. It is a question of the legislation which we have to get through. If there were a wide demand for a second day I,

401
frankly, would prefer that we should come back a day earlier, rather than get the legislative programme cluttered up. Perhaps it is a matter which can be considered through the usual channels.
Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement mean that the Government have completely closed their minds to the proposal for a resumption next week, and for having a Debate on the mining situation, as that is a most important and really urgent matter?
Mr. Eden: Of course, matters concerning the direction of labour are to be discussed to-day and on the next Sitting Day. As regards the general mining situation, I did make certain suggestions through the usual channels yesterday and tried to meet the desires of those who wished to have a Debate before the House rose. Unfortunately, those proposals did not meet with acceptance, and I am afraid that I cannot, at this stage, ask the House to change its plans.
Mr. Lawson: Will the Government understand that this Debate on mining is not being asked for by miners merely because of their industrial interests but that they are very much concerned about the profound influence which this industry has upon the course of the war, and the consequences which may arise unless something is done?
Mr. Eden: I absolutely accept what my hon. Friend says and also recognise the contribution which he always makes, to try to help. I know that he will understand me when I say that certain plans were made some time ago and were announced to Members, and no suggestion was made of any change. A great many people are affected by any sudden changes in our Parliamentary arrangements, including the Government, who have certain responsibilities to carry out, but in spite of all that I did make some suggestions. I suggested that if the matter was so urgent we should—and I was quite willing that we should—sit on Saturday. I was told that there were difficulties in that plan, and I accepted the statement that there were such difficulties, and in those circumstances I think we must adhere to the programme already suggested.
Mr. Erskine-Hill: Either this question of the coal situation is so urgent that it should be debated this week—if necessary
402
at a Saturday Sitting—or it is not so urgent, in which case a great deal of the force of the argument of hon. Members opposite is destroyed. Personally, I take the view that there should be a coal Debate before the House rises and that we should sit on Saturday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]
Mr. Speaker: This is not an occasion for speeches.
Mr. Erskine-Hill: May I, then, ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that a great many Members think that to meet next week would involve unnecessary travel and expense and grave inconvenience?
Mr. A. Bevan: If the right hon. Gentleman was correct in stating that it might be difficult to extend the Debate on the coal situation when we return, because of the pressure of Parliamentary Business, why have the Government decided to take this Recess; and will he bear in mind that the taking of a Recess by Parliament at the present time is going to have serious psychological consequences? Will he, further, bear in mind that we are raising this matter, not merely from the point of view of Parliamentary pressure, but that there is a very serious situation in the coal industry which must be dealt with?
Mr. Eden: Perhaps I can answer first, the hon. Member's question as to why, if there is so much legislation, we do not go on with our normal Session. That is a perfectly reasonable question, and the answer is simple. It is that the Bills which we wish to introduce are not now in a form to be presented to the House—
Mr. Bevan: Why not?
Mr. Eden: I am entitled to give my answer to the hon. Member. The Government hope that both Bills concerned will be ready for discussion by the House when it returns. That was the programme arranged and announced to every Member early last week and not questioned by anybody. As to the Adjournment for the period which we are now suggesting, we are, in fact, taking rather less holiday, on the whole, than we did last year or the year before. The practice which we suggest is quite normal, and I submit that the country will not regard it as otherwise. As regards

403
the coal situation, I, honestly, understand the anxiety of hon. Members. There are two courses—either to debate the matter on Saturday, which I am perfectly willing to do, if that is the wish of the House—
Mr. Greenwood: May I say that if that is the wish of the House, my hon. Friends will gladly fall in with it?
Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reason for this Recess was because Bills were not ready. Is it not incorrect for him to say that, in view of the fact that the Workmen's Compensation Bill was introduced before the last Recess and is available to all hon. Members? In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.
Mr. Eden: That is not a point of Order. If I may say so, the Government are really entitled to handle their own business in their own way, and to bring forward Measures in the order which they think fit. Even if that is the only prerogative they have the Government propose to continue to exercise it.
Mr. Buchanan: There has been great controversy about meeting on Saturday or next week. May I put two considerations to the right hon. Gentleman? He has made great play with the argument about arrangements having to be altered, but if he tells us on Thursday that there is to be a meeting on Saturday, it means to a large number of Members a lot of alteration in their plans, and it cuts both ways. There is another aspect of the matter. To debate this issue on one day only—Saturday—would, in my view, be totally inadequate. I think the situation is urgent, and I think there was a good deal to be said at one time for debating it on Friday and Saturday, but to come now and suggest meeting on Saturday is unfair. This is not a question only for miners and mine owners. Some of us from large industrial districts are greatly concerned, and to fling this issue suddenly before us is most unfair to all Members. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and not to close his mind against meeting next week. Normally, a good case could be presented for the proposed Adjournment, and I was not opposed to it, but I think two days
404
might well be allowed next week to discuss this question properly.
Mr. Eden: I am very anxious to meet what I believe to be the genuine feelings of the House in this matter. I should say that the Cabinet considered all this last night with a real desire to try to meet this problem. There are really two suggestions. I think we should do better to stick to the plan we have made, namely, to discuss to-day and on the next Sitting Day subjects which affect the direction of labour, and, when we come back, to have a coal Debate, on either one or two days. That is what I, personally, think would be best. But if hon. Members think that the matter is so urgent that we should debate it before we go, the Government are prepared to suggest Saturday. We have tried to balance the thing fairly, and I think the decision must lie between these two courses. The Government are prepared to agree to either.
Mr. Maxton: As a Member of a small Opposition party, I should like to raise two points. As a matter of courtesy, the programme suggested was communicated to us by the Whips' Department. I accepted it, although I was not altogether in favour of it, as I understood it had been agreed to through the usual channels, which, however, do not adequately represent all the forces in this House. Will the Leader of the House try to make the necessary adjustment in this respect? I deplore very much the obvious acrimony that exists among those who are supposed to be supporters of the Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman try, when submitting a programme of Business to the House, to see that he has the maximum possible agreement for it before he comes to a decision?
Mr. Boothby: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will not give serious consideration to the possibility of recalling this House one day sooner and having a two-days Debate? Would that not be a course convenient to all of us?
Mr. Eden: I am perfectly ready to do that. It is one of the proposals that I made yesterday through the usual channels.
Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Why is it proposed to use the time of the House to discuss the Water Undertakings Bill, which has been on the stocks now for well

405
over three months? Why are we to use one day for it when, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill can wait?
Mr. Eden: The Bill has been waiting for some time, and we are now anxious to get on with it.
Mr. Tinker: May I suggest that we carry on with the man-power Debate and come back a week earlier, and then take the coalmining Debate on two days?
Mr. Eden: I have tried to get the feeling of the House, and I think that the best decision is this, that to-day and on the next Sitting Day we take the discussion as arranged, which allows a large part of the subject of the direction of labour to be raised, and that we come back on the Sitting Day originally proposed, and I will do my best so to arrange the programme that we can give two days to the Debate when we come back. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman now withdrawn his offer to meet on Saturday?
Mr. Eden: I have tried to get the sense of the House, and I think I have expressed the sense of the House.
Sir H. Morris-Jones: May I ask your permission, Sir, to raise another matter? On Tuesday, I put a Question down to the Home Secretary, which Question was not reached on Tuesday. To-day I have the following letter from the Under-Secretary—
Mr. Speaker: That seems to have nothing to do with Business, and I cannot allow the hon. Member to raise it.

Division No. 24.

AYES.

Albery, Sir Irving

Boothby, R. J. G.

Conant, Major R. J. E.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Bower, Norman (Harrow)

Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T. R. A. M.(N'Rk,N.)

Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Se'h Univ.)

Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Apsley, Lady

Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

Cooper, Rt. Hon, A. Duff

Assheton, R.

Brass, Capt. Sir W.

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.

Brooke, H. (Lewisham)

Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Davison, Sir W. H.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Bull, B. B.

De Chair, Capt. S. S.

Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R.E.B.(P'tsm'th)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Beechman, N. A.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Denville, Alfred

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Butcher, Lieut. H. W.

Digby, Capt. K. S. D. W.

Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)

Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)

Doland, G. F.

Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)

Cary, R. A.

Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.

Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.

Chapman, A. (Ruthergten)

Drewe, C.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Blair, Sir R.

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

Cobb, Captain E. C.

Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R. (C. Ldn.)

Mr. Eden: I beg to move,
"That this House, at its rising on the next Sitting Day, do adjourn till the first Sitting Day after l0th October."
Sir H. Williams: As this Motion will be printed in a document which will be open to purchase by any one of His Majesty's subjects or any other person who likes to go to His Majesty's Stationery Office, shall we not now terminate the farce of using the expression Sitting Day and publish to the world what everybody knows, to judge by the crowds which assemble every day in the Central Hall? It is a complete farce and an inconvenience to everybody.
Mr. Eden: I was proposing to make a proposal to the House in the new Session of Parliament when it takes place, which will not be very long from now.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: May I ask why there seems to be reluctance on the part of the Government to impose additional work on this House? Is the Leader of the House aware that between 6th August last year and 6th August this year, that is to say, 365 days, we have met only 118 times and does he think that that compares favourably with the amount of work that was done by those in the Services and in war work?
Mr. A. Edwards: With regard to the discussion now taking place on the subject of currency exchange, may I ask that no decision will be taken before this House has an opportunity of discussing the matter?
Question put,
"That this House, at its rising on the next Sitting Day, do adjourn till the first Sitting Day after l0th October."
The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 99.

Eccles, D. M.

Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's.)

Ross Taylor, W.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Kimball, Major L.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Emery, J. F.

Lakin, C. H. A.

Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Lamb, Sir J. O.

Salt, E. W.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Linstead, H. N.

Savory, Professor D. L.

Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)

Little, Dr. J. (Down)

Shakespeare, Sir G. H.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Fermoy, Lord

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S

Shephard, S.

Fildes, Sir H.

Loftus, P. C.

Shute, Col. Sir J. J.

Fox, Flight-Lieut. Sir G. W. G.

Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.

Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.

Lyons, Major A. M

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Gammans, Capt. L. D.

Mabane, W.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Carro Jones, G. M.

McAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Gates, Major E. E.

McCorquodale, Malcolm S.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd(P'broke)

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Snadden, W. McN.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

McKie, J. H.

Somerset. T.

Gibson, Sir C. G.

Magnay, T.

Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.

Gledhill, G.

Maitland, Sir A.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Goldie, N. B.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

Strickland, Capt. W. F.

Graham, Capt. A. C.

Mander, G. le M.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray & Nairn)

Greenwell, Colonel T. G.

Manningham-Buller, Major R. E.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Gretton, J. F.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Summers, G. S.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Medlicott, Colonel Frank

Sutcliffe, H.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)

Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)

Grimston, R. V.

Mitchell, Colonel H. P.

Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)

Gunston, Major Sir D. W.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Thurtle, E.

Hammersley, S. S.

Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)

Tomlinson, G.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Touche, G. C.

Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.

Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.

Harvey, T. E.

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Turton, R. H.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)

Wakefield, W. W.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Nunn, W.

Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Paling, W.

Watt, Lt,-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)

Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Hewlett, T. H.

Petherick, Major M.

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Higgs, W. F.

Peto, Major B. A. J.

White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)

Hill, Prof. A. V.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)

Holdsworth, H.

Pilkington, Captain R. A.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Hopkinson, A.

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Willink, H. U.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.

Hulbert, Wing-Commander N. J.

Prior, Comdr. R. M.

Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Procter, Major H. A.

Woolley, Major W. E.

Hunter, T.

Pym, L. R.

Wootton-Davies, J. H.

James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)

Radford, E. A.

Wragg, H.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.

Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)

Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.

Rankin, Sir R.

Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)

Jennings, R.

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

York, Major C.

Jewson, P. W.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Rickards, G. W.

Keeling, E. H.

Roberts, W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Keir, Mrs. Cazalet

Robertson, D. (Streatham)

Mr. Boulton and

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A.(Mitcham)

Mr. J.P.L. Thomas.

NOES.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)

Leslie, J. R.

Banfield, J. W.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Loverseed, J. E.

Barnes, A. J.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

McGhee, H. G.

Barr, J.

Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)

Mack, J. D

Barstow, P. G.

Foster, W.

MacLaren, A.

Bartlett, C. V. O.

Frankel, D.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Bellenger, F. J.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Macmillan, M. (Western Isles)

Benson, G.

Gibbins, J.

McNeil, H.

Bevan, A.

Granville, E. L.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Bowles, F. G.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Messer, F.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Montague, F.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Grenfell, D. R.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Mort, D. L.

Buchanan, G.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)

Muff, G.

Burke, W. A.

Guy, W. H.

Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)

Chater, D.

Hardie, Agnes

Naylor, T. E.

Cluse, W. S.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Oldfield, W. H.

Cocks, F. S

Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

Oliver, G. H.

Colindridge, F.

Hughes, R. Moelwyn

Parker, J.

Cove, W. G.

Isaacs, G. A.

Pearson, A.

Daggar, G.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon F. W.

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Kendall, W. D.

Pritt, D. N.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Kirby, B. V.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Dobbie, W.

Lawson, J. J.

Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Leonard, W.

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

408

409

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Walkden, E. (Doncaster)

Ridley, G.

Sorensen, R. W.

Watson, W. McL.

Riley, B.

Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)

White, H. (Derby, N.E.)

Ritson, J.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Woodburn, A.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Sexton, T. M.

Thomas, I. (Keighley)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Shinwell, E.

Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

Silverman, S. S.

Tinker, J. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Sloan, A.

Viant, S. P.

Mr. Mothers and

Mr. R. J. Taylor.

MAN-POWER
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now Adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: On the question of Business to-day, does the Leader of the House think that he might perhaps agree to an extension of to-day's Debate time—I am not asking for an extension on the next Sitting Day—if there proves to be, as there well may be, a very large number of Members of the House who wish to speak in this Debate?
Mr. Tinker: Could I also reinforce that plea? You see the feeling of how we want to do our work. Give us our opportunity.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I think we had better see how we get on. If necessary, I would rather have an extension on the next Sitting Day than to-day.
Mr. Buchanan: This Debate is on man-power and covers quite a number of subjects. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you could indicate in any way how it is proposed that the Debate should be conducted? I understand there is a feeling in some quarters that the question on the call-up to 50 should be concentrated on to-day. If you could give us some idea, it might help us to form an opinion.
Mr. Speaker: I have always felt that it was disadvantageous when hon. Members jumped from one subject to another. I hope that hon. Members will be brief. I should hope to call those who wish to speak on women's problems to-day and, on the next Sitting Day, those who wish to discuss the mining problem.
Mr. Holdsworth: If we stick to this one subject, will there be some way of expressing the wish of the House by means of a Division?
Mr. Speaker: No Amendment can be moved on an Adjournment Motion.
Mr. Molson: May we take it that to-day and on the next Sitting Day it will be possible to raise other matters in connection with man-power besides these two specific subjects?
Mr. Speaker: Of course, I can only give general guidance to the House. Once hon. Members are on their feet, I have no control over what subjects they wish to raise.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I welcome this opportunity for a discussion on the problem of man-power, and I would ask hon. Members to realise, after listening to the previous Debate and to the statement of the Prime Minister, that we have approached this problem with a clear view in our mind that the war is not yet over. In fact, in dealing with the problem of the provision of manpower in this country, the real battle for final victory has not yet begun. The heavy, and anticipated, casualty list which happily we have been saved from in this war as compared with the previous war does not signify that provision has not got to be made for it when the eloquence for the further front is translated into action. In working out the strategy and the fulfilment of that strategy, of what I hope is the last phase, every provision must be made, every provision has to be made—but though I say "last," it is likely to be prolonged—for the struggle which will face us in 1944 will be titanic. I would emphasise that we should not be doing our duty if we either gave way to sentiment at this stage of the war or failed to take every precaution, whatever the class of citizens which may be affected. It is in that spirit and, I hope, with impartiality that the Cabinet faced what I might term this rather difficult but important turn of the screw. I may say, that in 1940, when danger loomed so large and we did not feel quite so safe, I do not think it would have provoked a Debate.
I therefore want very briefly, and as quickly as I can, because it is not my intention at this stage of the Debate to take very much of the time of the House, to present the picture as it is and what we have to do in order that hon. Members may have the facts upon which to base their judgment, and not I hope their political prejudices. Mobilisation has reached a stage in this country which is not exceeded by any country in the war. We have not—[Interruption.] Please do not interrupt; I have a difficult job. Germany has had the power and the ruthlessness to call on many millions of foreign workers who have been driven into their war machine. We did not have that power,

461
and if we had had it I hope we would not have used it. Since I took office I have had to work on a very limited basis, with a circumscribed population. Many Members of this House have served in Govern-merits before my time. I have been unable to find any experts who ever put forward the idea or substantiated the conception that Great Britain, out of her population, could provide in a war a continental Army, an Air Force of the size we have got, and a Navy of the extent we have got, and maintain mechanical equipment in a mechanised war to the extent we have had to do. I do not believe that anyone who ever studied this problem before the war broke out, facing it in all its aspects, believed such a thing possible. But we have had to do it, and we have done it. That I believe is a triumph of British organisational genius.
How has it been done? I have registered every man in the country between the ages of 18 and 51. To date I have registered all women from 18 to 47. That has involved the registration of 10,000,000 men and 10,000,000 women. In addition, to carry out the decisions of the Cabinet, I have had special registrations of men and women with special skill or experience—engineers, electricians, shipbuilders, miners, nurses and now cotton workers—in order to fill the gaps and provide the man-power for the country. I have assumed that in doing this I have been carrying out the will of this House, because the determination of this House and of the nation has been to win this war. I hope to stop at nothing until we have won the war, whatever the consequences may be. I began with a population, between the ages of 14 and 64, of 33,000,000 people. What has happened to those 33,000,000? Of them, 22,750,000 are in the Services, Civil Defence, or paid employment, either in the munitions industries or carrying on the civil life of the community where we have agreed that they should remain. That includes 700,000 part-time women. There are in the country nearly 16,000,000 males between 14 and 64, and over 15,000,000 are in the service of the country or in paid employment. There are 17,000,000 women between 14 and 64, and 7,750,000 of them are in the Services or in paid employment at the present moment. The remainder of those women are left to carry on the domestic
462
life of the country. There are over 1,000,000 doing unpaid voluntary work, which we should otherwise have to find paid persons to do. Therefore, I add to the 7,750,000 over 1,000,000 who are in fact rendering service to the country of a national character of one kind or another. There are the W.V.S. and all kinds of services, nursing, Y.M.C.A. canteens, billeting, and any amount of services.
Mr. MacLaren: Full time?
Mr. Bevin: They are mostly giving full time. This registration will discover whether they are or not. Over 9,000,000 children under the age of 14 have to be looked after in this country, and that I regard as a form of national service. Of the single women between 18 and 40, 90 per cent. are working. That leaves only ten per cent. for sickness and various ailments in the country. There are over 80 per cent. of married women of that age group without children engaged in the war effort. That is my answer to the hon. Member who put a. question to me to-day suggesting that I should go hunting everybody. I do my best, but, really, when you have worked the mobilisation of married women, even if they have not got children, up to 81 per cent., I think you have reached a very high figure. More than 1,000,000 men and women over 65 are in paid employment in the country. I would like to mention this figure. We depend on shipping. It may interest the House to know that in the Merseyside and Manchester, the great mouths of England at present, the average age of the docker is nearly 51, and he is giving a remarkable turn round of ships under present circumstances. I saw the other day a man of 83 wheeling 3-cwt. bags of sugar. I do not think that I have been very harsh on other people when that sort of thing is happening. I hope that it will be borne in mind. Over 2,500,000 women have been recruited to the Forces and industry from the non-industrial classes.
All this has involved much curtailment of industry and services, and, I am afraid, much inconvenience to the civilian population. No one is more conscious than I am of the restrictions which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have had to impose, and I am longing for the day when our raw

463
material position is better, when we can ease up a bit and make civilian life a little easier, The moment that that can be done, consistently with the provision of weapons of war for our men in the field, it will be done.
Despite a slight fall in the population of working age, which I have quoted, in the year from July, 1942, to June, 1943, more than 1,000,000 were added to the Forces and the munitions industry, and two-fifths of them were obtained from the non-industrial classes, the remainder coming from the contraction of less vital industries. Another striking fact emerges. I mentioned in opening that no one could have imagined that we could carry an Army of the size we have got—the figures of which, of course, I cannot give in public—and such an Air Force and Navy; but in this war we are employing on munitions 2,250,000 more people than we were at the end of the last war. That gives some indication of the titanic effort we have had to make. It is quite true that to do it I have been compelled, with the support of my colleagues in the Cabinet, to extend greater and greater controls. I extended the Control of Employment Order, so that women of 18 to 40 must get their jobs through the employment exchanges. I had to undertake—and I assure the House that it was rather an unhappy thing to do—the direction to part-time work. In this field I enter very closely into the domestic life of the people. I assure the House that while I am willing to do anything which is necessary to win the war, I will not be a party to anything unless it is proved necessary. That is the basis upon which this mobilisation has been carried out.
I had to introduce the Notice of Termination of Employment Order, to prevent wastage between jobs which did not come under the Essential Work Order. I must say, and the country and the House must realise, that so far as man-power is concerned, with this effort we are now making for 1943–44 and within the limits of our population, mobilisation must be regarded as virtually reaching the limit and complete. Apart from a small number to be made available from measures already announced and new entrants from the younger age classes, there can be little addition to our man-power. I have to face, in the course of this problem, a good many difficulties. One is
464
the question of leaving industry. Leaving industry arises from many causes. There are ill-health, marriage, pregnancy, and all kinds of difficulties for which you have to release people from industry week by week. That involves a wastage of about 10 per cent, per annum. But this has to be made good, if you are to keep your war machine going. Therefore there is a constant adjustment between those whom you release and those whom you must take into the machine of Production. There is a good deal of loss through changing jobs, which arises from many causes. It does involve a turnover to the extent of nearly 20 per cent., and it arises from very many causes. I am happy to say that the turnover of labour, like mobilisation, is lower in this country than it is even in Germany, with all their Gestapos, or in America or anywhere in the world. That speaks well for the steadiness and continuity of our people in this great effort.
I know that there is absenteeism, but I have noticed it in other places besides the workshop. After four years of war and five black-out winters, with all that means, it takes a great will indeed never to take a day off. I do not think I could do it, but I do not think, when hon. Members indulge in criticism, they bear that in mind very much. In order to try and cope with all this, I have insisted upon personnel management which, I believe, if persisted in now and maintained after the end of the war, and given a proper executive place in industry, will be one of the saviours of British industry now and in the future. Therefore, by utilising this new development of personnel management, investigation and welfare and a hundred and one things we have reduced absenteeism and turnover, I believe, as low as we can.
I went into figures of absenteeism from sample firms the other day and found that over 50 per cent. of it was unavoidable when translated into a proper form of return. You cannot merely say that it is absenteeism because a person stays away; you have to know why he stays away and what was involved. I have also encouraged the works' doctor and the nurse to send people home sometimes when they suffer from colds rather than take the risk of colds spreading to everybody else in the works, and that at times makes these figures go up.
May I deal with the problem that lies ahead? The Minister of Defence, the

465
Prime Minister, having examined all the strategy of the war and the tasks that lie ahead, came to the Cabinet and, in the terms of that strategy, made a demand for labour. I have read in the Press that all this arises because I am a little enthusiastic or something. I did not know that that was a sin among Cabinet Ministers, but I read it in "The Times" the other day and was rather struck by it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is an exception."] That is what caused the surprise. This is a decision of the Cabinet and not of the Minister of Labour. It is a decision arising out of the Defence Committee's examination of what is needed to meet to carry out the strategy of the war. Therefore, any opposition you offer will not be offered to me as Minister of Labour, if that is what has attracted you. You will be offering it to the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet which determines the position. I can assure the House that any Minister would be a fool if he looked for trouble like this. I am the person who has to interfere with the lives of the people and the less I have to do it, the better is my job, but I am not going to shirk my responsibility when the Cabinet comes to a decision.
As a result of a careful examination of what would be required the figure finally resolved upon was that I had to find for the last nine months of 1943 another 700,000 people, out of the residue that was left. How have I to do it? I have heard Chancellors of the Exchequer stand at this Box and suggest that sometimes the finding of money is rather more difficult than finding persons. After examining the whole of the situation, it was decided to take these steps, which I announced to the House. We decided to reduce to a minimum the intake into the Women's Services, much to the disappointment of many girls who have been studying and hoping to get in. I am very grateful to them for responding to the switch-over. I have had very little difficulty; their public spirit has been magnificent. The second point was to register women up to 50. We also decided upon the retention in the aircraft industry of certain R.A.F. mechanics who have been lent by the R.A.F. In addition we decided upon the rearrangement of the labour force already in the munition industry. In other words, the War Office has been reviewing its requirements, examin-
466
ing stocks, cutting down and then switching over the available labour to the industries which have been given the highest priority. What are those industries? First, it was aircraft. The decision of the Cabinet is that the bomber forces and the other forces must not only be maintained but expanded. We have not only to make good the losses which take place and which you see reported week by week and night by night, but we have to increase these forces. I would ask hon. Members to appreciate the fact that the more you increase your bomber forces and the more targets you go to hit, the less loss you get. It prevents the concentration of the enemy on one single force. Therefore, the priority is given in 1943–44 to aircraft.
It is said that we have the people now, and they cannot be employed. We have to train people. The expanding programme never takes place at the moment you put a person into the works. It has to be worked up. With the thousands going out and the new components being created, one of the difficulties in carrying out the switch-over is the fact that there is a tendency to lose people unless you can place the work where the people are. You lose the immobile people if you transfer work from one town to another. That is obvious. We are trying, therefore, as far as we humanly can, to spread these new works and new developments and not to waste the labour of people if we can help it. If women up to the age of 50 are residing in aircraft districts, it is a great help if they can go in at once. Hon. Members in this House, I believe, will support me when I say that, from practical experience, where women go in at these middle ages, there is less absenteeism, and greater efficiency.
When I took office I had to ask employers on one accasion why they refused to take on women of 40. The great difficulty then was that there were so many women in the country of this age that they could not get a job, and I had to force employers to take them. I am very glad that I did. Employers have realised since that the steadying influence of the middle-aged woman in the workshop has been a great success and of great benefit to everybody concerned. If they do not get into the aircraft industries, these women can be a great asset in the distributive trades, in offices and in all kinds of work where mobile women can be re-

467
leased in order to go to the aircraft districts. When we registered the 47 age-group a fortnight ago we did not have a single complaint. I do not think that this ought to be "put over" on the women at all. There are local hospitals, shops, canteens and restaurants and all sorts of things, which, if arrangements can be made, they will come forward to help.
There has been an agitation over the registration of the women between the ages of 45 and 50. I am not impressed by the medical arguments at all, as I will show the House by the numbers who are already working. I registered nurses and midwives up to the age of 60 and no one made a protest. Why did not they do so? [Interruption.] I will leave that to the House. I have registered cotton operatives up to 55. I must get women into the cotton trade if I am to keep this branch of industry going, and cotton production is absolutely essential to maintain the war machine. Why has nobody said a word about this? It is most strange to me, I must confess. I really would like to hear in the Debate what is the particular thing that has caused the frightful stir about this latest age-group. After what women have done for the country, I have to face the sincerity of this objection. I say this now in order that it may be answered. I recognise that there is a strain. Since the outbreak of war, the number between the ages of 40 and 60 that has gone into industry without question is over 800,000. There are 1,600,000 women between the ages of 40 and 60 in employment at the present time and over 500,000 between the ages of 46 and 50.
Viscountess Astor: These are voluntary?
Mr. Bevin: I do not see that there is any physical difference. I am challenging the suggestion that there is a difference between the women who have always been to work and any other class in the country. I have seen the articles in the Press. I do not mind anybody arguing that it is not necessary for the war effort, but I do not like this sort of business brought in—that there is a difference between two sets of women in the country. I recognise that you have to exercise very great care, and that care will be exercised. The interviewing will be done by women of similar ages; there will be the
468
right of appeal to a women's panel; there will be the local appeal board, if that is desired. None of these women will be required to live away from home. I will not call them for interview if it is clear that they cannot undertake the work or if there is a reserve in the district of younger immobile women. There will be sympathetic treatment as regards their health and a recognition of the difficulties of women in this age-group.
Now may I turn to another vexed side of this question? When I have done this in connection with aircraft industry, that will not be sufficient. I shall have to direct boys of 16 to 17 to the aircraft industry. I have tried not to do this up to now so as not to limit a boy's chances of finding his place in industry. This age is the delicate, kindergarten age. It is a question of these young people finding their future place in industry, and up to now I have left it to free engagement as much as I could. But we are at such a stage now that if the aircraft industry is to be properly manned, then I must resort to this direction.
Mr. Holdsworth: Do I understand that every boy of 16 to 17 will be sent to the aircraft industry?
Mr. Bevin: No, according to the vacancies there are I shall have to resort to direction to fill them, even although I have to take some lads from other industries.
Earl Winterton: Will the Minister make it clear that this has a universal application? Will he make it clear that it will not only apply to a certain number but will apply equally to boys at Public Schools?
Mr. Bevin: There is to be no discrimination. Whatever else I may be accused of, I do not intend to submit to the accusation that I am showing any preference to anybody. That certainly cannot be charged against me.
Mis Rathbone: Why not girls?
Mr. Bevin: They will go, in the same way.
Sir Adam Maitland: Do I understand that in addition to the women it is expected to get, the Minister must also direct boys?
Mr. Bevin: It is additional to anything I may get from the women. There will be no discrimination wherever they may be.
Mr. Cocks: If a boy is at school is he liable?
Mr. Bevin: Yes.
Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will boys and girls of 16 to 17 have to leave home?
Mr. Bevin: I shall try to avoid any leaving home for boys and girls of that age. That is a point I am studying now.
Mr. Craik Henderson: Do I understand that where it is a question between women up to 51 and boys the Minister will take them equally or will lake the women first and then the boys? What order has the Minister in mind?
Mr. Bevin: It is not a question of order. I need both. There is no question of priority. Every woman I can get, subject to the guarantee I have given, I shall need and every lad I can get I shall need. But I emphasise this. If a boy is going on to a secondary school and I had to choose between his education and the temporary use of a woman aged 47 to 50 I think I should give priority to the boy, or to the girl as the case may be. After all, the lives of these young people are before them and if I did that I believe the women would prefer it.
Mr. Doland: Will that apply to girls as well?
Mr. Bevin: Yes, I have just said so.
Now I come to coalmining. It is my duty to try and maintain, on the Cabinet decision, 720,000 men and youths in this industry. To do that I require 30,000 as soon as possible and at least another 20,000 next year. The wastage has to be made good. The average age, obviously, is going up, and as far as possible we want to get in the younger people. To meet this situation in the past we have brought men back from the Forces and from industries. We gave an option for mining when men of 18 to 25 were called up, and the reason for that was largely to try and balance the personnel at the younger end with the growing age in the mines. We therefore brought this option specially to the notice of these men. I
470
addressed an extensive appeal to all fit men of military age urging them to volunteer. I have been asked why I did not direct straight away. But picking up 50,000 is not like calling up men for the Army at the rate of 5,000 or 6,000 a month. It is not quite so easy as a general calling-up. It was not only to get the young but it was also to get the willing people if we could and be able to post them a few at a time and not in large numbers, as is done in the Army. This raised the question of directing surface workers and here, if the House will bear with me, as I want to be careful about this, I propose to read the next passage in order that it may be perfectly clear.
On the question of directing surface or other workers below ground there seems to be some misunderstanding and the Government feel an explanation is necessary. The position is as follows: No man transferred from one job in industry to another is given the alternative of joining the Armed Forces. I am daily transferring substantial numbers of men from one job to another and none of these is given the option of going into the Forces. Therefore, if the Government admitted the claim in the case of surface workers who are required to transfer from one job in the coalmining industry to another job in that industry, we should, in fact, be creating for them a special privileged position as compared with that of other men. The option that has been referred to is of a different kind. It is limited to men of military age who are not in a reserved occupation or who are not deferred, and it arises only when they are in fact called up for the Forces. It was necessary to reduce the average age of men in coalmining where younger men are needed, and it was therefore decided to give these men an opportunity of taking underground work in coalmining as an alternative to the Forces. The policy of the Government is that we have to maintain the coal output necessary for carrying on the war, and we shall utilise those who have opted or those who have volunteered and if vacancies still exist we shall, in addition, proceed to direct men to the mines whether they have been in that industry before or not. There will be no distinction. Every man so directed will, of course, have an opportunity of appeal just as surface workers have that opportunity now. I will not add to that statement. It is the declaration of the

471
Government and a clear statement of the position as it is now and as it will be proceeded with immediately.
Mr. Cocks: Does it mean that until universal conscription is applied you will cease the practice of sending surface youths to work underground against their will?
Mr. Bevin: I would ask my hon. Friend to read in Hansard what I have said and to study it. If I send a man from an aircraft works to drop-forging, he has no right to go into the Forces. He has to go to drop-forging. In the same way, a woman going from Scotland to the Midlands has no alternative. It was put to me that I ought to treat surface workers differently from the men underground. I was surprised to get that put to me from a mining district. I have been for a long time associated with the trade unions and up to now it has always been claimed in the strongest manner that everybody in and about a mine was part of the mining industry. If that is repudiated now, it may solve some union troubles.
Mr. Foster: There is a great deal of difference between working on the surface and working underground. That is where the whole trouble lies. Those who are directing youths do not seem to appreciate the conditions underground, and because of that lads are refusing to be directed.
Mr. Bevin: There have been only 100 objections. Over 4,000 have gone down without difficulty. As I stated in answer to a Question earlier to-day, 3,099 have gone down from other industries so the numbers who have gone down from the surface and outside are about equal. At any rate, that is the policy of the Government and one to which we must adhere.
I have already mentioned the registration in connection with the cotton industry. I must increase the labour force by many thousands in this vital industry. I am sorry to have to register women up to 55, but I have to get them back and I believe our good friends in Lancashire will give their services again to help us out of our present difficulties.
Mr. Molson: How many thousands will be sent to the cotton industry?
Mr. Bevin: I have not the exact figures, but it will be many thousands, I have
472
to have 10,000 to 12,000 almost immediately. I may have to bring people back from some munition industries and use other immobile women to take their places.
There is one last service—transport. One of the great anxieties we have had is that of moving people to and from their work when we have been handicapped in many ways and have not been able to help them. We are gravely concerned about its effect on the health of the people. We want to reduce the time and to facilitate travelling as much as we can, but anything that we do in this respect must be limited to the essential services. We feel that it is a most vital and important thing to facilitate the bus services as much as we can. That must have priority. To do that I want several thousand bus conductors, and that will rank equally with aircraft because it is absolutely vital. Therefore I want to take this opportunity to thank most sincerely our bus men and bus girls for the marvellous service they have rendered. No one knows the irritation and the difficulty that the job involves, and these women on crowded vehicles have done a marvellous job. But I must ask for more, and that is one of the reasons for expansion, in order to obtain available women for the service.
Nursing and midwifery also have a special call. I am hoping in a few days to have the Report of the Hetherington Committee, which will enable me, I hope, to tackle much better domestic service in hospitals and institutions of that kind where there is a terrible shortage. I am glad to say that the registration of nurses and midwives brought in 400,000 persons. Now we started interviewing in June and by the end of August we have placed in training or employment nearly 3,000 nurses and they are going on now at the rate of about 300 a week, mainly women up to 60 years of age who have married and gone out of the profession and are now coming back and helping the nation at this critical moment. They like registration because they say it enables them to know that they are doing what the State really wants them to do. We have, of course, exercised great care in the handling of this problem.
Finally, we have not only to look ahead and prepare for wastage but to prepare for the great and final struggle to which

473
I have referred. It is essential to see that everyone who can serve shall do so to the best of their ability. I do not believe there is a single citizen worthy of the name who would have it otherwise, and I am confident that if hon. Members will exercise their judgment on the task which the Cabinet has decided has to be faced, they will face it in this House as resolutely as we did in the Cabinet and will support us in carrying out this mobilisation of man-power which I hope is final and will bring victory nearer to all of us.
Mr. Craik Henderson: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his speech, though I resent very much his suggestion that this has anything to do with class or anything of that kind. I have an enormous correspondence, and over 90 per cent. of it comes from working people. In this matter I am speaking on behalf of every class, and it seems to me a very farfetched suggestion that the people under 45 are all people of the working class and that those of 45 and onwards are all people of a different class. The objection that is taken is not on any class basis at all. This is merely a question whether it is to the advantage of the country, that these women up to 51 years of age should be directed into industry. I admire and have always admired the right hon. Gentleman's zeal. In this case it is his judgment and it may be the judgment of the Cabinet that I question. On the evidence that he has put before us, I should be inclined to say that he has proved too much. He has proved—I am convinced that this is the case—that no country on earth in this or any other war has taken a larger proportion of the population for the Services and for munitions than we have in this war. He has proved the number of people of all ages who are voluntarily working, and he has proved the very small residue that is left. I admit readily that no one would have believed that this country could produce an Army, Air Force and Navy of the size that we have produced and also obtain the men and women we have for the munitions industry. May I quote from a speech that I made in this House three years ago?
"I am sure that nothing would give Members greater pleasure than to see us with the largest Army in the world, but we cannot have it. We must cut our coat according to our cloth. No doubt Hitler
474
would like to have had a Navy comparable with the British Navy but wisely he decided to concentrate on a huge army. With our man-power we have to consider how we are going to use our smaller numbers. We cannot hope to match man against man in the German army."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1940; col. 592, Vol. 367.]
That is one of the questions which this House has a duty to consider. Are we attempting with our very much smaller population to do something that it is beyond our capacity to do? We have built up an enormous air service, we have a magnificent Navy, and we have enormous production. The Prime Minister has told us that the production of aeroplanes here and in the United States exceeded that of Germany by four times. Are we in such a state of desperation that we have to take the course that the Minister recommends? It is our duty to consider whether it is going to benefit the country and whether, taking a long-term view, it will be an advantage to call up these women. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Minister of Defence after going into the figures had decided that a large number was required to carry out the operations that we had in view. I thought the operations we had in view had been agreed with our Allies. No one has a greater admiration than I have for the United States. I am proud of them as Allies, but at present they have not conscripted one woman. If the Minister is correct that the position is as he states, one would have thought that the United States, who are as anxious as we are to win the war, would at least have conscripted the lower age groups. Germany to-day is facing defeat. Her production is being ruined by intensive bombing. Her armies are reeling back on every side. She has been out-munitioned to an enormous extent, and yet up to the present she has not called up women of 45 in her desperate situation.
It is the little extra which breaks the camel's back. An enormous number of people have already been withdrawn from their homes, the professions, and industry, and we have to he careful that we do not go too far in our demands, In 1940 in the most desperate moment of our existence we asked men to work longer hours than were wise. It was a question of a short rush in a desperate situation, and we thought that might help. As a matter of fact, as we all know

475
now, it was a failure. It did more harm than good, and I suggest that this will have exactly the same effect. If we endeavour to drive a willing horse too hard, the result will not be to the advantage of the country. I am going to ask the House to consider the problem purely from the point of view whether these proposals are to the advantage of the country or not. In spite of the attitude that the Minister adopted, I hope the House will approach this without prejudice of any kind. It is a question of the most enormous importance, and I hope we shall approach it in a calm, impartial spirit. It is a matter on which the House should express an opinion. I have had experience from the extreme North to the South, and there is no question that is disturbing the minds of the people more than this proposed call-up. It has caused an enormous feeling of hardship. You cannot expect a man who is working long hours under difficult conditions who for four and a half years has been putting his whole body and soul into producing munitions to feel happy if he knows that his wife, whose health perhaps is not too good, who has been through bombing and other difficulties, is being asked to spend four or five hours a day in munition work. He knows the shopping she has to do, the standing in queues, the writing to her family who are abroad. He knows that she is always worried about her sons fighting in the Middle East and elsewhere and sometimes mourning. That is not going to have a good effect on the morale of the people. I am convinced that the result will be rather to the disadvantage of the country than to its advantage.
Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the question of age comes into it? Suppose a woman is so hardly pressed with her domestic duties that she has not strength to do part-time work in a factory, is not that the case of many women who are below the present registration age but not the case of vast numbers who are above it? The question is, why should the age of 45 be the limiting line?
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Lady, I think, might have been able to work that out for herself. She might as well ask why we should not go up to. 102 and register centenarians. If her argument
476
were carried to its logical conclusion we should have registration and call-up from the cradle to the grave. We are dealing with the question of fitness of people, and as the age goes up it is surely obvious that the health and ability to stand up to new work, as it will be in a great many cases, goes down.
Mr. A. Edwards: Is not the hon. Member ignoring the fact that the Minister is providing for such cases as he has in mind?
Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member has put a great many points about sons being in the Army and working in the factories. Is it not the case that there is not one woman who is fit and healthy above 45 who, if she knew her services would help shorten the war and bring her sons home a year earlier. would not do everything she could in a workshop?
Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend has given me my point. She would go voluntarily. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards), I agree that the Minister has given some assurance and I welcome it, but I know of cases in various neighbourhoods of women of 44 who have been treated in a very harsh manner. I have letters from dozens of doctors showing that the effect on women of this age of merely being called for registration and perhaps having to go before appeal committees will be very serious.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: Nonsense.
Mr. Henderson: These doctors are more eminent than the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] The Minister was allowed to develop his speech, and I must ask the House to allow me to make the points I want to make. I have a good many letters from doctors and I have seen in a good many medical papers and others references to the effect on women of this age. I will quote only two letters I have had from doctors. The hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) will, I have no doubt, disagree, but the House will judge.
Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentle, man give their qualifications?
Mr. Henderson: No, I certainly will not, but I can assure the hon. Lady that some of my correspondents are very eminent indeed. One of them said:
"Besides, these women—very many suffer from nervous exhaustion, rheumatism, cardiac disorders, anaemia and insomnia—are physically unable to undertake any additional duties. Already they are harassed by shopping (long waiting in queues) and housework single handed; and many can hardly manage that efficiently. If additional burdens are forced upon them it will certainly not be long until health breaks down. As a result morale will be lowered in the family circle and resentment spread, with impairment to the war effort."
Another doctor says that apart from a very serious factor which he mentions,
"there will be an enormous increase in factory accidents due to the attacks of vertigo to which women are so prone at this age."
I do not want to weary the House with extracts because there may be a certain number of Members with medical knowledge who will be able to confirm what these doctors have said.
Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Is it not a fact, and have we not got it from the Minister, that no woman in this new age group, any more than any woman in any other age group, whose health will be prejudiced will be called up?
Mr. Henderson: That, of course, is beside the point. We know that certain women have already been called up in the lower age group who have not been able to stand the strain, but the point I am making is that in the class of women in this particularly critical period the number who will break down in health is larger than those in the lower age group. That is a point on which I cannot speak with authority, but it is what I am told by a large number of doctors who say that they have no interest to serve in giving this opinion any more than I have. None of my relatives are in this age group and I am speaking purely as a Member of the House without personal interest.
The Minister seemed to take up the position that the only test is whether he will get some extra labour by the course he proposes. Surely we have to consider whether we have already exceeded or will exceed the proportion that should go to the Services and to munitions. I have already made the point that we have already given to the Services and munitions a larger proportion of the people than any other coun-
478
try in any period of its history or that any of our opponents or Allies in this war have done. With regard to the point which has been made by hon. Members in interruptions as to why one objects to the registration of women between 45 and 51, there is a simple answer. The law of diminishing returns applies as much to increase of age as the increase of taxation. When we are calling up the 19 age group we have people who have not become key men in industry and whose health is good. The standard of health among the 19's is entirely different from that among women of 45 to 51. In this age group there is a larger proportion of people with heavy responsibilities than in almost any other group. They are people in business who carry heavy responsibilities, they are married people whose families are away fighting, and in health they are in an entirely different category from the young people of 19 to 25.
The Minister also apparently took up the position that the only test to be applied was whether we would gain by taking these women. That test has not been applied throughout the whole range and I think the Government and the House has been right in the attitude they have taken up in regard to the other classes. Clergymen and ministers of religion are not called up for the Services or for industry, and I think that decision was probably right. Those who have to give comfort to those who are mourning should not themselves be called up, but if I were a clergyman of 23 or 24 I should hate to be left at home when women of 50 with worries and anxieties and in poor health are being sent to industry. Then there are the conscientious objectors. A conscientious objector objects to going to an aeroplane factory because it helps the war effort, and he is allowed to carry on as before. [HON. MEMBERS: "No.") He is; I have been a member of a conscientious objectors' tribunal and I know. If he satisfies the tribunal that he has a conscientious objection he is allowed to keep out of essential industry or anything which might help the war effort. The Minister has referred to the question of youths, and I hope that the day will not come when we have to call up boys of 16 and 17 and close down the secondary schools and universities. If, however, it is only a question of getting man-power here is a field far more fertile than the women of 46 to 51. These boys

479
are more adaptable and their health is better, and if they went into factories on part-time they would produce more and better work than women who have reached a certain stage of life without having had any training in industry. There is an enormous field to be explored, and I hope that subsequent speakers will explore it.
The Minister failed to deal with the crux of the whole matter, the better utilisation of existing labour. That is a point we made in the Motion which has been signed by 200 Members. What we say is that we are
"of opinion that the necessity for such registration would be obviated by the better utilisation of the personnel of the Civil Service and the women's Services."
We have not heard a word from the Minister about this matter. I would particularly ask the Minister of Labour what has happened to the report of the Cabinet Committee which considered the question of staffs in the Civil Service apart from the Service Ministries. We are told that that Report showed that there was a redundancy in these Departments of 45,000 people. So far from any of them having gone, I am told there is an increase of 10,000. Is that the case? I would also ask the Minister of Labour. whether that same Committee advised that the Ministry of Labour staff should be reduced by 3,500 and that not one has yet gone.
I have had some interesting letters about the Civil Service. One is from a man in one of the Supply Services. He asks me not to disclose his name, but he is in a responsible position, with a considerable salary. He writes:
"From my observations I estimate that the Department, under competent administration, could be effectively run by a quarter of the staff."
He has sent me a day-to-day record of the amount of work he has done over the last five months, and I will give the House a summary. In April he spent 13 days with nothing to do; in May 13 days with nothing to do, and on two days he worked mornings only and on two other days had two hours' work. In June there were 15 days with nothing to do. In July, I am glad to say, there was a change. There was one full day's work in July, hut there were i6 days with nothing to do, one day with three hours' work, one
480
day with two hours' work and one day with 10 minutes' work. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Why does he not resign?"] He has complained, but it is not permissible for him to resign. He has been very much "told off" for complaining. In August he had six days with nothing to do. That is a record from day to day of what is happening in his Department. I cannot name the Ministry, but it is one of the Supply Ministries, and I shall be glad to discuss the case with the hon. Member opposite who wants to know more.
Mr. Mathers: May I ask what the Minister concerned says about this?
Mr. Henderson: I only received that letter yesterday morning.
Mr. Woodburn: On a point of Order. Is it right for a Member of this House to take some allegation made in a letter which he has received on a certain morning and convey the impression that the whole Civil Service is spending its time doing nothing?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker {Mr. Charles Williams): An hon. Member who makes a statement of that kind is himself responsible for the statement. That is the position.
Mr. Henderson: If I had had the opportunity, as I have had in other cases, I should have interviewed this man. He has offered to meet me at the House and to corroborate every statement, He gives his name and references as to who he is, and I am satisfied he is stating a perfectly genuine case. But I do not want to draw conclusions from isolated cases. I have the highest opinion of the Civil Service, and I know that many Departments are working very hard, but from the evidence I have I am convinced that many other Departments could be cut down by 50 per cent. without any loss of efficiency at all. I have many other letters, but it would be taking up too much time to deal with them, and I will only refer briefly to some matters that have come within my own experience. One girl who had held a responsible post was put into the Civil Service. I do not want to mention the Department, but she was there for a year, and during that time, she told me, she certainly had not averaged more than two

481
or three letters a day—a few minutes each day. She complained to her chief, and his reply was, "Do you expect me to make work for you?" I have had many letters to the same effect from women in the Services. I have a personal friend who is in the Civil Service temporarily. He is a very efficient business man. He found there was redundancy among his staff and struggled to get some of them sent to other Departments. He said that he spent weeks and months in dealing with inquiries and interviews. He was seen by heads of the Department, who said, "Why on earth are you bothering about this? There is a war on, and don't you realise that there may be work coming to your Department, when these girls will be required?" That was the attitude he met with. I have been told by a great number of people of the difficulty there is in getting anybody in one Department moved somewhere else.
Many hon. Members will be dealing with the question of the Civil Service, and I will pass on to the Women's Services. I have had many letters from women in the A.T.S. One writes:
"I have been in the A.T.S. for a year and have not done anything yet. You can understand my horror on hearing that my poor mother of 49, who is not in very good health and is working her fingers to the bone, is to be called up and sent to an aircraft factory when they won't let me go. I would willingly go but they will not let me go."
I am sorry that I have mislaid a Greenock paper which was sent to me which told how women in the A.T.S. were being taken in their official time to the Town Council Meeting every week to sit for three or four hours so that they should learn how democracy works.
Mr. Evelyn Walkden: As a punishment?
Mr. Henderson: It did not say so. The account went on to say that all the girls in this particular area were to be taken in turn to view this edifying spectacle and to be trained in democracy. Men and women who were struggling in queues to do their shopping must take a rather poor view of this. One morning not long ago I was in a Yorkshire town and saw crowds of women in queues, with a big basket in one hand and a crying child in the other. At that psychological moment a parade passed down the street consisting of a band and a platoon of young women
482
who were going round the country giving demonstrations of how well they could "form threes" or whatever it is they do. If hon. Members could have heard the comments of the women in the shopping queues, they would have been satisfied that our working women take a pretty poor view of the use which is being made of the woman-power in the A.T.S. It was an absolute aggravation to those poor women, who already were tired and worried, to see these girls of 20 and 21 parading about from town to town to give an exhibition of drill. Surely there is something wrong with such a wastage of woman-power.
I have tried to cover some of the ground, tried to show that this is a problem of great importance to the country, tried to show that in my opinion, and in the opinion of at least 200 other Members, this taking away of women from their homes and from other industries which are in fact essential to the war effort must, instead of helping the war effort, have the opposite effect. When we are engaged in a world war the Government are justified in taking unpopular decisions, provided such a course is called for by considerations for the safety of the country and if every possible step has been taken to obviate the necessity and it can be shown that the ultimate effect will not be disadvantageous. The United States have not conscripted any women, and when our greatest enemy, in his direst straits, when he sees defeat staring him in the face, when he sees his production in finitesimal as compared with that of his opponents, has not even yet called up women of this age, I think we may feel that it is at least probable that he feels that such a course would not be to the advantage of his country. Believe me he has not refrained for humanitarian reasons, but weighing up the pros and cons he thought it would not be to the advantage of Germany. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, we have more aeroplanes, tanks and munitions of war than our enemies. This country has given freely of its man-power and its woman-power. These women are working to the limit of their capacity, and if we ask a little more than it is possible for them to give then, instead of getting greater production and greater efficiency, we shall get less.
I believe that the Government have taken their decision through excess of

483
zeal and have not realised all the implications of what they are doing. I believe that, if persisted in, this course will do permanent harm to the health of these women, destroy the home life of many men, affect the morale of the country and fail to increase our production in the slightest degree. We have already given more than any other country, and there is always a danger that in war time powerful Governments may think of the individual as a cypher. I believe that more can be got out of 'middle-aged people voluntarily than by conscription. I believe the Government have blundered, and we shall not criticise them if they change their minds but shall admire them. Before these women are conscripted into industry the Government should be required to convince the House of the necessity for the step and to show. that everything has been done to utilize the man-power and woman-power which they already have at their disposal.
Mrs. Adamson: Man-power is vital to the war effort, and I have been amused and amazed at the agitation from certain quarters of this House in protest against the registration and possible direction of women between the ages of 45 and 50. One would imagine that the women in this country have never had to work. The women of the working class have always had to work. Since I came to this House I had heard no protest against aged women having to carry on in factories for very little money. I have known families in Lancashire in which the husband was unemployed and the Lancashire lassie has had to maintain the home and keep the husband. They have had to pool their resources at week-ends to keep the homes clean and the children tidy. There was no protest in this House against a system of society that degraded the women of this country to that extent.
Some Members of this House fail to face realities. Many of them have their womenfolk in a certain setting, which is a home where the womenfolk lead a sheltered life. They find that now, owing to the needs of the war effort, that setting is going to be rudely disturbed. I have a big postbag, because I represent a big constituency—one of the largest in the country—and, having been in the political world for the best part of the last 30
484
years, I have spoken practically all over Great Britain. I receive letters from practically every corner of Great Britain. I know that, speaking generally, the women of this country are not opposed to the registration and direction of women between the ages of 45 and 50. The agitation springs from men who fear that if their womenfolk are called upon for part-time work, they themselves may experience some discomfort in their homes. This criticism applies to a certain class of people in this country.
What are the facts? A large number of women in this group are at the present time doing their bit. I should be interested if the Ministry of Labour could tell us what percentage of women in this age group are already in paid employment. We have to face the fact that thousands of women are doing voluntary work, such as in the W.V.S. or in running British Restaurants or in looking after children, and that they are not classified as gainfully employed; and therefore it is a reflection on the women of this country to suggest that those between 45 and 50 are incapable of pulling their weight in the war effort. I resent the implication that women of 45–50 are old, doddering crocks that are incapable of doing anything for the country in its hour of need. There are large numbers of housewives of that age and over who are compelled to take evacuees or billetees. They are doing voluntary service. I was interested in an advertisement which appeared last week in the Sunday Press, directing all the cotton operatives up to 55 to report, if they had been engaged in the cotton trade for a specified period. One Lancashire woman said to me that if the Lancashire lassie was to be directed by the Ministry of Labour up to 55 years of age, it had to apply to women in other parts of Britain. What applies to Lancashire must apply to the rest of the country. We are not going to have any discrimination in regard to this matter. I have heard an appeal also to midwives and nurses, and I know of women over 60 who are doing their bit and doing it grandly in order to help the nation.
I am in the happy position of being able to say what is the view of working-class women on this question. I attended a meeting last week of the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations, representing more than 2,000,000 working-class women in the trade union,

485
Labour and Co-operative movements, and they carried a resolution in support of the proposals of the Minister of Labour. They discussed the matter from every angle. They referred also to the fact that thousands of women in this age group are already in employment doing voluntary work. If the nation says it has to organise and direct women in order to secure a better effort, they are quite prepared to do it, but they say they would much rather not have the young folk under 18 brought in. A large number of these women have, like myself, reared a family to manhood and womanhood. They have their worries because their sons are at sea or playing their part in the R.A.F. or elsewhere in the Armed Forces of the Crown. They know all about shopping difficulties and about the facts of life, particularly at the present time. As long as the Ministry give us ample safeguards, this direction should receive the support of every right thinking Member of this House.
Mr. Craik Henderson: Would the hon. Lady tell me how many women were present at the meeting and what the vote was? She mentioned that there was a vote.
Mrs. Adamson: I said quite distinctly that it was a meeting of the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations, which has an affiliated membership of more than 2,000,000.
Mr. Henderson: But the 2,000,000 were not present, were they?
Mrs. Adamson: It would be an unpatriotic action to bring 2,000,000 women to any meeting at this stage.
Mr. Henderson: How many were present at the meeting, approximately?
Mrs. Adamson: There were representatives from affiliated organisations.
Mr. Henderson: How many were present?
Mrs. Adamson: If the hon. Member had a meeting of a few people upstairs, and passed a resolution, he would claim that the meeting represented certain sections in this House. Anyway, we did not have to go, in order to seek support, even to the prisons of this country in order to get signatures. I want proper consideration to be given to domestic responsibility. I want to safeguard the liberty of conscience
486
and to safeguard also the health of the women. Even though we support the proposals, I do feel that I ought to be perfectly candid in the matter and to tell the Ministry that there is a deep-seated uneasiness among men and women in this country that it may be too easy for certain sections in the younger age groups to evade direction into the Services or into industry. I feel sure that the Ministry ought to have a review of personnel inside factories. In a certain part of Outer London there is a firm belief that certain people, when it was feared that conscription would become the law of the land, got their "in-laws" inside a particular Government works, whether they were capable of performing the work or not, and that to-day those people are reserved. I am not one who make statements to this House without some evidence. If I had had the letter of which the hon. Member told us to-day it would have been sent to the Ministry of Labour.
Mr. Craik Henderson: Even though it had been asked that the name should not be disclosed?
Mrs. Adamson: I have sent communications to the Ministry of Labour relating to people who have desired their names not to he disclosed. The letters have come to me in good faith, but I wanted to get the facts from the Ministry's point of view. It is only fair to give such letters to the Government Department concerned so that they can give an assurance as to the position, and particularly that the manpower and woman-power are being used to the best advantage. We all have heard of people suddenly becoming directors, technicians or surveyors. There has been a great deal of this thing going on. It has been a perfect ramp in some quarters. I do not know about the accuracy of the facts, but I have always passed complaints of that kind on to the Ministry for them to deal with efficiently. It would relieve the public mind if we could have an assurance that the available man-power and woman-power of the country are being utilised to the fullest advantage.
Another matter is the position inside the Civil Service. I am doing a voluntary job in a Government Department, and I know that we are very short-staffed. Statements have been made in this House and elsewhere on this matter, and I say that the Government ought to look into

487
them, and again give us the assurance that the available man-power and woman-power are being used to the best advantage. I cannot say what the position is, except that I know from my very limited experience in a Government Department that we are very short-handed and short-staffed. If we could have a review, we should feel gratification.
Do not let us have any more nonsense talked about women between 45 and 50. The Minister of Labour has a very difficult task to perform. I have known him for a number of years and have admired his work in the trade union and Labour movements. I would like to congratulate him on the fine manner in which he has carried out his duties as Minister of Labour. This task of applying compulsion to any human being in this country must be thoroughly distasteful to him, and his staff have had a difficult time. It requires tact and common sense for younger women to interview middle-aged women and for single women to interview married women who have been up against the realities of life for a long time. I hope that the Government will go forward with this matter, and that they will let us have a review of the personnel in the factories and the Services so that the man-power and woman-power can be utilised to the best advantage. I am certain that if we go forward in that spirit, determined to do our bit and pull our weight, every one of us will be happier, especially if we can shorten the war and bring victory nearer.
Commander Sir Archibald Southby: The difficulty, of course, of a Debate of this character is that the discussion of the whole very wide question of the allocation of man- and woman-power tends to obscure certain definite points upon which it would perhaps be desirable for the House to express its views one way or the other. There are, of course, those who do not share the definite views I hold. The question, for instance, of whether boys of 18 should or should not be sent to the coalface is one on which the House is entitled to express a clear-cut view. I think those best able to judge that question are those who have spent most of their life underground, and I would certainly accept the view of a man in the mining industry as better than my own regarding the difficulties of the
488
employment of very young people on the coal-face.
However, the particular point to which I wish to address myself is whether women of the 46 to 51 age group should or should not be called up—should be conscripted. [Interruption.] They have already been registered. It is a question of whether they should be conscripted. I understand that some of them—
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): This is a proposal to register them.
Sir A. Southby: No, the Minister has said he has registered them. We have a circumscribed population compared with other countries, and it would be true to say that our war effort has got out of balance. It is essential that we should have a very large Navy, and it is also essential that we should have a very large Air Force, but I would remind people who talk about second fronts somewhat glibly and without knowledge, that you cannot have an enormous, overwhelming Air Force, which is the most expensive form of service of all so far as man and woman-power is concerned, and at the same time have an Army on the Continental scale. The situation is quite different from that which obtained during the last war. Then the Air Force was in its infancy. There was nothing approximating to the demand for personnel for the Air Force which exists today. In addition, it is a very expensive weapon, requiring an immense industrial organisation behind it to produce the machines and equipment with which it has to go into action. We cannot in this war try to produce an enormous Army, and the sooner we realise that the better. There is an old saying that you cannot get more out of a pint pot than a pint. The difficulty that the Minister has to contend with is to try to meet all these requirements with a population which is really too small to provide him with what he wants.
The real question is whether the best use is being made of the available manpower. I listened with interest to the Minister when he said that 2,250,000 more people are being used to manufacture munitions than were being employed at the end of the last war. That proves my contention that so far as the demands on man and woman-power are concerned this war is not in the same street as the

489
last one. Now I congratulate the Minister on the way he has done a very difficult job. I have always admired him for the way he has carried out his duties. I believe that he carries them out with great humanity and consideration, and I believe him to be entirely just and fair. I make no attack on him. I only suggest that as regards the call-up of this particular age group, the Government are making a mistake and that instead of helping the war effort it will in fact hinder it. The Minister said he would stop at nothing to win this war. That, I think, would apply to everyone, at all events in this House. What I think he should do is to stop before he makes a mistake which may injure the war effort of this country, and I contend that the conscription of women of 46 to 51 years of age will not help the war effort but will in fact injure it. Do not let hon. Members run away with the idea that the proposal has not excited considerable opposition outside this House. That opposition is not a stunt. Most Members of Parliament, have, I imagine, a very large postbag; mine certainly is. I do not complain of that. It is perfectly evident from that and from reading the papers that there is nothing whatever in the nature of a stunt about this matter. I deplore anyone introducing into it any question of class. The war effort in cottage or castle is being conducted with just the same vigour. It does not do us any good here at home or in the eyes of the world to say that there is any question of class in this matter, because there is not. I am perfectly sure that members of trade unions in this House, most of them men with great responsibilities, are as bitter as anybody else that these women—I will go into what they are doing at the present time in a moment—are to be called up when at the same time strike after strike is taking place in various industries of men who are being well paid and who certainly should not be striking in war-time. Of course the women are bitter and I believe hon. Members opposite are just as apprehensive and bitter about it as anyone else.
Mr. Gallacher: Would the hon. and gallant Member say that the shipwrights, highly skilled men, were getting good wages at £4 7s. 6d. a week, in view of the fact that they made a claim for a different rate, a piece rate,
490
nine months ago and there has been no settlement?
Sir A. Southby: The hon. Member knows that shipwrights have a very warm corner in my heart, but I am not now concerned with particular trade disputes. Suitable machinery has been set up to settle such disputes, and in war-time surely that machinery should be used. Hon. Members opposite talk about Russia, and I pay my tribute to Russia, but I wonder what would happen to a shipwright in Russia who refused to work. There is no doubt what would happen. When you are trying to get the whole of the man and woman-power in this country solidly behind the war effort, it does not help you to look round and see what is going on in some industries just now. The hon. Lady who has just spoken introduced a certain amount of class prejudice. Why? There is not a home, great or small, in this country which has not had the tenor of its life disturbed by this war. It is right that that should be so. There is not a home, great or small, in this country into which anxiety and sorrow have not come because of this war, and before the war is over there will be more anxiety and deeper sorrow in every home, be it cottage or castle.
No one has ever suggested that women between 45 and 50 are incapable of doing work. Our case is that they are already doing it. The hon. Lady really supported our case. She said what they were doing—the Women's Voluntary Service, keeping the home going, etc. Our case is that they are already doing a superb job and that if you add this other burden on top then not only will you break them down but you will undo the good work which is keeping the homes of this country together. [Interruption.] There are bad sardines in some boxes, but, broadly speaking, the people of this country are first-class. I deplore the idea of saying that this is not being done, or that. There may be a few people in every walk of life who are not pulling their weight but, taking things all round, this country is very sound and doing pretty well. These women are not idle women who are to be pressed into service. I seemed to detect in the hon. Lady's speech and in that of the Minister the suggestion that there was a sort of reserve of idle women whom it was necessary to bring into service. If

491
there be any such, then by all means bring them in, whatever their ages may be.
I agree that there are some "column dodgers" among the younger ones, but I do not think there are many, and I do not think there are any between 46 and 51. They are doing pretty good work, not perhaps in the industrial column, but in another column, day by day. They are not idle women but busy women, and to force them into new service would be to add to the load of women who are already almost overwhelmed with the burden they have to carry. They do the work of the canteens. It would be fair to say that there is not in this country a British Restaurant that would stay open if it was not for the Women's Voluntary Service, and the backbone of that service in all sections of society are the women of 45 to 50.
Mr. Evelyn Walkden: The hon. and gallant Member is making what appears to be an incorrect statement, which I feel I must challenge. Will he inspect the position in his own Division? Of the five British Restaurants in the area where I reside there is not one member of the Women's Voluntary Service doing a voluntary job. They are all being paid.
Sir A. Southby: It is not my business to interfere with the local council of which the hon. Member is a member in the area in which he resides. If he is prepared to pay for work which would be done voluntarily, that is for him to decide.
Mr. Walkden: They would not do it.
Viscountess Astor: The Women's Voluntary Service cannot work in any British Restaurant. They would not be allowed to. They are paid.
Sir A. Southby: The noble Lady is not quite correct in this matter. Some employees of British Restaurants are paid and others are not paid; they give their services voluntarily in British Restaurants throughout the country.
Mr. Walkden: It is not true.
Sir A. Southby: In addition to the voluntary work these women do, they, have the most difficult task of all. Theirs is the day-to-day drudgery which never stops. They have the housework, the cooking, and the shopping, they stand in
492
queues. As we come to the House we see the queues of women who have to wait to buy what they need for their homes. In addition, many of them have volunteered to give their spare time to Government work. These are the people who have not only a husband serving in the Forces, or serving in industry, for whom they are trying to keep a home going, but they also have the gnawing anxiety of having sons and daughters in the Services.
I have one letter here from which I would like to read an extract. This woman falls into the 45–50 category. She works on an average some 12 hours a day or more as a member of the W.V.S. She is on two hospital committees and in some way or other has managed to keep going a home to which her children in the Forces can come back. This is a woman who is threatened with call-up. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member will put me right when he speaks. Compare the lot of a woman called up to do part-time work with that of a younger woman doing full-time work. The young woman may be doing 44 to 48 hours a week and more, but she has some evenings off and Saturday off perhaps, or Sunday, or, at any rate, she should. I do not believe you get the best out of people who are working seven days a week. It was one of the mistakes we made at the beginning of the war.
Mr. Ellis Smith: It helped to save the country.
Sir A. Southby: Of course it did in an emergency. People can do "watch and stop on" for a time, but they cannot do it indefinitely, or they will break down. This girl has Saturdays or Sundays off. Compare that with a woman of 50 doing household work, washing, cooking, shopping, standing in queues. She carries on with great difficulty, and now she is to be taken for part-time work. I do not think there is one of them who would not willingly change with the younger woman doing full-time work with all the advantages which that entails. The Minister said that there were already 1,000,000 women doing unpaid voluntary work. The majority are probably within this particular age group which it is now proposed to conscript into industry. He cited—I did not quite see the relevance of it—the case of a docker of 83 still doing a job

493
of work. What a magnificent old soldier! But that does not justify the Minister doing something in conscripting this class of women which I contend is stupid. I contend that this age group is not having a square deal. The Minister said that there were no complaints on registration. He should know: he has the whole of the files open to him; but I have heard complaints. It may be that they were not so great as they would otherwise have been, because the women thought, rightly or wrongly, that the Government were going to review the matter and not pursue this very stupid policy.
Then the Minister referred to midwives and nurses of 60 and also to cotton operatives. It is true that nurses, cotton operatives and others have come back—all credit to them—in order to carry on at their old jobs. But there is all the difference between that and what is proposed here. Those people are doing the jobs to which they have been accustomed. There is no shock to them. What is being proposed now is to call up women who have never been inside a factory, to work in factories at an age when it is not good for them to change the routine of their lives. I contend that you are not comparing like with like when you point to the fact that other women have gone on with their professions to a later age or have come back from retirement to follow them. It is said that these people volunteer if they feel able to volunteer. Of course they do. But what is proposed is to conscript people whether they feel able or not. And remember this is a difficult and dangerous age for women. I deplore the class prejudice which the Minister brought into his speech. Difficulties of this kind are not confined to one class or another; it is the universal curse which women have to bear. The Minister told us what he had to find. I say that he could and should find more man and woman-power by making better use of what he has already called up. Let him comb out the Women's Services where necessary.
Mr. E. Walkden: Including the W.V.S.—some of the hon. and gallant Member's friends.
Sir A. Southby: Let him comb out the Government Departments. I agree that this is a very difficult matter for Members of Parliament. We get a large number of letters about the redundancy of man-
494
power in Government offices. It is very difficult to find out the truth, because one Ministry may be short of staff and another may have too many.
Earl Winterton: I think it is time that those who make very wounding charges that the Civil Service is underworked should explain what they mean. My experience is that most civil servants, temporary and permanent, at the present time, are working far harder than they ought to do.
Sir A. Southby: I was not making a charge of that kind. [Interruption.] I did not interrupt anybody else, and I have given way several times. What I was saying was that we should get these charges against the Civil Service examined. I get letters myself from girls employed in Government Departments, who say they have nothing to do. It is very hard to find out the truth; but there must be some underlying truth in that; so much smoke must have some fire to cause it. We are told that in some offices they are falling over one another because it is so hard to find a job for them to do. We all know perfectly well that there is a tendency in an office, as you rise to higher stature, to build around you a bigger and bigger staff. The figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few months ago are very interesting. The Ministry of Food had then about 37,641 employees, the Ministry of War Transport had 17,469, the Ministry of Aircraft Production had 16,026, the War Damage Commission had 10,000. If these numbers are employed, are they really justified? It is said that in the Colwyn Bay offices of the Ministry of Food there are approximately 5,000 civil servants now working, and that about 1,500 of the Ministry of Food's large staff at this charming Welsh resort are under the age of 31. Could they not be replaced by older people, and given some more active jobs? Is anything going to be done to even out the burden among younger women, instead of putting it on the older women? Some of my constituents who are in Government offices say that they do not have enough to do. Then I read in the Press that the Ministry of Agriculture have been sending a lot of young women around to farmers, asking a lot of tomfool questions, which could be answered by post, if indeed they are

495
necessary at all. You must have a lot of surplus woman-power if you can send all these young women around to farmers asking unnecessary questions of farmers who are engaged in trying to get the harvest in. These complaints may be exaggerated, but they should be investigated.
There are complaints about the way the interviews are carried out. I should like to pay my tribute to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary for the courteous and fair way they deal with every case that is brought to them. I have not brought a single case of hardship to the Parliamentary Secretary about which he has not helped me 100 per cent., and where something has been found to be wrong it has been put right. But there have been complaints about officials of the Ministry. Only this morning I was talking to a young woman who had had a doctor's certificate to say that she was unable to do any hard work for six months, much to her regret. In spite of that, six times during that six months she had to motor four miles to answer the same questions from the same woman officer, a woman of approximately her own age, although many of her friends who were younger than she was, and who were registered, had no call-up during that time. The officials knew that the doctor's certificate ran for six months, yet six times she had to go and answer the same questions. Such waste of petrol, transport and time is almost inconceivable. If that sort of thing is going on, there must be misuse of staff in the Ministry. There are cases—though I do not think there are many—where the interviewers are tactless and stupid. To interview a woman of 45, without taking the trouble to ascertain the facts, and then to bite at her and say, "Don't you know there is a war on?" when the woman has lost her only son in the Air Force, is stupid and inhuman.
Viscountess Astor: It is a mistake.
Sir A. Southby: You should not have that sort of mistake.
Viscountess Astor: How can you avoid it?
Sir A. Southby: You should have older women as interviewers.
Viscountess Astor: Hear, hear.
Sir A. Southby: I am sorry that the Minister did not say anything about closer examination to see whether there is a waste of man and woman-power in Government offices, and whether something could not be done at this stage in the war to save the man and woman-power available by concentrating the Government offices which are dispersed all over the country. The time which is wasted because you have to write to Colwyn Bay or Llandudno or Bath must be enormous. I venture to suggest that it is worthy of consideration whether the time has not come to bring these Government offices back and to effect a saving in time, expense and man and woman-power by coordinating them in their proper place, in the capital, or at any rate closer to London than they now are. Sending letters backwards and forwards, with the extra labour employed in handling them, uses up man and woman-power, of which the Minister says he is extremely short.
I suggest that to call up women between the ages of 46 and 50 is a mistake. These women make a magnificent contribution to the war effort. They carry a very heavy burden and yet where they can, they volunteer to do some other work. They are worked to the limit. They are not of an age at which they should be disturbed and worried; they have enough worries as it is. You should not apply conscription to them. They are keeping the homes ready for the men when they come back: the homes which the men are always thinking about, and longing to come back to when their job is done. If you take. them out of those homes, you run the risk of disturbing the balance of this country. Where they can volunteer they do so, and I pay my tribute to the wonderful way in which they have done that. They have borne the heat and burden more than any other section in the country. Not for them is the romantic work of the Women's Services or the interesting jobs in the Government Departments. They have to go on with the plodding drudgery in their own homes, competing with all the difficulties which exist at the present time. Do not add to their burden. I have no desire to go into the medical side; doctors disagree, some take one view and some another. But I think it will be generally agreed by people of impartial common sense that at that age women pass through a difficult time.

497
Where is the Minister to find the woman-power which he says he must have? Perhaps by a better balanced war effort, and certainly by an investigation of what is being done with the existing man-and woman-power of the country. I suggest that the time has come in this war when we can see our way to appoint a Select Committee, with real power, to go into the Government offices, the Women's Services and the factories and see what the position is. Let it have sufficient power to act. Do not let us have a Committee which will send in a report which will be sat upon. Let us have a Committee which will say, "You have too many here; better use must be made of them or you must transfer some of them to different jobs." That Committee would be of enormous help to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. I believe that it would find him more than the number for whom he is now looking and certainly solve the vexed problem of whether he is to take the women of this particular group and conscript them.
I apologise to the House for the length of time I have spoken and also for having spoken with some vehemence, but I feel very strongly on this subject. I assure hon. Members opposite that to me this is no stunt. I am not actuated by any sort of prejudice one way or the other. I am as much concerned with the effect on the cottage home as I am with the effect on the rich man's home right throughout the country. I believe that this proposal is a mistake and I beg the Government to reconsider it.
The difficulty of these Debates is that it is so hard to record a definite opinion one way or the other. It would have been much better if the Debate could have taken place on a specific Motion. I think that that is also so with regard to the question of the mines. You ought to have a clear-cut expression one way or the other of what this House thinks. It is the duty of Members of this House to express their opinions. This is not the Reichstag. It is the free House of Commons and the sooner we realise that every one of us is expressing his opinions in good faith, the better we shall get on. I believe that on whatever side of the House Members sit—and I have sat here for some years—they are actuated by good and not by base motives. What they are trying to
498
do is really to represent those who sent them here, and I believe that in this particular case the House is trying to get for the Minister the man- and woman-power he wants. We are getting nearer to victory and now is the time for overwhelming effort by everyone, but it is certainly not the time to make a mistake. I believe that by conscripting women of these ages you will inevitably undo much of the good work which has already been done by them in the community.
Miss Lloyd George: I find myself in a great deal of agreement with the last few sentences spoken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), when he said it was the duty of Members of this House to express their convictions and their feelings without fear and without favour. That, I agree, is the greatest contribution that Members of this House can make to the war effort. The Minister of Labour has given us some very striking figures as to the extent to which the man- and woman-power of this country has been mobilised. The Prime Minister in his speech warned the House and the country that we are facing the most costly period of the war. The Minister of Labour will no doubt be faced with new demands in the coming months as the offensive extends and develops, and he will not find it an easy task to be able to find the numbers he will be called upon to do. I agree with hon. Members who have spoken earlier in the Debate that there must be extensive mopping-up operations and that we must find men and women who are not at the moment pulling their full weight and see that they are brought in to the front line.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epsom spoke about the need for a comb-out of the Civil Service. I was under the impression that a Committee in fact had made an inquiry into the matter of the Civil Service. It was the Kennett Committee, I believe. I would like very much to know from the Minister whether the recommendations of that Committee have been carried out and what cuts have been made in the Civil Services. I am open to correction, but I believe also that that inquiry extended only to the Civil Departments and did not cover Service Departments. There is a very widespread feeling in the House and in the country that the Service Departments are grossly overstaffed, and I would

499
like to ask, following up the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion that there should be an inquiry, that there should be at any rate an inquiry into the Service Departments. I agree too, that while it may be necessary to call up further classes—and I hope to come back to that controversial matter later on—it is absolutely vital at this moment to make certain that we are making the best economic use of the men and women now available.
A good deal has been said about the fact that the aircraft industry now is a priority, and the Minister of Labour has told us that more mobile women are needed for the aircraft factories. We all rejoice in that statement in so far as it means the greater production of aeroplanes and an increase in the striking power of this country, but there is a very great deal of uneasiness, and there is a good deal of evidence that all is not well with the organisation of the Ministry of Aircraft Production and that it is not in fact making the most economic use of the man- and woman-power that it has now. It is very interesting that only a week after the Minister made his statement before the Recess, in which he said he wanted these additional numbers that the Select Committee on National Expenditure brought out a Report on the aircraft industry. The Committee had one or two very startling things to say. Here is one of them. They pointed out that although the aircraft industry was making large demands on labour, the Committee found little evidence of actual shortage. That was at a time last summer when production in the aircraft industry was increasing very considerably. The Committee went on to say that at one factory where the programme had been altered they found a redundancy of some hundreds of people which it took several months to clear. We all know that a certain amount of dislocation is inevitable in face of the constant change in design that must be made if we are to maintain our air supremacy, but we can hardly afford at this moment, when the strain on our man-power resources is so great, to have cases of that kind where it takes several months, according to the evidence of the Select Committee, to clear some hundreds of workers.
I agree that this difficulty, the change of design, probably has applied more to the Ministry of Aircraft Production than to
500
any other Ministry, but it is not the only Ministry that is affected. It is not the only Ministry where change of design has any effect, and it is not the only place where constantly the whole of the production has to switch over from one branch of the industry to another. This has applied also all through the war to the Ministry of Supply. A very short time ago they were in the same position as the Ministry of Aircraft Production is to-day, but I believe that the Ministry of Supply has scientifically tackled the question of the transfer of workers in consultation with various organisations and has been able, to a very great extent, to solve that problem.
It is important at this moment for the House to know whether the Ministry of Aircraft Production has a central scheme for dealing with cases of this kind which are bound to occur from time to time. Is there any central policy on this matter? Are the regional organisations working in with the Ministry itself to see that the waste of man-power is reduced to a minimum? There is another passage in the Report which is very disturbing and which should be brought to the attention of the House, and that is, the very high rate of wastage in the aircraft industry. They said, for instance, that in the seven weeks ended 14th May the average weekly rate of loss per 1,000 operatives employed in the main aero-engine factories was 6.4. The corresponding rate for full-time women is as high as 7.2 per thousand. The Committee draw the conclusion from this, that at that rate the aircraft industry, in the course of a year, would lose and have to replace a number of workpeople equal to one-third of the people employed. That seems to be a very serious wastage. They say:
"A certain amount of that is due to the fact that we get perhaps workers sent to us from the Ministry of Labour who are not always suitable and who perhaps are not able to stand the pace or who do not fit in with the industry."
That is true, but they say that the wastage is probably due to the lack of personal management in aircraft factories. What stands in the way of establishing these personal managements? The Chief Inspector of Factories, who is a thoroughly unbiased and unprejudiced observer, gives it as his view that the main trouble rests in the Board room. Here is something in personal management which plays a vitally

501
important part in the smooth and efficient working of industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said that personal management was going to be one of the saviours of British industry after the war. He set the value as high as that. It is a vital factor in the proper use of man- and woman-power, and, in the prevention of wastage, employers are either suspicious, they do not like it, it is new or they do not take it seriously, which is just as bad. It means that you may have personal managers in the factory, but you do not give them facilities and opportunities to function satisfactorily, and you might just as well not have them as have them under these conditions.
Mr. Craven-Ellis: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that under the Essential Work Order the management of the industry really does not possess the power of management?
Miss Lloyd George: I do not think that that really arises. They get every facility to conduct their affairs, if they want to, and if they are open to using new and efficient methods. If they shut their minds to new efforts, which they do in a great many cases, I do not think they are likely to carry on very effectively. I believe that the Minister of Aircraft Production realises the importance of this, but somehow or other the personal management does not seem to get established in the factories. I believe again, that the lack is that there is no central direction from the Ministry of Aircraft Production itself on this matter.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is it not the case that factories under direct Government control do not show a very much better picture in this respect than those under the control of private enterprise, and though everybody fully recognises the extraordinary importance that personal management can play, may I ask the hon. Lady whether, on consideration, she does not think she has perhaps rather overstressed that point?
Miss Lloyd George: I find myself in complete disagreement with the hon. Gentleman. I think Royal Ordnance factories in this matter have a remarkably good record, and so has the Ministry of Supply. Industries under the control of the Ministry have established personnel management to a large degree.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Surely they have not cured wastage.
Miss Lloyd George: There is the question of excessively long hours being worked in factories. All the evidence of the last war and of this and the drive after Dunkirk has proved that production has suffered as the result of long hours. There has been very little reduction in the last year or 18 months, although the experience in Royal Ordnance factories in this respect has, again, been remarkable. After shortening their hours and reducing or omitting Sunday labour, they found that absenteeism by women was reduced by a most astonishing degree.
I would like to say something about the training of technicians for industry, particularly for the aircraft industry. There is a shortage now which will become more acute. It is quite obvious that when we undertake an offensive on a very large scale we shall have to face very serious mechanical casualties. Tanks and armoured vehicles of all kinds will have to be re-commissioned, and the thousand and one things which form the accessories of a modern mechanical Army will need the care of more technicians. The Minister said to-day that certain Royal Air Force technicians had been taken back into factories, but it may well be found that the process may have to be reversed. I would urge, as I have urged before, that women should be given greater opportunities of upgrading and of training so that they will be able to take the place of the men who will be withdrawn from industry. I also want to make the point that in many rural areas to-day there are large numbers of women who are quite willing and able to take up part-time work but who cannot be placed. There is nothing in the neighbourhood; the factories are not there, or they may be filled to capacity, and there is nowhere for them to go. There are many who are idle, not because they want to be, but because there is no work to which they can be directed. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister, in consultation with his colleagues, would see whether it is not possible to establish smaller factories either to make parts, camouflage netting or the many other things which are required and on which they could work.

503
Now may I come back to the very controversial matter of the registration of women of 45–50, which has occupied so much of the time of the House to-day? I believe that these women are as anxious as their younger sisters to take their part in the national life. There may be exceptions—there are exceptions in every age group and class—but it is very interesting to note that the criticism of this proposal has come in the main from the men.
Mr. Buchanan: No, I have been in my Division, and I know.
Miss Lloyd George: Well, the hon. Gentleman can give his own evidence, but my evidence is that criticism comes in the main from the men. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) gave striking evidence of this earlier in the Debate. When the registration of women of 45–50 took place there were no complaints of any sort or kind, said the Minister of Labour, and he is in a position to speak with information that comes to him from all parts of the country. It is also remarkable that when midwives were registered up to the age of 60 there was not a word of protest. We were not told then of how tired they were, of how they were having to shoulder heavy domestic responsibilities and of how they were suffering physical strains.
Sir Herbert Williams: But was it intended to divert midwives to jobs different from their own?
Miss Lloyd George: That is not the point. The criticism that has been made, to-day at any rate, is that you are overburdening a particular section of the community at an age when they feel the strain more than at any other age. There was not a single word of complaint when cotton operatives were called up to the age of 55. There were no letters in "The Times"; no voices were raised.
Mr. Hammersley: Is the hon. Lady under the impression that cotton operatives were compulsorily to be put into the cotton industry up to the age of 55? If so, I think the Minister of Labour will say that that is not so.
Mr. Bevin: The purpose of the registration is to direct operatives back to the industry to keep it going.
Miss Lloyd George: I do not disagree that the circumstances connected with this question will call for wise and sympathetic consideration. But if women are doing a full-time voluntary job, nobody will ask them to do anything else. That is one of the main objects of this registration. Personally, I do not believe that the Minister will get very much out of this age group. I am not at all certain that a great deal of fuss is not being made about nothing, because I think it will be found that the great majority of these women are doing good work. But that is no reason why those who are not should not be called up. The Minister has made it perfectly clear that there will be safeguards, that sympathetic consideration will be given to household duties and the burdens which war-time housekeeping has put upon all housewives. I do not believe there is a Member of this House who would wish to see an intolerable or unfair burden put upon any section of the Community. But if we intend to talk about health, do not let us forget the young women who are working far too long hours and who may be doing irreparable harm to their health during the early part of their lives. I do not think any Member of this House, under those circumstances, when excessive strain is being put upon one section of the community, would wish to see other women going scot free with out having to bear their share of the burden of the war effort. I believe that this proposal can be put into effect without putting an intolerable burden on the women. In conclusion, I would like to say that I have made these criticisms because I believe there are still serious defects in the organisation of the man- and woman-power of this country. In many directions there is a great wastage of labour, and these two things must be remedied if we are to take full advantage of the new opportunities which are opening out before us.
Mr. Buchanan: We are discussing to-day, in the main, the calling-up of women up to the age of 51. I want to make it clear that there is a good deal of feeling on this matter. If one criticises or opposes the Minister of Labour, it seems to be thought that in some way or other you are doing it to protect a privileged class of the community. I do not stand in the way of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) in my defence of

505
working-class interests. I claim no more honesty than she or the Minister of Labour, and I know that in this matter the Minister is honest, but that does not debar those who take the opposite view from putting forward that view. The way the Minister introduced this subject to-day showed that he has made considerable headway in the matter of Parliamentary procedure. There are those in the House who think some virtue is attached to calling up people and putting them under compulsion. It is thought that if you take a person from a voluntary job and put him or her into the compulsory machine, you are doing something which is virtuous and which in itself is right. The power of conscripting anyone, man or woman, young or old, should only be assumed by a Minister and consented to by the House of Commons when the need has actually been proved and not because it is in itself good. If we are to take it that more compulsion is right merely because a Minister says it is, the sooner we become a complete compulsory State the better for all. Before a Minister gets powers of this kind he should prove the need for them, because the calling-up of either men or women of 50 is a serious matter.
Some of my hon. Friends seem to think that, if this is not done, the rich can escape, hut the rich who want to escape above 51 will, because they are escaping now. Only last week I had the cast of a man 44 years old, within one day of his call-up. He had four sons in the Services and one who had died on service. Under this his wife could be called up too. Has he not given enough? I can give the names of rich men in the same locality who have not been called up and others who have been released from the Army. Anyone with four sons in the Forces and one who had died would feel angry and bitter at being called up. I have sent the case to the regional officer at Edinburgh, because I want it dealt with. If this man had been rich, he would have escaped. He would have been the director of a company. If he had even belonged to the comfortable artisan class, he would have escaped. He would have been a tradesman and exempt. Because he belongs to Gorbals and is poor, he is conscripted.
I do not think that this works fairly. When you are making a case for com-
506
pelling women or men, you have to show that the powers you already have are properly and justly used. That case has not been made. These women from 45 to 51 are in many cases grandmothers, and in the great masses of cases mothers of serving men. They are possibly working already, but the Department says they are to work at something else. If they say they are not going to do it, are you going to jail them? Did you not have enough last week when you jailed a boy of 18? What numbers is the right hon. Gentleman going to get? In this age group there are a number who are already voluntary workers. You will not get those who keep lodgers. They are working as much as anyone else. Some have physical disabilities. You cannot remove married women in the rural areas. If there is anything in the argument about the rich, they can go and live in rural areas, but the poor will not be able to do so. In Glasgow you can get from the rich to the poor quarter in five minutes—it is so compact. The Minister of Labour said in answer to a Question that special consideration would be given to women who were kept at home in employment to look after rich people's children. The question was raised of exemption in the domestic field, and that was the effect of the answer. There has arisen a great love for shifting people about. The right hon. Gentleman says he will try to do it with sympathy and consideration. Most men who get Cabinet rank try to run their Departments fairly. On the Glasgow Town Council in the days before we had got near a majority, when we wanted something done in a kind of Socialist way we used to make a Tory the convener of the Committee, and he was so anxious to run his Department efficiently that he forgot his principles and was censured by his Conservative colleagues.
Surely all Cabinet Ministers want to be decent, not only the right hon. Gentleman, but his Under-Secretaries as well, but with the best will in the world there is a constant urge on the part of their officials to justify their existence. I have come to the conclusion that those who are running the exchange in my locality do not think they are doing their job unless they are shifting someone about, without applying common sense or reason, just because they have to be busy. If I am working as a pattern maker, obviously, if my bosses are about,

507
I am busy making patterns. If I am in an exchange, I justify myself at the end of the year by showing how many papers I have filled up and how many transferences I have made. They do not consider that behind every transference there is a woman with a human soul. The hon. Lady who spoke last said it is peculiar that it is the men who are protesting against this and not the women. It may be true that the men are more vocal. I spend most of my life in Glasgow and I would not think that for six or seven years I have been absent for a week-end and I have yet to meet one woman who favours this proposal. Let us not forget that men have been powerfully organised in trade unions for a long period and women membership of trade unions has not reached anything like the same dimensions. There is a great danger of likening men and women too much. At certain things women are greater than men can ever be, though in others men may possibly be better, but in a matter like this I do not think the working folk, men or women, desire it. They do not think there is any help to the nation in it and they feel that, before an inroad of this character is made, we should examine the Government's present powers and see how they are being used.
Viscountess Davidson: I seldom address the House, but before we rose for the Recess there was a Debate on woman-power, and I expressed a few remarks on the proposed calling-up of women of 45 to 50 because I was not altogether certain that it was wise. I am sorry that so much has been said to the effect that women are not as capable and as willing to do a hard job as men. I do not agree. I think women up to 50, or even older, are perfectly capable of doing any work if they have the time to do it in addition to their other responsibilities. I am speaking more of the working-class women than of any other class when I say that the majority of them are already as hard worked, if not harder worked, than any other class in the community. I consider that their job of keeping a home together is far the most difficult. Their day's work cannot be put down in black and white on paper. The young men and women who are in the Forces have a definite job to do; it is work within certain hours and they come under certain regulations and their
508
day is laid down and ordered. I remember listening to a discussion between a man and a woman who both worked in the last war. The woman was saying how much she felt for the young men who were leaving home in this war, but the man, who was well over 50, said, "F never had an easier time in my life than when I was in the Services in the last war, because I had no responsibility. I only had to do what I was told. I had to be quick and orderly, tidy and clean, and I had to get on with my job, but apart from that I had no mental worries. I have had far more mental worries since the war concluded and I have had to keep a wife and children." We rather laughed at him, but what he said was sound.
The same applies to many of those who are in the factories to-day. They have a definite piece of work to do. They leave perhaps very early in the morning, but who is it that gives them their breakfast? The housewife, the mother—sometimes she is even young grandmother—or aunt or elder sister. The factory worker has long hours, but when they return at the end of the day what do they expect to find? Supper on the table, and it is the same woman who has had to get it ready. People do not often realise what that woman has been doing during the day. She has been buying the food and standing in queues. I know I am repeating what other Members have said, but it ought to be said again on an occasion like this and, perhaps conceitedly, I venture to think there is no harm in its being said by a woman and by a married woman and a mother of children. We all know that sometimes men come back from work and ask their wives, "What have you been doing all day?" What have they not been doing all day? In country districts these women have to go long distances by buses to do their shopping. The buses never run when you expect them to run, they never come when you expect them and they never leave when you expect them to leave, and you are left standing in the road with your heavy basket, and the buses go past one after another crowded. I know that it sounds laughable, but it is not laughable when you have to get back home and get supper ready. The woman in these age groups is the key woman in the home. That is the point I want to make. She is the person on whom everybody is dependent. She has given a great deal in this

509
war. Her boys have gone, and she has lost boys; her husband has gone, and her girls have gone. The people to whom she could turn for assistance in the past have gone, and she alone remains to keep the home together.
There is no harm in registration. I have never objected to that, but the whole success of this and, indeed, of any call-up depends on the way in which these women are treated when they go to their interview. Many of them are very nervous, and I am much afraid that when they go to be interviewed they will also be interviewed by a younger woman who incidentally perhaps goes to her job at the employment exchange after having been given her breakfast by her mother at home, who expects supper ready when she returns at the end of a long and worrying day, and who does not realise perhaps what the mother is doing to keep the home together. I am thankful to hear the Minister say that he will arrange that these older women should be interviewed by older women. I hope that the interviewers will be mothers and wives and people who have had some experience of running a house. That is important, because until you have run a house in these days of war you do not appreciate what it means.
There is one other point which has not been touched upon that is a serious one. Women with children under 14 are exempted, but the serious problem before us is that of children of 14, 15 and 16 who will not be looked after if the mothers are called up. Serious things are happening to children of these ages to-day, and I am anxious about them. They are still children, they are not grown up. The absence of their father is serious enough, but if the mother is now forced to go away for long periods in the day I do not like to think what may happen to them. That is a point which I hope will be taken into consideration at the interviews. Children of that age may be at work or at school, but they still want looking after. I know that voluntary work will be taken into account. The housewife is in a better position to do voluntary work, for she can work it in with her housework and her shopping better than she can do part-time work in a factory. It is important that any voluntary work these women are doing should be borne in mind when the interview takes place.
510
As a result of those few words that addressed to the House before we adjourned I have been inundated with letters. I have had a few anxious letters from men serving in the Forces wondering what is to happen to their wives and homes, but the majority of the letters are from women. They all say the same thing. They are ready, indeed more than ready, to play any part in order to help this ghastly war to an end, but the one thing they do not want to do is to break up their homes. They are fighting to keep their homes together, and they are anxious that when they go to the interview it will be understood that it is impossible to run their homes and at the same time do three or four hours in a factory, with perhaps a long bus ride at the beginning and the end of their work. The maintenance of the morale of the home front depends very much on these women. That morale depends much on the way in which the home is kept going—the home to which those in the Services come back when on leave, the home from which the factory worker goes and to which he comes back. The breaking-up of this home might mean the breaking-up of the home front morale. For that reason and others I hope that the Minister of Labour will see that the interviewers realise the great importance of this aspect. Otherwise, the war effort may lose and not gain by this latest call-up.
Viscountess Astor: This has been an interesting Debate. Except by waiting until all the points have been made it is difficult to make a speech. I was much impressed by the speech of the Minister of Labour. He gave us some astounding figures. Another impressive figure which he did not give is that two out of every three British men and women between 14 and 65 are doing full-time work. It is amazing. We who are distressed about this new move of the Minister are not going to vote against it, but we are going to ask him, as the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) did, whether he is really going to have a thorough investigation and whether he will comb out all the other Services before he calls up the older women. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) made a vicious attack on the Minister of Labour and about how the rich can get away with it by having nurses for their

511
children. Not one word of what he said is true. I know more about the rich than the hon. Member for Gorbals. I am not at all certain that I do not know more about the working women than he does.
Mr. Buchanan: The Noble Lady is pulling the long bow now.
Viscountess Astor: I have represented working women longer than the hon. Member has.
Mr. Buchanan: The Noble Lady is older even if she does not like her age cast at her.
Viscountess Astor: I am not in the least worried about my age, and it is one of the things I want to talk about a little later. When I am talking about these women between 45 and 50, I am thinking of the ordinary working woman. I am not thinking of women who are as well preserved as I am. A working woman of 50 who has brought up a family, done all the housework and had the cares and fears of unemployment is 10 or 15 years older than a woman in my station of life. Although I have worked hard all my life, those cares have been removed from me. There is no comparison between the two sets of women. You cannot compare the working woman of 40 and 50 with the voluntary workers of those ages. Many of the women in a certain status of life at 65 are younger than women of 50 in other classes. The proposal of the Minister of Labour alarms me. It is a great pity to have to call these women up. Hon. Members have referred to the call-up of midwives and nurses, but these women are called back to work that they have done before. That is very different from calling up a working woman who has hardly ever been out of her house. I saw a woman the other day who had come to London with her family, and she said she had never been away from home before. There are not many like that, but there are hundreds and thousands who hardly ever go away from home. They do not write to protest about this because they do not have time to write letters. I have not had many letters, but I have gone among my constituents and tried to find out their views, and the women are really frightened; of that I am certain. The Minister has told us that he will take great care over this matter, but for a long time the Ministry of Labour have made crash-
512
ing mistakes over the interviewing of women. I do not blame the Minister, but if he had had a really good woman at his side to direct him—I am not talking about his wife, but about the women in the Ministry of Labour—he would have avoided many mistakes. We did not get women into the Ministry of Labour until the Ministry had been pushed and pressed by the newspapers and others for a long time.
One of the tragic things is that the Ministry, instead of recalling what happened in the last war, and the appalling effects then of long hours in industry, went right ahead with their project as though men and women were machines. If a Tory Minister of Labour had done this, there would have been such yells from the other side, but it has been done by a Labour 11linister, and the action has really been extraordinarily blind and stupid. However, whether Tory or Labour, no man could have done the job better than our present Minister of Labour. That I will say, although it only shows how fallible men are. I ask the Minister to go very slowly, to be very careful and to get the right people. I am not saying that he should get married women or mothers for this job. All this sentimentality about children is nonsense. I never come to this House and say, "I am the mother of six children," because many mothers of six children are as hard as nails, and some maiden ladies are as mushy as they can be. There is no sentiment about this, but we ought to get the right' mentality, and that may be found in an unmarried woman or in a married woman. The great thing is to see that these people are not interviewed by very young women. It is an insulting thing to them. We have had women earning enormous wages interviewed by girls who never in their lives had made more than £1 per week.
Another thing is that out of 9,500,000 registrations under the Registration for Employment Order (Women) only 25,000 women have had to be compulsorily directed to work. That is a tremendous record. I honestly believe that nearly every woman in the country is doing a job of some sort. The other day we were talking about dockyard men of 88. About that time I was in Cornwall and met a girl who was running her father's farm, working from dawn until all hours at night. I persuaded her to come with me

513
to have a game of golf, which was very good for both of us. On the way we passed two old ladies, one of 82 and the other about 80. This young woman said, "Those women are living down here. They have been very worried about not helping in the war, and they came to me and said, 'As you are working so hard on the farm, can we come up two days a week and do your washing and your mending?'" I say that this is not a class war. An hon. Member who spoke yesterday would like a class war after the war, but I think he will encounter a great deal of trouble. I do not believe that ever again will people get away with that old nonsense about rich and poor. They are on a bad wicket. I want to say that no section of our community have astonished the world so much as our women. We in this country have not heard very much talk about it, but when people come here from overseas what most impresses them is the part that is being played by the women of this country. Very few of them are shirking or want to shirk.
I beg the Minister to go very slow in dealing with women from 45 to 50. I am not going to say that the home is the basis of civilisation, because that is a bromide, although it is true, like so many other bromides, but when we are interviewing these women care ought to be taken to ascertain whether they have a job outside the home and also what their family consists of. One of the things that is really frightening every social worker is the problem of children between the ages of 14 and 16, and it would be madness to take away from home a woman who is looking after children of that age. Again I beg the Government to go slow. They are asking for women of all ages and saying how necessary they are on the home front, but let me tell them that it is just as important to consider the foreign front, and I hope that when they have finished calling up women of 50 or 55 to help to win the war, they will allow the younger women to go into the Diplomatic and Consular Services, to help to save us from another war.
Mr. William Brown: Two things have impressed me in listening to the Debate to-day. The first is that there is a general recognition in the House that, in dealing with the sphere of women's labour, the higher you call up the harder it is to call up still higher. The second
514
thing is that nobody likes the proposal before us, not even those whose duty it is to press it upon the acceptance of the House. I do not ask whether this proposal is fair to rich or poor, because I do not believe that is the issue. The issue is this: it there is no way out but this, you must have these powers, but you ought not to have these powers if there is some other way out. I assert that there is no need to call up these women. I assert that the 75,000 which I understand is the
rough estimate of the yield—
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): There is no estimate.
Mr. Brown: I have seen that figure quoted in the Press, and I have heard it from the Treasury Bench, and I assert that a much bigger number of men and women can be made available if we use without waste those we now have in the Services. I assert that there are three main fields of waste, and that not until those fields have been cleared up ought we to proceed with the proposal before us. The first field of waste is the unnecessary putting of people into uniform; the second is the waste of man-power within the Armed Forces; and the third field is inside the public services of the country. If I prove that case, the case of the Government Front Bench is disproved. If I prove my case, then the Minister ought not, at this stage at any rate, to persist in his request for these powers.
I begin by saying that there are scores of thousands of people in military uniform doing jobs that could just as easily be done by civilians over military age, and that where that happens there is a considerable loss of man-power. In the Pay Offices of. the Army there are thousands upon thousands of members of the A.T.S. They do the clerical work of computing soldiers' pay. It is important work, and I do not minimise it, but it is ordinary clerical work that a civilian clerk could quite well do. The first difference between a member of the A.T.S. and a civilian is that, because the member of the A.T.S. is in uniform, she has four periods of a week's leave per annum, as compared with the fortnight's leave per annum given to the ordinary civilian clerk. Therefore, for every woman we unnecessarily turn from a civilian into an A.T.S. we lose two weeks' labour per annum.
Mr. Leslie Boyce: That is 4 per cent.
Mr. Brown: I wish somebody would calculate the percentages. The second thing is that the civilian clerk is expected to put in 48 hours' work a month in Civil Defence duties of various kinds, but that obligation is not placed upon the members of the A.T.S. Therefore, in the case of every woman you unnecessarily turn from a civilian into a member of the A.T.S., you lose 48 hours' work per month on Civil Defence duties. Work out the percentage there! The third difference is that because a member of the A.T.S. is in uniform she has to be paraded, drilled, marched, and all the rest of it, day by day. Men in the Army Pay Offices tell me that approximately one-third of the time of the members of the A.T.S. is occupied with military duties that have not the slightest relation to the work in hand. That is romantic folly in the middle of a great war, when we are at a loss for man-power, and it ought not to be allowed to go on for another day.
I come next to the waste of power within the Armed Services, to which I have twice called attention in the House, once when the Army Estimates were under discussion, and again on the Air Force Estimates. When I made a similar assertion to that which I am making now, that there is a vast waste in uniformed personnel within the Armed Forces, the War Minister was inclined, I thought, to be rather off-handedly sceptical about what I said.
However, I have noticed that very often, after he has treated us with what may be less than our proper respect, he has gone back to his Department and looked into what we have said. On this occasion, although he derided what I said, he went back to the Department and appointed what is called the Cozens-Hardy Committee, to inquire into this business of the use of uniformed personnel on work that might be done by civilians. I can tell the House that the Committee has recommended the conversion of hundreds of positions which up to now have been held by uniformed people, over to civilians, with the consequent release of hundreds of men. I am very grateful for that result. But the work of the Cozens-Hardy Committee has only begun to touch the surface of the matter. I believe that the Ministry of Labour can find
516
within the Armed Forces in Britain not fewer than 100,000 men and women, engaged upon work for which other arrangements could be made, and which would release them for more valuable service.
I turn to the Civil Service. Let me say at once that I have been connected with it for many years. I regard it as the finest Civil Service in the world, and have often paid public and private tribute to its excellence. I am not going to withdraw one word of those tributes to-day. It is not the Civil Service that is to blame for the situation which now exists, but the astonishingly unco-operative attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Civil Service unions, who are most anxious to co-operate on this problem of man-power. I agree with what the hon. Lady the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) said. Some Departments are not over-staffed, and some are even understaffed, but many Departments are overstaffed. When this war came, the executive of my association took the view that it was likely to be a very long war which would make heavy demands upon our man-power—much worse than in the last war—and that something ought to be done to get rid of as much unnecessary work in the Service as possible. I headed a deputation to Sir Horace Wilson, who was then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. I told him that the Civil Service unions would co-operate with the Government in going through the work of all the Departments, and in cutting out unnecessary processes wherever we could, and simplifying others, where that could be done, in order to economise Civil Service manpower.
I invite the attention of the House to the historic character of that offer. In all the syllables of recorded time, in British history, European history, and even planetary history, it has never before been known for a Bureaucracy to go to a Government and to propose to cooperate with that Government in cutting out its own excrescences; but it happened in 1939. One would have thought that the appropriate response of the Government to that gesture would have been whole-hearted acceptance, and even a measure of acclamation; not a bit of it! Sir Horace Wilson replied, when we proposed that we should have a committee composed of representatives of the Government and of the unions to go through

517
staff work and simplify it, that to do so would upset the heads of Departments. I suspect that he had been reading Communist literature, because he counselled us to try to work through the Departments. He gave us the classic counsel: "Bore from within." We went back to the Departments and we tried to bore from within. For four years now we have been trying to get each Department to adopt the simple expedient of setting up a man-power committee composed of representatives of the Administration and the unions, to cut out the unnecessary work, make surpluses available where they could be revealed, and transfer the surplus staffs to other places. Will the House believe me when I say that, at the end of four years of effort, in only six Departments have we got a man-power committee set up? The total number of Departments is more than 100. At the present rate of progress it will take me another 48 years before the process is complete.[Laughter.] There is a humorous side to the matter, of course, but it is a tragedy that we should have to call up grandmothers between 46 and 51 years of age while that situation exists. The House ought not to give the Government these powers until and unless it is satisfied that unnecessary waste of manpower within the Armed Forces and the public services has been eliminated.
Sir Irving Albery (Gravesend): Will the hon. Member tell us which are the six Departments? It would be very interesting to know.
Mr. Brown: No, Sir, but I will give the House one example, in the case of the Assistance Board, which appointed official representatives and staff representatives to a committee. I would like very much to tell the House what happened, because this case illustrates what can be done. The staff side of that committee put up a suggestion to the official side, one of many, and it was adopted. The saving on that one suggestion alone represented the full-time labour of 1,200 civil servants. If that can be done in one Department, there is prima facie reason for supposing that there is a great field of work for committees of the same kind.
Now, as to the method of putting this review into operation. One hon. Member suggested a Select Committee. A Select Committee to deal with waste of manpower in the Armed Forces would be a
518
valuable step because—in the nature of things I am told—you cannot have in the Army an organised trade union which can bring to the Administration examples of waste of man-power and suggestions how it can be avoided. A Select Committee might be the appropriate instrument for dealing with that part of the problem. But I do not believe that it would be best in the case of the Civil Service. Here, I believe, the best instrument is the production committee on the spot, with the people concerned putting up suggestions for cutting out unnecessary processes.
Let me give an example. At the beginning of this war there were, as the House knows, hundreds of thousands of telegraph poles in Britain. Most of them stand on private land, and the Post Office pays a wayleave of 1s. a year for them. When the war started, girls were employed sending out hundreds of shilling postal orders every day, one in each envelope, to the way-leave holders whose year expired that day. The sensible thing to do in the middle of a war would be either not to pay these bobs while the war was on and to pay them at the end of the war or, if an excess of generosity could be permitted by the Treasury, to pay them five years in advance, and thereby save the business of sending out the Is. postal orders. That example of nonsense has been put right. But there are hundreds of instances, not dissimilar in principle, of processes which might have been all right in time of peace, but which have become unduly expensive of man-power in time of war. I believe that the best instrument is the production committee on the spot.
I want to address the Minister of Labour. He is not here, but no doubt my powerful and pregnant words will reach him. When he replies to me he must not shelter behind the Treasury or behind other Departments. He is the Minister responsible for the mobilising of man-power. I want him to tell me—and he rejects this on pain of my severest personal displeasure—that he will get a Cabinet direction instructing Departments to set up these production committees straight away in the 80 or 90 Departments where they have not yet been set up. I want that from him, because it is his pigeon, and if he finds obstacles from the Departments he has the right to go to the War Cabinet and get the direction. I shall not believe that he is in earnest

519
about man-power in the public services until he does so.
The second assurance I want is connected with the matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who said that there was a growing disposition to mobilise for mobilisation's sake. We have all heard of the headhunters in Borneo, whose military prowess is assessed by the number of skulls they can stick outside their tent door. The Minister of Labour is not a head-hunter; he is a body-snatcher. He is inclined to estimate his prowess by the number of bodies he has mobilised in one way and another. I want to beg him not to be a "body-snatcher" but to be a "headhunter"; I want him to hunt the heads that can utilise to the fullest extent the man-power and woman-power that he has already secured.
There is record after record of man-power wasted on the stupidest grounds. May I give a further instance? The Americans wanted the British Office of Works to build them an aerodrome. It was wanted in a hurry. News comes that the men engaged on the job have gone on strike. An investigator goes down and finds that the men are having to sleep on a cement floored garage, covered with the grease of years of use. Their living conditions are horrible, and he is bound to agree that the men have some justification for discontent. He sees that there is a hostel already built on the site, and he says to the men in charge of the job: "Why aren't these men in the hostel? Why can't you put them there until the Americans want it?" The answer was, "We can't put them in the hostel because we haven't got the women staff in yet." He asks, "Why haven't you got the women staff in yet," and the answer is, "Because the furnishing of their quarters is not complete." Then he asks, "What is missing?" and the answer comes, "Three chests of drawers." So, because three chests of drawers are missing the women would not come, and because the women do not come in, the men cannot go in, and the go electricians who are waiting at Birmingham and who are required to light the place up as rapidly as possible cannot go there. Yet nobody had power to go down to the local second-hand shop and buy three chests of drawers. I do not want to weary the House, but there is case after case which demonstrates what is
520
happening. We all know it in our experience. While that remains a fact, I do not think we ought to give the Government the powers for which they ask.
My final word is that I agree that this question touches the morale of the home front more closely on the women's side of the war effort the higher up you go in age. Everybody you take away leaves more domestic responsibility on those remaining. Every man and woman you call up leaves someone else responsible for looking after children, adolescents, and old people. The higher up it goes the greater is the residuary burden on the women folk left. Every year beyond 45 does more harm than two years under 45. Therefore I urge the Minister not to go ahead with these proposals. If he does, and there is any technical way of doing it, I shall vote against him. Let the Minister reconsider the whole situation, give us our man-power committees in Government Departments and a Select Committee to investigate the misuse of man-power within the Armed Forces. Then if, after that, he has not got his 75,000, and he comes to the House again, at least we shall know that we have no real alternative. But until we do know that, it is my submission to the House that we ought not to give the powers asked for.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) always enlivens our Debates, and I am sure we all enjoy listening to his speeches. I certainly do. He suggested that the Minister of Labour should not be provided by the Treasury with the shelter behind which he could get. I am quite certain that neither the Minister of Labour nor the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to shelter behind me, but in any case I can assure him that both of them are proposing to address the House later in this Debate. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will address the House, I understand, early on the next Sitting Day, and it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to wind up the Debate. I should like, however, to make a few observations at this point on a matter which has been mentioned by a number of speakers in the Debate. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rugby, the hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Mr. Craik Henderson), the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), and the hon. Lady the Member

521
for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), who has sent me a message to say she cannot now be in her place. It had been the intention of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to have taken the opportunity to-day of saying something to the House on the subject of the Civil Service, because he hoped that what he might say might help to remove some at any rate of the misapprehensions which have grown up. My right hon. Friend has recently taken a great deal of interest in and paid a great deal of attention to this question of manpower in the Civil Service, and I hope I may be able to give the House some outline of the thoughts that had been in his mind and of the view which we at the Treasury have taken on these matters.
Broadly speaking, there are two main criticisms which are aimed against the Civil Service at the present time and which have been made in the House to-day. The first is the broad and sweeping criticism that the Civil Service as a whole is overstaffed and that it is in some sections at any rate badly underworked. The second, rather more specific, criticism is that there are many young and mobile women in the Service who could either be spared altogether or who could be replaced by older women. I should like to consider, if I may, with the House for a few minutes what the foundations are for these two lines of criticism. First of all, let us take the general question of the increase of the size of the Service, and the justification that there may be for that increase. Perhaps it may help the House if I am allowed to give them a few figures. The total increase in the number of non-industrial civil servants—and I count part-time workers as half units for this purpose—is from 400,000 in April, 1939, to 730,000 at the present time.
Mr. W. Brown: Is it not the case that the figure of 400,000 in 1939 was only 300,000 in 1936 and that the real contrast between pre-war and now is the contrast between 300,000 and 750,000?
Mr. Assheton: I was only comparing now with the period immediately before the war.
Captain Peter Macdonald: Is it not a fact that the Civil Service started to build up in 1938 and that if the hon. Gentleman gives the figure for 1937, it will be more comparable?
Mr. Assheton: I have not equipped myself with the figure for 1937, but I will obtain it. I have no desire to conceal it from the House, and of course it is obtainable from various works of reference. I agree that it is interesting to know. It is a very big increase; I am making no bones about it, but to see the increase in its true light and to be able to form a fair judgment upon it it seems to me perhaps worth while for us to consider where it is in the main that this increase has taken place and what also are the new burdens which this staff has had put upon its shoulders. The first and greatest growth in staff without any doubt is that which is most obvious and which is most directly a part of the military effort, the growth of the Service and Supply Departments themselves. Of the increase of 330,000 between 1939 and the present time which I have just mentioned well over half is accounted for by those particular Departments. I feel bound to ask whether this fact can properly be regarded as a ground for complaint, in view of the vast increase in the size of the Forces which these Departments have to serve. It must be obvious to every hon. Member that the increase in an Armed Force must have its counterpart in an increase in the size of the civilian staff. Indeed, to mobilize and pay and supply and transport and generally administer these Forces will be recognised I am sure by the House—
Sir Edward Grigg: Is the hon. Member making allowance for the fact that a very large proportion of the increased work involved in the Service Departments is done by uniformed men?
Mr. Assheton: I agree that that, is an important point. But for that these figures would inevitably be very much greater than they are. What I wish Members to look at is the enormous increase in the total size of the Forces and the comparatively small increase in the size of the civilian staffs which have to deal with those affairs.
But side by side with the growth of the Service and Supply Departments there is also the growth of other Departments of the State, which is nearly as great. These Departments include wholly new Departments, such as the Ministry of Food, which had no counterpart whatever before the war. I will not weary the House with a catalogue

523
of figures, but I think it worth while picking out one or two illustrations of the causes of the enormous growth. Let me give an illustration from a Department with which I am myself particularly connected, the Board of Inland Revenue. During the war the number of taxpayers in this country has risen from 4,000,000. to over 12,000,000. Many hon. Members know what an addition that has made to their postbags. The Inland Revenue Department, by very great and sustained efforts, has succeeded in handling this enormous increase of business with only a 50 per cent. addition to their pre-war staff. I commend that to the House as an illustration of a hard-working Department, working under conditions of great stress and difficulty in time of war.
Sir A. Southby: Surely a great deal of the increased work is done by the employers?
Mr. Assheton: A great deal is done by the employers, and the Board is grateful to them for doing it; but my hon. and gallant Friend has only to go to a branch of the Inland Revenue Department to see what a great amount of work is caused by having to assess 12,000,000 taxpayers. He surely will not cavil at an increase of 50 per cent. in the number of staff to deal with three times as many taxpayers. Take the case of the Ministry of Pensions. That Department pays war service grants to dependants of a very large number of men in the Forces and pensions to a steadily increasing number of men who are discharged. It does all that work with a staff of 9,000, which is only three times the size of the whole staff of the Ministry of Pensions before the war. I suggest, comparing the volume of work done now with the volume which had to be done before the war, that that is quite a creditable result. Wherever one turns to cases in detail, one finds the same thing. There is essential work which has to be done, and which did not exist before the war. By and large, it strikes me as remarkable that the increase in the staffs of the Civil Service is as small as it is. I am not going to pretend that everything is perfect. I shall have a few things to say about that later on, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) will listen to me when I come to that point.
524
Perhaps I might call attention to one or two other facts which I think have a bearing on the position of the Civil Service. It must not be supposed that the Civil Service has escaped the effects of the call-up, which have fallen upon other sections of the community. The pre-war full-time strength of the Civil Service was 375,000—the figure of 400,000 which I gave included 50,000 part-time workers. That was in April, 1939. About 90,000—which is a quarter of the whole—have been called up for the Forces. All the men in the administrative and executive grades under the age of 30 at the time of registration have gone, except a very few who have been specially deferred by the Kennet Committee. From the vast clerical grades, practically all under 35 at the age of registration.who are medically fit have gone, and from the manipulative grades—also a very large number—everyone of military age who is fit has been taken away. I ask the House to bear those facts in mind. It will be realised that this has meant a severe loss to the Civil Service when very heavy demands were falling upon it.
It should not be overlooked that for nearly 10 years after the last war the Civil Service did not recruit any young men or women by the ordinary methods of competitive examination, but confined recruitment largely to older ex-Service men. It was not until 1927 that the first open clerical examination was held, and not until 1928 that there was an open executive examination. The recruits whom the Service took in between that date and the outbreak of the war had become the backbone of the middle and junior grades of the Service. Those very people have been taken away among the 90,000 who have gone into the Forces. When people feel, as everybody feels at times, disposed to criticise the Civil Service, it should be remembered that the Civil Service at this moment is more than half composed of comparatively untrained men and women. It is from among the permanent and more experienced staff that we have suffered this great loss. The Government owe a very great debt of gratitude to the thousands of older men and women and to the boys and girls straight from school, who have done splendidly for us. They have come to do this job in the war, and I do not want them to feel that they are getting nothing but kicks from the public, and no gratitude. I am very

525
proud of them; they are doing a very good job of work. It is no discredit to them to remind hon. Members that older people when they come into an office to work are inevitably slower, and very often they are less experienced than the peacetime entrants. This makes an enormous addition to the work and to the difficulty of organising it.
There are other factors. There is this question of evacuation all over the country. One hon. and gallant Member suggested that the Civil Service should be brought back. I would like the House to consider the difficulty of doing that. Before the war we had a Civil Service of 375,000 full-time and 50,000 part-time members: now we have 730,000. Where are they going to live if they are brought back to London? Also, more than half of the temporary staff have been recruited locally, near Colwyn Bay or Harrogate or wherever it might be, and many of them are immobile. If the offices were brought back my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would be left with the problem of how to employ these immobile people. So it is not a practical suggestion; my hon. and gallant Friend sees that at once.
I should not like it to be concluded that, because we think the Civil Service deserves thanks rather than criticism, either Ministers or Departments are prepared to sit back and accept the growth in numbers as being inevitable. Nothing of the kind. On the contrary, everything that we can do is being done by constant inspection and investigation to keep the numbers down, but it is a very difficult task, and to overdo inspection of this kind would itself add enormously to the number of staff employed. Will hon. Members think for a moment of the case of Departments which have offices scattered all over the country? There are 1,300 Ministry of Food offices throughout the country and the difficulty of keeping a careful watch upon, and making an investigation and inspection of, these Departments is a formidable task. My Noble Friend the Minister of Food, I am certain, keeps a most careful watch, but all these things are limited by human possibilities, and the House must bear that in mind. I am glad to say that during the last 18 months a great deal has been done to keep down the growth of staff, particularly in some of these scattered places.
526
In addition to that there is another point I should like to make. The House may be aware that the Treasury has been pressing on very hard with an intensive study of the technique of the organisation of offices and methods of organisation and so on. A check is being kept on the increase of staff by a small section of liaison officers attached to the Treasury, who examine all the departmental demands for staff, demands which are instantly refused unless the liaison officer is able to agree that they are necessary. That machinery does what is primarily required to keep down the grant of extra staff, but in addition to that, as some hon. Members know—and the point has been mentioned already in the Debate—a special Cabinet Committee was appointed a little time ago, and their task was to see whether it was possible to cut out some unnecessary blocks of work. Generally speaking, the only way you can get big reductions of staff is to cut down some of the work. On that Committee Ministers realised very clearly the immense difficulties which Departments have to face. The load is a very heavy one, and it is very difficult to determine what work which is being done is not absolutely vital. Most of it, I am certain, will be regarded by hon. Members as being quite essential. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) says "No," but the point he has in mind is a different one. He has in mind what I daresay other hon. Members have, that some of the work the Government are doing is unnecessary.
Sir H. Williams: No.
Mr. Assheton: If that is so, this is not the time to discuss it.
Sir H. Williams: No, the hon. Member is quite wrong.
Mr. Assheton: The point we are on now is whether the staff is too large for the work that has to be done.
Sir H. Williams: The administrative method.
Mr. Assheton: My hon. Friend will no doubt be making his contribution later in the Debate. I would like to say a word about the question of the younger women in the Service, and I should like to give one or two figures to the House.
Mr. Molson: Is my hon. Friend leaving the point about reducing staffs? Would it not be worth while introducing man-power committees inside the Departments, because they would have knowledge of what, work has to be done and whether it is practically possible to get the same work done and, to alter the method?
Mr. Assheton: I will leave that question to be dealt with by my right hon. Friend. The main question of manpower is one in which they are Concerned.
Mr. Molson: I understand that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was the Minister generally responsible for the staffing of the Civil Service organisations.
Mr. Assheton: That is right, but the responsibility for the use of man-power in the war effort is in the hands of the Minister of Labour, and as far as the Civil Service is concerned, the Treasury have a certain responsibility.
Mr. W. Brown: We are having a very valuable, detailed and informative statement from the Minister, but his statement does not bear the slightest relation to the criticisms we have made. It is not that 700,000 are redundant, but it is part of my case that by the use of man-power committees you could save a number of them. Cannot the hon. Gentleman say something on that point?
Mr. Assheton: I can say nothing on the subject of man-power committees, but I can remind the House of what I said at the beginning of my speech, and that is, that this matter was given a great deal of thought lately by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a good deal of thought has been given to it by the Treasury, and I thought that there was a false impression throughout the country as to the work that the Civil Service was doing and the way in which it was being done. I wanted, to some extent, to try and put that matter in proper perspective and in right balance. That is my principal purpose in intervening in this Debate, though I have certainly tried to meet, and have met, a good many of the criticisms which have been made in various quarters of the House during the Debate.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Financial Secretary has just said something very im-
528
portant on the question of the responsibility of the use of man-power within the Civil Service. He has said, as far as I understood him, that the responsibility of investigating how that man-power was used really rested with the Ministry of Labour, though, as he said, the Treasury was interested in some way. May I ask him to put it rather more clearly? Is the Treasury, as the largest employer, responsible to see that the man-power in each Department is rightly used, and not the Minister of Labour?
Mr. Assheton: I would make that clear. The primary responsibility in every Department rests with the Minister concerned. The Treasury has always had a special responsibility to see that the tax-payers' money is well spent, and in consequence of that it has always had the responsibility for seeing that the Departments in general were not over-staffed. The Minister of Labour is primarily responsible for determining how many people are put into this part of the war effort or that, but when these people are in the Civil Service, then the responsibility lies with their Ministers, and to some extent with the Treasury.
Mr. W. Brown: Whose is the responsibility for saying "Yea" or "Nay" to the proposition I made that we should have a production committee in every Government Department? Is it the hon. Gentleman or the Minister of Labour? If it is not the Minister of Labour and he has not to accept responsibility, then it is the hon. Gentleman. I want an answer to my question.
Mr. Assheton: That is certainly not a question for the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Brown: Then what is the answer?
Mr. Assheton: That is a question on which the Treasury and the Government certainly take responsibility.
Mr. Brown: What is the answer?
Mr. Assheton: That is a proposition which the Government are not prepared at the present time to accept.
Sir H. Williams: Does the production committee apply to everybody else but not to the Government?
Mr. Assheton: The hon. Member cannot get away with that. The production com-

529
mittee were set up for a very different purpose from this. The matter we have to consider here is largely a matter of policy as to what work is to be done. That is a policy for which the Government are, and must remain, responsible.
I want to come for a few minutes to the question of the young and mobile women. That has been raised in certain quarters, and there is one figure that I wanted to give before I leave this subject. About 35,000 single women under the age of 32 were in certain Departments two years ago. The process of combing out a proportion of those women has been going on steadily for two years. Nearly 12,000 have been offered release, and something like 10,000 have been called up. Of the balance, some are awaiting call-up and others have to be replaced by substitutes before the call-up becomes effective. It has been suggested in some quarters that a general call-up of women in the Civil Service who are in these groups should be made, regardless of its effect, but any such general release would create a great many difficulties. Many of them are in key positions, on communications, perhaps, payment of allowances, decoding, ciphering and a great deal of important work, and it is essential not to have congestion or slowing-up in these quarters, otherwise there will be well justified complaints throughout the country.
I would like to say something about the allegations we are continually bearing about individuals in certain Government offices being under-employed and who are spending their time knitting or something of that sort. It is very seldom that the Government are given detailed particulars of such cases. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Leeds (Mr. Craik Henderson) quoted one to-day which I would be happy to investigate if he would send me the particulars, although perhaps he may not find it convenient to do so. I do not want to pretend for one minute that there are no soft spots, that there are no idlers or that there are no individuals who are anxious to work but for whom proper work cannot be found. In a Service of nearly 750,000 that must be so, because it is scattered all over the country; it is corn-posed very largely of newly created organisations, and some cases have been due to the difficulty.of providing the right staff. But I am sure the House will see this matter in its proper perspective and will not give undue weight to such cases.
530
In war-time waste, a great deal of unemployment and under-employment is inevitable. It is a necessary feature of war, just as there is bound to be great waste in the Armed Forces and in A.R.P. when people are waiting for something to.happen. While they are waiting for something to happen it is much better to knit than to do nothing.
Viscountess Astor: Hear, hear, and smoke and drink.
Mr. Assheton: There are bound to be certain reserves to meet contingencies. I think the House will accept the proposition that by far the great majority of civil servants are not under-worked but are badly over-worked and have been for a considerable time. None of us should forget the great debt we owe to the Service which, with little warning, tackled the enormous task in the change-over from a peace-time to a war-time organisation. None of that would have been possible without enthusiasm in every part of the Service. There may be shortcomings, but the Service has devoted itself by its labours to the creation of a central machine through which our war effort is running and on the whole our war effort is not running unsuccessfully.
Mr. Murray: During the Recess it was both my privilege and pleasure to visit practically the whole of the division I represent and to address between 20 and 30 meetings. It was a great joy to me to note the active interest that was being taken in Parliamentary matters. My constituents were anxious to know when the Government intended to implement the Beveridge plan, when they were prepared to increase the basic pension for old age pensioners and also to increase compensation payments. The question was put to me several times, "Do the Government realise that there are still many men in this division, soldiers of the last war and this war, rejects from industry, who are crying out for employment?" This was the most burning question at all the meetings I addressed. When the man-power situation is so acute and urgent, as I believe it is, these men say to me, "Why are we compelled to be idle at this time if we are able, willing and anxious to work? If we cannot obtain employment now after four years of war, what will be the prospect for us in the new Britain which

531
is so much talked about at the present time?" One man put it quite bluntly to me at an open-air meeting. at Langley Moor. He said, "Do you think it right that my wife, who is over 50 years of age, should be given employment while I have to stop at home and do the housework? I cannot get a job, although I have tried all over the place." I say that the time has come for a fine toothcomb to be drawn through the factories to comb out the mobile labour, the single women, so that these men can be given a chance. The unemployed man is simply bitter with disappointment to-day. He is at a loss to understand the reason for all this. He simply cannot comprehend why the Minister of Labour requires women from 45 to 51 to register for employment when so many men are standing, in old-fashioned Biblical language, idle in the market place waiting for someone to say, "Who will go and work hi my factory to-day?"
I know that the Minister's task is not an easy one. I had a great admiration for him long before he came to the House of Commons. He was one of my pet men in the trade union world, and I used to love hearing him speak. But I realise that what he is dealing with at present are human beings and not raw material. I admit that in the majority of unemployed cases there may be men with physical defects or some handicap, but no one will convince me that, despite those handicaps, some of these people could not be doing useful work for the country in war-time. I foresaw long ago that one of the greatest troubles we were going to be confronted with was manpower. We have only 45,000,000 people to deal with, and the responsibility, I could see, was going to be a great problem for whoever had to tackle it, so that I am not offering carping criticism. I want to be helpful. May I illustrate what I mean by examples? I know a man resident at Sunnyside, his wife, a charming woman, full of energy, doing any amount of social work. What is his reward? Thirty shillings a week from the employment exchange. Do you think that woman is not bitter? Her husband and another man worked with pick and shovel erecting two factories. Not a charge, as far as I know, has been laid against either of them, and they gave
532
satisfactory service as far as I understand. When the factory was erected they asked for work inside, where the work was less arduous and the pay a good deal larger, but the reply was that there was no suitable work to offer. I sent these cases to the Department, and the reply was that these men's medical condition was such that they could not be employed. What do you think those two men felt like? It will take a good deal more than the House of Commons, or a letter from the Ministry, to convince them that a man's physical defect allows him to use a pick and shovel out of doors in all kinds of weather, but not to work inside a factory.
Here is another case. Brownie Colliery finished in 1938. There was a man who worked in the pit every day. He had had an operation for right hernia, for which he now receives the large sum of 12s. a week. He is 53 years of age. He has had 40 years' experience in the pit, but no one wants him, because he has had right hernia. The only pit work he has had since 1938 was when he was doing air-raid warden's work, and he was turned off when the staff was reduced. Are there not any amount of jobs in those factories that that man could do? I am sick and tired of receiving letters from all over my Division asking if I can give the writer a job. Every Member is getting similar applications. I want to make a special appeal to give these men a chance. Surely every man who signs on at the Employment Exchange ought to be working. Do not tell me that there is no one working in those factories who has a handicap. I know a man who suffered for four years with silicosis. He was given a job in a factory two years ago, and he has never stood idle for a day. I sent the case to the Department and received a letter saying that his medical condition was such that he could not be employed.
The time has arrived when a severe scrutiny ought to be made of the factories so as to see that not a woman between 45 and 51 is registered or given employment until every man has been given a job. I have made my protest in my Division, and I am making it here. If the man-power problem is of such an urgent character as I believe it is, no man should be drawing money for doing nothing. He ought to be making his contribution to the war effort. We have been

533
told time and again "We will not pursue this war one day longer than is necessary," and yet we keep all these men idle. The two things do not go together. I feel from the bottom of my heart that I am expressing the sentiments of the people of my Division when I say that no man should be kept out of a job. I had a mother, and I have a wife, and it is no use people just flippantly saying that this age is not a bad age. Some of us have common sense, and we know that that is not true. We know that some of these women have to be taken to another place to be looked after because of the critical condition that they are in at that age. Some of them have worked hard and long and at 50 are old women and should be having the comfort and rest of their homesteads instead of being driven into factories.
I know any number of women of this age who have gone to factories voluntarily, and if they want to go, they should be encouraged. I know a woman who has turned 53 who got a job after her husband died rather than go on Poor Law relief. That is the spirit of the women. They want to retain their independence and we admire them for it. Nothing should be put in their way if they want to go to the factories, but there should be no attempt to force them to go when any number of men with small physical defects are lying idle. This kind of thing will not be tolerated in such Divisions as the one I represent, and I am sure I am speaking for other Members when I say that. I hope there will be a severe investigation and a small toothcomb applied so that places are made for the men I have mentioned. I am not one of those who believe in making places for individuals and paying people for nothing. I had to fill in a form for a girl who told me she was earning £5 10s. on an average just for ticking-off in a factory. Such jobs could be given to these men. It would make them happy and content and they would feel they were making their contribution in this huge war effort which we are all anxious to see end as early as possible.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: The sentiments which the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) has expressed will find agreement in practically every quarter of the House. There are a certain number of men of the type of
534
which he has been speaking who are eating their hearts out because they feel they might be doing more. I think, however, that there are larger fields than that to which we have to pay closer attention. I was rather alarmed at my right hon. Friend's approach to this Debate. It seemed to me that he suspected those of us who are in doubt as to the wisdom of calling up these older women, of two things—first, of trying to run a so-called party racket, and, second, of trying to start some sort of battle between rich and poor. My right hon. Friend is not justified in any way in having that sort of suspicion against Members who have raised this issue. I would give place to no man in my admiration for the gigantic task he has done, and done extremely well, and there is no desire on my part to attack him personally or from any party point of view. With regard to the second suspicion he seemed to have, that there was something in the nature of a rich and poor division in this matter, I can only say that I have not had a single word of complaint from my constituency as regards the suggested cal]-up from the well-to-do. What I have had is an express desire for a deputation to be received composed of quarrymen and their wives. I have heard that in every public house throughout the countryside the Minister's name—and I ask him to take this seriously—has sunk from the high level which it had reached as a result of his admirable work to a very low level, because the countryside feels that the Minister does not understand their lives. That is a personal matter, and the Minister is far better able to defend himself than I am to defend him.
But it goes deeper than that. One of the things we all want to avoid is for the people of the country at this stage of the war to lose the sense of confidence in the Government by suspecting that the Government do not understand what effect the war has had on their lives. This Order has really had that effect on the people. I am speaking of a constituency most of which is within 20 miles' radius of Bristol and a 10 miles' radius of some important factories. It is a large cottage population, scattered about in a large number of small villages, and they really do not understand this sort of thing. They do

535
not understand how they can run a cottage if they have to go to a factory. They do not understand the way this thing was put across and the way it is to be done. They feel that they are to be taken from their houses and forced into factories. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, and of course we here know that that is not the case, but they do not know and do not understand what the Order means.
Mr. Bevin: I suggest that the Press and those who oppose the Order deliberately misled them.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think my right hon. Friend is right. He is responsible for placing this Order, and surely he is responsible for seeing that it is properly explained. What he has said to-day will do a great deal to remove unfounded suspicions from the minds of those who will be interviewed. I cannot understand why their suspicions were not removed before the Order was made. A certain number of jeers have been thrown at the Voluntary Services and the way in which people in those Services have been avoiding other forms of work. That may or may not be the case, but my own experience is that those in the Voluntary Services are working as long hours as, if not longer than, many of those in the factories. But that is not entirely the point. The whole question of whether this Order is applied rightly and properly really depends on the efficient working-of the filter, which is the interview. In the past interviews have been carried out by women who have deliberately taken the line that voluntary work is not really work at all, and I hope that before these interviews, which the Minister has wisely told us are to be carried out by older women, the interviewers will be given their instructions and advice. They should be told exactly what the Voluntary Services do and what whole-time work in them means. A great deal of friction and ill-feeling would be avoided if that were done.
Another point is that a great many of the women to be called up will come from the countryside, "some way from Employment Exchanges. It may sound rather absurd to say it, but I believe it to be true that the average age of women in the countryside is higher than ever before, obviously as a result of previous call-ups,
536
and they are people who are not used to being interviewed at Employment Exchanges or anywhere else. Would it not be possible to decentralise interviewing in such areas as those from which I come? Would it not be possible to make those interviews as human as possible and to take these interviewers from among women who do understand something of the extremely hard work that the cottage woman in the countryside has to do, because that is not appreciated at the present time?
To turn to another side of the matter, I was alarmed at the attitude of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the investigation into the use of manpower and woman-power in the Civil Service and in the Departments. I hope the point of view which he put to us will be reconsidered, because I do not think people will have full confidence in the justification for this call-up of older women unless they are satisfied that those engaged in the Civil Service are fully employed. A great deal of mud has been thrown at one of the most wonderful Services in the world, and it is up to the Government to clear that Service by a full and proper investigation in each Department. The investigation should not be limited to the Civil Service. All engaged in industry know that one of the difficulties in industry on a largish scale is to see that labour is properly balanced, not just properly employed, but properly balanced. What happens now? If an employer rejects an unsuitable applicant for work who has been sent by the Employment Exchange, probably by agreement with the man-power board, or applies for releases for unsuitable employees—if those two cases together amount to a reasonable number in a comparatively short time, an officer of the Ministry is sent to investigate the labour position in the factory. That means a great deal of work for everybody concerned. The whole question of the manpower employed in the factory is put into the melting pot, and there is a great deal of argument. What is the result? The employers often accept or retain unsuitable labour, and that labour is not properly employed.
Mr. Tinker: Could the hon. Member give any instances of that?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is difficult to give specific instances across the Floor of the

537
House, but hon. Members will know what I mean. When men are not taken into a factory after that factory has applied for labour, it is right that the Ministry of Labour should investigate the position, and all I ask is that the investigation should be done in such a way as not to incline the management to retain unsuitable labour or employ unsuitable labour merely in order to keep on good terms with the Ministry and to avoid a lot of argument. There is nothing improper in the procedure of the Ministry, but the actual procedure does lead to the retention at times of unsuitable labour, which is therefore wasted labour, and there may possibly be a saving to be made in this direction.
On the question of the calling up of women of the higher ages, there has been some talk about the impossibility of employing such women, but that is not the issue. Not only are very large numbers employed, but they do extremely well and are valuable women. The point is whether those who have not already come forward but who could come forward can be filtered out efficiently, so that there may be a feeling of fairness. If the Minister insists on going ahead with this Order, I ask him to devote great care to devising a form of interview which will arrive at the facts. There he comes down to what is the greatest difficulty, and that is the type of woman interviewer to perform this duty, and I ask him seriously to consider that key point with the greatest possible care.
Mr. Kendall: I have followed this Debate very closely indeed and was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) say something about a party racket having come into the Debate and that party had been set against party. I tail to understand that, after listening very carefully to the Debate.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think the hon. Member can have heard what I said. I said I regretted that it seemed to me that the Minister, in his opening remarks, boasted that there was a party racket among those who criticised. I very much regretted that, because personally I cannot see that' there has been anything of the sort.
Mr. Kendall: It was not my impression that there was any party racket, nor did
538
I get that impression of the Minister's speech. It was a very good speech, but I must say I do not think he made out the case for the Government. At the same time I have received only one letter of complaint on this subject from my constituency, and I am given to understand that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who sits for a division with 100,000 electors, the majority of them being women, has only had one letter of complaint also. The Minister referred to the difficulties of his task. It is a difficult task and a thankless one, and, generally speaking, he has handled it well, but in to-day's Debate he has not, I submit, made out a sufficiently strong case for calling up women up to the age of 55. One thing he must take into consideration is what will be the effect on the home life of the people and the effect on husbands and sons who have been called up for the Armed Forces. The boys and husbands will come home and find their mothers and wives in munition factories; they are not going to feel very happy about it.
I believe I know something about the industrial side of this country. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) made a first-class speech, and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) made very good points about the Civil Service. The Minister who replied on behalf of the Treasury evaded the whole issue. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) asked why industry should have its production committees for efficiency while the Government refused to have the same kind of organisation in their Departments. It was a good point, which again was not answered.
I would like to ask the Minister of Labour about the hundreds of thousands of workpeople who are in the factories but are not efficiently employed. I do not know of any machinery which acts as a check upon efficiency. The employment exchange handles the labour in and out, the National Service officer handles individual cases, and the man-power boards visit factories and agrees with the managements whether 300 or 500 men and women are required in this or that factory; but this Ministry of Labour organisation has no check upon the efficiency of manpower. If the Production Minister goes to the Minister of Labour or to the Ministry of Aircraft Production and says, "We must have 30 per cent. or 100 per cent.

539
more Lancaster bombers, and here are the factories that are to be given the task of increasing the number," there is nobody, to my knowledge,in the Ministry of Labour—and I follow the question pretty closely—who can say how efficiently the labour in those factories is being used at present. Before the Minister proposes to call up women of 50 into those factories, he should ensure that the call-up is necessary. That is the major point.
I have a suggestion to make that might be of help. There are many manufacturers in the country producing like articles, yet we have no committees set up to handle that same article throughout the whole of the country. There are regional officers and committees to handle questions of aeroplane, gun, tractor and all kinds of manufacture, and I know of an area where the regional board is controlling 240 different types of industry. How is it possible for them to do so and be able to decide the efficiency of those industries? That is not the way to get the best results and use of man-power. I suggest that the Minister should set up an organisation of trade union and management representatives—and by "management" I do not mean guinea pig directors; they must be eliminated, but real practical management representatives—and other workers who can work directly for him and decide the efficiency of the various factories when Ministries of Production are asking for additional manpower.
I do not know how production can be divorced from labour. The Minister of Labour has not shown sufficient interest in the output demanded required from various firms in the country. He has simply been interested in transferring labour here, there and everywhere, regardless of the efficiency of the output of the firms concerned. I believe that it is time that the Minister insisted upon being brought more fully into the picture of production in relation to labour and not just handle the labour problems. There is a full tie-up between output and manpower efficiency. There has to be, and must be, before the Minister pushes this new Order through Parliament, to get mothers, grandmothers and elderly people into the factories, the most efficient use of the labour at present in those factories. He probably knows that there are in the
540
factories hundreds of thousands of people who could be put to better or more efficient use.
There is a factory recently taken over by the Ministry of Aircraft Production. That factory is not doing so well. There is plenty of labour there, hundreds of people are walking round not knowing what to do. The factory was taken over by the Government because it was inefficient, and yet it is just as inefficient, for the percentage of improvement is so slight that we can discount it for the moment as it ever was. The Ministry has actually hundreds of labourers walking round to-day not knowing what job to do. There are other factories, some ordnance and `some private, and I see no difference between the two of them, because the problems are the same for both. Some are very efficient and some are not. I ask the Minister to consider this matter, perhaps under the present man-power boards We have a pretty good one handling a very big area in my constituency, and I think these people should be given further help and additional powers to check efficiency by groups. Like manufacture should be handled by bodies for that. manufacture. The manufacture of aeroplane motors should be handled by the aeroplane motors committee. Do not try to mix coal mining with high precision jig boring. It is a lot of nonsense to suppose that one can mix the two. I hope the Minister will answer me on this point of whether it is possible to set up this organisation or tighten up the existing organisation, to give attention to efficiency, before he decides to call up women of the age of 51.
Sir Henry Morris-Jones: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour uttered a reflection to the effect that if the proposal he is bringing before the House now had been brought before the House in 1940, there would have been no Debate at all. With all my respect for the dialectical powers of my right hon. Friend, I cannot see the relevancy of that remark to the position to-day. One might just as well say that there were no strikes in 1940 but that there are in 1943. He also, if I may say so, rather gave the impression to the House that there was something in the objection that had been made to this proposal in the nature of a personal attack on himself. He said, if I remember his words correctly, that

541
the proposals he has brought before the House are the result of decisions made by the War Cabinet and that we were not going against the proposals of the Minister of Labour but against the Prime Minister. I do not think it was necessary for him to go to the extent of those remarks. Anyone acquainted with the procedure of this House knows that on a responsible occasion proposals made are always a Government decision, not those of a single Minister.
I should like to endorse what I ventured to say to this House on the day after the original introduction of these proposals, that they are a definite blot on the Minister's escutcheon, a blot on his record at the Ministry of Labour. Nothing that has occurred in the interval of the last six weeks will divert me from that feeling, which I then expressed. On the contrary, they are amply confirmed by my knowledge of the feelings of the people both in my own constituency and elsewhere and it is most certainly not a Press agitation. I am a great admirer of my right hon. Friend. I go so far as to say—I have said it before—that I doubt whether there is any Minister in this country or any man in or out of this House who could have got through the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, of Labour has got through this House in the last three years. I am asking him to consider again before he goes on with these proposals. He said that he was endeavouring to get a residue of 700,000 people who were available out of our total pool of man-power. It may be rather late now to emphasise the point that was put before the House to-day by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) and put by myself in the earlier stages of the war, that this country is trying to do too much from a man-power point of view. It has established an immense Navy, an immense Air Force—the most powerful in the world—and an immense Army, out of a population of 46,000,000 people.
It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Resolved,
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments
542
Act, 1932, to the Borough of Sale, a copy of which was presented to this House on 21st September, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Darlington, a copy of which was presented to this House on 21st September, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Ordered,
"That Sir Edward Cadogan be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and that Mr. Turton be added to the Committee."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

MAN-POWER
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]
Sir H. Morris-Jones: I was about to say that the question is not whether women of 45 to 50 could be called up. We know that women of 60 to 70 could be called up in this country if necessary, and that they would be forthcoming if it was proved a necessity to win the war. The question is whether younger women should not first be called up from every conceivable source, and made use of. The Government have not made a case on those lines. I am sorry that the Minister is not in the House now. I am sorry that he was not here when my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) just now made one of the most devastating speeches ever made in this House on one single issue. I challenge the Government to consider the facts given by my hon. Friend. After all, he is not one to decry the Civil Service. His reputation has been made with it. He is not one to say that there is gross waste of personnel in the Civil Service without overwhelming evidence. I think he has proved that there is gross waste of personnel.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with his usual charm, spoke, naturally, for the Civil Service. In this House we all admire the Civil Service. It is not part of our case to say that there are not men in the Civil Service who are not gravely overworked. There are many such. The point is that the organisation of the Civil Service is such that there are gross over-

543
lapping and waste. There happens to be a town in my constituency where 5,000 civil servants are employed—the town of Colwyn Bay. A very happy relationship has been brought about between the people of that borough and the civil servants, and very lasting affections have been made, on both sides. But I never go down to that borough—and I am sure there is no definite animus—without people of responsibility, whose judgment I respect and who have experience in public life, constantly repeating to me that nothing disturbs the inhabitants so much as to see such a large number of junior men and women in these offices to-day under the age of 31, to the extent of something like 1,500, while their mothers and grandfathers are being called-up under the proposals of the Government. I make no reflection on them, but it is the duty of the Government to exhaust every source before calling upon their mothers for the sacrifices involved. I have no doubt in my mind, although the Minister of Labour at the beginning of his speech adopted a rather narrow point on the medical aspect of the case. In these age categories of women disturbances do occur which are inevitable owing to their age. There is a physiological factor involved which was in existence a million years before any Minister of Labour was known, and it is no good this or any other Government adding anything to their difficulties which cannot be proved to be necessary.
Sir Herbert Williams: It was unfortunate that the Financial Secretary, for whom I have both affection and respect, should have come here with a prepared brief which had not the faintest relation to, and was not a reply to the important speech made by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown). It is really no good saying that there were 300,000 then and 750,000 now and that therefore everything is all right because there is so much more work to do. It is not the Civil Service we are blaming; it is the system. If I write to the Minister of Labour, for example, about a man who lives in Croydon, how long will it take before he answers? Three weeks or thereabouts. What happens? I write to him, and his private secretary sends a courteous acknowledgement. They put the case into the departmental machine. They start a file.
544
There is a long sheet to which everybody can contribute their views. It goes to two or three Departments, and then to the regional office. It has an urgent label attached to it, because it is from a Member of Parliament. The regional officer will get it through to the manager of the employment exchange. It will then come back. The thing is too foolish for words. It is playing like kids, and nothing more. They could run every Department in London with one half of the staff if they took their courage into their hands and took a chance. I would much rather make a mistake quickly than take three weeks to make it. I have been on both sides of this job. I was an unpaid civil servant for about two years in the last war. I was at the Ministry Of Munitions and had a very good training, and years later I was a junior Minister for a short time. I have seen too much of it. What disturbs me is that, whenever I know the facts of a case which is argued, the Minister's answer is hardly ever quite correct. That is a very serious thing. Ministers are always explaining the case away. They will not admit that they have made a mistake. This sort of thing does not impress you.
We have had an important speech from the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray), who said there was serious unemployment in his constituency. It is not only in his constituency where there is unemployment; there is unemployment in a large number of factories in this country. People are sitting down with nothing to do. This is due partly to the change-over of production. I will give a specific example to illustrate the point. I went to a factory in Croydon the other day to see the managing director, and as I walked in he said, "I am delighted to see you, as I want your help. I am writing letters to 38 of my workpeople." I saw the letters, which ran:
"I much regret that owing to a switch over of production two processes have been eliminated and 38 people are redundant. I have applied to the employment exchange for your release so that you can work somewhere else in the war effort but up to now I have not got it. As your presence in the factory with nothing to do is having a bad effect on other workpeople will you please take a holiday? Your money will be paid as usual on Friday and until further notice."
I rang up the employment exchange and communicated either with the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. The manpower board got busy; indeed, they got so

545
busy that it took another three weeks before they sanctioned the release of 29 of these 38 workers. Of the remainder they said that a few were likely to be called up at an early date for military service, so that it was reasonable for the firm to carry them for the time being, while the others were rather elderly, but they would try to fix them in somewhere. So for six weeks 29 people did not do a stroke of work, and the sole responsibility was on the Ministry of Labour. That sort of thing is not unique. It is unfortunate that in this Debate some Members have seemed to' think that there was some kind of caste business in this, that the objections were made on behalf of wealthy idle women. There is not the faintest semblance of truth in that. I have more letters on this subject than on any other definite subject since the war started. Serving men are perturbed at the prospect of their homes being broken up. No assurances you give in advance as to how kindly you are going to carry out this business will reassure the people who will he affected. Remember, their friends have been interviewed at the Employment Exchanges; they have been treated with the greatest discourtesy in some cases. I have not been present, although no doubt if a Member of Parliament was present things would be nicely conducted. People have been insulted by hardship committees and man-power boards. I mentioned this to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and he asked me to go round and have a look at things for myself. What is the use?
Mr. Magnay: The hon. Member could go as a friend.
Sir H. Williams: I could not go in Croydon, because I would probably be identified. After all, I have had some connection with the place for some years. I do not believe all the stories of the supposed discourtesy which have been put to me, because sometimes people are disgruntled at not having their own way, but I would ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to look into this matter. Some of these women of about 50 are the heads of households in the effective working sense, whether they are middle class or working class. After all, mother is the "boss." The prospect of being sent for by an Employment Exchange, of being interrogated by somebody whom they regard as their inferior, by somebody who has lower status, is not very pleasant to
546
them. They do not like it. Do not run away with the idea that because the Minister has not had many letters this is not provoking the most intense indignation. People do not like to say it in case they will be accused of not helping the war effort. The amazing thing is how few people have complained in this war. In the last war several by-elections were fought in which people stood as candidates on call-up issues. I am certain that, if anyone at a by-election makes this the sole issue, he will beat the Government hands down anywhere. I could win a by-election if the Government sent the whole Cabinet against me. [An HON. MEMBER: "That would help you."] Of course it would. I have been told that the fundamental reason for clothes rationing is that all the wool has got into the minds of the Government, but I do not know whether that is true or not.
My approach to this problem is a little different from that of most other Members, because, when the Bill was passed under which this power of direction became operative, if remember aright, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his colleagues opposed it, and there was a Division. I do not agree with the hon. Member in his attitude to the war, and I could not go into the Lobby with him, so I deliberately abstained, but I am permanently opposed to the industrial conscription of women. I personally go further. I think the industrial conscription of men is a mistake. There is a great deal of absenteeism due to the resentment of people being sent where they do not want to go. I do not think you are getting the results you would get by recruiting labour voluntarily. I dissent very much from direction. I do not believe it produces efficiency. That is the great issue. You have resentful labour. The real trouble started when the then First Lord of the Admiralty in March, 1940, said we wanted a million women in industry. In the next few days hundreds of thousands of women registered. The exchanges were amazed. They said they did not know what it was all about. That was No. I mistake. Anyone can make that kind of mistake once, but the example of the then First Lord was followed on three separate occasions by the Minister of Labour. He made a vague general appeal and each time got a response, but a smaller response. You cannot ask for women and offer them

547
nothing when they turn up. The trouble is the failure to have any understanding of industrial psychology. I do not believe there is a member of the Government who has ever had any responsibility for factory management or engineering. No one in the Government has ever tried to manage a factory, yet they come along and tell other people how to manage theirs. It is a very strange situation.
I want the employment exchange system to work as well as it can after the war. I do not want it to be a monopoly, which is the desire of some people. For some purposes employment agencies are much more efficient than employment exchanges, but employment exchanges, owing to the long period of unemployment between the two wars, were not regarded as places where you would get jobs but as places where you would get benefit. Nevertheless, I want employment exchanges to be popular places. They are not very popular to-day, which is unfortunate, and I think the Minister must do more to make them popular. What is the problem that we are faced with? We have not had a census since 1931, and. I was only able to look up the summary, and it did not deal precisely with the age groups that we are concerned with, but I found that in 1931 gainfully occupied women aged 45 to 54—I do not mean that they were in a job on the day of the census, but they were either in a job or seeking a job—numbered about 22 per cent. So that normally in this class rather more than a fifth work for their living in one way or another in normal times. I have not raised the question that this is a difficult time of life for women. I base my case on the destruction of home life. That is what I am concerned with. A good many of these women are very efficient. A large number of them work regularly. The bulk of women, certainly 90 per cent., when they leave school get jobs. By 30 the bulk have vanished from the industrial field. There were still at those ages, that is 45 to 54, about 22 per cent.
I do not know, and the Minister does not know really, what sort of a dividend he will get out of this. I do not believe he has the faintest idea how many in effect he will get. We are concerned with how many extra he will get by compulsion over the number he would get by appeal. I believe he would get as many by appeal and they would be far more
548
efficient than those he gets by compulsion. The arguments for industrial conscription are entirely different from those for military conscription. In the case of the soldier the profit motive does not arise. He argues a great deal about his rate of pay and allowances, but it does not arise in his case. Once you get in industry the profit motive is in everybody's mind, from the office boy to the managing director. In spite of what Archbishops say, it is there and will continue to be there. One lot of people are out on strike on the Clyde because they want to work piece-work and the employers will not let them, and another lot in Manchester are on strike because the employers want them to work piecework. We all have different views in economic things and like to be awkward. But when a man is earning £6 a week and my right hon. Friend directs him to earn £4 a week, he is very angry, and I would be too. If you say to a fellow who is temperamentally nervous about a particular occupation that he has to go down a coal mine, he is frightened. If I was directed to climb a ladder 100, feet I could not do it because I have that particular kind of fear and hate heights. If I were directed to work as a steeple-jack I would be in jail because I should refuse to do it.
What is this idea that you can achieve results by sending people to jail? There are too many Ministers in the Government who think that the only way to get results is to send people to jail. Over 100,000 tons of coal were lost recently because a man was sent to jail. There is far too much of it. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in a powerful speech said there were many Ministers who wanted compulsion for compulsion's sake. What we want are industrial results in the factories and I think that if we will bully people less, be more considerate and be less Fascist or Communist, whatever it is we are trying to be at the moment, it will be very much better. I beg and beseech the Minister of Labour to go slow over this. I have not received many letters on this subject because we do not tell the world when Parliament is sitting, but in the last day or so I could have deluged the Government with correspondence if I liked merely by a little incitement. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to go slow. The whole popularity of his Ministry is at stake. More resent-

549
ment has been caused by this proposal than by any other act of coercion that has been suggested during the war.
Mr. Higgs: The Minister has been criticised, and he will be criticised. My opinion is that he is as efficient as any other Minister on the Front Bench. How do we compare efficiency? It is no good saying that his method of procedure would not be satisfactory to business men. We have to compare the result of this, nation with those of other nations. I consider that the problem of the United States is due to the fact that they have not a Minister of Labour of the calibre of ours. He has done a fine job of work. But having said that, I am going to criticise him with regard to the position of firms registered under the Essential Work Order. Men leave for one reason or another, and so do women. They may leave for the reason that they have permission from the man-power board because the transfer has been asked for by the employer or by the employee; but why does not the Minister give more consideration to the replacing of these people when their discharge has been granted? If the work of the firm is essential it is equally essential to maintain the man-power of the firm.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) and others have referred to idle time in factories. It is a very serious matter. It exists in all factories to a greater or less extent. The problem was overcome before the war by discharging workers and taking them on. That privilege no longer exists. Various hon. Members have referred to the attitude of the man-power board. When they are approached with regard to the movement of labour they come down and inspect the labour, but unfortunately they are often
550
frightened of the problems which confront them. They will not grant releases, and the firm has to retain this labour and pay it, and pay it, obviously, out of excess profits. If the Minister would give instructions to the man-power board that the transfer of labour was to be made more free I think it would solve the problem to a great extent. Take the case of a firm who before the war were employing 10,000 men. It was no uncommon occurrence during changeover periods for such a firm to reduce its employees to the order of 2,000 or 3,000, and then build them up again. We get to-day changeovers of the same magnitude, and yet no facilities are granted to simplify the movements of labour. The man-power board will not face the problem, and I think the Minister should pay more attention to this very important point of idle time in factories. It is only he who can assist to solve the problem.
We have heard much about women between 45 and 50 being called up. There are other sources of labour. I have referred before to the potential productive capacity of boys attending public schools. I took the trouble to look through Whitaker, and I found that there are about 71,000 boys at public schools, and probably the same number of girls, between the ages of 13 and 18. That would give us something in the order of 30,000 youths a year. Would it be detrimental to their future if they were released for industry for one year out of the five when they attend public schools? It would be for their benefit. No matter what calling they are to pursue in the future, a year in a factory would be beneficial to them.
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.

PUBLIC HEALTH
  Milk (Local Authorities' Powers)
  Milk (Local Authorities' Powers)
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Water Supply, Priors Marston
  Water Supply, Priors Marston
  District Nurses' Salaries (Exchequer Grant)
  District Nurses' Salaries (Exchequer Grant)
  Tuberculosis (Mass Radiography)
  Tuberculosis (Mass Radiography)
  Dysentery (Watford Isolation Hospital)
  Dysentery (Watford Isolation Hospital)
  Venereal Diseases
  Venereal Diseases
HOUSING
  Requisitioned Empty Houses
  Requisitioned Empty Houses
  Site Values
  Site Values
  Government Proposals
  Government Proposals
  Rent Control (Inquiry)
  Rent Control (Inquiry)
  Vacant Houses (Repairs)
  Vacant Houses (Repairs)
  Farm-Workers' Cottages
  Farm-Workers' Cottages
  Cottages, Hildenborough
  Cottages, Hildenborough
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (EMPLOYMENT)
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (EMPLOYMENT)
  IDENTITY CARDS
  IDENTITY CARDS
AGRICULTURE
  Milk Testing Scheme
  Milk Testing Scheme
  Serum Production (Horses, Grazing)
  Serum Production (Horses, Grazing)
  Threshing Order
  Threshing Order
  Dispossessed Farmers (Statistics)
  Dispossessed Farmers (Statistics)
  Fertilisers (Serpentine)
  Fertilisers (Serpentine)
  Bulb Onion Seed (Order)
  Bulb Onion Seed (Order)
  Post-War Policy
  Post-War Policy
  Women's Land Army
  Women's Land Army
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  KING'S BADGE
  KING'S BADGE
  UNEMPLOYMENT FUND AND AGRI- CULTURAL ACCOUNT (BALANCES)
  UNEMPLOYMENT FUND AND AGRI- CULTURAL ACCOUNT (BALANCES)
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Housewives
  Housewives
  Women of 45–50
  Women of 45–50
  One-Man Businesses
  One-Man Businesses
  Unemployed Men
  Unemployed Men
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Registration
  Registration
  Transfers (Loss of Earnings)
  Transfers (Loss of Earnings)
  Work Directions
  Work Directions
EDUCATION
  Secondary School Places
  Secondary School Places
  Expenditure, Rhondda
  Expenditure, Rhondda
  School Population, Rhondda
  School Population, Rhondda
  White Paper Proposals
  White Paper Proposals
  Local Authorities (Board's Powers)
  Local Authorities (Board's Powers)
  Caligraphy (Left-Handed Children)
  Caligraphy (Left-Handed Children)
  Meals at Home (Cash Allowance)
  Meals at Home (Cash Allowance)
WEST INDIES
  Colonial Service (Vacancies)
  Colonial Service (Vacancies)
  Housing, Jamaica (Cement Factory)
  Housing, Jamaica (Cement Factory)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Surgical Boots
  Surgical Boots
  Clothing Coupons {Agricultural Workers)
  Clothing Coupons {Agricultural Workers)
  Goods and Services (Price Control) Act
  Goods and Services (Price Control) Act
  Torch Batteries
  Torch Batteries
  Barrier Creams
  Barrier Creams
  FIREWATCHING (RATES OF PAY)
  FIREWATCHING (RATES OF PAY)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Free Milk (Sick Benefit)
  Free Milk (Sick Benefit)
  Potato Marketing Board
  Potato Marketing Board
  Milk (Pasteurisation)
  Milk (Pasteurisation)
  Vitamins Scheme
  Vitamins Scheme
  Bee-keepers (Sugar Allowance)
  Bee-keepers (Sugar Allowance)
  Vegetables
  Vegetables
  Fish
  Fish
  Apples (Containers)
  Apples (Containers)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Farmers, Excess Profits Tax (Post War Credit)
  Farmers, Excess Profits Tax (Post War Credit)
  Fire Watchers, Payment (Income Tax)
  Fire Watchers, Payment (Income Tax)
  Currency Transfers (Northern Ireland and Eire)
  Currency Transfers (Northern Ireland and Eire)
  Government Securities (Market Values)
  Government Securities (Market Values)
  Aircraft Accidents (Civilians Compensation)
  Aircraft Accidents (Civilians Compensation)
  Separation Order Payments (Tax Deductions)
  Separation Order Payments (Tax Deductions)
  Income Tax (Subsistence Expenses)
  Income Tax (Subsistence Expenses)
  Bases Leased to United States
  Bases Leased to United States
  Civil Service Pensions
  Civil Service Pensions
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  International Monetary Co-operation
  International Monetary Co-operation
  Employees Income Tax (Advance Payment)
  Employees Income Tax (Advance Payment)
  Lend-Lease Aid (Amount)
  Lend-Lease Aid (Amount)
  Dividends (Limitation)
  Dividends (Limitation)
  WAR WOUNDS (METHODS OF TREATMENT)
  WAR WOUNDS (METHODS OF TREATMENT)
  COAL ECONOMY
  COAL ECONOMY
  COLONIES (FORESTRY)
  COLONIES (FORESTRY)
  EAST AFRICA (COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS)
  EAST AFRICA (COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS)
  GOLD COAST (PRINCE OF WALES COLLEGE, ACHIMOTA)
  GOLD COAST (PRINCE OF WALES COLLEGE, ACHIMOTA)
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, SCOTLAND
  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, SCOTLAND
  COLOURED SUBJECTS (DISCRIMINATION)
  COLOURED SUBJECTS (DISCRIMINATION)
  MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (DETENTION)
  MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (DETENTION)
  INTERNEES, ISLE OF MAN
  INTERNEES, ISLE OF MAN
  DIAMOND WORKERS, LONDON (PROSECUTION)
  DIAMOND WORKERS, LONDON (PROSECUTION)
  PRISON SENTENCES (PREGNANT WOMEN)
  PRISON SENTENCES (PREGNANT WOMEN)
  TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)
  TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)
  TRAVEL PERMITS (EIRE AND NORTHERN IRELAND)
  TRAVEL PERMITS (EIRE AND NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Coastal Areas (Residential Restrictions)
  Coastal Areas (Residential Restrictions)
  COLLIERY WORKERS, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE (SENTENCES)
  COLLIERY WORKERS, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE (SENTENCES)
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION)
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION)
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (TEMPORARY INCREASES) BILL
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (TEMPORARY INCREASES) BILL
  EASTER (FIXED DATE)
  EASTER (FIXED DATE)
CIVIL DEFENCE
  Black-Out Regulations
  Black-Out Regulations
  Bell-Ringing
  Bell-Ringing
INDIA
  Political Situation
  Political Situation
  British Army Officers (Pay)
  British Army Officers (Pay)
  Overseas Travel Facilities
  Overseas Travel Facilities
  Election, Madras
  Election, Madras
  Casings
  Casings
  Death Sentences
  Death Sentences
  4th Indian Division (Visit to Britain)
  4th Indian Division (Visit to Britain)
  SYNTHETIC RUBBER
  SYNTHETIC RUBBER
  TOWN HALL CLOCK, BRADFORD
  TOWN HALL CLOCK, BRADFORD
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (REPORT)
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (REPORT)
  CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN)
  CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN)
  JEWISH REFUGEES (s.s. PATRIA)
  JEWISH REFUGEES (s.s. PATRIA)
  LEASES (SUB-LETTING)
  LEASES (SUB-LETTING)
  EIGHTH ARMY (PARCELS)
  EIGHTH ARMY (PARCELS)
  LOST AIR LINER (INQUIRY)
  LOST AIR LINER (INQUIRY)

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Grantley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Burnham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

REGENCY BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law as to the delegation of royal functions to Counsellors of State; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WAR SITUATION.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON rose to call attention to the statement on the war situation made by the Leader of the House on Tuesday the 21st of September; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we appreciated very much the statement which the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, made on Tuesday last, and it was fortified, as he himself told us that it would be, by the long statement by the Prime Minister in another place. I am sure that every one of us welcomed those statements, and not least because we were so glad that the Prime Minister was back safely and amongst us again. I think it is right to say that there is in the hearts of millions of people the anxious feeling that stern duty should require his absence from us as little as possible.
If we contrast our situation to-day with the situation of a year ago, it is a transformation. The noble Viscount reminded us that it has been a year of very crowded history, and if we compare, as I expect all of us do, the situation to-day with what it was a year ago with regard to
112
the U-boat warfare, the position in the Mediterranean and North Africa, and on the Russian Front, we should not be human if we were not greatly comforted. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it is right to-day that we should remember those whose operations are not obvious, but to whom we owe the enormous improvement in the Atlantic and on other shipping routes, and we should remember also what we owe to the sailors and the members of the Merchant Marine and the Air Service, not forgetting the scientists who have contributed to their wonderful success.
There has been a similar transformation in the naval position in the Mediterranean. It would be well, I think, if some person competent to write the history of these events were to take advantage of the occasion to make use of the announcement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty a short time ago about the peril of the naval situation at certain times in the Mediterranean, the magnificent leadership of Admiral Cunningham, and the wonderful change that has been effected by the devotion and heroism of all concerned. The march of the Eighth Army from Alamein to Tunis seems to provide a topic out of which some historian of the future will make a grand story. But the thing that impresses most of us who have inside knowledge of such matters is what that must have meant in the organization of supply, in the organization of the three Services working together, and what it has led to in the improvement and perfecting, so far as it has yet been achieved, of the co-operation of the three Services. That consideration is even more applicable to the successful landings in Italy and to the carrying through of the landing at Salerno. We are bound to remember, or try to remember, when we look at these successes, the infinite patience that has gone before, because we know that every man on these landing craft had to be trained to distinguish between the different signals and trained in the marshalling of the stores on board. A mistake in any one of these matters might be very serious for the landing forces. I am sure we appreciate the splendid Staff work and the infinite training which must have preceded any one of these undertakings. One cannot to-day distinguish between the different Services, but it is fairly obvious that it was by the co-operation of the

113
warships and the Air Forces that the perils of the Salerno landing were surmounted.
In this connexion may I observe how glad I was that the Prime Minister said what he did about the Apostles of the Second Front? I was very glad that he dealt at sonic length with the difficulties which must be overcome before any undertaking of that kind can be started, I think some of those who have talked so much about it have either not been aware, or have forgotten, that we lost millions of tons of shipping in the early years of the war, and that the success of many of these enterprises depends first and last upon shipping. I have a lively recollection of what happened in the last war, but with all the big apparatus which goes to furnish an army nowadays the tonnage required then was very much less per division than it must be now. Nevertheless, I remember that in munitions alone we were shipping 53,000 tons a week across the Channel. Therefore, seeing that we have been deprived hitherto to a great extent of the assistance of the French Mercantile Marine, and that we have acted under enormously disadvantageous conditions during this war as compared with the last, I was very glad, speaking entirely for myself, that the Prime Minister reminded Parliament of the difficulties inherent in an enterprise of this kind. The value of a Second Front is, of course, obvious—it always has been obvious—but I was glad that he resisted, and said he would resist, the temptation to undertake it before we knew it would be successful.
In stating one's appreciation of the splendid Staff work shown in the combined operations in the Mediterranean, there is one question in my mind which I should be glad if the Leader of the House would note. I make no comment upon the delays that occurred between the finish of one operation and the beginning of another. It may well have been, as I can fully believe, that not a day was lost in preparing for the next move, but I have been surprised, with the Ninth Army in Syria, that opportunity was not taken to seize the island of Rhodes which is in a very critical place—a governing position—in those seas. So far as one knows from the outside anyhow, a bold adventure might have seized it. I cannot think that the omission to seize the island of Rhodes—an opportunity to do which apparently presented itself—is in any
114
way compensated by the occupation of two or three small islands near at hand. I only put that misgiving which is in my mind, and the noble Viscount can answer it or not as he feels wise.
Coincident with these events we have witnessed one of the most remarkable revolutions or resurrections in history— namely, the industrial, military, and I might almost say moral transformation in the Russian State. Some of us cannot fail to remember some of the consultations and some of the character of the Staff work in Russia with which we came into contact in the last war, and the quality of the leadership such as it was. It is a transformation of organization and direction, and industrial and moral competency, in a space of twenty years, that is, so far as I know, quite unexampled in history. It is not for me to discuss the military side of it, but it is quite clear that the triumphs of the Russian Armies and the manifest indication of their immense competency make it all the more necessary that there should be the closest collaboration between Russia, the United States, and ourselves as soon as possible. I am not saying that opportunity has been lost; I make no suggestion of that, because I am not acquainted with the facts. But I do know that there are a number of short-sighted people who have allowed their prejudices to influence their judgment in this matter. It is perhaps natural, but it is unwise, and I hope these short-sighted people who have been afraid of co-operation with the Russian Government will reconsider their attitude, because the governing necessity of the world and the hope of the future, it seems to me, is that there should be the most intimate consultation and co-operation between ourselves, the United States and Russia.
We were all glad when Premier Stalin' announcement was made with regard to the recognition of the Churches, or the permission given to them to become an organized body once more. Your Lordships will agree with me that we are glad that a distinguished member of this House is at present on a mission to Moscow, and I am sure he will do much to promote good will between the two Churches and the two countries. There is no blinking the fact that a considerable amount of the misgiving in many people's minds with regard to an approach to the Russian State was related to their misgiving as to the

115
position of the Christian Church in that country. These meetings and this development must be of immense service, and they constitute one of the events of the last twelve months which we should not fail to mention.
While one can only find room for praise and appreciation of the management of the war on the military side, I confess that I am not quite so sure we can be as comfortable with regard to the political side. I rather think the march of war events has been a bit in front of our political preparations. It is natural that the mind of the Prime Minister and the Staffs should, inevitably, be on preparations for the successful prosecution of the war, but the sudden collapse of Mussolini and the events in Sicily have indicated that they were on the military side a little in front of our preparations on the political side. I am not going to make any comments as to the constitution of Amgot. I dare say that that body was all that could be improvised for the time being to carry on in Sicily, but of course it was a military body for military purposes. I am quite sure that the sooner the Mediterranean Committee, which we all welcome, gets to work the better it will be for our progress towards preparations for peace. At all events, we all hope that the Foreign Secretary will meet with great success in his consultations with his colleagues, and that the meeting of the Heads of States, which the Prime Minister has promised us, will take place very soon.
Events in Italy and some events in the French possessions have intensified misgivings which some of us have expressed at different times in your Lordships' House that we may not be as ready to win the peace when we have won the war as we ought to be. It is, I confess, about that side of our efforts that I still feel misgivings. The events of the Mediterranean have precipitated effects in such a way that the need of preparation for dealing with the civil side of affairs has emerged, and I hope no time will be lost in getting ready for the immense tasks which will face this country and its Allies in every country where the war of liberation is successful. We are to have a discussion, I believe, very early after our re-assembly on the steps which were taken some time ago to set up the United Nations' Rehabilitation Commission and that no doubt would be an appropriate time to deal with
116
some of these matters, which are amongst the most difficult and tantalizing of the problems with which the Government must be called on to deal. I for one would be the last to be unreasonable in expecting the Leader of the House to state more than he cares to state at the present time.
There is one other event which I think we might call to mind. In the Quebec Conference special attention was given to the Far East and to the affairs of China. A short time ago some of your Lordships paid a visit to China as representing this House and we had a very instructive discussion as a result of the record of their visit. The thing that emerged from it was, I think, that there had grown up in China as the result of its tribulations a sense of national solidarity which probably had never been there before and which may be of immense importance in the future. I know the geographical difficulties; they are obvious; but the more we can do, and the sooner we can do it, to bring help to China and to bring her into our counsels, the better it will be for the future of the world.
I have only suggested a few questions for discussion. There were very many more in the vast review which was placed before us, and your Lordships have in this House a number of members singularly competent to discuss one or other of these matters. I do not propose to do more than just briefly introduce discussion. To sum up, I should say that the year's experience has fortified our confidence to a remarkable degree, but at the same time there is not in the minds of any of us any doubt that we have great difficulties and immense dangers to surmount before we have achieved the victory that we all desire. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have very few observations to offer in sequence to the speech made by the noble Lord on the front Opposition Bench which covered, if I may say so, a considerable area of ground in very happy terms. Certainly I could not hope to improve upon the brief review which he gave of the situation in the Mediterranean in the first instance and to some extent in other parts of the world. I merely desire to mention one or two points arising out of the Motion. The Prime Minister in his very wonderful statement showed a grasp of all the necessities of the situation which

117
nobody else could equal and a power of grappling with the different difficulties that arise. He was able, I think, to dispose of one criticism which was made in various quarters during the Recess, that there appeared to be some unaccountable delay after the occupation of Sicily, and indeed before Sicily was entirely cleared, in proceeding with the assault on the Italian mainland. The Prime Minister, I think, showed clearly that in fact not a moment was wasted and he also was able to point out what a great many of us I think did not appreciate, that if the attack were to be made south of Naples there were very few places possible and only the one place of Salerno where a landing could be achieved. That, of course, gave an immense advantage to the Germans who were holding the position there because they were able, as the event showed, to establish themselves beforehand in positions from which it demanded great skill and the utmost heroism to dislodge them, as they have been dislodged. The future advance of the two Armies on Italian soil seems to be conducted with the skill which we should have expected, and on lines which give ground for the most favourable prognosis of what may happen during the next few days.
One other point on the Italian situation was also touched on by the Prime Minister and some allusion to it was made by Lord Addison towards the close of his remarks—that is to say, on the possible political future of Italy. As I understand it, the Prime Minister's view is—and I have no doubt the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will correct me if I am wrong in what I am saying—that for the time being the Administration or Government of Italy with which we are concerned, without having regard to its intrinsic merits or demerits, is a body which is able to assist us for the time being in carrying on operations of war there. Therefore the Government here have to deal with the situation as it is without further inquiry but, at the same time, leaving the future entirety open for the ultimate settlement of the government of the country on the lines desired by the Italian people, after full examination and discussion and all possible help from the Allied Powers, but with no intention of imposing any special form of government on that country. I hope I am correct in making that statement.
118
One other point alluded to by the mover of this Motion was that of a Second Front. The term "Second Front" has been, I think, rather loosely and sometimes inaccurately used. In the past wars have been waged with no Second Front and the term came into especial prominence in the last war when militarist Germany picked a quarrel both with Russia and with France and was prepared to make an attack both from the East and from the West. The present war began with no Second Front. It began by the invasion of its eastern neighbours by Germany, and it was not until the French and we joined in that anything in the nature of a Second Front could be said to exist. That indeed did not last long because the resistance of Poland was obviously and completely overcome. There was one Western Front and, speaking of a front only as that of land armies arrayed against each other, after the defeat and surrender of France in July, 1940, there was no front at all anywhere. It was not indeed until we were able to renew the war in Africa that a front in the technical sense could be said to exist anywhere.
Therefore the explanation which the Prime Minister gave of the extreme difficulties surrounding the formation of a Second Front in that technical sense—that is to say, of an assault on Germany from two sides—seems to me to dispose entirely of the complaints which have been made in some quarters of the absence so far of a Second Front. I cannot help feeling that in Russia, where no doubt some anxiety was felt at the absence of direct assistance on land, a realization has grown up that, whether we like to use the term Second Front or not, we have been rendering very substantial and material assistance to Russia both by sea and in the air. I venture to hope therefore that nothing with regard to this particular question exists to disturb the relations between the Soviet Government and ourselves on which I fully concur with everything that fell from my noble friend Lord Addison about our hopes for the future. I have nothing else to add except to endorse the view that, speaking generally, both in Europe and in the Far East, we are entitled to look forward in a spirit of reasonable confidence.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hesitate to follow two such political giants

119
as my two noble friends who have just addressed your Lordships, and indeed I should shirk the task altogether were it not that fortunately for me the political giants were in conflict on one point with each other. My noble friend Lord Addison expressed the doubts which are very widely felt in the country and in our Party that matters were not adjusted, that our strategy was too inflexible, and that we did not take quick enough advantage of the tremendous change which occurred in Italy by the downfall of the Fascist régime. The noble Marquess who leads the Liberal party did not take that view and supported the Prime Minister. I support my noble friend Lord Addison in that, but as that may appear to be some form of criticism of His Majesty's Government and the conduct of the war, let me begin by reinforcing what my noble friend said about what may be called the bright spots of this war. They are very bright and glittering.
I do not wish it to be thought for a moment by the noble Viscount who will reply for the Government that any of us on this side are not fully appreciative of the excellent Staff work displayed in the great invasion of Sicily and the Salerno beaches, of the success of the Royal Navy and Air Force and of our Allies at sea in the submarine war—all that has been most heartening and encouraging—or of the great fighting qualities displayed by the comparatively newly recruited soldiers of the American Army and the great gallantry of our own troops. May I also with great diffidence reinforce the hope expressed by both my noble friends that the better understanding now unmistakable between the three principal antagonists against Germany—Russia, ourselves and the United States of America—will continue and develop into complete harmony of plans and policy? And lastly I must congratulate everyone concerned, and not least the local patriots, for helping us in what the Prime Minister described as getting islands "in the pick-up." I refer, of course, to the ejection of the Germans from Sardinia and the apparent overthrow of the German power in Corsica. That is a wonderful result.
I also hope that there is truth in the reports, which have received very widespread publicity on the other side of the Atlantic and are now finding their way
120
into the British newspapers, that General George Marshall or some other suitable officer is at last to be appointed as Supreme Commander-in-Chief for the European theatre of war. I see that The Times, which has taken up the story, now describes him as "the Marshal Foch of this war." I hope that the report is true. I have had excellent reports of General Marshall. He is described to me as one of the great men of our age, and I hope that he or some other suitable officer will be given this great post. We may then perhaps see greater flexibility and quicker decisions which I am going to try to persuade your Lordships were missing when these great events occurred in the Mediterranean.
The Prime Minister argued, and he is supported by no less a person than the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, that there was no delay in the invasion of Italy because of the Armistice negotiations. He went on to describe how we were working to a rigid time schedule arranged so long ago as the previous May. Most elaborate preparations, he said, had therefore to be made for an opposed landing with all the intricate modern equipment needed for war. The fact that there were negotiations going on with the new Italian Government did not matter. With great difficulty and immense effort we managed to speed up this complicated schedule by one week. Now that is the whole matter upon which we make complaint. Why were we working with a rigid schedule and trying to carry out these elaborate operations in spite of the "sea change"—if I may use such a term—which had occurred in Italy? The fall of Mussolini and the ruin of the Fascist Party occurred on July 25 and the next few days, and it was a great event in European history. I do not think it is unfair to compare it to the Fall of the Bastille during the French Revolution.
Two years ago the Prime Minister, in one of his memorable broadcasts, referred to the enemy in Italy as "one man— Mussolini." This one man, he said, had dishonoured the name of Italy, and had led the Italians into an unpopular war. This man, the Prime Minister said, must be removed. Well, Mussolini was removed, and not only Mussolini but the whole gang of rascals and gun-men who supported his régime. The Fascists had to tear off their emblems

121
and doff their black shirts or be killed by crowds in the streets of Italian cities. A few of them held out in newspaper offices and at Fascist headquarters in northern cities, but they were eventually blown out by the guns of Italian soldiers. The Fascist Party and the whole Fascist system were swept away by an avalanche. This tremendous fact did not seem to ripple the surface in Quebec or in London. The Prime Minister's reaction was: "Well, we will have to see what this new régime will do." He said in the debate yesterday that we knew nothing about this new régime that had taken the place of the Italian Government. What we ought then to do, in his view, apparently, as he said a few week's ago, was to allow the Italian people to "stew in their own juice" for a time. What happened was that we slowed up to allow them to stew in their own juice, and the Germans rushed in and seized the kitchen. They are there still, and they will have to be ejected. Their ejection will require some very hard fighting.
I am now going to refer to one of the Prime Minister's own phrases—that the Government and their associates in this country were below the level of events. The fact seems to be that they were not able to grasp the full significance of this change. They were too taken up, apparently—as Lord Addison suggests in his attempts to excuse them—with the purely military side of the affair and missed the tremendous significance of the political change which had occurred. My right honourable friend Mr. Greenwood, in another place speaking on August 3— that is, very soon after these events and before Parliament rose for the Recess— suggested a policy of appealing to the Italian people. We did appeal to the Italian people. We appealed to them in the name of the President of the United States and of the Prime Minister of Britain. We appealed to them to join us as Allies. We urged them to drive the Nazis from their country and we promised all support to them in doing so. On the 17th September that step was taken, my Lords, and the whole Fascist régime had collapsed in July as a result of increasing unrest and turmoil amongst the Italian population.
Officially, of course, the dismissal of Mussolini was accomplished by the King, but really his downfall and that of the
122
Fascist Government were the work of the people. Workers had risen against them all over the country. Rising discontent, strikes in munition factories, refusal to turn out any more arms, refusals by Italian Armies to fight—those were the sort of things which brought about the destruction of Mussolini and the Fascist régime. As my right honourable friend pointed out, we could have had these people as our Allies if we had approached them in the right way at that time. Mr. Greenwood did not know—none of us then knew —of the approaches which had been made to our Government. We did not know that there had been offers, not merely to surrender, but to change sides and to fight with us as Allies. Now at that time, instead of continuing these ponderous preparations, the accumulation of the landing barges in the right order, the loading of them in the right way with supplies and so forth, work which occupied a matter of months, we should have acted with speed. Any lightly equipped landing force sent with our flag and the American flag at its head to anywhere in Italy, whether by sea or air, would have been received with open arms.
If, above all, we had seen some stroke of genius such as that which was delivered on the night the Germans invaded Russia in June, 1941, what an effect that would have had. Your Lordships will recall how, on the very same night that the Germans invaded Russia, we had that great broadcast appeal by the Prime Minister to the British people to treat the Russians now as our Allies in this great war against the common foe. Had an appeal like that been made immediately to the Italian people all Italy would have been ours, without shedding the blood of a British or an American soldier. All Italy would have been ours. The few German divisions in the north were in peril of their lives, and were confined to barracks; they were helpless. The Prime Minister objects to our saying that forty days were lost, but forty days were lost, forty days in which the Germans doubled and trebled their forces and were able to neutralize, disarm and bully the Italian troops and take up positions at the appropriate landing-place at Salerno. We had all this talk about letting the Italians stew in their own juice while we hotted up the fires, and there was a repetition of this parrot cry of unconditional surrender, which, of course, has not been carried out.

123
There was talk of "hotting up the fires," but our friends and allies were the industrial populations of the great Italian cities, and we proceeded to bomb them unmercifully. In the days immediately following the downfall of Mussolini, there was tremendous enthusiasm and a great emotional release in the cities of Milan, Turin, Genoa, Naples and Rome, and in the countryside as well. Indeed, the reemergence of the old long-suppressed political parties in Milan particularly alarmed the Badoglio Government representative on the spot, apparently, for he sounded the air-raid sirens to disperse the processions; he pretended that there was an air raid, and the people took refuge in the shelters. A few days later there was an air raid, and hundreds of 4,000 lb. bombs were dropped on Milan.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Does the noble Lord say that bombs were dropped on Turin and Milan after we knew that representatives of the Italian Government were coming to arrange an Armistice?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Did the noble Lord read the speech made in another place yesterday by the Foreign Secretary?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes. I am going to deal with that point.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I hope he will, because my right honourable friend said definitely that that was not the case, and it is a useless and wicked misrepresentation to maintain that it was.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am quite seised of the case, and I have read the speech with great care, and also the speech of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister described how, within a few days of the fall of Mussolini, feelers were put out by the Badoglio Government to us, and how subsequently—I think August 15 was the date given by the Prime Minister—we received the first direct approach in Madrid. If the noble Viscount will permit me, I can read the Prime Minister's words to him. After dealing with the events of July 25, and the fall of Mussolini, the Prime Minister said that "feelers were put out by the new Italian Government through various channels, asking for terms," and so on. That was a few days
124
afterwards. I believe it was actually in the first week in August that the Italian diplomats in Madrid and Lisbon and other neutral capitals let it be known that the Badoglio Government wished to come to terms. The Prime Minister said that on August 15 an Italian envoy with the rank of General came to Madrid, and negotiations began.
I now turn to the speech of the Foreign Secretary in another place last night, and I quote from column 352 of the Official Report: "… the last occasion we bombed Turin was the night of the 16th-17th." The Prime Minister said that we had these direct official approaches on August 15, but the Prime Minister also said that before that feelers were put out. I do not want to misrepresent the situation at all, and I am quite willing to accept anything that the Foreign Secretary or the noble Viscount may say in explanation; but, apart from the negotiations which had been opened by the Italian diplomats in neutral capitals, we must have known from what happened in Italy that these people were very ready, not only to come out of the war, but to come over to our side. They talked of Rome being made an open city, and there was a great discussion about that. The temper of the people in the northern cities, and indeed all over Italy, was unmistakable. It was not necessary to bomb these cities to induce these people to apply for peace. They were doing it already; they wanted to be out of the war, and that was the logical sequel to the fall of Mussolini.
This is a war, as I have endeavoured to plead before, of right against tyranny. It is also a war of those who oppose Fascism (which amounts to the same thing) against those who uphold it. The moment Mussolini and the Fascist Party were ruined in Italy, there was no question of Italy remaining a neutral in a backwater, like Spain; the Italians became on the side of the Anti-Fascists, of ourselves and the Americans and the Russians who are fighting this foul system of tyranny. If the noble Viscount thinks that our policy was right, in view of all the knowledge that the Foreign Office must have had— and I suppose our Intelligence Service has been improved a little now, and that we do get some news of what is going on in other countries—if he thinks it was right to continue to bomb those northern cities, then I am afraid I must differ from him

125
and from His Majesty's Government. There was a case for bombing communications and airfields which might have been used by the Germans, but I maintain that there was no case for throwing away our bombers and their crews—and we had losses; we lost seven bombers in one attack on Milan—and for plastering those great cities with 4,000 lb. bombs. It had the effect of so disorganizing and terrifying the people there that the Germans were able to step in and work their will and obtain the surrender of a great many units of the Italian Army.
All that, however, is by the way. What I was really attempting to do was to support my noble friend Lord Addison against the noble Marquess on my right in declaring that there was a delay on the political side, that we allowed political events to go ahead of military events and lost forty days, and that the Germans took advantage of those forty days. According to the latest news, they seem to have taken further advantage of them by recapturing Fiume. My noble friend Lord Addison referred to the question of the Dodecanese and the islands in the Aegean, and I should like in two or three minutes to support what he said and add something to it. This business of elaborate amphibian expeditions to meet an entrenched army is not always necessary. An example of that is what happened in Corsica and Sardinia, and I congratulate everyone concerned in the Higher Command on the rapidity with which we have acted there. When the Corsicans were obviously getting the better of the Germans, we sent a French army to help them. It was not arranged in landing barges with tanks in the right order and artillery and medical stores and all that sort of thing. A French army was rapidly sent there, and it is doing splendid work in support of the French patriots in Corsica. Why could not we have done the same thing in the Aegean?
A few days after the full of Mussolini (I think five days afterwards) it was officially reported from Cairo—and everything that comes from Cairo is absolutely true, as we all know—that there was fighting going on in Crete between the Italian and the German portions of the garrison, and a wireless message was sent to the insurgents in Crete—the Greek guerillas— to support the Italians. Why did we not send an expedition ourselves? I do not mean one of these elaborate expeditions
126
with landing barges and amphibian lorries and self-propelled guns and all the rest of it, but could we not have sent even a few battalions in warships to support the Italian forces of the garrison of Crete? It would be the moral effect that would matter, not the strength of the artillery or the tanks. We had divisions ready; could not they have been used?
So much for Crete. The case of Rhodes, referred to by my noble friend Lord Addison, is, I think, amazing. Rhodes is the key to the Aegean, or to the Eastern Aegean at any rate. It is the main arsenal of the Italian Forces in the Levant. It has a fine harbour and, I think, three big airfields. It was held by an Italian garrison of 18,000 men. On 3rd September the Badoglio Government signed the Armistice on the dotted line in secret; the terms and 1hc fact of its signature were not disclosed until the 8th. We had a five days' flying start over the Germans. Could not we from Haifa or from Alexandria have sent an expedition to Rhodes in those five days? Had we to wait for the Germans to carry out their smash-and-grab tactics and get hold of the place, thanks apparently to the treachery of the Italian Commander in Rhodes, who was a Fascist? Could not we have done something in those five clays? I should have thought we could have done something after the fall of Mussolini. But allowing for the possibility of treachery, once the Armistice terms had been signed on the 3rd September we had five clear days in which to win the race for Rhodes. As my noble friend said, we are taking Leros and Cos and those other unfortified islands weeks after the event. I am afraid this points once more to inflexibility and over-rigidity. Plans are drawn up at Casablanca, or Quebec, or Washington, or wherever it is, months ahead and cannot be departed from, or only very slightly departed from, and in the meantime great political changes take place and we are not ready to take advantage of them. That is why I hope there will be some overriding commanding authority, British, American or other—I do not care so long as he is given the power to take advantage of a situation which I believe will turn more and more in our favour as the months go on.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, the literature that is produced by debates of

127
this kind is so voluminous and comes out with such rapidity that for a man like myself who has a great many official engagements, made beforehand and which have to be kept, it is really impossible to read all that is produced on one day by the next day. I happen to have been very full of engagements the last day or two, and if therefore I have got up my "prep." rather less meticulously than usual, I hope that your Lordships will pardon me. But there are some things which I was anxious to say to-day and I may not have another opportunity to say them. I have over a limited field been a critic of the Government, mostly a little more than a year ago, and I therefore want particularly to congratulate the Government on the very great success of their policy and of their whole conduct of the war. I stress "the conduct of the war" because we had debates on that subject just over a year ago, and though I am not going to claim that it was because certain suggestions were made here and in another place that they were carried out, still I think they had their effect. At any rate, there is not the slightest doubt that there has been a vast improvement in the machinery for the control of the war.
This is not the occasion to go into it in great detail, but I could, if necessary, marshal a large amount of evidence to show that the machine is really working as it was meant to work. The Combined Chiefs of Staff in Washington, it is clear, are allowed, on the technical issues, to work without too much interference. It is equally clear that they get guidance and that they get thoroughly good guidance. I believe that the same thing applies precisely to the Joint Staffs at home. In saying that, however, I just want to reserve one point. I am not quite so sure about the civil administration being tuned up to the same extent, though it has been tuned up. But that does not arise to-day, so I leave the point.
The next point on which I was particularly anxious to congratulate the Government is their success in the anti-U-boat warfare. On this I differ a little at one point from my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, but he will not mind. I think he said the turning point of the war was Alamein. To me the turning point of the war was the Battle of the Atlantic in May —rather later. Perhaps there was more
128
than one turning point, one small and one big. But I do think that that Battle of the Atlantic in May was quite a decisive point in ensuring our ultimate victory. Of course we have to maintain all that is being done. When the Government started to tackle the business seriously—as your Lordships know, I think they were very late in doing so—they really tackled it with a will. And the things which some of your Lordships and I desired to see done, such as the bringing of the large aeroplanes into the Coastal Command, the great improvement in the quantity and the quality of the escorts, the provision of a great deal of scientific equipment, which is of prodigious importance (and I really do know something about that), the provision of some aircraft carriers, which are still coming along in increasing quantities— what I think they call Woolworth carriers —the bombing of the U-boat ports and of the industries of Germany—really all the industries of Germany, but those especially affecting the U-boats: the combination of all those things has brought a very great change in the situation.
Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that losses this year have been quite considerable. They must have been in the early part of the year. The Prime Minister said that shipbuilding exceeded losses by 6,000,000 tons. That is a tremendous figure, of course, but still the building is a tremendous figure. We know that the Americans have a target programme of 12,000,000 tons a year—a million tons a month—and that they are ahead of their schedule. We know that our own share is up to date, we know also that the Canadians are making a great contribution. Well, if you add together the American 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 tons, our own— which I do not profess to know exactly, though I could make a shot at it—and the Canadian, and then deduct the 6,000,000, it would not want a Senior Wrangler to deduce that there was quite a considerable figure of losses compared with the early part of this war and the last war. But the great point is that the U-boats are being destroyed and the losses are falling pretty nearly every month. So I think that the Government are to be very warmly congratulated on having tackled, with ups and downs of course, this very terrible menace, as it was a year ago.
Then I would like to say just one word about what is sometimes called the grand

129
strategy of the campaign. I myself have always been a convinced believer in what might be called the Mediterranean strategy. Mussolini had in his mind, without question, the intention to recreate something like the old Roman Empire. I always thought that, once you could scotch that idea, Fascism was bound to fall; it was bound up with that conception of the Roman Empire. Therefore, I am sure that the policy of the North African campaign was absolutely sound. I have always felt, too, and I still feel, that since Fascism came first and National Socialism came second, the fall of Fascism was absolutely bound to have a tremendous reaction, and I might go so far as to say to be followed in due course by the fall of National Socialism. The moral effect of the one on the other was bound to be tremendous. So much for the North African campaign.
I was always a convinced believer in the Sicilian campaign, and I always thought that the Sicilian campaign, if it was successful—and it was a hazardous affair on paper—would be followed by an Italian campaign; but never did I venture to think that before the fall of Sicily had taken place, the Italians would be asking for an Armistice. I do not believe anyone could have calculated that, because it. really resulted very largely from the massive operations and successes of our Russian Allies. At any rate, the grand strategy has been a very great success, and I wish in all humility to pay my tribute.
When we come to the political management of the Mediterranean war, I confess that though in many respects it was extremely good, in other respects my enthusiasm is much less pronounced. I am doubtful if we got quite the best out of the situation and, as I shall show in a moment, I think the Allies were rather hampered by the earlier declaration of unconditional surrender. The story really begins earlier than my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister in another place began it two days ago. I submit that the story begins with a broadcast that was made from Algiers on July 15 in the name of the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. That broadcast made no mention of the term "unconditional surrender." Much less humiliating phraseology was used, and I hope
130
your Lordships will allow me to quote from it:
"The sole hope for Italy's survival lies in honourable capitulation to the overwhelming power of the military forces of the United Nations."
I felt when I read that very fine document that it was an extraordinarily nice stroke, substituting "honourable capitulation" for "unconditional surrender."
I know the Italians very well, because I have dealt with them both in the last war and at many international conferences. They are an extraordinarily sensitive people. They have got a very fine sense of honour, and they are very much influenced often by what to us rather tough people does not matter very much. There is all the difference, I can assure your Lordships, to the Italians—and I can think of other nations as well—between "unconditional surrender" and "honourable capitulation." That document was, in effect, a powerful but persuasive appeal to the Italian people, first to capitulate, then to get rid of Mussolini and the Fascist régime, and finally to get rid of the Germans. The effect of that appeal, of which I have no criticism to make, combined with the advance in Sicily and the bombing of Italy, was very remarkable. Within ten days the second part of the advice had been taken Mussolini was deposed, Badoglio reigned in his stead, and the Fascist régime was abolished. In a sentence, the second item in the advice had been taken. At the end of July other statements were made on rather similar lines. On July 29 President Roosevelt made a broadcast, and while he did once use the phrase "unconditional surrender," it was rather persuasive, rather holding out hopes to the Italians. He expressed the determination of the Allies to restore these conquered peoples to the dignity of human beings, masters of their own fate, entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
On the very same day, in a broadcast to the Italians, General Eisenhower spoke in very much the same vein. In urging them to get rid of the Germans, he made it clear that they could have peace immediately "on the honourable conditions that our Governments have laid down." I thought, and still think, that that was a throw-back to the "honourable capitulation" mentioned in the statement of July 15. In his next sentence he struck

131
possibly an even better note. He said, "we are coming as liberators." The relentless bombing of the armies in Sicily and the bombing of the mainland had strongly disinclined the Italians towards continuing the war. In that respect I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. They were disinclined, especially when the bombing was combined with the sweeping advances of the Allied Armies through Sicily and with the series of statements which I have just quoted, admirably supported by the kindliness of our soldiers and airmen, who are really our best diplomats. All these things were showing the Italians that an honourable capitulation was within reach. It was not therefore very unexpected when, in the first week of August, the feelers were put out by the Italian Government.
That seems to me to have been a particularly decisive moment. A great opportunity was opened up. After all, the main object of our policy was, and is, to defeat the Germans, and here was an occasion which might, with luck, be used not only to eliminate our enemy's principal ally, Italy, but even to get them on our side, to get the wholehearted good will of the whole nation before Germany had time to increase to strangling point her growing grip on the country. At that moment, too, we were dealing with Marshal Badoglio, a soldier who is notoriously anti-German, a good colleague in the last war, a man who had already taken all risks in upsetting Mussolini and the Fascist regime, a man who had already carried out at great risk the second advice of July 15 by making his approach with a view to honourable capitulation and with a view to opposing the Germans. We had not the slightest reason to doubt his good faith. Of course it is easy to be wise after the event and I know I am exposing myself to that being said, but it does seem to me that there was an opportunity to reply in rather a different way. I am not sure we replied at all, I do not think we did, but there was an opportunity to reply to the feelers.
I think we might have let it be known that our policy was one of honourable capitulation and that we were coming as liberators. We had said that already. It was an opportunity to suggest that
132
Marshal Badoglio should get in touch with General Eisenhower. This was a matter of an Armistice and an Armistice is a military matter. According to my recollection, in the case of the Bulgarian Armistice in the last war the approaches were made across the lines and the whole business was settled in a single night. Of course it had been prepared. I suggest that if we had been able to get in touch with General Eisenhower in Sicily, if we had asked the Marshal or his agents to do that, it would not then have been so very difficult because the war was very mixed up in Sicily. There were men surrendering every day and it would have been a relatively easy matter to arrange for the surrender of the right people to carry on the negotiations. Contact would have been possible, and the whole matter could have been arranged probably without leakage and plans arranged at that very early date for Italy's co-operation. That, of course, was not done. I dare say it was impossible.
As I have said, it is easy to be wise after the event, but as we now know a very different course was adopted. We abandonded for a time the idea of honourable capitulation and coming as liberators and reverted to the humiliating and rather insulting phrase "unconditional surrender." A lot of time was inevitably lost and enough leaked out to warn the Germans that something was afoot. We do not know whether at Madrid Marshal Badoglio's representative was told that it was a policy of unconditional surrender.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Prime Minister says yes.
LORD HANKEY: I did not know that. All I knew was that in that aproach it was made clear that Italy wanted to join the Allies. We do know that at Lisbon four days later the Italian emissary received from the hastily-assembled Allied representatives, who included Staff officers from General Eisenhower's headquarters, the reply that we would only accept unconditional surrender. So far as we can judge, there was no discussion on the Italian proposal that they should join the Allies. We know also that the Italian emissary said he could not give a reply without consulting his Government, because his purpose was to discuss how Italy could join the United Nations in the

133
war against Germany. Then he had to go homo by a roundabout route. It was not till the 23rd August that he left. I am not sure of the day on which he arrived at Rome. He took back with him the military terms. We know also that there had been a certain reaction in Italy against unconditional surrender.
There was a broadcast from Rome on August 11 which stated that the Allied peace conditions were such that there was no Italian who would not go on with the war rather than accept such dishonour. Then the friendly journal Free Italy described the term as un errore di vocabulario. In fact it was an error of vocabulary, because at the very meeting at which the emissary was informed of the policy of unconditional surrender he was handed a document which was in effect "preliminary peace conditions," and he said he must take it home and he did take it home. So far as one can see, no opportunity was taken at that interview to discuss closer co-operation by Italy.
Meanwhile, in spite of all these precautions, it is quite clear the Germans must have been placed on the alert. There was a very peculiar announcement in the Press on August 17. I only saw it in an obscure column, but there it was. A news agency reported that an Italian mission had arrived in Lisbon led by General "Tobacco" and Signor "Speranza." That must have set the whole German diplomatic and secret service machine agog From that time we began to read stories in the Press that German troops were pouring into Italy and seizing one key point after another. I shall not pursue the story because I think for the rest it was conducted, so far as I can judge, with the same success as it was in the very first stages. It was in the middle stage where I think things went wrong. I am not contending, and I never have thought, that we could have anticipated our landing in Italy if the Armistice negotiations had been concluded earlier. I think that the Government's case on that was one hundred per cent. foolproof and I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi on that point, if I understood him correctly.
All that I am suggesting is that by acting earlier at the time of the original feelers, by transferring Armistice negotia-
134
tions at once into military channels—and of course the Generals act under instructions from their respective Governments and our Governments were together at Quebec—by sticking to our previous attitude of honourable capitulation and coming as liberators instead of reverting to unconditional surrender, by responding rather more cordially to Marshal Badoglio's desire to join the United Nations we might perhaps, I will not put it higher than that, have fixed up better arrangements for Italian co-operation. In addition, we might have kept the thing rather more secret than can have been possible in the conditions, first, of a visit to Madrid, and then to Lisbon, and then the arrival of the other General and so forth. But I am quite certain we should have secured a better spirit of co-operation by a more generous acceptance of Marshal Badoglio's overture, by treating Italy in the spirit of the prodigal son and making it a bit easier for the Italian people. That seems to me to be proved by a passage in the very virile statement issued by Marshal Badoglio to the Italian people on September 20:
"Do not forget that all talk of unconditional surrender is out of date and irrelevant to the changed conditions of to-day."
That seems to me to show that the Marshal feels that he must get that into the minds of his people if he is going to get their whole-hearted co-operation.
I am very glad to observe a good many signs that we are now getting back to the principle of a war of liberation. The moral of the tale seems to be that perhaps it is a mistake to make declarations of this kind the effect of which, on the military situation, we cannot judge beforehand. I felt that at the first moment when I read the adoption of unconditional surrender. It is a harsh term. It is a rather meaningless term, because there always have to be conditions, and these can always be imposed if the military situation permits and cannot be imposed unless the military situation permits. My own view, therefore, for what it is worth, is that I hope the term will gradually fall into disuse so as not to hamper us in dealing with other capitulations, which will certainly be coming along in due course, unless the circumstances make it necessary, as I would be the first to agree would be almost certain, in the case of Germany.
LORD KEYES: My Lords, we listened two days ago to a most heartening statement by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and most of your Lordships will either have listened to or have read that wonderful, comprehensive survey of the war situation made by the Prime Minister in another place. I am sure that statement will be regarded all over the world as a prelude to victory. No one knows better than I do what a great debt we owe to the Prime Minister for what my noble friend Lord Hankey calls "the Mediterranean strategy," because I know from personal experience that from the time that Italy came into the war the Prime Minister has most insistently and faithfully pursued the policy of gaining control of the Mediterranean. In order to do so great amphibious operations were obviously necessary and combined operations are terribly difficult to mount when not only three Services are involved, as must necessarily be the case now, but Allied forces also. My noble friend and the Prime Minister left us under no illusions as to the great difficulties we have to face and the price we may have to pay in blood and treasure before the war can be brought to a victorious issue by reason of these operations which must be conducted by the three Services as combined operations.
I remember the time—it was about seven years ago I think—when the Prime Minister was leading in the House of Commons a small band, of which I am proud to have been one, who were fighting all the time for the restoration of our defences, and I remember his incessant warnings that if we did not put our defences in order, and particularly our Air Force, we should be courting disaster. I remember his saying on one occasion when he had been attacked by somebody for saying the same thing two or three times, that the object of recriminating about the past was to enforce effective action in the future. I do not intend to recriminate about the past because I feel very strongly that most, if not all, of the lessons which were taught in previous combined operations in past generations and even in our own generation, have been learnt afresh and taken to heart. I would include the temporary setback at Salerno, for which I think there was a very good explanation. I hope no one will be unduly discouraged by that setback. I have in mind particularly one
136
thing which the Prime Minister said on Tuesday. I believe one is not allowed to quote exact statements made in another place, but paraphrased what the Prime Minister said was that there were no certainties in war, that we had a precipice on either side, a precipice of caution and a precipice of over-daring: the difficult thing was to steer the middle course.
When that great amphibious operation described as the greatest in the history of the world was launched in North Africa, the Prime Minister said in another place that it was regarded by his expert advisers as one of great hazards. Yet we only had a token resistance to expect. There might be bitter resistance perhaps in certain localities, but we had no Italian Army and no German Army nor any properly equipped army to fight. The war machine evidently regarded it as too great a hazard, although we sprang a great surprise in North Africa, to carry out amphibious operations to seize Bizerta and Tunis, and we allowed the Germans to forestall us. The hazards, we were told, were too great. When we wanted to capture Pantellaria it was considered necessary to bomb that island into submission for about twenty days. I think that recent events have shown that probably a landing might have been effected on the second or third day. A great deal of time was lost.
The next operation was against Sicily, Knowing the Italians very well—I was for three years Naval Attaché in Italy and three years Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet, and I kept up my contact with Italy until the war began—I always felt that when we had a proper crack at the Italians they would collapse. We were greatly advantaged, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, in our landings in Sicily because the Italians did not put up much of a fight. Still it was described as an operation of great complexity and hazard. When the next great combined operation was carried out the enemy's fleet was about to enter our harbours, we knew that it was not going to attack us, and we had a friendly country to invade. This, as the Prime Minister told us, was a most hazardous operation. And yet there are people clamouring in this country, for a Second Front, a Second Front across the Channel. To carry out what they suggest would entail a far more hazardous operation than anything we have undertaken yet.

137
And who are the people who are asking for this Second Front? British Communists, Left-Wing Socialists—those are the people who are clamouring for a Second Front. Well, I wonder what the relations and friends of the men who were fighting during that anxious week on the beaches of Salerno—facing disaster, as some thought, although I personally never had a doubt—felt when they read in their newspapers that fourteen thousand miners were out on strike because one boy had been punished for refusing to go down a mine? Now these people who are asking for a Second Front are asking for it on behalf of the Russians. I wonder what the Russians think. What must they have thought if they listened, as I did, the other night to a broadcast which told of strikes here and strikes there, strikes at Vickers' works at Barrow, strikes at the Liverpool Docks and so on. We have heard, too, of much absenteeism. I say that these things are monstrous. These are the things that those who are agitating for a Second Front ought to tackle. They ought to use their best endeavours to influence their people so that an end is brought to strikes and absenteeism. The workpeople concerned can be influenced if they are led properly.
During the last year or two I have spent a good deal of time going about the country and visiting factories. I have been enormously impressed by the work that is being done in them, work which to a great extent is being carried out by young women and old men. Most of the young men, of course, are serving with the Forces but a certain number of them are in reserved occupations. Now I have said this in another place—I said it across the floor of the House to the Socialist Party several years ago—for God's sake let us have some equality of sacrifice. Let men in the appropriate age categories be conscripted for work just as men of similar age are conscripted for the Services. Why should men be conscripted to fight when men in the same categories are left free to strike and to absent themselves from their places of employment? I said all this with reference to some very bad cases in shipyards which came to my knowledge nearly two years ago. As a result, I was asked by the shop stewards to go down to these shipyards and to repeat the insults which I was said to have hurled against the working classes. Alto-
138
gether I received three such invitations. I went down to the first shipyard on the list and I said there what I thought. I got a vote of thanks for having the guts to go down and talk to the men straight.
Later I went to a second shipyard. There I listened to a man making an impassioned speech demanding a. vote of censure on the Admiral for having insulted the British working people. The vote he got was unanimous but it was rather half-hearted. After the voting, someone at the back of the crowd got up and said: "I beg to propose a vote of thanks to the Admiral for having the guts to come down here and talk to us so straight." That vote was carried with enthusiasm. Subsequently the man who made the speech demanding the vote of censure wrote me a letter which I greatly value. He said, in effect: "I had to do it, but now what can I do to help?" I replied to him: ''You are a very eloquent fellow. Go about among your people and use your influence for good." I do not believe that there has been any trouble in those two places to which I have referred since that time. I am absolutely certain that if the Prime Minister went to what is called the microphone, and, using that great gift of oratory of his, pointed out to our workmen, ninety-nine per cent. of whom are loyal and devoted people, that all this nonsense has got to stop, that there must be no more strikes and no more absenteeism, for we have great battles before us, and that, as he said the other day, much blood must yet be spilt, the whole country would rise as one man to respond to his appeal.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I cannot help on an occasion like this saying just a word or two with reference to the amazing statements that were made first of all by the Prime Minister in another place and after that by my noble friend who leads this House so well. Reports of those speeches are extraordinary documents to read. The immense distances of time which they cover, and the changing events which they review, are I think, unprecedented in any period through which we have passed. It has been shown how we have swung over from a desperate situation into the beginning of a continuous building-up of success after success. I often wonder whether the people of this country realize what it means in effort, in Staff work, in building-

139
up of material, in bringing things from far-distant shores to the theatre of war, before a successful operation can be carried out. I think that we in this country, especially the people who have some knowledge of military matters—and I may here say that I am sure the noble Admiral who has just spoken has well voiced the point of view of the Navy—must stand amazed when we consider the marvellous standard of co-operation and co-ordination which has to be achieved, and which has been achieved, between the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force before such an operation can be carried out as a landing on these rocky beaches in Italy. It is an accomplishment which is almost beyond our conception. We owe the officers and others concerned in this tremendous effort a great debt of gratitude for the wonderful success of these operations.
A point which strikes me is that anyone who knows these Italian shores must realize what a desperate undertaking it is to land on such beaches as those of Salerno, with a hinterland rising so rapidly and affording such splendid concealment both for mortars and howitzers. The fight on the Salerno beaches was a most amazing operation. The way in which our men stuck it out and held on after once getting a grip is beyond all praise. As for the incomparable Eighth Army, which will always live in our memories, I can only say of those who belong to it that they are perfectly wonderful. I only hope that the Government will see to it that after all these battles and campaigns in which they have been used, it will not be long before a good many of the old soldiers at any rate will be able to get some well-earned leave. I hope indeed that it may be possible for them to get some this winter.
There is another point which I think is overlooked; I have not seen any notice of it in the way of thanks. I refer to the fact that the bulk of the troops brought from the United States and from Canada were carried in ships of the British Mercantile Marine. The hardships and trials which the merchant seamen who man the ships had to undergo in bringing these men to the Mediterranean—in some cases bringing them first to this country—must not be forgotten, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude for their wonderful work. It was a marvellous performance to bring these men so many miles in
140
safety. The third point to which I would refer is the lesson which has been brought home to us that we are confined in these operations to the distance at which air cover can be provided. That is a lesson which has been learnt during this war. In the landings at Salerno, where we were stretched to the uttermost to give that cover, the performance of the Air Force was wonderful, and the way which it protected our men after they had got ashore and could not quite reach the upper heights was beyond praise.
Another point which strikes one in the review of the situation by the Prime Minister is why more use was not made of the collapse of Italy, or, as I should prefer to put it, why certain arrangements were not made in advance before the Germans had a chance to interfere. I think that our prisoners of war in Italy ought to have been the first thought in the minds of our negotiators, and that in the early stages of the negotiations with the Italians we should have insisted on our prisoners of war being moved out of the range of harm from the German troops. I cannot think why that was not done. I believe a great many of our men who were held prisoner in Italy are now roving about the country, and I hope that large numbers of them will be able to get through to our lines; but I think that something might have been done to safeguard them against being dragged off to Germany.
I wonder whether we are thoroughly prepared to meet the eventuality of a sudden collapse of Germany. In the last war, Germany collapsed very suddenly. I wonder whether we should be in a position to take advantage of that if it occurred now. It is quite within the range of possibility that the Germans might say that with all this pressure from Russia and from the direction of Italy, and with the further pressure which may develop at some time from another direction, they could not go on. They might say: "Italy has left us. What have we to fight for? Are we going to fight for Hitler, to save his skin? What outlook have we? We have no chances of winning the war." Do not you think that it might enter the minds of the German people that at least they could not be any worse off than they are at present by running up the white flag? That is quite possible. Therefore I wonder whether we are prepared to act and to take advantage of any sudden movement in that direction.

141
All kinds of things are involved. It means not only occupation by British and American troops, but also the sending in of people with experience to deal with administration and to handle the reconstruction of industry. I wonder whether we have the necessary people trained and ready to go into Germany and do that work. I am convinced that for many years after we have overcome Germany we shall have to control directly a great many German industries and ports, as well as various Government offices, and we shall have to go on doing so for much longer than we thought of doing alter the last war. It seems to me that at least we ought to have people earmarked who would be ready to take up that very important function, if anything should happen.
The last point to which I want to draw attention is that obviously there is a good deal of concern to-day in the minds of the Japanese. I think that the Prime Minister brought that out very well. They are becoming very concerned about their position, and it may easily be that after, or even before, we have finally dealt with Germany, we may have to go ahead with the task of defeating and crushing those barbarous people. What we have done at Lae and other places has been wonderful. Before the final attack on Japan can be delivered, however, a great deal of work will have to be done. We as a people must look forward not only to finishing the war with Germany but to a continuation of the war until we have beaten the Japanese to their knees.
We must all admire the wonderful fortitude with which the Prime Minister has faced many dangers—not only physical dangers, but dangers to health—to make personal contacts with President Roosevelt and Mr. Mackenzie King. I hope that at some future time, not too long delayed, he will have the opportunity of including Marshal Stalin in one of his conferences. I was disturbed at what the Foreign Secretary said in another place yesterday. There have evidently been misunderstandings with the Russians. If the Leader of the House, when he replies, could elucidate the position and explain what those misunderstandings are, I think it would ease the minds of many of us. I hope that whatever misunderstandings do exist will be removed as speedily as possible, because it is only in complete trust one with
142
another that the Allies can win this dreadful war.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, this debate on the war situation has enabled comments to be made on certain aspects of the Italian operations which have not, perhaps, gone quite so well as they might have done, and I think that many of the criticisms which have been made have been well-founded. It seems to me, however, that one has to take a very broad view of events during war. One must take them rather by and large. Things which are very well planned and which deserve complete success often turn out badly owing to bad luck, and very often good results are achieved very fortunately indeed, and not as a result of any great planning or foresight. It seems to me that what we have to do is to judge by the results; and the results to-day are certainly good. I feel, therefore, that the opportunity can be taken of this debate on the war situation to pass what is known as a hearty vote of thanks to the management. I would certainly hold up my hand in support of that. I personally feel very grateful to many members of the Government who have brought us through great dangers, who have raised enormous armed forces and equipped them, and who have brought our affairs to the favourable situation in which they are to-day.
Reference has been made to the Prime Minister's speech on Tuesday last. I think that the passage in which he said that it is generally felt that our plans are well made, and that those at the centre of the direction of the war have appointed competent men to carry them out, was very well justified by the results which we see to-day. In referring to that speech of the Prime Minister, I would say that it is a fortunate instance of Lend-Lease in reverse that we are from time to time, thanks to the Prime Minister's shuttle service across the Atlantic, enabled to see the war through American and Canadian eyes, while those on the other side of the Atlantic are enabled to see the war through our eyes.
There was a passage in his speech which particularly aroused my attention, because before your Lordships rose for the Recess I made a short speech in which I ventured to say that I thought the Allies were not so well in step politically as they were militarily. And indeed, if I may, I would like to support what my noble

143
friend Lord Addison said to-day on that particular score. I felt that in the speech of the Prime Minister there were signs that the international political aspect of the war is now fully engaging his attention, and that in particular the setting up of the Mediterranean Committee is a solid augury for the future in that respect. I would only say in regard to the future in these matters that I was much struck by what my noble friend Lord Hankey said to-day on the subject. I think indeed that the watchword for the future is, as the noble Lord said, that whatever countries we may penetrate, we should go as liberators. The American Liberator aircraft will pave the way, but after they have done that let us also go as liberators into these countries.
In regard to what has been said about the Italian operations and loss of time, I think there has been loss of time on one or two occasions. But of course combined operations are bound, I think, to involve loss of time. We had to proceed by means of combined operations first in North Africa, then into Sicily, then into Italy; and combined operations in the very nature of things are bound to take up a great deal of time in the plans. At the same time I would not disagree for a moment with what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi said this afternoon, that there are occasions when you may take advantage of the tide and a great deal of that planning can be dispensed with. But in the nature of things combined operations, of which we are bound to hear much in the future of the war, must absorb time, and sometimes must involve a certain loss of time. In regard to those operations, there is one matter that my noble friend Lord Keyes suggested to me that I should mention and I do with very great pleasure. That is that we might to-day think for one moment of the admirable gunnery of the Mediterranean Fleet —the remarkable bombardments which were carried out by the Fleet, the remarkable precision of the shooting—bombardments which undoubtedly played a very great part indeed in restoring and improving the situation at Salerno.
Reference has been made to the rescue of Mussolini by the Führer. I agree with the noble Viscount that perhaps too much has been made of that episode. It seems to me that while the Führer has got the shadow of the Duce, we still have the
144
substance of the campaign. And really if we were to add it up, we have got Sicily, we have got a very large part of Italy, we have got Sardinia and we have got the Italian Fleet. I suggest that if we were to say to Hitler, "Would you swap those for Mussolini?" we should have Mussolini the same day. And while the Duce may be very grateful to the Führer for rescuing him, perhaps the thought will penetrate his mind that the Führer will be slow about releasing him, and there may be difficulties ahead for him in that respect. Indeed I can feel a certain amount of sympathy with Mussolini. A man who, during his confinement, is condemned to read the works of Nietzsche can excite a certain sympathy in our minds. Nietzsche, to the best of my information, died in a lunatic asylum, and it seems to me very suitable that one maniac should send to another the works of a third for his recreation during his imprisonment.
But there is another and more serious matter to which I should like to make reference, and that is in regard to the Italian Fleet. Certain points about the surrender of the Italian Fleet rather attracted my attention. I see some reference was made in another place to the fact that the Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Fleet upon arriving at Malta to surrender it inspected a naval guard of honour. Well, I would not make too much of that. I rather like the Nelson tradition in such cases. I think it was after the Battle of the Nile that Nelson, speaking of those whom he had captured, said: "When they became my prisoners they became my guests." I think matters of that sort may very safely be left in the hands of Sir Andrew Cunningham who, if I may remind your Lordships, after Dunkirk, showed himself extraordinarily well able to handle the situation in regard to the French at his end of the Mediterranean at Alexandria, when he made an agreement with Admiral Godefroy of the French Fleet there, which to the best of my knowledge was honoured right up to the time when the French ships came over to us the other day. I regret that he did not have the handling of things at the other end of the Mediterranean, at Oran. If he had done so, we might have been spared events at Oran, about which I would say that the folly of their inception was only equalled by the ineptitude of their execution.

145
But in regard to this surrender of the Italian Fleet I think at some suitable time in the near future it would be valuable and of interest to have a statement as to what exactly is involved. The German Fleet at the end of the last war did not surrender but was interned. It came across the North Sea to Rosyth and was interned—not surrendered. Lord Wemyss —he was then Admiral Wemyss, and was First Sea Lord—was very anxious that it should be surrendered, but he was overborne by the Government and the German Fleet was interned. But when that Fleet came into Rosyth Admiral Beatty made a signal: "The German colours will be hauled down at sunset and will not be rehoisted." The Italian Fleet has come to Malta after Italy has done its best to wipe Malta off the map and it has surrendered, but, according to the Press reports, the ships of the Italian Fleet are still wearing their colours in Malta harbour, the ships have not been immobilized, oil fuel has not been pumped out, and essential parts of the mechanism of the guns have not been removed. This seems to me somewhat remarkable. I am sure there are good reasons for it. I am not speaking in a spirit of criticism, but I think the whole of the conditions under which the Italian Fleet is lying at Malta at the present moment are really rather remarkable. I hope that at some early date it may be possible to elucidate the position. Many interesting points arise. For instance, who is paying the officers and men of the Italian Fleet at the present time, or who is going to pay them in future? I hope very much that my noble friend may be able to indicate that it will be possible in the near future to make some statement in regard to the position of the Italian Fleet.
One other matter regarding the war at sea to which I wish to refer is the U-boat campaign which is going so successfully at the present time. I have been one of those mentioned by ray noble friend Lord Hankey who have been critical in this respect in the past. Nobody rejoices more sincerely than I do that events are now going so well, and nobody would wish to congratulate more warmly all concerned on the happy turn which events have taken; but equally I have no word of criticism to retract in this matter. The criticisms were thoroughly well justified, and I have always felt that a particular
146
debt of gratitude is due to the Press for the part it took in the U-boat warfare when it showed itself a real bastion of our system of political government. If I had any doubts in my mind as to whether I should apologize for any criticisms I may have uttered on this subject, they were removed when I listened to Mr. Bevin, a member of the War Cabinet, speaking at the Trade Union Congress at Southport recently. Mr. Bevin stated that it was in November last that the Government really made up their mind that something had got to be done about the U-boat, and decided to concentrate their efforts on it. I am sure that these are the words—I was sitting on the platform— which I heard Mr. Bevin use. If it were only last November that the Government really decided that something must be done about the U-boat, then we can congratulate ourselves that it only took six months to get the more favourable results that began to come along in May. If there ever was justification for the criticisms, it was to be found in the remarks of Mr. Bevin.
There was something else which Mr. Bevin said on that occasion. I understood him to say that last November the Government decided to give certain priorities to the Admiralty in this matter, but I also understood him to say that the time was now coming when some of these priorities would be switched back again to aircraft production. We really are getting on rather dangerous ground here. I do urge most strongly that there should be no playing fast and loose with any of the priorities which the Admiralty enjoys at the present moment with regard to the U-boat campaign. I am certain that if we begin to play fast and loose with these priorities, it will not be long before we find ourselves confronted with some of the difficulties which we have had to face in the past. In particular, where the scientists are concerned, where apparatus, instruments, radiolocation, and so on are concerned, there must be no playing about with these priorities because in this matter it is a day-to-day affair. What was effective yesterday, the enemy have found an answer to to-day, and you must find something new to-morrow. I therefore urge most strongly that there should be no playing fast and loose with any Admiralty priorities in this matter. We still need all our vigilance and activity

147
because, while the results are good—the results from the Atlantic are very good indeed—if we were only losing five ships a month, that would still be five ships too many. One of these ships might be carrying a cargo vital to the success of a certain operation.
All I wish to say in conclusion is this. There was another passage in the Prime Minister's speech to which I hope the whole country will pay the deepest attention as well as to the good news he gave us. The Prime Minister said that the bloodiest time yet lies ahead for America and ourselves. These words point a very serious moral for us at this moment. My noble friend Lord Keyes has referred to the matter of strikes. I hope my noble friend will not mind my saying to him that a Communist is not a Left-Wing Socialist. That is a confusion in terms; there is no connexion between the two. I see it stated in the Press that there is a certain slackening of the war effort in certain spheres of production owing to a belief that the war will soon be over. There is a certain amount of foolish talk about the war being soon over, but I do not believe that any slackening in the war effort is due entirely to that. What, perhaps, does cause a certain amount of unrest, perhaps occasional strikes, and may be at the bottom of some of these troubles, is a profound uncertainty on the part of our working men and women as to what shape it is intended this country shall take when the war is over. They will do everything they can to beat Fascism into the dust, but more and more the question is on their lips: "What sort of a country is this going to be afterwards?" There, I believe, is the cause of any slackening there may be.
Now when the war is going so much better, when the Prime Minister is reaping the fruits of his tremendous labours, when the situation is so much better militarily, surely one may venture to hope that the Prime Minister, with his incomparable prestige, will begin to devote his attention to that phase of our domestic affairs, and will use his great influence and powers to inspire the people, to make them believe that after this war the result of their labours will be something for which each one of them in the future will be personally thankful.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, on Tuesday I inflicted an extremely long speech on the House, and to-day we have already had a further full, interesting, and on the whole harmonious debate. I therefore, in winding-up, do not propose to speak to your Lordships for a very long time, but rather intend briefly to answer the points that have been made. Indeed, I do not think there has been a very great deal that I need answer. It seemed to me, as I listened, that the House as a whole shared the feeling of warm if sober satisfaction which was voiced by Lord Addison and the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in the speeches with which they opened the debate. There are, however, certain points of inquiry and some of mild criticism which I ought to answer, and I propose to devote myself to them immediately.
First, let me deal with the Italian situation, around which a great part of the debate has centred. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, generally speaking, had nothing but praise for the Italian situation. He said, as we all recognize, that things have gone much more quickly and better than we could possibly have expected a year ago. But he had a certain anxiety, as I understood him, lest the political preparations which the Allied Government were making for changes and developments in the situation were behind our military preparations. I do not really feel that these misgivings are justified. He will realize that the situation has been difficult and complex, but, as I say, I do not think his misgivings are justified. We are in fact looking forward the whole time. Lord Strabolgi, who spoke after him, seemed to think we should have done a great deal better if, instead of confining ourselves to dealings with the Badoglio Government, we had promoted a popular rising by appealing to the Italian people above the heads of their Government. That was the gist of his remarks, as I understood them.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think that might have been a good thing to do, but I did not suggest it to-day. What I wanted was the same appeal as was made to the Italian people on September 17 to have been ante-dated. The same appeal made by the President of the United States and our Prime Minister in almost the same words made at the time of the fall of Mussolini would have been admirable.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is exactly, I think, what I suggested—that we should have appealed to the Italian people to rise immediately in the early stages, before our offensive began.
LORD STRABOLGI: The important thing was to appeal to them to turn out the Germans.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to go on. I quite realize that was the important thing. All of us are entirely in favour of rallying the widest measure of resistance to the Germans. That is common ground. I honestly feel that we should have made a mistake had we neglected those means which we did use and just made a general appeal and pushed ahead—this was the main point the noble Lord made—with a sort of half-baked invasion before the date when we were really ready. That would not' have been of the slightest use. On the contrary, it would have been a disastrous course of action to take. In the first place, if we had sent forces before we were ready and before Marshal Badoglio was ready, we should not have got hold of the Italian Navy. It would not have fallen into our hands. The necessary preparations could not have been made.
Perhaps, while speaking about the Navy, I might say one word in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Winster. He asked what the position of the Italian Navy is now. I cannot give him full information; but I will say this. The Italian Fleet did not surrender; it moved to designated points under the terms of the Armistice. The future of the Italian Fleet is at present under consideration and much depends on the extent to which the Italian Navy co-operates against the enemy. I cannot go any further for the moment, but I think it may be of value to the House to know this. I repeat therefore that we should not have got control of the Navy and the Army would not have received orders to cease fighting againstus—and certainly not to co-operate with us. Also, I think we should not have got that result if we had sent the type of light expedition which the noble Lord indicated. The noble Lord spoke of an expedition not too heavily weighted down. If we had sent that sort of expedition it would have met with complete and absolute disaster, so far as our own troops are concerned. That would have only meant
150
useless slaughter, and no one would have been angrier if that had happened than the noble Lord himself. We should not have had the protection of the necessary land-based aircraft for our troops: we would have been sending an inadequately prepared force to meet a fully armed German Army on the mainland. That is, in fact, exactly what the Germans wanted us to do, and the result would have been utterly disastrous to us. We should have been cut to bits and the Italians would never have trusted us again.
I think most of your Lordships know that the success of the Sicilian expedition depended upon very careful preparations—preparations that went on for weeks and months before the expedition took place. That is why it was so successful and that is why our losses were so small. The same thing applies exactly to a full dress attack on the Italian mainland. When it is necessary we are not averse from making an attack with light forces. We have moved such forces into Sardinia. We did not send forces with heavy impedimenta because it was not necessary. As a result, with very little loss, we have got control of a valuable territory. But because that was the right thing to do in Sardinia, it does not mean it is always the right thing to do. To try and tackle the enemy's main armies with inadequate forces would have been reckless and indefensible, and if the Government had done that they would rightly have been censured for agreeing to such a plan.
To return to what I was saying earlier with regard to Lord Strabolgi's remarks, he wanted, as I understood it and I think the House so understood it, to call upon the Italians to rise. He said that we gave the Germans time to prepare, and so on. If we had called upon the Italians to rise and if they had answered our call it is indeed conceivable that we might have produced a situation of absolute chaos in Italy. That is conceivable. But I cannot really believe that such a course would have helped the Italian people, who are suffering enough already. Moreover, the noble Lord's picture of the Italian people panting to fight the Germans was singularly unconvincing. I think the noble Lord will remember that before the fall of Mussolini when riots occurred in Milan and Turin, the cry was always for "Peace." It was not a cry of "Help the Allies" or "Down with the Germans," it was just "Peace,

151
peace." That was what the Italian people wanted. They did not want to fight anyone, they were absolutely down and out. Therefore I cannot believe that this call of the noble Lord's would have had the effect he said. And if indeed the Italian people had risen at that juncture and we had been unable to assist them—and we should have been unable to assist them—then there would only have been a horrible and bloody massacre. A population rising unsupported by regular troops may have been all very well in the good old days but it is absolutely futile in these days against aeroplanes, machine guns and tanks. The Italian people would not have been fortunate if His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States had adopted the advice of Lord Strabolgi. If we were lucky enough to find a Government in Italy functioning, which was ready to treat with us on a basis of unconditional surrender, why should we not take full advantage of such a situation? Marshal Badoglio has himself already appealed to the Italians to resist the Germans. I really do not know what more the noble Lord and those who agree with him want than that.
Before I go on to reply to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, I should like just to say one word with regard to Lord Strabolgi's remarks about bombing Turin and Milan. I interrupted the noble Lord when he was speaking about that and I am afraid I spoke with considerable heat. But I did think it was the most base insinuation I have ever heard that we, a democratic country, should go and bomb Milan and Turin longer than we need, because there were only Italian workmen in those cities. I think that is a most disgusting suggestion and I hope the House will think the same. In fact, there really is no foundation for that suggestion at all. I can only repeat what was said by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place the other day. The crucial dates are these. The first Italian envoy arrived in Madrid on August 15. We (that is the Government) first received a telegram about it on August 16. The envoy arrived in Lisbon on August 17, and our negotiations began on the 18th and 19th. The last occasion on which we bombed Milan was on the night of the I5th-16th and the last occasion
152
that we bombed Turin was on the night of the 16th-17th. It will be seen, therefore, that from the day when the envoy arrived in Lisbon there was no more bombing of either of those two cities. I am very glad to make that clear. The noble Lord spoke of earlier feelers. It is true there were feelers, but they were feelers to which no Government could properly pay any attention. They were a few words spoken in neutral capitals by comparatively unimportant Italian diplomats and things of that kind. They did not carry any weight. But directly accredited envoys arrived, the bombing stopped. I think I have made that clear, and that I have scotched this, as I think it, most monstrous suggestion, once and for all.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? He is very courteous and I hope he will not mind. He speaks of just a few words here and there being said in neutral countries. He has overlooked what the Prime Minister himself said, printed in column 80 of Tuesday's OFFICIAL REPORT. He said:
"Presently feelers were put out … through various channels asking for terms, and explaining the deadly character of the difficulties in which they were involved."
Those are not a few words by unimportant diplomats; and that is what the Prime Minister himself said about these approaches.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I know all about these feelers. It is quite true they were put out informally in a neutral country by diplomats, but they were not official approaches on behalf of the Italian Government. I cannot put it more clearly than that. A feeler put out by such a person is not the same thing as an official approach.
I would like to address myself for a moment to a question asked by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe. He asked what of the future of Italy? I paraphrase his words: Do the Allied Governments intend to deal with the Badoglio Government without prejudice to the future? That really is the position. The noble Marquess stated it quite correctly. It is the hope of His Majesty's Government that Marshal Badoglio will set up as soon as possible a Government including representatives of all sections of opinion, except Fascist opinion, and of course it is also their hope that ultimately, when circumstances permit, the Italian people should

153
choose that Government which suits them when more normal times arrive. I hope that what I have said is an adequate answer to the noble Marquess.
Now I turn for a moment to the speech of my noble friend Lord Hankey. Anything that comes from the noble Lord of course will be listened to in this House with the greatest interest and considered with the greatest care. But I really do not find myself, if he will forgive my saying so, in entire agreement with him this afternoon. He objected to the term "unconditional surrender" and preferred the term "honourable capitulation." I had to deal with this difference of terms once before, in July, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Winster. I explained at that time that I thought there was really no difference in substance between the two. Capitulation and surrender, as the noble Lord will see if he looks up the words in the dictionary, mean exactly the same thing. They mean that we impose terms and the enemy accept them. That is what both words mean.
LORD HANKEY: May I be allowed to interrupt to say that I think there is a very great difference in the psychological effect that the words may have on different nations. I think the effect on Germans, a hard, tough people, would be very different from the effect on the Italians, who, as I explained, are extremely sensitive people.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The question whether the terms imposed are dishonourable or not depends upon the terms themselves. It was never the intention of the Allies to impose intolerable terms upon the people of Italy and they have not in fact done so. The fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, himself said, General Eisenhower used the words "honourable capitulation" shows I think that in his view the words mean the same thing. There is no doubt that Marshal Badoglio himself realizes this because at present he is doing all he can to assist the Allies to drive out the Germans. The purpose of asking for unconditional surrender or for honourable capitulation, whichever term is preferred, was of course to ensure that all facilities should be made available to the Allies to defeat Germany. "Unconditional surrender" was the phrase used, as the noble Lord knows, at Casablanca.
154
That is where the phrase was first brought before the public, and to have altered it would, I think, only have led very naturally to unfounded suspicions. I repeat that the phrase "unconditional surrender "does not mean "dishonourable capitulation." The two phrases "unconditional surrender" and "honourable capitulation" may very likely and do often mean exactly the same thing.
There was another point raised by the noble Lord as to whether negotiations were best conducted in the early stages at Lisbon or whether it would not have been better to have handed them over entirely to General Eisenhower. I cannot see how the matter could have been left entirely to General Eisenhower as Commander-in-Chief, because the question whether Marshal Bagdolio was to be allowed to negotiate an Armistice to take Italy out of the war was essentially a political decision and the Governments concerned must take responsibility for it. The noble Lord suggested, or at any rate I understood him to suggest, that we ought to have accepted Italy immediately as an Ally, that that would have saved time and that it would have been also better because it would not have hurt Italian feelings. I do not believe that it would have been possible for the Allies to have gone further than they did. After all, the Italians had been fighting for three years against us. It is easy for the noble Lord to say that they were ready to swing over immediately and to fight on the other side, but it is by no means certain that at that time the Italians were ready to do that, nor is it certain that Marshal Bagdolio, even if that was his intention, was in a position to deliver the goods.
All that we knew was that these envoys had arrived from Italy. These envoys were told first that if the Italian people and the Italian troops fought the Germans they would receive every assistance from the Allies, and the second thing they were told was that the terms might be modified in accordance with the help which the Italians gave. Therefore it was perfectly clear to them that if they were willing to turn from the Germans and assist in the expulsion of the Germans from their country, that would be taken into consideration by the Allies. I do not believe it would have been possi-

155
ble for the Allied Governments at that moment to go further. If we had done what the noble Lord suggested, public opinion in this country and in the United States would have been utterly bewildered. I do not believe that the man in the street would in the least have understood it.
Moreover, there is another point regarding this aspect of the matter. Time was the essence of the matter, as I think several noble Lords have already pointed out. There was always the danger of a leak. Indeed, some noble Lords seemed to think that a leak did take place. It was necessary that the terms should be transmitted to Italy as quickly as possible and the easiest way was to tell the envoy to take them back immediately to Rome. The further stages of the negotiation were, in fact, entrusted to General Eisenhower. I do not believe that any time was lost by the method adopted. Indeed, quite the opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, said that the Allies ought to come as liberators, not in the aerial sense but in the terrene sense. In fact, I think we have been received as such. Everybody has seen photographs of the Italians pelting our soldiers with fruit and flowers. I did not get the sinister impression which Lord Hankey seems to have got. The Italians seem to have been delighted to see us.
LORD HANKEY: I do not think I suggested anything sinister. I merely suggested that it might have been better, especially for the future, when you get out of those territories which have always welcomed every liberator.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think the whole of Italy has always welcomed every liberator, for a long period of centuries. In passing, I may say that I was very grateful to Lord Hankey for what he said about the general conduct of the war and the U-boat campaign. The noble Lord was formerly one of the most formidable critics of the Government, because he spoke from enormous knowledge and long experience. It is extremely satisfactory to know that he is now more happy about the machinery and the conduct of operations. The Government appreciate the generous tributes he has paid this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, raised a question about the U-boat campaign. I hope he will forgive me if I do
156
not answer that this afternoon. It seems rather wide of the scope of this debate, but I can assure him that I will consider very carefully what he has said.
Now I should like to say a word or two about the question of prisoners which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hutchison. I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment, but I feel sure he would wish me to answer the point. The noble Lord is under a misapprehension. He seemed to think that the Government have not paid enough attention in negotiating an Armistice to the question of the release of prisoners. In fact, as I think I explained to your Lordships on Tuesday, this is a matter to which the Government have devoted the utmost concern. Stipulations regarding these prisoners, as your Lordships know, were included in the original terms of Armistice. But evidently there was one serious difficulty in that the Italian Government, themselves, could not take very extensive steps to release our prisoners without letting the cat out of the bag to the Germans, and that would have been a disastrous thing from our point of view. It was inevitable, I am afraid, that many of these prisoners could not be released until it was too late for them to escape. As I explained the other day we have not very full information as to their present whereabouts, but His Majesty's Government are doing, and will do, everything in their power to assist them.
I would like now to say one word— I think it can be very brief—about Amgot. I rather expected a large number of questions about Amgot, which seems to be a subject of great public interest. I believe, however, that the only person who has referred to it in this debate has been Lord Addison, and he did so rather indirectly. I really am not able to understand why there is this agitation about Amgot. I do not think that the noble Lord really shares in the agitation, but it is undoubtedly prevalent in some quarters. Quite simply, the object of this organization is that when the Allies take over enemy territory the unhappy inhabitants should be made as free and as happy as possible, that they should be provided with food and the necessities of life, with transport, with medical supplies, and with all those things that, obviously, they require. So far as I know—judging by what can be learnt from official sources

157
and from two extremely interesting articles which have appeared in The Times—that object is being attained. The Fascist administration has been superseded, and the Italian people are as well and as happy as is possible in the back areas of a war. I do not think, therefore, that this agitation, which comes, so far as I can see, entirely from outside the occupied countries, has any very deep foundation or any great substance. I believe that as further reports come in it will gradually die away. At any rate, the Government have found no reason to fear this agitation because it appears to them not to be founded upon fact.
Now I would like to pass to the position in the Aegean, to which reference has been made by Lord Strabolgi and by Lord Addison. The position is this. We are at present in possession of the islands of Samos, Cos, Leros, Stamphalia and Castelrosso. We are not in possession of Crete and Rhodes. It was suggested, by Lord Strabolgi, and I think also by Lord Addison, that if we had moved to Rhodes earlier we might have captured it. I think that that suggestion arises from a mistaken impression—which has been shared, I gather, by some organs of the Press—that at Rhodes there was no German garrison before September 8. Lord Strabolgi mentioned September 3 to September 8 as the critical days. It was not, in fact, the case that there was no German garrison there. There was a garrison of seven thousand Germans in Rhodes long before these events occurred at all. After the Armistice, these Germans were confronted by an Italian garrison which was four times as large. We were in touch with these Italians, and they had shown to us every intention of dealing with the Germans, as, of course, they were perfectly strong enough to do if they showed determination. But when the time came, unfortunately, the Italian commander threw in his hand, and the troops surrendered. Certainly, it was a misfortune of war. But I really do not see how we could have anticipated that with that preponderance of four to one in strength the Italians would not have been able to deal with the situation as they had very definitely indicated that they would do.
The position in Crete is rather different. There are 30,000 Germans—a very large force—and to achieve anything it would have been necessary to mount a very large expedition, not one of those light
158
forces which Lord Strabolgi throws about so casually but a really big and fully armed expedition. It would have been out of the question for us to do this when the whole of our amphibious and air resources were concentrated on the main battle in the Mediterranean, If we had begun diverting large quantities of our resources to these minor enterprises we might very easily have lost the battle of Salerno.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask if the noble Viscount is replying to me?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No, I was replying to Lord Strabolgi.
LORD ADDISON: I understand. I, of course, referred only to Rhodes.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think Lord Strabolgi referred both to Rhodes and to Crete. Obviously it was a case of first things first. It would have been as foolish to divert shipping to Crete as it would have been to divert shipping to Sardinia, which, in fact, has already fallen into our hands without cur having to go to any great lengths to obtain it. I hope that, in due course, the same thing will happen in other parts of the Mediterranean. The House will no doubt understand how it is that I cannot say anything more about the Aegean to-day. I have gone as far as I possibly can to give information on a matter which is quite evidently of an operational nature, and I hope that noble Lords will not press me any further upon it to-day.
There is one other question, which I think has been touched on this afternoon but only very briefly. That is the question of Russia and a Second Front. When I mentioned this subject on Tuesday I felt a little bit like a man lighting the fuse of a time bomb which was due to explode in two days time. I have felt during the last two days that I have been waiting for the explosion, but, in fact, it has not occurred. Indeed, it seemed to me, listening to-day to the debate on this question, that there is really not very much, if anything, between other members of the House and the Government. We both want the same things in regard to Russia. We both want to help her as much as is practically possible, and we all of us realize the difficulties and the complexities which are involved.

159
The timing and the form of the operations, and their co-ordination with other operations—all those things are ultimately, as I think Lord Addison himself emphasized, matters for the Chiefs of Staff, the expert advisers of the Government, and they can be depended on to advise action whenever the opportunity is favourable. I cannot help feeling glad, when I look at the position to-day, that His Majesty's Government did not take the advice which was so freely proffered to them last year, however well meant it may have been, to start a Second Front' in France at that time. I believe that if we had done so the unbroken series of successes which we are now celebrating would have been impossible; and, what is more important for the future of the war, I do not believe that we should have diverted so large a number of German troops from the Russian Front as we are able to do by the present Italian campaign.
I have come to the end of the remarks which I wish to make to your Lordships. In conclusion, I should like to say this to critics of the Government, both inside and outside Parliament, and particularly, if he will forgive me for saying so, to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who, I feel, is the only noble Lord this afternoon who has been guilty of the error to which I propose to draw attention. No Government should resent constructive criticism. It is obviously the right of Parliament to make inquiries, and it is obviously their duty to spur Ministers on to further efforts. That is one of the functions of Parliament. But what I do deprecate is any suggestion that this country is not playing the full part which it ought to play in the war. When we look back on the last four years, I think we may well feel that for both the people of these islands and those of the Commonwealth and Empire as a whole this has been one of the great periods of our history.
It is one of our national characteristics to belittle our achievements. But do not let us understate our record in this war or do anything which is calculated to diminish any influence which we can exert for good in the world. I believe that the name of the British Empire stands very high to-day. Some people like us and some dislike us, but they all respect us. The deeds of our sailors and our airmen, and of the men of the Eighth and other Armies, have won an imperishable name
160
all over the world. It is really no reflection on the other great nations of the world to say that we like ourselves best. Our long tradition of ordered liberty seems to all of us better than any other. It is for that that we have fought, and it is for that that we shall fight to the end. As a nation, I think we are old and wise with the wisdom of experience, yet always susceptible to change and improvement; and it is that which has enabled us, under the unparalleled stress of this great war, to evolve a system which combines a wide measure of public control with the maintenance of that free speech and individual liberty which is, I believe, the envy of the world.
Our example, I believe, will be of inestimable benefit to many other nations in the difficult days after the war. We may not notice it ourselves, but I have had it mentioned to me by foreigners staying in this country; it is what strikes them most forcibly when they come here. Many great countries have fallen by the way in these last four years because they have lost their pride in their institutions and with it their unity. I hope that none of us here will ever fall into that error. Nearly a hundred years ago a very famous American, Emerson, wrote of this country:
"So I feel in regard to this aged England. I see her not dispirited, not weak, but well remembering that she has seen dark days before; indeed, with a kind of instinct that she sees a little better on a cloudy day, and that in storm of battle and calamity she has a secret vigour and a pulse like a cannon."
That is the spirit which we have always shown in the great periods of our history, and it is the spirit which we are showing now. Let those of us whose lot it is to counsel the nation do nothing to weaken that spirit, for on it will depend, in the unknown and uncharted future, our greatness and, indeed, our very existence.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I have only to say how much I admire and how glad I was to hear the concluding portion of the noble Viscount's speech, in which he praised the spirit of the British people. I remember the story of a dispute which ended by one of those taking part saying to the other: "I do not agree with anything you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it." That is the embodiment of the British spirit. As for the only point to which the noble Viscount did not reply, with regard to

161
operations in the island of Rhodes, I shall not ask any more questions. When I made my comments I said that I should be quite content if he felt that it was not desirable to reply and, having said that, I have nothing to add with regard to that event. We have had, I think, a discussion worthy of this House, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT: STATEMENT BY LORD STRABOLGI.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on the Motion for the Adjournment I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take the opportunity for a moment only of making one comment about the question which we have been discussing of the island of Rhodes. I am not saying this in any critical sense, and, like my noble friend Lord Addison, I am very grateful for the very full account which we have been given—I am sure the fullest possible—of the operations in this vital area. The account which I have here, however, is that the fighting went on for a long time before the Italians were overcome, and that what finally decided it was that the Governor, who seems to have been a one hundred per cent. Fascist, was won over
162
by the Germans, who told him that Mussolini had been released and that the Fascist Government had been restored in Italy.
The point that I was trying to make—I have consulted my noble friend Lord Addison about this, and I think that he agrees with me—is this: What counts is not the size of the force which is sent on an occasion of this kind. A hundred British Marines under the White Ensign on the spot would have stiffened the morale of the 20,000 Italian troops—four times as numerous as the Germans—and shown that we were ready to help them. If we could have sent a few fighter aeroplanes to keep off the Stuka dive bombers, so much the better. That is what I meant by the use of a light force and its value when everything is in the balance and nobody knows quite what master to obey. I do not want to risk the lives of British soldiers, but I do want to make that point clear. Like my noble friend, I am most grateful for the very interesting explanation which we have had.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I am also grateful to him for giving notice that he intended to raise this point. I did make most careful inquiries and obtained the fullest and most accurate information available at the time. I cannot add to it now, but no doubt with the progress of events we shall know more.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.