House of Commons
Thursday, December 13, 1917
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1916, Vol. LI., Part III. Prices and Supplies of Corn, Live Stock, and other Agricultural Produce in England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Ministry of Food
Copy presented of Meat (Control) Order, 1917, and Milk (Ireland) Order, 1917, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PARKER'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords]
Reported from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with an Amendment, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered.
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Parker's Divorce Bill [ Lords ], together with the documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[ The Lord Advocate .]
National Expenditure
Second Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 167.]
Oral Answers to Questions
War
Ex-King Constantine
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that ex-King Constantine has been proved to have been an active enemy of the Allied Powers, that he used his Royal position to cover acts of espionage and other forms of German agency, and in consideration also of the fact that the design to restore him to the throne of Greece is being advanced, he will advise the Greek Government not to accord as pension to ex-King Constantine any sums of money which come ultimately from this country?
Any pension which the Greek Government may see fit to accord to the ex-King Constantine will be drawn from Greek revenues, and I am not prepared to address any representations to the Greek Government on a matter which is evidently within their province.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French Government have already done what is asked for in this question, and have refused to contribute to the pension of ex-King Constantine?
No, Sir; I am not aware of that.
Netherlands (Territorial Integrity)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the statements made in June, 1915, by the present Minister of Munitions, as published in Holland in July, 1915, and confirmed in this House on 15th July, 1915, by the Prime Minister, and to the renewed discussion in Holland concerning possible intentions of the Allies as to the future of rights over the Scheldt navigation and Dutch territory, he will now say that the statements made by the Minister of Munitions in 1915 still express the opinion of the Government, and that the Allies have maintained their intention not to infringe either during or after the War the territorial integrity, the river rights, or the colonial possessions of the Netherlands?
There is not now, and never has been, any intention to interfere in any way with the independence or integrity of Holland or her possessions.
Upsala Conference
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Archbishop Söderblom, with the Bishops of Christiania and Copenhagen, issued an invitation to their fellow Christians of the belligerent countries to send representatives to a gathering at Upsala on 14th December; whether he was approached by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, to whom the invitation was sent, in this matter; whether inquiries were made as to passports to attend this gathering; and, if so, what answer was given?
Yes, Sir; I was informed of the Archbishop of Upsala's invitation by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, with my entire concurrence, returned a reply to Archbishop Söderblom regretting his inability to accept the invitation. The question of giving passports to any British subject who may wish to attend the gathering was also considered, and as it was evident that the conference would not confine itself solely to religious questions, it was decided that passports should be refused.
Treaty With Italy
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the attitude of the present Administration is towards Clause 15 in the treaty with Italy, the treaty in consequence of which the Power named entered the War on the side of Great Britain and the Allied Powers; and whether the Government now in office considers it wise and expedient to continue the policy involved in the Clause referred to, a policy which is a standing insult to the Holy See and to all those citizens of the Empire whose most important interests the Holy See represents, and which policy at the same time renders practically inoperative the activities of the greatest influence in the world for the purpose of effecting a just and enduring peace?
I have already endeavoured to explain to the hon. Member that he really has misconceived the whole purport of the Clause in question, and that to speak of it as an insult to the Holy See is a complete travesty of its intention. As to the Government's attitude towards the Clause, it is enough to say that it forms part of a treaty still in force.
Would not the simplest and clearest answer be to publish this Clause textually, so that we may know for ourselves?
Where is the misapprehension on my part, because the right hon. Gentleman has not pointed out where it lies?
In thinking that there was intended or was in fact any insult to the Holy See.
If you take the Clause as it stands, it prevents the Holy See from taking any diplomatic steps for peace or otherwise—that is as it is reported in the newspapers.
If the hon. Gentleman will look at the reply given the other day, he will see that that is an inaccurate statement.
I have read the reply, and I ask is there not something absolutely inconsistent in having an accredited representative to the Holy See and in maintaining this Clause?
No, Sir; no more than in having an accredited representative to any neutral Court.
Would the Noble Lord answer my question as to whether he would consider the publication of the text of this Clause?
I think that was answered the other day.
Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now prepared to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the undertaking given by the Norwegian Government on behalf of the Norwegian purchasers of the assets of the Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company not to sell the products of this company to enemy purchasers; and whether any similar undertaking has been obtained from the Swedish Government as regards the products of this company produced in Sweden?
I am unable to give a full reply to this question until I have received further particulars from Norway, for which I have telegraphed; but I would point out that the undertaking of the Norwegian Government is to the effect that shares in the new company to be formed will be assigned only to Norwegian subjects. The undertakings regarding the disposal of the products of the factories in Norway and Sweden have been given by the purchasers.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has fully considered all the facts connected with the sale of the assets of the Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company to Norwegian purchasers, and the nature of the products of this company and their suitability for manufacture into munitions of war; and whether he has arrived at a decision as to whether such sale is desirable in the interests of this country, and when such decision was arrived at; and (2) whether he is satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of this country that the sale of the assets of the Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company to Norwegian purchasers should be carried out; and that there is no reasonable possibility that the products of this company, which are suitable for manufacture into munitions of war, will reach Germany?
The Board of Trade have been advised that the question of supporting the rate of exchange with Scandinavia is of the very greatest importance to this country, and I understand assurances have been received from the Norwegian Government that only Norwegian shareholders shall hold shares in the new company. Satisfactory assurances have also been received from the purchasers regarding the disposal of the products. In view of these facts, the Board of Trade have, after the most careful consideration, come to the conclusion that the sale is desirable in the national interest.
In view of the great importance of this matter, will the facts be brought to the personal notice of the President of the Board of Trade?
I believe they have been brought to his notice.
May I ask are the President and his advisers satisfied with the assurances given that the products of this company, which are capable of being made into munitions, will not pass into German hands?
I believe they are satisfied that the sale is in the public interest.
Is it not the case that these properties are situated in foreign countries, and that those foreign countries could requisition the products if they so desired?
I believe that is so.
Has the hon. Gentleman yet discovered the source of the inspiration of the hon. Member for York?
May I, as a personal explanation——
That would come at the end of questions.
Munitions
Expenditure (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary what proportion of the total expenditure on munitions and aeroplanes and all the subsidiary works is disbursed at present in Ireland; and whether he contemplates any change in the system?
The Irish Office has no information on this subject.
Is it possible to obtain this information, because it is one of considerable importance to Ireland?
I think the question is one which should be addressed to the Ministry of Munitions.
Carbide of Calcium
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties of procuring lamp oil; and whether he can offer the prospect of a certain amount of carbide of calcium being released for purposes of illumination?
I have been asked to answer this question. Owing to the shortage in supply, it has been necessary to limit the use of calcium carbide almost entirely to industrial purposes connected with the manufacture of munitions of war and with shipbuilding. I am afraid I can hold out no hope of the release of any of this material in the immediate future for ordinary purposes of illumination.
Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the supply of calcium of carbide is being increased?
Every possible source of supply is being extended as far as possible.
Are you manufacturing calcium of carbide to any extent in this country?
Yes; in quite considerable quantities.
Questions
Assurance Policies
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he now proposes to extend the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act of 1914 to all policies of assurance, both ordinary and industrial, no matter what their duration; is he aware that no policies are now protected which have not been in force upwards of five years and four months, i.e ., those issued prior to 4th August, 1912, and in that case only policies of £25 face value and under, the premiums on which had not been paid at longer than monthly periods; and, in view of the fact that numbers of the men now being called up and those who will be called up shortly have taken out policies since that date, whether he will consider the desirability of arranging that no policy should be allowed to lapse without the sanction of the authorities?
Provision has been made by which the Civil Liabilities Commissioners entertain applications for assistance in meeting certain financial obligations, including insurance premiums, in cases of hardship arising from military service, and, as at present advised, I do not propose to introduce legislation to extend the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act in the manner suggest by my hon. Friend.
Durham Collieries (Short Time)
asked the President of the Board of Trade, as representing the Coal Controller, if he can make a statement as to the results of the Commission recently appointed to consider the difficulties experienced by the short time being worked at the pits in Durham; what remedies are proposed, and when the same will be in operation?
The Report of the Commission of Inquiry has not yet been received.
Petrol Supply (France)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the French authorities are now about to consider the issue of petrol cards and the use of private motor cars in France; and whether there is a large supply of petrol in France?
I understand that the distribution of petrol in France is under strict control, and that supplies are only issued to owners of private motor vehicles when other requirements have been met. I regret that I cannot give the hon. Member any information as to stocks in France.
Is it not the case that there has been great waste in France in our own Army, and also that there has been freedom in the use of petrol there during the eighteen months during which it has been controlled in this country?
The hon. Member's question relates to a matter of administration by another country.
Sweets and Confectionery Imported
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether sweets and confectionery, either for military, naval, or civil consumption, are being imported from the United States or elsewhere into this country or France by British steamers; and if he can state the quantities per month which have so been imported during the past three months, respectively?
I understand that no special provision is made by the Ministry of Shipping for the carriage of goods of this kind by British ships. A certain amount of confectionery has been imported, but I cannot say what quantity, if any, has been brought in British ships.
Food Supplies
Allotment Holders (Railway Passes)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of granting free railway passes to genuine allotment holders whose land is situated at a considerable distance from the big towns and who have found it impossible to obtain land within or near their urban areas?
This matter has been carefully considered, but I am afraid that it would not be practicable to grant the concession suggested.
Tea
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the cargoes of teas just arrived in this country are included in the statistics of the total quantities in bond furnished by the Board of Trade; and, if so, can he say the names of the ships the cargoes of which are not yet discharged which were included in the figures of the 30th November, and the total quantity of tea on board?
Cargoes of tea just arrived in this country in ships which have been duly reported are, as soon as warehousing entries have been received, included in the stocks of tea in bond, although the tea may not have been discharged from the ship. If tea which has arrived is not entered, it does not, of course, get into the stock account. The further information required is not available.
What is the meaning of "warehousing entries," and can my hon. Friend arrange that tea shall not be included as stock in the returns until it is weighed and ready for delivery?
I am afraid my knowledge of the tea trade will not enable me to answer that question, but I will try and ascertain.
Cost of Living
asked the latest calculation made by the Board of Trade of the increase in the cost of living in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, as compared with pre-war standards?
The calculations formerly made by the Board of Trade with regard to the increase in cost of living are now made by the Ministry of Labour. Figures for England, Scotland, and Ireland are not prepared separately, but on the average for the United Kingdom the percentage increase between July, 1914, and 1st November, 1917, in the retail prices of the principal articles of food was 106 per cent. Taking all items ordinarily entering into working-class family expenditure, the average increase was about 85 per cent. These percentages are based on statistical comparison of prices of the same quantities of each item at the two dates.
Is the Department of the hon. Gentleman satisfied that this calculation represents accurately present-day conditions?
Yes, Sir, I think so, though we are quite ready to hear any opinion that anyone may be good enough to offer to make it more accurate.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the average increase in the cost of articles of food on the 1st November, 1917, as compared with the cost at the end of July, 1914, is 106 per cent., on the assumption that various, commodities are consumed in the same proportion as before the War, and that allowing for the considerable substitution of commodities which are still plentiful for those which have become scarce the average rise in cost between those dates may be put at 90 per cent.; whether, under the circumstances, the war bonus of 8s. a week granted to inspectors, sergeants, and constables of the Metropolitan Police Force covers the additional cost of living that these officers are called upon to bear; and, if not, whether he will take immediate steps to increase such war bonus in order that these police officers, their wives and children, may not be placed in an inferior position to what they were in prewar days?
I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's figures with regard to the increase in the cost of food; and the bonus of Is. 6d. for each child, given to married officers, makes the average of the present bonus not less than 11s. a week. I have, however, been considering for some time the question of increasing the bonus, and I hope to announce a decision very shortly.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures were given to me last week by the Minister of Food, and, under the circumstances, is he prepared to accept these figures as being the increased cost of food?
My information does not quite agree; but the point is really immaterial. I have given a great deal of personal consideration to the matter referred to—quite apart from my hon. Friend's question—and we are coming to a decision at once.
The following question appeared on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. WHITEHOUSE:
93. To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state the weekly approximate cost, at present rates, of food necessary for a man, woman, and child, respectively, including not only the suggested rations for certain foods, but the other necessary food?
I have just received notice asking me to postpone this question. Of course I will do so, but in view of its urgency and importance, will the hon. Member state now whether he will have to correct the figures which he gave me two days ago?
Yes, I find that the figures will have to be corrected, through some mistake in some quarter. The statistics are not available to-day, but they will be on Monday.
May I ask if the mistake occurred, as stated in this morning's paper, owing to the fact that in trying to arrive at the weekly cost someone divided the monthly cost by two instead of by four, and, if so, will he see that this mathematical genius is promoted either to the head of the Department or to be Under-Secretary?
That question goes so deep down into the well of detail that I should require notice of it.
Live-Stock Commissioners (Scotland)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the five Sub-Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners of military age and of military fitness appointed by his Department will be returned to their farms to fulfil the duties on account of which they were given exemption, and their present duties undertaken by men past military age or by discharged soldiers; and whether it is to be understood, as the sanctioned practice of the Government, that men granted exemption so that they may work at certain duties can, after exemption, be removed from that work?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Lord Rhondda considers that in view of the importance of the duties performed by these Commissioners in controlling the supply and distribution of farm produce and of their special qualifications for discharging these duties it is in the public interest that their exemptions should be continued.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chief Live-stock Commissioner for Scotland and four of his assistants are young farmers of military age?
The answer implies that they are of military age, but in the public interest it is necessary to retain their services.
Are there no farmers over military age in Scotland to do the job?
Does not "the public interest" in this case mean "influence"?
Butter
asked why it is that, in view of the fact that the Australian Government has commandeered the butter supply in Australia for Is. 4d. a lb., Australian butter coming here, although the freight is only Id. a lb., is allowed to be mixed with other butter and sold at a great profit?
The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. The exportable output of Australian butter was offered by the producers through the Commonwealth Government to the Food Controller and purchased by him. None of this butter has yet arrived; the butter at present being distributed was acquired elsewhere. The Food Controller does not intend to make any profit on the sale of butter acquired by him; the benefit of the advantageous purchases which he has made will go to the consumer.
Is the Australian butter sold to this country at a comparatively cheap price mixed with other butter and sold at a very much higher price? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling in Australia that their patriotism is of no use if profiteers in this country are allowed to get great advantage from it?
Profiteering in butter as in other articles is impossible. The system is that of pooling the different interests in order that the consumer shall have the benefit of the Government action.
Is not the real difficulty that the consumer cannot get any butter?
Is not the difficulty with regard to this butter that it has to be blended with very high-priced butter brought from Denmark, in order to establish a common price?
I could not accept that as the explanation.
Why is it that butter bought at 1s. 4d. in Australia is sold at 2s. 6d. in this country, when the freight is only 1d.?
I am afraid that the explanation would be longer than one could bring within the compass of the terms of a reply.
Is it not the case that the Ministry have abolished not only profiteering, but also the supplies?
Supplies in this country have been diminishing for many reasons which must be familiar to my hon. Friend.
Controlled Commodities
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in regard to food commodities, the price of which is controlled by his Department, it is permissible on the part of a dealer who is both a wholesaler and retailer to make a double profit on his transactions?
No, Sir. I may say that the principle adopted is, broadly speaking, as follows: Where, as is generally the case, the selling price to the consumer is fixed by reference to the price paid by the seller, a dealer who is both a wholesaler and a retailer is not allowed to make a double profit, but is restricted to the profit allowed to a retailer. Where the selling price to the consumer is not fixed by reference to cost but is fixed at a definite figure, a dealer is allowed to sell at a price not exceeding the fixed price.
Queues
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the Food Controller has yet been able to devise any means to obviate the practice of forming queues in connection with the purchase of food by the retail shops; and, if so, whether he is able to make a statement on the question, especially in regard to the steps that have already been taken to secure more regular and impartial distribution of food?
Several food control committees in important industrial centres are arranging to bring into force experimentally a system for the registration of customers designed to obviate the formation of queues. The Food Controller is giving every encouragement to these experiments. If, as is anticipated, the results prove satisfactory, immediate steps will be taken to secure the adoption of similar methods in industrial areas throughout the Kingdom.
Milk
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is now able to make arrangements for an adequate supply of milk for the children of poor districts; and whether he proposes in the case of nursing and expectant mothers to work through the schools for mothers, baby clinics, and other similar institutions?
The matter referred to by the hon. Member is still under consideration; meanwhile I would repeat that local food control committees have been given full powers to secure priority for children in respect of milk distribution.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in arranging for the more equitable distribution of milk, he has considered the numerous cases where it is necessary to feed young infants wholly upon cow's milk; and whether he can state the approximate cost, at present rates, of the milk requisite for an infant who has to be thus fed?
Food control committees are empowered to give priority to any consumer or class of consumers in their area. The cost of the milk required for a child depends upon the age of the child and upon the sale price of milk in the particular area. The price of milk is fixed by the local food control committees, and varies at the present time from 5d. to 8d. a quart.
Meat
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Smithfield Market prices for dead meat, which are the Food Controller's maximum prices, are seldom or never maintained in actual effect owing to the system by which the Smithfield salesmen become the agents of the butchers, thus enabling the salesmen to charge the cost of the animal plus the commission and carriage; whether this is an evasion of Clause 10, Part III., of his Maximum Prices Order; and, if so, whether he will take steps to put a stop to this illegality and at the same time announce the date on which he intends to fix the price of live cattle and sheep, so that the whole of the meat trade may be fairly treated?
The Food Controller is aware that in many cases Smithfield salesmen are buying meat as agents for retail butchers, with the result that increased charges fall upon the butchers. This is partly due to the fact that many butchers in London preferred to buy direct from the country rather than through a Smith field salesman, and the practice referred to was introduced to meet this competition. Whether it is an infringement of Clause 10 of the Meat (Maximum Prices) Order depends upon the circumstances of each case. It is hoped, however, that the new scheme of live-stock control and meat distribution now being prepared by the Ministry of Food will at an early date remedy this and other defects in connection with the meat supplies of London.
When shall we know exactly what the new method is to be?
At a very early date.
Dried Fruit
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that apparently manufacturers and caterers throughout the country are sufficiently supplied with currants and other fruit, whilst the same is withheld from the general public; and whether it is the view of the Ministry of Food that the interests of economy are best served by allowing manufacturers and caterers to charge exorbitant prices for cakes and puddings than by allowing facilities for the general public to make these things for themselves?
No detailed information is available of the stocks of currants and dried fruits held by manufacturers and caterers, but it is possible that they have some supply of last year's fruits. The supplies obtained by the Ministry under the Currants and Sultanas (Requisition) Order were used to satisfy the immediate requirements of the War Office, the Navy and Army Canteen Board, and the Admiralty, and the balance was distributed among manufacturers engaged on Government contracts. A small quantity has also been allocated to Red Cross hospitals and ships' stores dealers.
Sugar Distribution Scheme
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why persons who receive the new sugar forms must state on them their ages and of what value it is as regards women and children; if these forms when returned to the local grocers are retained by them, or if these forms have to be sent to the Food Controller; and, if so, whether all tickets of male applicants with their ages are handed over to either the National Service Department or the War Office?
The particulars of date of birth asked for under the Sugar Distribution Scheme are required for two reasons: first, in case of dispute to afford individuals a simpler and more expeditious method of proving their identity than would otherwise be possible, and, secondly, in order that the particulars of age thus given may be taken into account, in connection with any general scheme which may hereafter be established for rationing essential foods for the purpose of determining the appropriate scale of allowances in each case. The forms when returned to the local grocer will not be retained by him, but will be forwarded under cover to the proper officer. It is an offence against the Defence of the Realm Regulations for any person employed by a food control committee or any other person whose duty it is to deal with any such document to communicate without lawful authority any information obtained therefrom to any other person. These forms are not intended for use by any other Department.
Is the horn Gentleman aware that any future system of rationing of essential food must be based not upon age, but upon the character of the work of the individual?
The arduousness of the labour is certainly one of the elements, but not the only element, that must be considered.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food under what Section of the Defence of the Realm Act or Order in Council his Department has issued Regulations threatening a fine of £100 or six months' imprisonment to any woman who, in filling up a sugar card (second edition), fails to inform her grocer and his staff the exact day, month, and year of her birth; in what way this information, if correctly stated, will increase the supply of sugar; and, if such minute details are required in the national interest, why particulars of the place of birth and nationality of parents is omitted?
No Regulation has been issued to the effect or for the purpose indicated in the question. Under Regulation 2 F of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, the Food Controller may make Orders regulating or giving directions with respect to the distribution of any article of food. I have already explained why it is essential for the convenience of the public that accurate particulars of age should foe given.
Oatmeal
asked whether it is now intended to reduce the price of oatmeal in Scotland, looking to the wide consumption of this article of diet among the poorer classes?
It is proposed to reduce the price of oatmeal in Scotland early next year.
Is it not possible to make an immediate reduction?
No; it is impossible to make it immediately, but a reduction will be made at the earliest possible moment.
Voluntary Rationing (Beverages)
asked what steps are being taken under the voluntary rationing scheme to give effect to the Director of Food Economy's announcement that consumers of beverages manufactured from cereals should be rationed on the basis of the amount of cereals requried to produce the quantity of drink consumed by them, which is to be regarded as forming part of their weekly bread ration?
The Director of Food Economy has made a general appeal to consumers of beverages manufactured from cereals to effect some saving in their consumption of cereals in other forms. No further steps have at present been taken.
Having regard to the actual cereal values that were given by the Ministry of Food in this House, will the hon. Gentleman see that in future appeals made to the country an attempt will be made to limit the consumption of beverages of this character to their actual cereal values and calculate them as part of the ration?
A large proportion of the population prefer to take their cereal values in one form or another.
Will it be counted as part of the ration?
Dredge Corn
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if his attention has been called to a resolution passed at a meeting of the Liskeard Farmers' Union requesting that the inspectors sent to decide whether samples of dredge corn submitted to them were damaged or not should be empowered to liberate such corn as they deem unfit for human consumption for the use of stock without submitting the matter to London for decision, and thereby causing delay; will he arrange for this to be done; and is he aware that the embargo on the use of dredge corn for stock is seriously interfering with the production of pork, bacon, and milk commodities largely used by the poorer classes?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I will consider if it is possible to meet the views expressed by giving greater authority to the local officers or committees. I am aware that the embargo on the use of dredge corn interferes with the production of pork and other dairy produce, but it is of still greater importance to conserve the largest possible amount of grain for direct human consumption.
Will the decision of the Government be given through the inspectors very speedily, as it is a pressing matter?
Yes. The intention is to enlarge the individual authority and power of the inspectors, in order that cases may be more speedily decided.
Pigs (Prices)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that his policy is seriously jeopardising the supply of pigs; that last week in a well-known market in Norfolk, where it is usual to see some 200 pigs put up for sale, only two pigs were sent to market; and, if it is not the intention of the Government to shut off this supply of food altogether, will he take immediate steps to amend the present Regulations, which are proving so detrimental to the pressing needs of the nation?
The answer to this question was printed in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT.
Again I have to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. If I postpone a question within five minutes of the end of Question Time, am I not entitled to receive a verbal answer on the following day from the Minister?
If a question is postponed before a quarter to four, the answer should not be handed in.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to answer the question verbally?
I am sorry if any error, of which I am quite unaware, has been made. With the permission of Mr. Speaker, I will give the answer.
Will you kindly give the answer?
The answer given yesterday, as appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-day, is as follows:
"I know of no grounds for the suggestion made in the first part of the question, and the facts referred to in the second part have not been brought to my notice previously. I am not aware of the precise Regulations to which the hon. Member refers in the third part of the question, but I may point out that in fixing maximum prices for pigs and pork regard must be had to the fact that high prices for pigs may tempt farmers to feed them with grain suitable for human consumption. Any increase in the present maximum prices would probably have that result, and would, therefore, be contrary to the national interests."
Does not the fact remain that pigs at the present moment are being driven off the market owing to the Regulations to which the hon. Gentleman himself has referred?
No, Sir. The answer I have given indicates that we have had to make a choice, and the choice made is deemed by the Department to be the best.
Is it not the policy of the Government to stimulate production, and does the driving of pigs off the market stimulate production?
The hon. Member has had his answer.
Questions
Paper Manufacture
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of Scandinavia having in stock over six months' production of unbleached sulphite pulp, he will allow a larger importation of this raw material into this country which is urgently required to satisfy the demands of paper manufacturers?
The restrictions on the importation of paper-making materials have been rendered necessary mainly by shortage of tonnage, and the President of the Board of Trade regrets that he cannot advise the issue of licences for increased quantities. Owing to the conditions of the Swedish Exchange the Paper Commission have been asked, at the request of the Treasury, to see that licences for the importation of paper-making materials shall not be used for the purpose of importing wood pulp from Sweden, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to cancel these instructions. Where, however, vessels were chartered for the importation of Swedish pulp prior to the imposition of this special restriction, clearance of the pulp under outstanding licences has been allowed.
Gas Lighting (Ludlow)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the amount of coal supplied to the Ludlow Gas Company is so insufficient that it is not possible to supply sufficient lighting to the town and railway station; and, in view of the fact that a gas company in the neighbourhood is allowed more coal than is required, he will take steps to have sufficient coal supplied to the Ludlow Company for the necessary lighting of the town and railway station?
I understand from the Controller of Coal Mines that while there has been some difficulty in obtaining supplies of coal for these works owing to the extreme pressure of the demand for gas coal, which continues to increase, he has no information that the company have actually had to curtail the supply of gas as suggested. It has been possible to make arrangements which will permit of the accumulation of an adequate stock of coal at the works in addition to meeting their current consumption.
Trade Commissioner
asked whether the Board of Trade have appointed a Mr. Hamilton Wickes as Trade Commissioner; and what are his duties and his qualifications for the same and his sarlary?
Mr. Hamilton Wickes was appointed His Majesty's Trade Commissioner in Australia in 1908, and was transferred to Canada in 1912. He is temporarily attached to the new Joint Department of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office, where his experience is being utilised in connection with the extension of the Trade Commission Service within the Empire. Previous to his appointment as a Trade Commissioner, Mr. Wickes had been engaged for seventeen years in the produce trade. Mr. Wickes is now in reecipt of a salary at the rate of £1,000 per annum.
Shipbuilding (Dublin)
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will appoint a Committee to inspect the site for shipbuilding at North Wall, Dublin; and if he is aware that this is the best site in Ireland and is available for shipbuilding, and that, if the Government desire it for a national shipbuilding yard, they can have possession immediately?
Assuming that the site at North Wall referred to by the hon. Member is the one occupied by the Dublin Dockyard Company, the provision of three new slips in this yard is now under consideration. If my assumption is incorrect, I trust that the hon. Member will communicate to me full details of the site he has in mind, in order that the matter may be gone into.
How many slips are intended for the building of standard ships?
They will be for the extension of merchant tonnage, whether of the precise design of the ships built in the National Shipyards or the standard ships I cannot say offhand.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of what the cost will be?
Of these slips?
Yes.
Of course the matter is only under consideration; an estimate will be provided.
Army (Transfer to Navy)
asked whether men transferred from the Army to the Navy will have the same advantages in every way extended to them as men to be transferred in future from the Army to the Air Board; and, if not, what is the difference in conditions?
I am afraid I do not quite understand the purport of the question. There is no definite provision for transfer of men from the Army to the Navy. There are Regulations under which men discharged from the Army may join the Navy or vice versâ . Conditions of joining the sister Service were fully given in my answer to my hon. Friend on 6th December. If my hon. Friend wishes to know whether the man now in the Royal Naval Air Service, or Royal Navy attached Royal Naval Air Service, on being transferred to the Air Ministry will suffer any disability in the way of loss of seniority, pay, and so on, the answer, so far as I know, is no.
What I want to get from the right hon. Gentleman is whether men transferred from the Army to the Navy, or from the Navy to the Army, will be placed in the same advantageous position as those who have been transferred to the Air Board?
Oh, no! There is no definite provision to transfer from one Service to another; but time-expired or time-discharged men from either Service may join the other Service under conditions which I gave on 6th December. In any transfer from the Royal Naval Air Service or the attached Royal Naval Air Service to the Air Ministry no disability will be imposed.
Wool
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that cotts or matted wool are the terms used in England for what is called broken wool in Scotland; has his attention been called to a meeting of farmers, presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for Leominster, where the majority of the farmers bad had deductions made from their wool sold to the War Office which were reimbursed to these farmers; and will he say why English farmers are getting these deductions paid back while Scottish farmers in the same position are refused any return of their money thus deducted?
My hon. Friend is quite mistaken. A cott is a fleece which is so matted together that it can only be broken by special machinery adapted for the purpose, while broken wool consists of a fleece, which owing to disease of the sheep has become broken up into several portions. The meeting of farmers to which my hon. Friend refers has nothing to do with broken wool and was called to discuss deductions for cotts, and they expressed their satisfaction at the prompt consideration and redress of their grievance. Only one complaint in regard to broken wool has been received from Scotland, and I have informed my hon. Friend privately of the circumstances of the case and the identity of the complainant.
War Department Employes (Scraesdon)
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether intimation has yet been sent to Scraesdon informing the officials that the range wardens stationed there are to have the same war bonus as the men stationed in Plymouth and Devonport; and whether the authority has yet been given for holiday pay for last Christmas and Easter to those of the men who worked on those days and have not received days in lieu?
The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. With regard to the latter part, I am making inquiries, and will let him know the result as soon as possible.
Irish Government
asked the Primer Minister whether, in view of the repeated condemnation of the system of Dublin Castle by statesmen of high authority, he will announce to the House what steps, if any, the Government have in contemplation to replace Dublin Castle by institutions more in accord with the prevailing spirit of the Irish people?
It is impossible at present to make any statement.
Is the existence of Dublin, Castle, after all that has been said, still to continue as a scandal? Why encumber——
Order, order!
Public Assistance (Co-Ordination)
asked the Prime Minister if the Government have constituted a Sub-committee of the Reconstruction Committee to consider and report, upon the steps to be taken to secure the better co-ordination of public assistance in England and Wales; whether there are upon this Sub-committee any representatives of the Association of Poor Law Unions; whether representations have been made to the Government for the representation of this association; and what reply has been given?
asked the Minister of Reconstruction what action he proposes to take on the resolutions being passed by boards of guardians all over the country complaining that upon his Subcommittee to report on the co-ordination of public assistance in England and Wales he has not placed any person representative of the views of the Association of Poor Law Unions, a body which has 556 unions affiliated to it?
asked the Minister of Reconstruction whether he has appointed or is appointing a Sub-committee of the Reconstruction Committee to consider and report upon the steps to be taken to ensure the better co-ordination of public assistance in England and Wales and other matters; and, if so, whether he proposes to appoint representatives on such Sub-committee of the Association of Poor Law Unions, which represents 556; unions and a population of over 30,000,000, or will state what reasons he has for excluding representatives of so important a body?
I have nothing to add to the statement made in reply to similar questions yesterday, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friends.
War Service (Decorations)
asked the Prime Minister whether any medal or decoration is to be granted to the Australian and New Zealand troops who took part in the landing on the Gallipoli Peninsula; if so, can he state the conditions under which such medal or decoration will be awarded; and whether it is proposed that a similar medal or decoration will be granted to the officers and men of other units which participated in the same operations?
This matter is now receiving sympathetic consideration.
If this matter receives favourable consideration as regards Australia and New Zealand, will the Government see that it receives sympathetic consideration as regards the Imperial troops who took part in the same operations?
Does the hon. Gentleman not consider it most unfortunate if Colonial troops are treated in a different way from Imperial troops in this matter, and will he consider the advisability of having a general service medal granted to all soldiers for all campaigns which have been completed, and not differentiate between one soldier and another?
I know all these relevant considerations are being considered at the present moment.
Prisoners of War
asked the First Lord of the Treasury if he has any recent information respecting negotiations between the British and Turkish authorities respecting the liberation of Prisoners of war in the hands of the Turks?
I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw yesterday.
Christmas Bank Holidays (Officials)
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to allowing the Monday before Christmas to be included in the holidays for bank officials?
This question was answered yesterday, and appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I have put this question several times. Am I not entitled to have a verbal answer from the hon. Gentleman?
I understand the hon. Gentleman refers him to the answer given yesterday.
No verbal answer was given yesterday, as I did not ask the question.
Perhaps the mistake was mine, but I understood it had been answered. I can give the answer. The answer is: No alteration will be made.
Commerce and Industry (Committee's Report)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have considered the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee on Commerce and Industry; and, if so, whether they propose, in view of the general interest of this Report to the trading community, to publish it?
The Report referred to has only just been received by the Government, and there has not yet been time to consider it.
Education Bill
asked whether the Second Reading of the Education Bill will be taken before Christmas?
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make a statement respecting the position of the Education Bill?
I have very carefully considered this question, and have come to the conclusion that there will not be sufficient time adequately to discuss the Bill this Session. I understand, however, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, wishes to make certain Amendments to the Bill to meet criticisms which he has received from various quarters. He proposes, therefore, at an early date during this Session to introduce a new Bill containing these Amendments and to allow the present Bill to lapse. The new Bill will be taken at the earliest possible moment next Session, and I have every hope that it may be possible to pass it into law without delay.
Will the new Bill be introduced in a form in which it can be discussed, or will it be formally introduced only?
I think, after the discussion which took place on the First Reading before, the House will consider it more convenient to introduce it under the Ten Minutes' Rule.
Does my right hon. Friend mean by this Session, the Session after Christmas?
Yes; after Christmas.
Will my hon. Friend at the same time provide for the introduction of the Scottish Education Bill under the Ten Minutes' Rule this Session?
I have every hope it may be possible to introduce the Scottish Bill, perhaps even before Christmas, but that is doubtful.
Will that be under the Ten Minutes' Rule?
Yes, Sir.
Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the present Bill was introduced at a very late period of the Session, just before the Adjournment, when there was a very small House, and when there was no general discussion representative of all parties interested?
That is not quite my recollection. I think there was a very interesting discussion; but, at any rate, it is my desire to meet the wishes of the House to facilitate the Bill in any way, and I shall consider that suggestion.
Will not the right hon. Gentleman remember that the Minister of Education rose after three o'clock on a Friday afternoon to make a speech which lasted over an hour in moving the Second Reading? Therefore, there could not have been a very adequate discussion.
Messrs. J. and P. Coats
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the amount of profits made year after year by the firm of Messrs. J. and P. Coats; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of assuming control, if not absolute owner ship, of this monopoly, or by special legislation secure a large portion of the profits being made by this company in time of war?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the latter part, I would remind my right hon. Friend that under the law as it stands at present the larger the profits of a particular business the more it pays to the State in taxation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that far from being a monopoly, Messrs. J. and P. Coats, Limited, have powerful competitors in all parts of the world, that their chairman stated publicly that the largest part of their profits are earned in foreign countries, and also that mills belonging to the company, employing 13,000 hands, are now held either——
The hon. Member is crediting the Chancellor of the Exchequer with omniscience.
Excise Officers (Remuneration)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that dissatisfaction as to the limit of the £250 fixed by the Conciliation Board for war bonus purposes prevails amongst senior officers of Excise; whether he is now prepared to modify this limit so that officers whose monetary condition is practically the same as in pre-war times may be entitled to the bonus or some other pecuniary consideration in lieu thereof; whether he is aware that for some time past senior officers of Excise are in a state of unrest at being placed, through no fault of their own, at the lowest maximum salary, £300, of their grade; whether it is within his knowledge that these officers are doing work of value and importance equal to their junior colleagues, who receive a higher maximum salary; and whether he can now arrange to have this inequality immediately removed by substituting in lieu of the maximum salaries now operative a common maximum for all officials in the officer grade?
The question of the war bonus is now under the consideration of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board. As regards the maximum salary of the officer grade, the reasons for giving certain existing sections of the grade a higher maximum salary than the value of their work, taken by itself, would justify, were fully explained in the Report of the Customs and Excise Amalgamation Committee, Parliamentary Paper Cd. 5830. The hon. Member will see from that Report that the reasons for raising the privileged sections to the higher maximum do not apply to the other sections. His object would be as well attained by levelling down as by levelling up, but I am not prepared to adopt either alternative.
Relief of Distress, East Coast
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the continuing distress among residents in East Coast resorts in consequence of the War, he can indicate what further measures of relief are proposed by the Government; and whether the Government will consider the question of giving permission to the local authorities in prosperous districts to levy a rate to be applied in relief of distress in East Coast areas?
I have been asked to answer this question. The National Relief Fund is available for the relief of distress due to the War, and substantial grants have been made, and continue to be made, for this purpose to the East Coast towns. In addition, the Committee of the National Relief Fund have decided to make such grants as may be needed to continue the special scheme for the assist- ance of the East Coast lodging-house keepers, which has hitherto been financed out of the Canadian Fund. In view of the work of these agencies, no Government Grant is at present proposed, and there would seem to be no need to adopt the expedient suggested in the latter part of the question.
National Health Insurance (Invalided Service Men)
asked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, the number of Middlesex panel practitioners who have notified their respective insurance committees that they are not prepared to accept invalided seamen, marines, and soldiers on their lists under the terms of the new Regulations?
I am not aware of any medical practitioner in Middlesex having refused to render treatment in any such case. I may add that the Regulations in question are framed in accordance with the express desires of authoritative representatives of the medical practitioners concerned, and that events subsequent to their issue have shown that the Regulations are, in fact, acceptable to the great majority of such practitioners.
Military Service
Medical Examinations
asked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that Cornelius William Alfred Blackmail, of 5, Douglas Road, Dover, aged seventeen years and three months, was ordered to report for medical examination at Canterbury on 28th November; whether similar cases have occurred in the neighbourhood; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to these premature medical examinations?
Inquiries are being made into this case, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.
Conscientious Objectors
asked the Home Secretary whether he is able to report the result of his inquiries into the health of Arthur Butler, a conscientious objector now undergoing his third sentence of imprisonment at Preston?
At the time when I made the inquiry the prisoner was recovering from an attack of influenza and doing fairly well Last Tuesday, however, an attack of pneumonia suddenly developed, his parents were summoned to see him on that evening, and I regret to say that he died last night.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than a month ago I made representations to him in regard to the condition of the health of this prisoner, who at that time was known to be spitting blood as the result of consumption; that I received a report from the Home Secretary saying that there was little or no foundation for these allegations; that letters which had been sent out of the prison by this prisoner have had statements in regard to his health obliterated; and in view of the fact that this man undoubtedly died yesterday as a result of the treatment he has received in prison, does the Home Secretary intend to take criminal proceedings against the medical officer and the Governor of the prison?
In consequence of the inquiries which the hon. Member and others made a careful medical examination of this man was made, and he was reported not to be suffering in any way from tuberculosis. With regard to the other statements, the doctors did take the greatest care in this case. An inquiry will be held, and all the facts will be gone into.
Is the right hon. Gentleman able to assure us that he will give his personal consideration to this matter, and not leave it merely to some subordinate like the head of this institution, who may be himself in some way implicated?
Of course I will try and do so.
Government Employes
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the fact that in many, if not most, Government offices in London and other large centres there are considerable numbers of male employés of military age and medically fit whose services are in no sense indispensable in their present occupations; and why these persons are granted exemption in cases where male subjects between the ages of eighteen and forty in other than Government offices would come under the operation of the Military Service Act?
The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. The staff employed by the various Government Departments was carefully reviewed this year by direction of the War Cabinet, and it was decided that, in addition to the large number of Civil servants who had already volunteered, a further quota of 2,000 belonging to the two highest medical categories should be released. This quota has already been furnished. The matter receives the constant attention of the Ministry of National Service, and I am satisfied that the facts are not as stated by the hon. Member. On the contrary, the work of Government Departments is being seriously handicapped in many oases by the shortage of trained staffs.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have the names of the offices where such persons are still in service, I can give them.
The hon. Member did not quite follow my answer. I do not deny that there are men of military age in the public service. What I do deny is that they can be spared. I have very full knowledge of the fact that many men are now serving in the Government service who are of military age who have applied to be released for military service.
The fact that they have applied for release is no answer to my question. Will the hon. Gentleman take from me the names of the offices and of the persons in question?
I shall be very happy to get them.
Have ex-Civil servants in many cases applied to be taken back to resume their duties?
I must have notice of that question.
Naval and Military Pensions and Grants
asked the Minister of National Service why the Civil Liabilities Department have refused to make a grant to Private J. Steele, lately residing in Brechin, on the ground that he would not have been in a position while in civil life to meet money advanced to him for the conduct of his business, in view of the fact that the lenders were fully aware of the purpose to which it would be applied; and whether, having regard to the fact that he is now prevented from earning money to repay that advance, the case will be reconsidered?
My right hon. Friend, the President of the Local Government Board, who is the Chairman of the Civil Liabilities Committee, is causing further inquiries to be made in this case, and will communicate with the hon. Member.
Internment Cases
asked the Home Secretary which of the conditions recommended by the Advisory Committee for the release of Miss Howsin could not be complied with; whether proper restrictions with regard to her movements could not be made, or whether three British subjects of good standing could not be found to enter into bonds of £1,000 each as suggested; and, if so, whether their refusal to do so was owing to the sum of money required?
I understand that the arrangements required by the Committee as to Miss Howsin's residence could not be complied with. Her solicitor has received all necessary information.
asked (1) whether telegrams addressed to George Tchitcherine, the Russian Ambassador, now interned in Brixton Prison, are delivered to him; if not, why this is not done; and whether, if undelivered, they are returned to the senders; and (2) why only one of the various telegrams sent to George Tchitcherine at Brixton Prison to congratulate him on his nomination as Russian Ambassador was, up to 8th December, delivered to him; why was discrimination made in this one case; and whether the other similar telegrams sent have now been or will be given to him?
I do not propose to give any answer to these questions except by referring the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said on the 6th instant with regard to a series of questions standing in the hon. Member's name.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take seriously into consideration the question of sending this man to Petrograd, instead of keeping him interned in this country?
This man is not a Russian Ambassador, and I can only repeat what I said in answer to the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King).
Is it considered to be sufficient grounds for refusing a reply to say that it embarrasses the Government? Is it not perfectly obvious that criticism of any kind or any suggestion that the Government has made a mistake embarrasses the Government?
It cannot be in the national interest to embarrass the Government at this moment. If the right hon. Gentleman says it is not in the national interest to reply, I think the House will accept his statement.
That is what I intended to convey. It would embarrass the Government in relation to Russia and do injury to this country.
Every Minister has a right to decline to answer a question for the reason that it might be against the public interest. The question has been raised before in this House when a Minister in reply to a question of mine about twenty years ago said that he declined to answer it because it would embarrass the Government—that was at a time when we had greater liberty in this House—and I moved the Adjournment of the House and obtained the support of the whole Front Opposition Bench.
I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Vote of Credit.
Defence of the Realm Regulations
Leaflets (Censorship)
asked whether all the leaflets and pamphlets taken in recent raids are going to be at once returned to the owners or at once brought before a Court of law to obtain legal justification for their retention by the Government?
Leaflets and pamphlets which do not come within the terms of Regulation 51 will be returned to their owners. The others will be dealt with in accordance with that Regulation.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in regard to persons who are not pacifists but who desire a reconstructive programme in order to render more competent the conduct of affairs, he will give the House the assurance that the Defence of the Realm Act will not be employed against them, by reason of their advocacy of that policy, even in cases where they subject the inefficiency of the Government to severe criticism?
The Defence of the Realm Act has not been and will not be used for the purpose suggested.
Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the clear distinction to be drawn between attacking the Government and the fact that criticising the Government may be the best way of serving the State?
That consideration is never out of my mind
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an incitement in a widely-circulated London paper to shoot certain Members of this House; whether this paragraph was submitted to or passed by the Press Censor; whether he proposes to raid the office and confiscate the type and machinery of this paper referred to, or; in the alternative, to prosecute the proprietors, editor, and printer for incendiary articles calculated to break the peace of the Realm; whether any guarantee has been required that such incitements shall not be repeated; and, if so, with what result?
The hon. Member has sent me a copy of the paragraph in question, which appears to me to be an incitement to the Government to put certain Members of this House on their trial. The paragraph was not submitted to the Censor. I am not called upon to express an opinion as to the good sense of the paragraph, but I do not think that action could be taken upon it in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.
Press Bureau Statements
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a statement was issued by the Press Bureau on 5th December that there was no truth whatever in the German announcement of the opening of armistice negotiations with the Rumanian Army, whereas, in fact, that report was accurate; whether the Press Bureau is in the habit of issuing such statements without troubling to discover whether or not they are true; and whether he will take measures to prevent the recurrence of a practice which tends to impair the reputation for truthfulness enjoyed by this country abroad and to shake public confidence at home in the reliability of official statements?
The statement referred to was made by the Press Bureau at the request of the War Office, and was, I understand, based on the most authoritative information then available. The Rumanian official statement was not issued until the 6th December, and was not received in this country until the 7th.
Public Trustee (Allegations)
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the allegations made by Sir George Smallman, and published broadcast, against the Public Trustee; and whether in the public interest he intends taking, any action in the matter?
I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on the 11th instant to a question on this subject.
Questions
Juvenile Employment (Dismissed Official)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that J. Theodore Harris, of 4, Graham Road, Dalston, E., who has now been dismissed from the Hackney Advisory Committee for Juvenile Employment on the ground of his refusal to act as a recruiting agent for boys of fifteen for the Royal Flying Corps, was interrupted in an important piece of work on problems which will arise after the War in connection with juvenile employment, and that, although he offered to finish this voluntarily, his offer was refused; and whether any explanation can be given as to why the Department refused the assistance of an established Civil servant at a time when there is need of experts on reconstruction problems?
Mr. Harris was given the opportunity of reconsidering his decision not to carry out the recruiting of boys for training as artificers for the Royal Flying Corps, and was at the same time informed that he would not be allowed to work for the Department in any capacity unless he returned to duty under the Department's conditions. I do not think it would be possible to accept in any capacity the voluntary services of an officer who had been removed from a permanent appointment in the Department on the ground of his refusal to carry out the duties entrusted to him.
Was this man engaged by the Department for the purpose of acting as a recruiting agent for boys of fifteen years of age for the Army?
He was engaged to do the ordinary work of the Department, part of which is to recruit boys for the workshops.
Is it not a fact that this is not recruiting for the workshops but for the Army, because the boys are asked to enlist for four years?
I understand that it is recruiting for the workshops, and I have nothing to add to my answer.
Labour Dispute, Belfast
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now had an opportunity of investigating the facts in connection with the strike of certain men and women at Messrs. Robinson and Cleavers, of Belfast; whether he is aware that girls with two years' experience are paid 5s. a week, girls with four years' experience 6s. a week, girls with seven years' experience 9s. a week, living outdoors, and without receiving meals from the firm; and what steps his Department are taking to promote a settlement of the claim for a fair wage?
Inquiries have been made into the strike referred to. The figures as stated in the question are not accepted by the firm. My right hon. Friend is making further inquiries. I would take the opportunity of pointing out that the cessation of work has considerably prejudiced such services as the Department might have been able to render.
Whisky
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it is the intention of the Department to regulate the selling price of whisky in the same way as has been done with beer, or is it intended to allow the profiteer in that article to have full scope in a way not permitted with other articles?
The attention of the Food Controller has been drawn to the high retail prices of wines and spirits, and he is considering what steps can best be taken for their regulation.
London County Hall
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is now intended to complete and utilise the London County Council's new offices: if so, when it is proposed to start upon the work; and, if not, whether it is proposed to continue wasting the materials and work of tradesmen on temporary erections all over London, besides commandeering hotels necessary for the convenience of the trading and manufacturing community?
The temporary completion of a large portion of the London County Council's new offices, so far as can be economically undertaken for Government occupation during the War, has been in progress since the 26th September, and one-fourth of the accommodation will be ready for occupation by the end of January.
Board of Education Offices
asked the First Commissioner of Works what are the number of rooms given up by the Board of Education at Whitehall and for which Department will these rooms be now utilised; how many of these rooms have been redecorated or painted, and in how many of them have new fireplaces been installed; and if he can give an approximate estimate of the cost of the various works carried out in these offices?
The number of rooms surrendered by the Board of Education is 284, of which number sixty-seven were for some time occupied by the Trench Warfare Department of the Ministry of Munitions. The whole of the rooms and portions of the corridors have been occupied for some time by the staff of the Admiralty Controller. The number of rooms redecorated was 240, of which ten only were painted, twenty-seven dusted only, and the remainder had ceilings and walls distempered and woodwork washed. Most of these rooms had not been decorated for nine or ten years. New grates were installed in three rooms. The cost of redecoration is about £l,200, and other alterations £l,600.
Prisoners of War
asked the hon. Member for Sheffield whether we can now have a statement with reference to the expected arrival of British prisoners in Holland under the recent agreement entered into with Germany at The Hague?
We have just heard that it is proposed to effect the first transfer of British prisoners from Germany to Holland on 2nd January; and we have no reason to suppose that any further obstacle will arise.
Will the first transfer be of civilian prisoners, and will that be followed by the military prisoners?
I understand the first transfer is to be between civilians and a certain number of wounded and other officers.
Will the military section be composed entirely of officers?
Officers and non-commissioned officers, under the terms of The Hague agreement. I do not know the details.
Poor Law (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will amend the Poor Law system in Ireland, so as to allow deserving childless widows and widows with one child to receive relief, seeing that under the present system widows cannot obtain relief unless they have two children under fourteen years old?
It is within the discretion of boards of guardians to grant outdoor relief to childless widows if permanently or temporarily disabled by illness, but there are obvious objections to granting the relief to healthy childless widows. The suggestion of the hon. Member will be borne in mind when legislation affecting the Poor Law in Ireland is being considered.
National School Teachers (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that the new Regulations for the distribution of the Irish teachers' salaries Grant has caused disappointment and dissatisfaction amongst the great majority of Irish national teachers; who is ultimately responsible for these new Regulations; and whether an early opportunity will be given for discussing the scheme?
I am aware that the teachers in Irish National schools are dissatisfied with the distribution of the supplemental Grant in aid of Irish elementary education. The ministerial responsibility for the new Regulations sanctioned by the Government rests with the Chief Secretary. As to the last inquiry in the question, I cannot add anything to the answer I gave yesterday.
With reference to the award, has the right hon. Gentleman seen the protest of the National Board, and, in view of the extremely grave situation that has arisen in Ireland, will he consider the desirability of distributing the Grant pro rata in equal proportions amongst the teachers, and of postponing the question of the ultimate distribution of the Grant—next year's Grant—until we have had the opportunity of discussing it in this House?
No, Sir; I do not think that would be possible.
There will be a terrible row about it.
Welfare of Blind (Committee)
asked the Chief Secretary if it is intended to appoint an Advisory Committee for Ireland in connection with carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Welfare of the Blind; and whether a Committee has already been appointed for Scotland and a Committee also for England and Wales?
I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, with a view to the appointment of such a Committee. I am informed that a Committee has been appointed for England and Wales, and that the constitution of a Committee for Scotland is receiving consideration.
Royal Veterinary College, Ireland
asked the Chief Secretary whether the position of Principal of the Royal Veterinary College of Ireland now vacant will be filled by the appointment of a duly qualified Irishman?
The Department of Agriculture are not in a position at present to make any statement in regard to the filling of the vacancy caused by the much-regretted death of Professor Mettam.
Board of Trade (Promotions)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has promoted, or intends to promote, his private secretary to the rank of principal clerk; and, if so, whether he proposes to fill the vacancy thus caused in the higher division by the promotion of one of the second division clerks who have for several years performed duties similar to those performed by the higher division clerks in the Department?
The gentleman whose promotion to the rank of principal clerk is referred to was the senior clerk in the Upper Division. It is not proposed to fill the vacancy thus created in the Upper Division staff for the present.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether two second division clerks under thirty-two years of age have recently been appointed private secretaries in his Department with special allowances, and two others, also under thirty-two, promoted to staff clerkships; whether, in filling these posts, full consideration was given to the claims of older and more experienced men; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the senior second division clerks in the Board of Trade at the lack of promotion in the Department, having regard to the duties they are called upon to perform?
The facts are substantially as stated in the question. The changes referred to are purely domestic, and the qualifications of the staff were considered before the changes were made. I am not aware of any dissatisfaction among the senior second division clerks in the Board of Trade, but if the hon. Member has received any representations on the subject that he would care to communicate to me I should be glad to consider them. It would, however, be more in accordance with the rules of the service if any such representation were made through the Department by the staff affected.
Leprosy
asked the President of the Local Government how many cases of leprosy there are in this country; and whether steps are being taken to segregate persons suffering from leprosy and to provide for their treatment and maintenance?
My right hon. Friend has no exact information, but he is informed that there are only a few cases of leprosy in the country and, so far as he is aware, the disease is not spreading here. My right hon. Friend is advised that the infectivity of the disease is very limited and that measures for the compulsory segregation of persons suffering from leprosy in this country would not be justified at present. He understands that valuable work in the treatment and maintenance of such cases is being done by private funds.
Would it not be advisable for the Government to give some help to these charitable institutions?
Is not this one of the notifiable diseases?
Yes, I think so, but I am not quite certain upon the point. There are three or four extremely valuable organisations dealing with this work, and, so far as the Department is aware, there is no special need of Government assistance. The work is being extremely well done, and there are very few cases indeed. Should the necessity for Government assistance arise, it will be a matter for future consideration.
Would it not be advisable that these men should be compulsorily put into these charitable institutions?
Is there not high authority for the opinion that while leprosy may be regarded as an inoculable disease, it is not in the ordinary sense of the word communicable?
That is already in the answer. We are advised that the infectivity of the disease is very limited.
Personal Explanation
May I be allowed to make a personal explanation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Commander Wedgwood) on several occasions in this House has suggested that in putting questions on the subject of the proposed sale of the Kellner-Partington Company's assets to a Norwegian syndicate I was not actuated by considerations of the public interest, but was inspired by some private, interested source. That suggestion is entirely and absolutely without foundation. My attention was called to this matter in the first instance by hearing questions and answers in this House, from which I came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that there was some danger that the products of this company, which were useful for making munitions of war, might get into German hands, and that was my only reason for taking the matter up originally and putting questions on it subsequently. I suppose the suggestions of my hon. and gallant Friend were probably prompted by either ignorance or inadvertence. I do not suppose he had any other motive.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that he was inspired to count me out the other evening.
Orders of the Day
Business of the House
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what the business will be for next week; also when the House will rise for the Recess and when it is proposed that it shall resume its sittings?
The business proposed for next week is:
Monday, Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
Tuesday, the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill, which is purely formal; the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Bill, Committee stage; the National Health Insurance Bill; and the National Insurance (Unemployment) Bill.
On Wednesday, the Appropriation Bill, Third Reading.
On Thursday we hope to take the Motion for the Adjournment. I cannot say absolutely with definiteness for what time the Adjournment will continue. It is our hope that we may be able to ask the House not to come back till the 14th or 15th January. I shall be able to say definitely at the beginning of the week.
How many days will be given to the Committee stage of the Non-Ferrous Bill?
Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the point about the Non-Ferrous Bill, seeing the amount of interest that is taken in the Committee stage?
The fact that there is interest in a Bill is not a reason, in my opinion, for postponing it.
Will the Eleven o'Clock Rule be suspended on Tuesday, with a view to getting through the Committee stage of that Bill?
Very likely. We will see when Tuesday comes.
Will the Prime Minister open the Debate on the Adjournment, and make a statement?
That is his intention.
Ordered, "That the proceedings in the Committee of Supply and Committee of Ways and Means and on Supply [10 th December ] Report be not interrupted this day under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed."—[ Mr. Bonar Law .]
Resolved, "That this House do sit Tomorrow."—[ Mr. Bonar Law .]
Supply.—[12th December.]
Supplementary Vote of Credit, 1917–18
Resolution reported,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £550,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1918, for General Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and re-sale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the Ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
I welcome the opportunity which this Vote of Credit affords me of making a statement to the House in continuation of that which I had the honour to make on the 1st November last. In that statement—on account of the mass of other details to which I had to refer—I was able to deal only very cursorily with ship—epairing and shipbuilding, and it is to these subjects that I propose to devote a short space of time to-day. I do so the more gladly because I realise fully that if the Admiralty Controller is to retain the confidence of this House and of the country in his policy, the Admiralty must provide the fullest information possible, and thus enable the House of Commons and the country to realise and satisfy themselves that their policy is, in the main, sound. I do not propose to deal again at any great length with submarine warfare, but it is almost inevitable that that aspect of our mercantile marine problem should be referred to. It has been suggested in certain quarters that my previous statement erred on the side of optimism, and that perhaps the Admiralty did not fully realise the vital importance and urgency of the shipbuilding programme. I stated in most positive terms that our anti-submarine measures were developing and proving steadily more efficacious, but that the enemy was building submarines faster than we were sinking them. I also stated that, although losses of merchant ships due to enemy action were decreasing, he was still sinking our ships faster than we were replacing them. I did not think that any responsible Minister stating these facts in this House could possibly be accused of failure to recognise the gravity and importance of the problem, and, indeed, it is still incomprehensible to me that such a charge could reasonably lie. What I said then truly describes the situation as it has developed during the last six weeks since I last addressed the House.
I now propose to deal with the ship-repairing and shipbuilding situation generally: I have purposely placed ship-repairing in the forefront as being the most important question at the moment.
4.0 P.M.
The repair of a damaged ship takes less time and material than the building of a new one, so we have, in the first place, turned our attention to this work, and I propose to give the House some facts and figures on this point, which will, I am sure, prove of great interest. Up to June, when the Admiralty Controller was appointed, the repair of ships was undertaken locally, and no centralised control was exercised. The vital importance of this means of combating the submarine menace was immediately recognised, and the Ship Repairers' Association at once placed their services and their entire goodwill at the disposal of the Controller. Two of the most distinguished heads of the ship repairing industry, Mr. G. S. F. Edwards and Mr. H. M. Grayson, joined the staff at the Admiralty, and with the hearty co-operation of all branches of this important industry, organised a centralised control of all the dry docks and repair establishments in the country. The invaluable work done by these gentlemen and by the industry of which they are such distinguished members is shown by the following figures: Since June there are only three torpedoed ships in home waters, the salvage of which has been abandoned, and only one ship which it has been decided not to repair for the present. In June there were ten ships damaged by enemy action undergoing permanent repair, equivalent to 27 per cent. of the total salved tonnage on hand. To-day there are fifty-six ships of this description undergoing repair. That is 80 per cent. of the total salved tonnage on hand. I told the House on 1st November that the dry docks were being used 90 per cent. of their time, and that was far beyond the peace-time experience. The month of November has shown even a further improvement, the percentage of 94 per cent. being reached. These figures will, I am sure, strike the House as eminently satisfactory, but I have noticed that on occasions we are accused of giving the favourable figures only. Therefore, the question may well be asked as to whether the actual repair output of the dry docks and repair establishments is increasing or not. The answer to that question, I am glad to say, is complete. Since August, when the centralised control was introduced, the output of ships repaired in dry dock has increased by 48 per cent., and the repairs afloat by 45 per cent. This repair and salvage organisation has now proved so successful—it only applies to home waters at present—that by consent of all parties interested it is being extended to foreign seas all over the world. That ends the portion of my statement referring to repairs.
I come next to merchant shipbuilding. In order to get a measure of the effort which is being made in shipbuilding today I would refer the House to the output of this great national industry before the War. To arrive at the total output of war vessels and merchant vessels, it is necessary to adopt a conversion figure for war vessels, and this throughout has been done upon a basis which I think is generally accepted by shipbuilders; that a war vessel ton of displacement is equal in labour and steel to two gross tons of shipping. That conversion figure has been adopted in the figures I am giving now. The year 1913 gave the absolute peak of shipbuilding of all kinds that this country has ever known—the equivalent of 2,282,000 gross tons being launched. This was made up of 1,920,000 tons of merchant shipping, and the equivalent upon the converted figure, as I have explained above, of 362,000 gross tons of war vessels. If we compare that with the present situation I am able to state that, assuming that the output for December is as good as the output for last month—and there is no reason to suppose otherwise; one may anticipate that December will be just the same or more than November—the actual tonnage of war vessels and merchant vessels combined which we finish in 1917 will equal the output for the record year 1913. But we have been accelerating shipbuilding during the latter months of the year, and for those months the figures are better. I have given the figures for the whole year, and that includes a great many lean months. If we take the rate of output for the months of October and November—and it is fair to take them—they are not abnormally high months—as a measure of what we have attained, the merchant tonnage completed is fully at the same rate as the merchant tonnage output of the record year of 1913, and the output of all classes of shipping in those two months is 18 per cent. higher than the rate of output for the record year of 1913, that is 2,282,000.
Then is it not a fact that 1,920,000 tons have been produced this year?
I have said that if we complete the year we will arrive approximately at the same figure as was produced of merchant tonnage in 1913, the best year.
This is very material. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us the total merchant shipbuilding that will be completed this year, 1917?
That is what I have endeavoured to tell the House. It is what I said. I am able to state that, assuming that the output for December—I am assuming one month—is as good a the output for November, the actual tonnage of war vessels and merchant vessels combined completed in 1917 will equal the output for the record year, 1913. This is the actual; but we have been accelerating shipbuilding during the latter months, and for those months the figure is better. We have increased our output. I have tried to give it in two ways to show what we have done in the year and what rate we have attained. We, therefore, find that, in spite of the great Army which has been raised, and the consequent great demand upon the man-power of the country, and, in spite also of the huge munitions effort which is being increasingly called for, and attained, we are to-day building shipping at a rate of 18 per cent. in excess of the high-water mark of shipbuilding that this country has ever known, and our plans provide for a very great increase above that figure. I cannot think that the House will pronounce these attained results to be anything but satisfactory. In addition to shipbuilding in this country, there are further augmentations of our mercantile marine tonnage which are being arranged throughout the Allied world, and wherever the construction of ships of wood, concrete, or steel can be arranged, we and our Allies are taking the necessary steps to develop the industry and increase the output. We in this country are making a big experiment with concrete barges of about 1,000 tons capacity. As I have stated, we are planning for a merchant shipbuilding programme in addition to our output of war vessels, each infinitely greater than anything this country has ever done in pre-war days, and the House will, I am sure, appreciate throughout that these facts must be considered together. In the first place, the men and materials, both of which are short, have to be appropriated to either one or the other, and are common to both. Secondly, one must not lose sight of the fact that the merchant ship, though defensively armed, is not an offensive weapon against the submarine, and if we devote the whole of our available resources to building merchant ships, without at the same time developing our anti-submarine warship construction, we are simply sending vessels out to be torpedoed by an ever-increasing force of enemy submarines. It is incontrovertible that we can get a better net result in our merchant shipping position by devoting a proper proportion of our energy to building anti-submarine craft.
Before dealing with the question of the development of private yards, and the development of the national shipyards, I would like here to refer to a matter which has been discussed at some length in the Press, and regarding which questions have been put in the House. I refer to the reconstitution of the Shipbuilders' Advisory Committee and the present Shipbuilding Council. When I was appointed Admiralty Controller I found that a certain number of eminent shipbuilders had most patriotically placed their services and experience entirely at the disposal of Sir Joseph Maclay, the Controller of Shipping, who at that time had charge of the production of merchant craft. This body, which was called "Advisory," did, in fact, exercise executive functions, but the Cabinet, determining upon an extension of our shipbuilding programme, appointed an executive officer, who eventually came on the staff of the Controller—that is, on my own staff—with executive charge of merchant auxiliary shipbuilding. In this appointment we had a development of the organisation which necessitated relieving the Shipbuilders' Advisory Committee of the executive functions, which up to that time they had carried out. Those executive functions from that date were carried out departmentally. Certain of their number accepted posts on the staff of the Controller. The other members were asked by me, personally, to continue, in the meantime at any rate, in their advisory capacity. At a later stage it was found that owing to changes in organisation the most efficient use was not being made of the abilities and experience of the members of this body, and it was decided, upon representations made by the remaining members of the Shipbuilders' Advisory Committee, to abolish that Committee and set up a Shipbuilding Council, under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Anderson, who succeeded me as Controller. That Council includes every single member who was left upon the old Advisory Committee. I do not think that it would be possible to collect a more thoroughly distinguished and representative body of shipbuilders in this country than those who serve on the Council, composed, as it is, of distinguished heads of this industry both within and without the Controller's staff. Their names have already been published. They are the names of nineteen men who are undoubtedly at the head of the shipbuilding and marine engineering industries, and one civil engineer of great experience in all waterside work. The Council sits under the chairmanship of the Controller—Sir Alan Anderson—who, though not a shipbuilder himself, is a shipowner, and has had a lifelong experience of shipping. I refute with confidence any suggestion that either on the staff of the Controller or on the Council is the Admiralty in any measure devoid of the most highly qualified advice and executive knowledge obtainable in the Kingdom, and I can assure the House that this great fund of knowledge and experience is going to be used to the full in the very important and vital task with which the Controller is charged.
Turning now to the question of the development of private yards and the development of national yards, I would like to give the House some figures, but before doing so I must again refer to the fact that to-day the existing accommodation is turning out merchant ships at a rate equal to the highest rate that has ever been attained in this country in addition to a far larger naval programme than was ever attempted in peace-time, and also in addition to a repairing programme which is using to the fullest extent the repairing facilities of this country, and at the same time making heavy drafts on labour and material which otherwise could be devoted to the production of new tonnage. It must, I think, be obvious that with these facts before us, a vast extension of shipbuilding facilities is necessary if we are successfully to counter the submarine depredations of the enemy. By improved organisation and by careful selection of the most suitable work for every yard, it is hoped, in existing accommodation alone, to increase still further the output which is now being attained. But this is not enough, and we have authorised private yards to increase their accommodation to the extent of forty-five new berths. Twenty-three applications have been refused or postponed, owing to the schemes upon examination not being such as appeared likely to give the best results in existing circumstances, and a further number are being dealt with as rapidly as circumstances permit.
As I have already stated, it is proposed to make use of the existing yards and their extensions to their fullest possible economic capacity, and it was recently a source of the greatest possible satisfaction to His Majesty's Government that the associations of employers and men engaged in shipbuilding and marine engineering united in a deputation to the Prime Minister to represent to him their intention to co-operate in every possible way, recognising as they do the vital need of tonnage at the present time. As the Prime Minister stated, this joint deputation may well mark a very important step forward in the industrial relations in this country, and we cannot overestimate the value of this whole-hearted co-operation which has been undertaken in repairing the damage done by the enemy submarine campaign. As previously stated in this House, it is the intention of the Government that national yards shall be supplementary to private yards, but it is on the latter that the first reliance is placed.
I propose next to deal with the national shipyards. They are situated on the river Severn. These sites have been chosen, in the first place, because they afford good facilities for launching and fitting out ships; in the second place, because they lie in a district from which steel can readily be obtained, to use a colloquialism, "at their doors," thus saving transportation of the output of South Wales, which to-day is carried long distances; and last, but not least, because the sites which are available for the housing of the workmen are healthier and better than could be secured in almost any other part of the country. These national shipyards are going to be used for the construction of a more highly standardised ship than has yet been undertaken. A great deal of the work can be done in bridge-yards, and it is proposed to avail ourselves of this great addition to the shipbuilding power of the country and to manufacture in bridge-yards portions of the ships to the largest dimensions which the railways can carry without impeding other traffic. In this way advantage can be taken of machinery already in existence at these constructional bridge-yards, and thus save the time and expenditure involved in setting up new machinery. There are three national shipyards, and in only one of them is it proposed to put any large amount of manufacturing plant. The other two will be erecting yards only. They are well under way, and it is anticipated that it will be possible to commence laying the keel of the first vessel in the national yards in the early part of next year. There are thirty-four berths at present being prepared in those three national yards.
As regards labour for the yards. In the first place, the design of the ships has been simplified to the greatest possible extent, and modern appliances for riveting and erection will be installed. As I have stated, a good deal of the work will be done at bridge-yards throughout the country, and it is intended to develop the construction of merchant ships with prisoners of war and unskilled labour. National factories manned largely with unskilled labour have been adopted with much success by the Ministry of Munitions in augmenting the output of munitions, and I see no reason why these national shipyards should not be equally successful: we mean to make them so. It is not proposed to undertake the building of marine engines or auxiliary machinery at these yards, and I am advised that capacity already exists in this country to meet the requirements in that respect. The total cost of this development, which comprises hutting accommodation and all the necessary facilities, in addition to the mere provision of thirty-four shipbuilding berths, is estimated at £3,887,000. There are no special elements of expense peculiar to the sites, which are in every way convenient for laying out a shipyard economically. We have been able to check this estimate against the estimate for a similar development proposed by a private shipbuilder in another part of the country, and find that the two are in close agreement. I may say that to a small extent the system of building ships which I have described has been adopted in the case of barges at Richborough with great success by Major-General Collard, who is the Deputy-Controller in charge of Merchant Shipbuilding, and the success with which this officer has inaugurated the cross-Channel barge traffic, and has provided for the Mesopotamian river transport—to which our success in that theatre of war is so largely due—augurs well indeed for the success of his undertakings in this larger and more vital matter.
I fear that I have overtaxed the patience of the House, and I would inclosing endeavour to summarise the position of merchant-ship production and submarine warfare as I see it. The demands on our merchant shipping are greater than they have ever been in the War before. The submarine menace is, I repeat, in my opinion, held, but not yet mastered. Our shipbuilding is not yet replacing our losses, but amongst all the factors which go to the solution of this problem, I deprecate the drawing of deductions from the experience of any one week or month, be it good or bad. It is the general curve in each of the factors which we must watch, and upon which we must base our policy and our opinion as to ultimate results. I do not suggest that those who are charged with the daily responsibility, either of fighting the enemy submarine or of repairing and producing merchant ships, in order to maintain ourselves and our Allies, should disregard detail. It is upon a proper review of detail that they must devise and adopt counter measures and put them into force, but it is upon the general curve of all the factors that we must base our conclusion as to whether things are going well or badly.
I have studied the general curve as it has continued since 1st November—when I made my last statement—and the downward trend of mercantile marine losses, both of ourselves and our Allies, has continued satisfactorily. The upward curve of merchant shipbuilding has also continued satisfactorily, and this will undoubtedly be maintained. The upward curve of the destruction of enemy submarines has continued equally satisfactorily, and I have no reason to doubt—as I had no reason to doubt six weeks ago—that those curves will continue gradually to improve. I would, however, reiterate that a good or a bad month of sinkings, either of merchant ships or of enemy submarines, ought not to be taken by itself. A good period might conceivably be brought about by circumstances which, taken by themselves, would appear to justify gratifying conclusions, but which in the end might lead to very much increased losses. The casualties in merchant ships will inevitably fluctuate just as the casualties in man-power fluctuate in land war, and it is only by taking the general trend of success and loss that a true picture can be obtained by the House and by the country.
If the country will economise—if it seriously makes up its mind to economise—if it will limit consumption so as to restrict the use of tonnage and thus set our ships free for far more urgent uses in connection with our military necessities and those of our Allies and the maintenance of their civil populations—if following the tradition of our race through centuries of history, we determine to put forth all our power and to relax no effort to defeat the submarine attack of our enemies—and here my appeal is specially directed to the workers in marine engine shops and shipyards—then the War can only end in the victory we have so long desired. But we must have ships, more ships, and still more ships, and now I want the men to build them. Our plans are laid; we have now got the steel, and I want the men. The Ministry of National Service is calling loudly and insistently for the men for shipbuilding, and unless I entirely mistake the spirit of the country, we will have a response which will demonstrate to the world that our grip tightens as this great struggle continues. I did not make this appeal for men before, because we were short of shipbuilding steel and in other ways not ready for an increase of man-power; but now my message to men and women not engaged on direct war work or in the fighting forces of the Grown is "Go to the shipyards." I know I shall not call in vain.
The First Lord, if I may be allowed to say so, always inspires confidence by his firm declarations of policy; and may I also hope that the House may be favoured with his presence a little more frequently, because he does add an air of assurance and confidence to our Debates. If I venture to criticise some of the points in the statements which he has made to-day, it will be entirely from the point of view of public policy. But I hope that the exordium of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he called for economy, and in which he called for more and more ships, will be read, digested, and acted upon by every member of the Government. The question of ships to-day is probably the most vital of our war problems, for upon that the food supply of the nation will turn. I must say that though the Government have been, in the Press and in Parliament, magnificently resolute in their statements, yet they have only been half-hearted and hesitating in their methods. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the national shipyards, and that, in my opinion, so far as it goes, is a most amazing story of Departmental administration. I have taken some considerable trouble to find out, so far as I can, some of the facts. Three or four of these new national shipyards—I do not know what the number is—were announced as being started. One would have imagined that the starting of these institutions would have been attended with great care and consideration, but, so far as I can understand it, this is the amazing fact, that they were started on the spur of the moment by men with no shipbuilding experience. Some of us were very doubtful about this experiment, and I asked a question in the House about it, and the answer which was given on behalf of the Admiralty, which I propose to read, I must say, comes perilously near deceiving the House. I asked the question on the 14th November, whether practical shipbuilders had been consulted in the forming of these new national yards, and this is the answer: of men required. The First Lord talked about this Admiralty Advisory Committee having been changed into an Advisory Council; but the real fact is that this Advisory Committee resigned in a body, because they did not approve of this policy, and, of course, the Admiralty have endeavoured to cover this up. To my mind, the Government have not treated the House fairly in this matter. The House should have been consulted. Instead of that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is usually the pink of courtesy, gave us the answer: "Well, the policy has been announced to the House; you must take it." The Admiralty policy has been announced to the House, but it was something like Moses coming down from the mountain. We have been told by the First Lord of the Admiralty about the men to be employed in the national yards; we are told that the ships are to be standardised vessels, but it is very doubtful, indeed, that the national yards will be better able to deal with this matter than the practical shipbuilders of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Richborough yard, where barges are built, and a distinguished gentleman connected with shipbuilding told me the other day, that this yard was a standing model of extravagance. I wish to go a little further about these national yards. I have no interest whatever in any private shipbuilding concern; I am speaking entirely from the point of view of public policy. Although it may be said that shipbuilding was one of the most paying industries before the War, it had no assistance from the Government nor any subsidy, yet our mercantile marine is one of the finest in the world, and has saved the country in this time of War. The Government now propose to start these national yards, and, will the House believe it, these great private shipbuilding yards are actually short of men and material! There is no doubt about that. I have had letters from many shipbuilders, and in most cases they have said to me that I was to treat their communications as confidential. Here is a letter to me, dated the 11th December, which I shall read: I know some attacks have been made on the Deputy-Controller of Shipbuilding, but I am not going to say a word about him, because we have present the First Lord, who must be held responsible in this matter. The letter goes on to say:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the firm?
The name of the firm is Napier and Miller, Old Kilpatrick, near Glasgow. In the case of another correspondent I am asked to keep the name confidential, but I can show it to my hon. Friend. Here is a letter, received only the day before yesterday, which states that some of the largest private yards in the country are at present being utilised to about three-fourths of their full capacity, the principal reason being the shortage of labour. The firm which writes states the number is 35 per cent. less than the number formerly employed—4,500 as against 6,500 in 1915. This falling-off is accounted for through their not being able to supply the quantity of work they could undertake, and therefore had to allow men to leave them. Men, the writer states, are now unprocurable. There was also a shortage of steel material during the whole year, but I understand it is better now. I ask the House of Commons is it business that these national shipyards should be established when the private yards are starved of labour and material? I put that point. It is not a party question; it is simply a question of business. The letter further states that the national yards can only be equipped under great difficulties, and at the expense of existing establishments, and that they cannot get suitable repairs to their plant owing to machine-tool factories being monopolised to supply the national yards. They believe that for the next two years the output of the national yards will be negligible, and this in the most critical period of the year. The letter goes on to say that the national yards
The critical time is coming in the early months of 1918. Every effort should have been made by the Admiralty during this year to equip the private yard fully with men and material. There is no doubt about that, and when I listened to the First Lord of the Admiralty this afternoon again giving estimates of what shipbuilding in this country was going to be —it is always "going to be"—I think he said plans were being prepared for turning out a certain amount of shipbuilding. Many times before we have had similar estimates. [Sir E. Geddes dissented.] I do not for a moment wish to misrepresent my right hon. Friend, but I think he said the plans had been made for a largely increased output of shipbuilding in the year 1918——
That is not an estimate.
No; it is not an estimate, it is a phrase, and I have not the legal casuistry to differentiate between words like that. But in another place, on the 10th May, Lord Curzon stated that the programme of merchant shipbuilding on which the Minister of Shipping based his present programme would work out at an output of 3,000,000 tons per annum. I say if such an output is to be realised it will be necessary to provide an additional 100,000 workers and a double quantity of steel per week. That was the estimate of the Shipping Controller, a practical man. Has it been fulfilled? There was no question of national shipyards then; the Shipping Controller never dreamt of them; he had far too much common sense. I know he is not in charge of shipbuilding; he is Controller of shipping. These are cognate questions with that of food production and the bringing of food to this country. I had an interview the other day with Mr. F. S. Edge, who was in the Ministry of Munitions. He had heard a statement made by the Government that they proposed to plant 3,000,000 acres of land, and he said, "I set about doing it; I set about providing traction machinery, oil, and so on." But he was dismissed from the Ministry of Munitions. He remarked to me that when the Government said they were going to plant 3,000,000 acres he had thought they meant it. Let me say, too, that when we hear these statements made by members of the War Cabinet in the House of Lords we also think they mean them. I now come to the present Prime Minister. On the 21st July last, at Queen's Hall—and this shows how attentively we study their utterances; we look up to them as men of light and leading, who give us comfort—and they do give us comfort—in speeches—the Prime Minister said, on the 21st July, that our shipbuilding had gone down disastrously during the last two years; but then he continued:
"This year we shall turn out four times as many ships as we turned out iast year."
Last year the Prime Minister told us we turned out 538,000 tons; now four times 538,000 is 2,152,000 tons, and that is the figure I want to put to the First Lord. Will he kindly tell us what is the actual amount of merchant tonnage that will be turned out by this country this year? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]
That will be dealt with in due course.
And next year—that is, the year 1918—we shall, as we are told by the Prime Minister, turn out six times as many ships; six times 538,000 represents over 3,000,000 tons. Really, I ask, is it fair thus to delude the country in these vital matters? It is so serious that I cannot understand why it is done. My right hon. Friend himself, in his statement on the 1st November, was a little optimistic; he then told us that our output for the first nine months had been 123 per cent. over the output of last year. He also said that already it had been very considerably higher than the total output of 1915. As I understand it—I believe my information is correct: no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—the output for this year is about 1,000,000 tons, and that compares with the 3,000,000 stated by Lord Curzon and the 2,000,000 stated by the Prime Minister! Now I come to the submarine sinkings. I have the figures, but I will not give them as the First Lord deprecates it. The House must remember, however, that in the last four months, favourable though the returns have been—I am referring to the four months up to the end of November—the submarine sinkings of British tonnage have equalled, or very nearly equalled, the total output of British tonnage this year. That is a very serious thing, and I ask the Government to go on with their shipbuilding because it is one of the most vital factors of the War. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller in this House said we were replacing by building and purchase—I hope the House will mark the words "and purchase"—as much tonnage in November—within a measurable distance—as was sunk. But my hon. Friend knows full well, with his great knowledge of statistics, that you ought to compare like with like, and if you include purchases in your output you must include the sinkings of neutrals in the losses.
I should like the House to be quite clear on this subject. What I did was to point out that the construction of new British shipping in the month of November was very nearly equal to the losses—it was within a measurable distance of the losses—by enemy attack in the same period. That left out the purchases.
I am sorry if I misrepresented my hon. Friend, but I certainly understood him to include purchases. There is one thing in which I do agree with him, and that is that the public should be told the truth. What are the preparations for next year? Can we have an assurance now that the private shipbuilding capacity of the country will be extended to the utmost possible limits next year? Will they have as much steel, material, and labour as they can absorb? Will they be given absolute preference over these new national yards? That is a point which I think is very important. It is no use saying you can divert labour and the energies of the tool-makers and so on to the National yards without infringing on and curtailing the output of the private yards. Again I agree with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller that we must have something like the truth if we are to carry the public with us. It is no use, by glowing statements in the Press and elsewhere, to attempt to gloss over the grave situation in which we find ourselves. You cannot gloss over those queues of people so anxiously searching for food in the streets. Let me again refer to the position of the Admiralty with regard to the submarines. I have heard the statement made here and elsewhere that the Admiralty have the submarine menace well in hand. But in September, 1915, they had it well in hand, and an official statement was issued by the Admiralty this year—only in September last—to the effect that the submarine was defeated. Now, however, the First Lord has altered his phraseology about the submarine and he told us this afternoon that it was not mastered, although on the 1st November he said it was being mastered. But in addition to him we have a far more important person—the Prime Minister—who said
I want to put one or two other questions to the right hon. Gentleman. On the 1st November I asked him about the 6,000 ton German submarines which were being built. I assume that they will be used for destroying our long-distant traffic. It is quite probable that these submarines will go down to the South American coast. I make that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope the Admiralty are prepared for it. In uttering these observations I have no party point of view to serve. I have no party to-day, and I hope that nearly every one of us in this House knows no party. I am ready to support any Government that will conduct the War more successfully and more vigorously, but I am filled with a great deal of misgiving and anxiety at this moment. The British Navy is the finest fighting machine in the -world, but its strength has been frittered away and dissipated in a series of distant expeditions. My right hon. Friend on 1st November stated with justifiable pride that the British. Navy had conveyed 13,000,000 troops across the seas, and that only 2,700 had been lost by enemy action. That is a wonderful record. They have been conveyed to France, the Dardanelles, Salonika, Mesopotamia, East Africa, and Palestine, and only 2,700 have been lost despite the ubiquitous German submarine. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty made great criticism of us who have advocated more offensive action by the Navy. He pointed out with force the difficulties of entering into the Baltic, but may I point out something to him which he must have known—the lost opportunity of the Admiralty when the German Fleet convoyed a large number of transports and took the islands off Riga. The Admiralty were warned. I propose to read an extract from a letter addressed to the Prime Minister on 28th March, 1917—
The House has always listened with great interest to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lambert), and when he addresses the House on matters of naval strategy and naval preparation he must be listened to with even an unusual amount of respect, because of his vast experience as a Civil Lord of the Admiralty. I confess, however, that I could not follow the right hon. Gentleman in all the strictures he has endeavoured to make, and which to my mind, as I listened to him, appeared to be very much self-contradictory each of the other. For example, the right hon. Gentleman attacked the Admiralty because they had not produced anything like the number of ships that had been promised by the Prime Minister, and even promised by the first Lord of the Admiralty in his previous speech. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman, whilst complaining of the paucity of ships that had been produced, had attacked the Admiralty for the preparations which they had made, suggesting that those preparations, because they were too large, would interfere with each other and would reduce the total of the output. I cannot pretend to an experience such as that of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do venture to address the House upon this subject after some fifty years of occupation in the shipbuilding and engineering trade. I do claim to know a little about the conditions of my own livelihood over all these years, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has been led into mistakes and misunderstandings which a little more practical experience than that of a Civil Lord of the Admiralty would have tended to cure. Take, for example, the question of the extension of private yards and the creation of national yards. The practical question underlying the extension of private yards and the creation of additional works is this. In every shipyard you have had up to the present time a carefully regulated proportion of machinery for the preparation of the plates and other parts of steel which go to the construction of the ship, and a carefully proportioned amount of machinery to the number of berths that are in existence for the erection of those parts into finished ships. That proportion has been based upon the practice of running machines for an ordinary length of time, for eight or nine hours daily.
The suggestion of increasing the output in existing yards by adding more berths, based upon the intention of running the machines for a greater length of time—by perhaps doubling shifts or overtime—and so making the existing number of machines feed and prepare the material for an enlarged number of berths, is a perfectly clear and a perfectly proper policy by which to enlarge the output of existing shipyards without having to resort to the necessity of getting additional machines, which at the present time it is almost impossible to obtain in sufficient quantities. Therefore the policy—though the right hon. Gentleman did not seem quite to-appreciate it—of the Admiralty in selecting yards which, from all the circumstances, are suitable to have additional berths made to occupy and absorb the product of the machines running for a greater length of time—by artificial light, and so forth—is, in my humble judgment, the right policy; and the question is whether that policy is approved or disapproved if it is taken in conjunction with the creation of national shipyards. To my mind the creation of national shipyards as an additional means of increasing the output of ships has been the right policy, and is in no way contradictory of the policy of increasing the output and enlarging the number of berths of the private yards. Then, as regards the men. The right hon. Gentleman attacked the Admiralty on the ground that they were trying to take away officials from the private yards. Of course they must do so.
Hear, hear!
In doing so, does, the right hon. Gentleman suggest that a system of selection cannot be found which will leave the private yards with superintendents and officials capable of carrying on the work? I will tell him from my experience—and I know every yard from one end of the country to the other—that there is not a shipbuilding firm that would not gladly select, on patriotic grounds, some of their young men for promotion to national yards in such a way that the work would be well done and the younger men would get the opportunity of advancement such as study and scientific training would justify. I have said all I intended to say —excepting this: The right hon. Gentleman fell foul of the Admiralty on the ground that the First Lord's statement was based on prophecy. The First Lord of the Admiralty did more than prophesy. He stated facts. It is true he stated them in percentages, which seem to be objection able to the Front Opposition Bench, but percentages enable figures and statistics to be given without revealing facts to the enemy.
Oh!
The right hon. Gentleman may laugh at that, but it is a fact. The First Lord of the Admiralty stated—I think I am right in so understanding him—that the output for the year which was now closing was 18 per cent. greater in tonnage than the output of merchant shipping in any previous year.
No; the rate of the last two months.
The rate at the present time is 18 per cent. higher than it has ever been before in merchant shipbuilding.
In all shipbuilding.
That is a statement which ought to be a great encouragement to the country, and which ought not to be characterised as a statement based on prophecy. If it be the fact—I do not throw the least doubt upon it—that during those months that increase has taken place, I would emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman says by pointing out that they are winter months, when the amount of time that can be given to the building of ships is very much less, through darkness, than in summer time. If in winter months 18 per cent. more tonnage has been turned out than in any previous time in the history of the country, then I think we may take very great encouragement indeed from those figures. I hope the Admiralty will go on in the course which has been outlined so satisfactorily in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty. I hope they will continue to enlarge by selection suitable private shipbuilding yards. I hope they will continue to give the proper encouragement to the labour in those yards, and see that every safeguard that has been promised by the Ministry of Munitions and by the Admiralty in regard to the peace conditions afterwards will be confirmed. I hope that, in addition to encouraging the enlargement of private shipbuilding yards, they will proceed vigorously with the national yards; and I do believe that if they continue in that course they have marked out, and if they get the encouragement and support of this House, they will be able to overtake gradually but surely the greatest menace that exists at the present time to our victory in the War.
I should like to intervene for a moment or two on this occasion. The other day in a question I asked why the Admiralty had gone to places to plan national shipyards where there was no shipyard labour. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has told us that he has a long experience, and I am sure he would be the last to advise any such course. I would like the Admiralty to give us the reason for their choice, because I represent the workers in the shipyard trades. Is the idea in going to those places to build a wall, as it were, round them? If that is the intention, I may say that the very opposite may be the result, because we know what terrible trouble there has been to get workmen to go to such places and even to large places. If the idea is to cut out the organisation of the workers, then again I say the very opposite result is likely, as the Government have found in other directions. I do not approach this matter from the same point of view as that of the ex-Civil Lord who has just spoken. He spoke just now of the representative of the Ministry of Shipping telling us the truth. I remember well some of the tussles I had with the right hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to get the truth. He complained that shipbuilders were not consulted as to the new yards, but really the employers are more or less secondary at the present moment to the workmen. Some of us have done our level best against all opposition, and have stood by the Government and the country. Therefore, surely it would be no degradation on the part of the Government to have consulted those who have helped them so well. I cannot see, as a practical ship constructor, where these four national shipyards are going to be of any good to our nation in this War. Let us come down to plain, practical facts. It will take you at least twelve or eighteen months to get up new machinery, foundations, and the rest. I know something about it as I have been on the job of starting new yards. I am not against national shipyards—the very opposite. Therefore I do not approach the question in opposition. I approach it from the point of view of the difficulty and trouble of getting skilled men of my trade, the essential trade in shipbuilding, and I say you cannot do it; it is impossible. The First Lord said we wanted ships, and more ships, and still more ships, and he appealed to the workers in non-essential trades to rush into the shipyards. I am afraid he has not yet got a fundamental grasp of ship construction, because we have been diluting our labour right and left at the request of the Government, and a lot of the diluted labour has only been in our road, and we are imperilling our food and not increasing it in that way. Dilution, to be effective and to increase output, must be done with intelligence, and after consultation with the workers who are engaged on the work and have to carry it through. If you do not have their consent and good will, you will retard the work, and you will not get through with it.
After the experience of the Admiralty during the past three years, is there no better method of dealing with this question than the one they have suggested? Before spending two and a half millions of the nation's money on these yards, why not take over all the present yards and nationalise them, and do away with private profit and get the fullest output you can? That is the method to adopt. Can the Admiralty tell us how many empty berths there are in the present shipyards of the United Kingdom and in some of their own dockyards, and on which ships could be building at present? Is there not a considerable number? Do they deny it? I have not got the exact figures, but will have shortly. I am informed that there are a considerable number of empty berths, and of berths which are only, partially employed. With all the machinery surrounding those berths and the men near at hand, surely those are the places in the present national emergency for those ships to be laid down! In that way you would eliminate the cause of the friction between the workers of the shipyards and the employers. The cause of the friction is that the workers imagine that everything is still being done for private profit and not for the benefit of the country. We have asked repeatedly, and I personally have asked, the Prime Minister to think out some scheme whereby that could be eliminated, and thus give the workers a better opportunity.
The present position is one of dual control. Our employers in the large yards scarcely know where they are. Some of those yards are almost national institutions, and only want a slight extension of the present shareholders and directorate to make them really national institutions, working for national benefit and not for private profit. I do not approach this matter in any antagonism to the object the Admiralty have in view, but I repeat that you cannot get the really skilled and highly skilled men required to start these national shipyards at the present time without depleting some work that is more essential at the moment for the benefit of our country. That is my point, looking at the question, as I have to do, from the practical point of view.
Reference has been made to the huge submarines that were said to be building or built. I well remember that even before the War some of us had a considerable fight over this question of submarines. I suppose some of the "Blue Water" school at that time scoffed at that and regarded the submarine as a toy. They are toys no longer. If they had only been taken up as they ought to have been we would have been in a far better position to-day, and would know more. We would have been compelled to find out ways and means of getting at the submarines. We have been rushing at it and have all the best brains to find out how we can discover them under the water. If we could only get some invention to let us know where they are, there is no question we would have them in hand. The Admiralty and the merchant shipping and the sailors are worthy of all praise for the manner in which they have stuck to the ships while the submarines have been working. I do not complain of the Admiralty, but if we could get some scientific invention to help us to detect submarines under the water, then the greatest difficulty in the world would be overcome. I am sure we are prepared to do everything we can to help the Admiralty in this matter. I have no words in which to adequately condemn the cruel treatment which has been extended to our men in this submarine warfare. We have had cases even after the sinking of ships of poor sailors being deprived of lifeboats and lifebelts, and I could not express in this House how strongly I feel about that treatment. I hope that the Admiralty will first use, as far as they can, everyone of the existing yards, and when they have done that then will be the time to supply men and machinery to the new yards. Let us have the empty berths used and everything done that is possible to turn out more ships, and as well as standard ships those ships which are successful in sinking submarines.
I do not know that any proposal which has been recently submitted by the Government has caused a greater feeling of uncertainty than this proposal to establish national shipyards. When my right hon. Friend gave the first intimation of the intention of the Government, only a few weeks ago, he stated that they did not propose to use the national shipyards until all existing yards were working to their full economic capacity. Apparently, the scheme had hardly been thought out. I am told it is a one-man scheme, and that man not a practical shipbuilder, or with any practical knowledge of his subject. I do think we ought to hesitate before we commit the country to this great expense, and this great inconvenience which is going to be caused to the other shipyards by the proposal of my right hon. Friend. These new yards are, I understand, to contain a total of thirty slipways, and nearly £4,000,000 are to be spent on their construction. The first question I should like to know is: what is the cost per slipway of the extension and the addition of slipways to the existing yards? These national yards work out at something like £120,000 per slipway. Does it cost anything like that figure to add to private shipbuilding yards? We have endeavoured over and over again to get some estimate or information of the cost, but every application has been turned down. I do beg, before we are really finally committed to this expense, that the whole matter should be carefully examined from the point of view of finance. To-day for the first time we understand that these yards are to be manned to some extent by prisoners of war. But the War cannot go on for ever. When it comes to an end the first thing to happen will be that the prisoners of war will be sent back to their native land. Then you will have a complete stoppage of work! These vessels are not wanted for war purposes, but for peace purposes. We shall have a complete stoppage of these new national yards, which, after all, employ skilled work, and in connection with which men have to be trained, if we adopt the scheme which has been suggested.
Another matter which, I believe, is a Cause of a great deal of concern and mis- giving is the design of these new highly-standardised ships which the First Lord has described to us. I understood that experienced shipbuilders strongly disapprove of this design, and say that there are features in this design which they consider dangerous, and certainly which they consider a most dangerous experiment. This is not the moment for launching out on experiments of a wholesale character. Just because a gentleman who is in charge of this work and entrusted by the Admiralty to carry it out, has successfully designed a few cross-channel barges we are now going to entrust to him the design of ships which are to cross the ocean! On this subject I think we ought to have some further information. It was, too, a matter of very great concern to many hon. Members of the House that we suddenly found—it leaked out little by little—that General Collard was at loggerheads with his Advisory Committee. We endeavoured to get some information as to the disagreement, but we found that the Advisory Committee had retired. A new Advisory Committee has been formed, but still General Collard is retained in his position as the head of this Department or as holding some important position in it. The Government ought to be a little more candid to the House, and give us clear and definite information as to what has happened. We ought to have a Committee of the House to examine this scheme. It would not take any great time to do so, and it would give a sense of satisfaction which is lacking at the present moment.
The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench below the Gangway (Mr. Wilkie) concluded his remarks by asking for a great output of inventions to deal with the submarine menace. I think it is a. most important question, but I doubt very much whether the various Departments have been and are approaching this question of inventions in the right way. I am certain of this, in regard to the submarine menace, that the object of the Germans is to get an invention by which they can hide, and the object that we have in view is to get inventions by which we can hunt the submarines. The-tremendous secrecy forces us to leave inventions largely in the hands of the Admiralty's own officers. I think, in regard to submarine inventions, it would be wise to have absolute publicity in regard to some and in regard to others to adopt the method which I indicated to the Admiralty when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was in office, by which you go and secure the very best talents that there is to be had and tell them how far you have got, and ask their great scientific experts to carry us further. That is the method by which the Americans subsequently obtained the Liberty engines for their aeroplanes. Because of that revised method, the Americans probably made more progress in one week by entrusting this work to two of the best experts than by going about the matter by our method and spending the whole year upon it. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was very anxious to defend himself from the charge of having been too optimistic. I think he is right to be anxious on that point, because it is the optimistic utterances of Ministers which have done more harm almost than anything else in this country. It is impossible to persuade people to economise if Ministers go about telling the public that the submarine menace has been mastered. They will not believe then that our shipping is in any danger. If I say so to my right hon. Friend he was both optimistic and pessimistic in his speech the other day. He made use of some optimistic utterances upon which I have refreshed my memory from the words of the actual Debate. I will read him one reference. He said:
Hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate have dealt largely with the question of national shipyards. I do not feel it is possible to deal with such a question unless we have a great deal more information than the First Lord has given us on that question. We must have a good deal more information to persuade him to indulge in these vast schemes. He told us that he would be actually laying down ships in the erecting yards by the beginning of next year.
I said it could be done; I did not say it would be done.
Are we to understand from that that all the existing yards will have their full extensions and requirements of steel and labour before what the right hon. Gentleman has indicated will be done? I think the First Lord of the Admiralty gave a pledge to this House at Question Time that no work will be embarked upon in the national shipyards until all the other existing yards have been fully satisfied in connection with their supplies of material and labour. I should like an assurance on that point. Then, when my right hon. Friend said we were doing 18 per cent. better in shipbuilding generally than in peace time, taking the average for the last two months, he mentioned that he was using one warship ton as the equivalent of two tons gross of merchant shipping. If we are going in for splitting tonnage like that, my right hon. Friend should clearly distinguish between liners and barges. He is not building any liners now. In peace time we were building liners and it is absurd to take a 20,000 ton liner and to talk of that liner as equivalent to twenty 1,000 ton barges made of concrete. We know what will happen in perhaps three or four years to these concrete barges, for their life will not be long. I only mention these points as showing that we may be misled by statistics, while at the same time I do congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success which has been achieved in the very few months by the steps which have been taken since June— and ought to have been taken long ago. What I should like also to say is that we are not looking to the United Kingdom for the main production of shipbuilding, but to the United States. We have no information with regard to that. Sir Joseph Maclay, two months ago, said that unless the United States faced the shipping problem and constructed 6,000,000 tons of shipping annually, the military efforts of the United States would be crippled from the start. I would like to know from the Admiralty whether they agree with that statement, because it has caused a good deal of sensation in the United States where they are very doubtful whether the United States will be able to produce 6,000,000 tons of shipping in a year. I should also like to know from the First Lord if he can give any information without harm to the public interests as to what are the speeds of these standard ships. My right hon. Friend spoke the other day of the immense value of eyesight in connection with the submarine menace. The other great factor in regard to the safety of merchant shipping is speed. The figures have been given in America and have been used extensively.
They show that in regard to merchant ships of 9 knots and under, the vessels attacked are sunk to between 90 per cent. and 100 per cent. Convoys are, of course, excepted. In regard to vessels between 9 and 10 knots the sinkings of vessels attacked are 70 per cent.; of 12 knots, 50 per cent.; while when you get to 18 knots and upwards none are sunk. These are the American figures. Merchant ships of over 18 knots escape the submarine. The case of the " Lusitania" going at 19 knots was very exceptional. Her sinking was due to a number of submarines acting together and attacking her. Another point that I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: Lord Curzon, in the Debate on the Vote of Thanks to the Army and Navy in the other House, said that the Navy on mobilisation was 4,000,000 tons. To-day he said the Navy was 6,000,000 tons. That is to say, there has been an increase of 2,000,000 tons in the Royal Navy since mobilisation. It is a great question in dealing with the submarine menace whether you have not been concentrating too much on large ships. It is a question whether you ought not to have released labour to some extent, not only for the construction of merchant shipping, but also for the requirements of the aeroplane industry. I pointed out some time ago that a battle cruiser such as you have been building employed during the whole period of building probably 15,000 men, and that in fact eight of these battle cruisers would employ as many men as were engaged in the whole aeroplane industry both for the Army and the Navy. How does that apply to the submarine menace? The First Lord told us the other day that our ships in home waters alone had steamed 7,000,000 miles in one month. That, of course, does not include foreign ships, and it does not include our ships abroad. We were told also that seaplanes everywhere covered 90,000 miles in a month—90,000 miles as compared with 7,000,000 miles. Surely that does suggest to many that we have been concentrating too much on shipbuilding, and that if we had had more seaplanes and more hydroplanes we should have been in a much better position to deal with the submarine menace. Let me give an illustration. A destroyer sights a submarine five miles away. It is ten minutes before it can get over the submarine and drop a depth charge. If a hydroplane sights the submarine at the same distance, it will be over that submarine in three minutes, and be able to drop its depth charge, and therefore there is much less chance of the submarine escaping.
I will only deal with one more point which was raised in Debate. My right hon. Friend the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty referred to the Baltic, and read a letter in which Lord Fisher had warned the Government last March, I think, that the German Fleet would certainly come out in the Baltic accompanied by transports, and would proceed to attack the land with a view of ultimately getting at Petrograd. What becomes of the First Lord's speech the other day in which he referred to anybody who thought in terms like that as dealing with schoolboy maps with the sea coloured blue? Here is one of the most distinguished admirals of the day! I have often differed from Lord Fisher in the past and criticised his administration, but I will say this about Lord Fisher which you cannot say about the admirals who have been at the Admiralty since. He had the true offensive spirit. I do hope the First Lord will, in course of time, get on to his war staff more men who have the old offensive spirit, because without it you will go on with your defensive system against submarines and everything else piling up—the expense, piling up the personnel, piling up the ships, and you will never, never get finality. I myself have repeatedly drawn the attention of the Admiralty to the fact that the German Fleet would certainly come out into the Baltic with transports. It did not require any gift of foresight. Anybody who studied the German textbooks before the War, and German writings, such as those of Von der Goltz and others, knew that it was an absolute certainty the German Fleet with transports would work along that coast in association with the land force in 1916 and 1917, and ultimately try to get Petrograd. What are the difficulties, the Admiralty have now let themselves in for? There is the most serious risk, in my judgment, by next spring, that the Germans will get possession of the Russian Fleet. Very probably that Fleet will be sold to them, and then they will get possession of a number of very good battle—cruisers which can outsteam every ship in the Grand Fleet, except some of our own battle-cruisers, and they will also get possession of a number of very efficient destroyers, which means that you will have to attach more destroyers to the Grand Fleet and take away more destroyers from the protection of commerce. That is the result which comes from the defensive system.
I cannot claim any of the special technical knowledge, either in respect of naval affairs or in respect of mercantile shipbuilding, to which many of the speakers can lay claim, but at least I can say that in many Debates in this House during the last two years I have drawn attention, to the best of my ability, to the importance of sea power in relation to this War Indeed, I think I may say that in the early part of 1916 I ventured to prophesy that sea power would be the critical factor in this War so far as this country's position is concerned, and so it has proved. We have to-day listened to a statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty which proves how serious and critical the situation is. I think the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on that statement in certain respects. In the first place, he was studiously modest in what he claimed; and, in the second place, he absolutely, I think, refrained from prophecy. I hope that the admirable example which he has shown will be followed in the future by his distinguished chief, the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness, whose return to this House we all welcome, and whose interruptions are always so well-timed, has suggested that that was the reason why I got up to speak. That was one of the reasons, because I think a heavy responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister for deluding the people of this country, both in relation to the submarine menace and in relation to the probable rate of merchant shipbuilding. We had the most optimistic forecast from the Prime Minister on this question, and I think it is safe now to say that when the Prime Minister alleged in the month of June that the submarine menace was well in hand, he was making a statement which was not in accordance with the fact. The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement to-day which is much more conservative, and, I believe, much more in accordance with the fact. He said it was being held, but that at the present time the rate of merchant shipbuilding had not reached the rate of submarine sinking. That statement is sufficiently grave, but I would point out the importance once more of uniformity of statement. If there is one thing more than another from which we have suffered during the life of the present Government it has been the lack of uniformity in the statements coming from responsible Ministers. We have had the Prime Minister saying one thing and the Food Controller another, but we have had the First Lord of the Admiralty saying one thing to-day and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller saying something which appeared to be different yesterday. He then indicated that the rate of construction was now within measurable distance of the rate of submarine sinking. I do not know what he means by "measurable."
I said at the time I meant within close distance.
In the course of an interruption, he said to-day that it is well to be clear about these things; but the answer he gave to a supplementary question yesterday and the interruption he made to-day were alike mysterious, because I do not know what "close distance" is either. That is also a matter of degree. I have made a calculation, and I find that for the month of November, which is an especially favourable month, the difference is something between 25 and 30 per cent. If that is the standard on which we are to go, I do not think it is a figure or a percentage on which we can congratulate ourselves. I quite agree it is within measurable distance.
My hon. Friend is not quite fair. I remember about five or six months ago the distance was something in hundreds of thousands of tons; it has now been reduced to something within tens of thousands of tons. That is satisfactory, especially as the November figure is the culmination of a continuous decline.
I think the latest version of the statement which my hon Friend has given is probably the most satisfactory. He has said now that there has been a progressive improvement, and I think if he had left it at that in the first instance it would have been more satisfactory from the point of view of everybody concerned, and his statement also would have been more in line with the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty to-day. I was particularly glad that the right hon. Gentleman uttered a warning against using the figures for a single week, or a single month, and I hope that the Prime Minister will remember this warning the next time he quotes figures on this subject. The most interesting part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement was that which related to mercantile shipbuilding. Here again the right hon. Gentleman kept himself rigidly to facts, as I understand, and the facts, though not absolutely clearly placed before the House, at least prove this, that every one of the three estimates in regard to merchant shipbuilding which the Prime Minister has given at different times during the last year is absolutely wrong. His first estimate was made on 26th April at the Guildhall. He was then receiving a gold casket, and under those circumstances a man might reasonably be given to optimism. He then said that the shipbuilding for this year was to be three times the shipbuilding of last year, or at least he had been so informed by my cautious fellow-countryman, who is the distinguished chief of the Secretary to the Shipping Controller. Three times—but he said he did not on the whole agree with this canny Scot. Under the influence of the gold casket, no doubt, he said himself he believed it would be four times. We have got to something in the vicinity of two and a half times. It is easy to ascertain from the First Lord's statement to-day that the figure for this year, both for naval and mercantile shipbuilding, does not reach that, and it is even possible, although the First Lord has not given us the figure for mercantile shipbuilding for this year, it is possible within—well, within measurable figure—to use the word of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller—to say what it is. I should say the mercantile shipbuilding for this year will be about 1,100,000 tons. That is not contradicted.
There is a very important factor to be taken into account. My hon. Friend refers to a statement made by the Prime Minister a year before. It is very difficult to charge one's recollection with what was said so long ago, but I was present, and I understand the statement was that great additions were to be made to British tonnage by reasons of the activity of my right hon. Friend the Shipping Controller. Now, those activities included, not only the shipbuilding of this country, but of the United States of America. An enormous amount of tonnage came into existence which otherwise would not have come into existence but for my right hon. Friend's enterprise. The entry of the United States into the War added these ships to the Allied tonnage, but not to British tonnage, for which they were ordered, and that is a very important factor to take into account. But I am speaking, of course, without reference to the speech made at the Guildhall, as my hon. Friend appears to be also.
6.0 P.M.
I refreshed my memory to-day. Of course, I believe that my hon. Friend is speaking honestly from his own recollection, but the statement made then was in relation to our output of new ships, and he expressly put forward our output for last year, and he said our new ships for this year will be three times that amount. If he conveyed any impression at all to his audience, and those who read his speech, it could only mean that production in this country was to be equal to that amount. Unfortunately, that was not the only occasion on which the figure of 1,900,000 tons was given. At a later date —in June—he gave the same figure, and there is no question that the Prime Minister meant 1,900,000 tons in this country. At the Adjournment, on the 16th of August, realising that these optimistic prophecies were not being fulfilled, the Prime Minister came down and gave the figure at 1,400,000 tons. [An HON. MEMBER: "No; 1,900,000."] Then the Prime Minister still adheres to his original figure. We now know that only in the months of November and December this year has the rate of construction reached 1,900,000 tons for the whole year.
I was going to give an estimate of what had been produced, and it was a little under 1,100,000 tons; which proves the accuracy of another Ministerial forecast, made before the present Government came into power—exactly twelve months ago—by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman), which is the figure which is actually to be realised, and it is the figure stated by him when describing the shipping situation. That means that had the matter been left to take its course under his charge, by the methods which he proposed, results as great would have been achieved as those which have been achieved by the transformation of Departments, the invention of standard ships, and the creation of national shipyards. All these gallery displays: such as the creation of controllers and deputy-controllers, of departments and sub-departments, executive committees and advisory committees, show that the result has been exactly nil. As a matter of fact, there is ground for believing that the production of mercantile shipbuilding might have been better off without all these things. There are cases where slips are occupied by ships in a very forward degree of construction. There is an instance on the Clyde of a 14,000 ton ship—worth three of these standard ships—very nearly finished, but all work upon it has been stopped. The materials could easily have been got for this ship just as easily as for the standard ships, but it is still occupying that slip, and if this interference had not taken place it would have been in the water. That is an example of the way in which interference has actually diminished our efficiency in the output of mercantile shipping.
The most interesting thing of all is the great mystery of the national shipyards. Who is the inventor of this great idea? We know that there was an Advisory Committee on mercantile shipbuilding composed of some of the most experienced shipbuilders in the country, and we know that this Advisory Committee was never consulted in regard to that scheme. We only know that some genius wrote a memorandum and presented it to the Prime Minister. It was straightway brought before the War Cabinet, and apparently a decision was arrived at immediately. Whenever there is anything foolish, a decision is arrived at at once; and whenever there is a wise course suggested, delay arises. They did not consult the experts, but they have agreed to work in an advisory capacity in carrying out the details of the scheme, although they have never been consulted as to the policy, and they have never accepted any responsibility for that policy. The Prime Minister seems to have a great tendency to accept memoranda from men who know nothing about the subject. My right hon. Friend opposite quoted a memorandum sent in by the most distinguished naval strategist in the Baltic in this country, and no notice was taken of it, but when the Prime Minister gets a memorandum about national shipyards from somebody who has had no experience, it is adopted. It is difficult to understand exactly what has been done.
I approach the subject of national shipyards without any prepossessions in favour of national or private enterprise. I do not believe these matters should enter into consideration at the present time, and the sole consideration during the War should be efficiency and speed of production. Has the First Lord in his speech to-day indicated any reason why we should believe that this scheme of national shipyards is going to increase either the efficiency or the speed of our mercantile output? Nothing has been advanced on that point. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the yards are to be only slips for setting up the shells of the ships, and in some way or other the machinery necessary for them is to be transported from other parts of the country and to be placed in the ship. I do not know that that is a very satisfactory or a very practical way of dealing with this matter. On the other hand, you have large numbers of shipyards in the country where additional slips could have been set up with very little trouble, because the shore for the purpose of launching was all prepared for the erection of further slips. In regard to these new national shipyards you have already experienced difficulties on the Severn owing to the high rise of the tide, and consequently considerable work will be required in dealing with the foreshore there for the purpose of launching these ships. That has never been calculated at all. Then there are difficulties in regard to construction as well as the supply of material, and these do not seem to have been taken into account. Somebody seems to have suggested that here is a method of employing German prisoners, and because of that the War Cabinet jumped at the notion that this was one way of effectively increasing the output of mercantile ships. The employment of German prisoners seems to be the only argument in favour of this scheme. It seems to have been forgotten that you will require skilled foremen to supervise these prisoners, and where are you going to get them? We have been told that shipbuilders would be only too delighted to part with their skilled foremen for the purpose of national shipyards, but that is a new doctrine.
I have had some experience of the working of the Munitions Act, and I know how difficult it was for skilled foremen to get leaving certificates from their employers in order to go to take up positions of greater responsibility in the national interest. In every case that came to my knowledge the employer who had such a man in his employment resisted the application for his transfer. I wonder if the Admiralty can say now whether any shipbuilders have been approached and whether they have stated that they are willing to part with any of their foremen. Has any shipbuilder been asked whether he has any skilled men available who are capable of taking charge of these places? Probably that has not been discussed, and consequently they are leaving out of the account all the most vital factors in regard to the success of their scheme. There is no doubt, whatever promises are made, that the establishment of these yards will make it more and more difficult as time goes on for the limited supply of material to go round all the yards of the country. There is no doubt that at the present time the supply of steel for shipbuilding is better than it has been at any time during this year. I think the right hon. Gentleman committed himself to the statement today that this supply is now satisfactory. I have information from at least one yard on the Clyde which indicates to me that the work there is being held up from time to time even now owing to a deficiency of material, and that is in a yard where it would have been possible to put down two extra slips, where there is labour available, and where the shipbuilders would have been only too glad to do it. That has been turned down all for the benefit of this fanciful scheme of national yards, which is the invention of some genius who apparently has the ear of the Prime Minister.
There is another matter to which I wish to draw attention because it seems to throw a light upon Admiralty matters, and makes us distrust them as the controllers of the shipbuilding of this country. This relates to the building of sixty boom defence vessels ordered from various firms by the Admiralty. I think it is a, very good thing that it should be brought before the attention of the House, because it indicates the wasteful methods of this Department, In the month of February, 1917, the Admiralty decided to place orders for some sixty boom defence vessels, dimensions 94 feet 3 inches long by 25 beam, 13 feet 6 inches deep, and 7 feet 6 inches draught. The price of the hulls of each vessel was about £9,000. The vessels were to have no propelling machinery because they would be of no use except as stationary boom defence vessels. The machinery which was to be placed on board was intended to be worked by compressed air, and that machinery, including the necessary winches, was estimated to cost about £10,000 each. In June, 1917, the building of these vessels was handed over to a new Department, the Deputy-Controller of Auxiliary Shipbuilding—this is where the interesting part of the story begins—and the engineering staff of that Department found that the air machinery intended for these vessels would only be available every four hours, whereas the work required that the power should be available every two hours if called upon. This Deputy - Controller called upon the Admiralty who had designed the vessels to show that the machinery intended and ordered would not be efficient.
The matter was hung up until some time in October, when instructions were issued from the Deputy-Controller that it had not been found possible to meet the conditions required of these vessels with the air winches arranged for, and the letter proceeded to say that some considerable time would be necessary before suitable machinery could be procured, and that arrangements should be made for launching the boats, putting the minimum amount of work on them. My informant says that it seems probable that some system of steam power will have to be fitted in place of the air machinery, and, if that has to be done, internal alterations will be necessary and considerable expenditure will be incurred in cutting open the deck and making internal rearrangements. The result is that after £10,000 worth of machinery has been ordered and more or less completed it has now to be scrapped. That machinery for sixty vessels will come to a total of £600,000. Apparently, air machinery worth £600,000 will now have to be scrapped. To that something has to be added for the extra, cost of the steam machinery, the alterations to the hulls, and the internal rearrangements necessary to receive the steam machinery. This is a very interesting story, and it is an authentic story. I took the trouble to investigate where these things were being built, and they are being built at Belfast, Millwall, Southampton, Haulbowline and elsewhere. We have this interesting story of the scrapping of £600,000 worth of machinery, and apparently additional cost through some complete miscalculation or mistake on the part of someone at the Admiralty. We ought to know who is the genius responsible for this, because it is of the utmost consequence in these times that expenditure of this kind should not be incurred, and that valuable machinery which is ultimately going to turn out to be useless should not be ordered.
Returning to the question of the national shipyards, the House will agree, after what has been said by my right hon. Friend opposite, that some further defence is required of this extraordinary scheme. We are all anxious, in this critical time, and in regard to a factor in the War which is of such importance, not only to this country, but to the whole of our Allies, that nothing should be done which will not contribute to our success. On the other hand, we are anxious that any steps upon which the Admiralty embark should not be steps which are likely to interfere with our success. There is grave reason to believe that in this matter, instead of accelerating shipbuilding, you are actually during the critical period of the War going to diminish the output. The critical period is going to be the early months of next year. Obviously, the national yards at that period will only be at the stage of equipment. There can be no output of ships. The thing to concentrate upon is the immediate output, and the obvious course in order to secure the immediate output of ships is to develop the existing facilities and to concentrate everything upon that. We therefore regret that the Admiralty has taken this strange course. It is regrettable, when we are discussing a matter of this kind, a matter so vital to our existence, and when we are voting £500,000,000 of money, that only a mere handful of Members should be present. It is the most deplorable spectacle in the War that we have here a Government convicted of blunders—I do not say that the worst blunders have occurred in this Department. There are other blunders in many other Departments—and we have an inert and chloroformed House of Commons allowing them to go on in their career of neglect, blundering and misconduct without any regard to what the ultimate consequences may be upon the country.
My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has scored, I think, the most unique and signal success of obtaining the unqualified approval of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pringle) for all the particulars in the statement which he has made.
Not on every particular.
He obtained the unqualified approval of my hon. and learned Friend, and I should think it is an unparalleled achievement in the history of Parliamentarians. But my right hon. Friend should not be too much puffed up, because the Admiralty, which he and I are here to defend, came under some pretty severe strictures about some boom defence vessels, of which my right hon. Friend and myself have heard to-day for the first time. Of course, we shall look into the matter, and it is the sort of criticism which is extremely helpful. It will be our duty to go into the facts and to examine the allegations of my hon. and learned Friend.
You never heard of it until to-day?
Not of the statement made by the hon. and learned Member to-day.
The reason I did not, bring it to the notice of the Admiralty before is that I only had authentic confirmation of the thing to-day.
I do not complain. I only say if it had been placed before us that obviously it would have been our duty to have gone into it. Now that it has been placed before us we shall certainly do so. My right hon. Friend should take care not to be too much puffed up for another reason. Although my hon. and learned Friend's praise was unqualified, I am afraid it was not altogether unassociated with the fact that it could be used as a foil for his main purpose, which was to show up the misdeeds of other authorities. I would ask the House, however, to go back to the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty and not to the statement made by the Prime Minister. With regard to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert), I would say that, of course, we have no right to take exception to criticism. We should be very foolish—we should be worse; we should be unpatriotic—to take Any objection to criticism, and I can honestly and sincerely say, so far as I and the other members of the Board are concerned, that we have been again and Again grateful for the criticisms and suggestions which have been put before us, and of which we have taken advantage. Although that assistance is of the greatest value to us, I do think that persistent nagging, based upon misapprehensions in many cases, cannot be helpful. I will take my right hon. Friend's statement. The national shipyards—and here he had the complete concurrence of my hon. and learned Friend—provide the most amazing story of Departmental administration. I think it was "administration," but probably it was intended to be "mal-administration."
Certainly!
He charges us with having on the spur of the moment, and without consultation with shipbuilding experts, determined upon the establishment of new national shipyards. That is the proposition. My right hon. Friend turned to an answer which I gave on 14th November, and, as far as I can make out, his suggestion was that the answer came very near to a deliberate intention to deceive the House.
It came very near to deceiving the House. I would not say that my right hon. Friend was deliberately deceiving the House, but I can understand that the answer was framed in such a manner as to deceive the House.
I am absolved from any intention of deliberately deceiving the House, and that anyhow is something. What was the answer? My right hon. Friend read a portion of it. It was an answer to a question put by my right hon. Friend on 14th November. I was asked:
"Who is advising the Department in the establishment of new national shipyards; and whether the House can have an estimate of the cost prepared for the War Cabinet?"
The answer was.
"A large number of practical shipbuilders are at present in the service of the Admiralty and are acting as advisers in carrying out the details of the Cabinet policy of establishing national yards. The names of the principal of these are:"
I will not weary the House by reading them. My right hon Friend now says that those gentlemen were not consulted at all. My right hon. Friend is misinformed. That is all. They were in the service of the Department, and, as I stated, they were consulted. They were consulted on the national shipyards, some on the building of it and others on the equipment. I do not take the answers handed to me by any official. I conceive it to be my duty, as my right hon. Friend did when he was Civil Lord, to go into the matter personally and to see, so far as I can with the information before me, that the answers give the absolute facts. It is the fact that these gentlemen whose names I gave were consulted; otherwise I should not have stated so.
Will my right hon. Friend give the House a definite assurance that before this scheme of national yards was entered upon these distinguished shipbuilders were consulted, and that they approved of the scheme?
My right hon. Friend is confusing two things. National policy is another thing. These are the advisers in the Department.
These names here?
And they were consulted.
Did they approve?
I cannot say whether they approved or not, but they were consulted. The proposition was not whether they approved. Let us be fair to one another. The proposition was that they were not consulted, and that I gave a list of names which purported to be the names of people who were consulted and were advising, but that they were not consulted. That is the answer. My right hon. Friend says that no estimate was given. In regard to that I did my best in a previous answer to explain exactly the position in which we found ourselves after the decision of the War Cabinet. This is perhaps a little longer than my last quotation, but with the indulgence of the House I should like to read it. This is the answer I gave on that point.
"The construction of national shipyards was approved by the War Cabinet, and definite action was taken at once without waiting for estimates."
That is a fact.
"Estimates have been prepared and are now under consideration."
The House has heard the final result of that to-day in the £3,800,000 mentioned by the First Lord.
"But the cost of land and compensation has not yet been settled. The estimates are, therefore, not yet complete. They will, as and when complete, be passed on to the Treasury. My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the vital necessity to proceed with the utmost expedition in the provision of new merchant tonnage to make good the losses by enemy submarine."
No Member of this House has done so much or more than my right hon. Friend to point out the necessity of making all expedition to make good the losses, so far as we can, caused by submarines.
"He knows that in order that this provision may not be delayed it is essential to short-circuit some of the traditional peace procedure. As I have already said, as soon as they can be prepared the estimates will be placed in the hands of the Treasury. As regards actual expenditure, the Comptroller and Auditor-General's officers are constantly checking expenditure as far as possible concurrently with that expenditure in this office. For the rest, sums drawn from the Vote of Credit are shown in the Appropriation Account, upon which the Comptroller and Auditor-General reports to the Public Accounts Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 13th November, 1917; cols. 227–8, Vol. XCIX]
I there described fully, without any reserve, the position in which we found ourselves after having got this permission from the War Cabinet to proceed with all expedition. We did so, making what financial arrangements were necessary. The whole thing was stated at once in this House, and was not dragged out by anybody.
We have only just dragged out the estimate.
You have had the total estimate to-day, but there has been no dragging out. It was stated fully at the outset that an estimate was not prepared, but that when it was prepared it would go to the Treasury. As regards the uses of private yards, a good deal of anxiety about the national shipyards policy arises from the fact that we are going to lay down new slips without utilising to the full slips already in existence. That is a very fair criticism; and one which we have to meet. If it were true it would be common-sense to say that it was a waste. When this matter was debated in this House on the 1st November, the First Lord said:
"We will not use the national yards until the existing yards are worked to their full economic capacity. We believe, as far as we can foresee the position—and I lay stress upon these words—that it will be possible to allot steel in the forthcoming year to an extent which will enable us to utilise more capacity than exists even with the extension to the existing yards, and the new yards are being built now so that they may be ready some six months hence when the steel is available."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1917, col. 1676, Vol. XCVIII.]
Is that after having provided for private yards?
What the First Lord said was:
I come back again to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton. He did not only make the First Lord appear to conflict with the Prime Minister, but he actually made the First Lord appear to conflict with himself. I will deal with that point. It is perfectly true that the phrasing is not absolutely the same, but anybody would be a pedant who suggested that there was any substantial difference. On the 1st November the First Lord said:
Not yet!
That is the way arguments are used. I should have said that the greatest stickler for uniformity and consistency would have been quite satisfied with the consistency of the statement I have read of the 1st November and the statement made to-day. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton constantly pours out upon us doleful jeremiads on all subjects. There was the development of home production——
How does it stand?
The use we made of the Grand Fleet and how we ought to use it—the right hon. Gentleman being highly versed in naval strategy—our failure to defeat the submarine menace, man-power, the way we worked the Royal Dockyards, merchant tonnage, and national shipyards. In all these things we are perfectly hopeless. Whatever we do is wrong, whatever we do not do is right. We have done those things we ought not to have done; we have left undone those things we ought to have done; and there is no health in us. That is the position the right hon. Gentleman takes up. It does not appear that there is very much health in anybody else either. Surely we cannot be wrong every time! As regards the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie), of course the labour problem here, apart altogether from the slips and the steel, is of the utmost importance. It is the vital problem. The position is this: When the existing yards are going full steam, having all the steel they want and being occupied to their full economic capacity, we cannot get tonnage enough. We have to face the position as it will exist six or nine months later, when the existing private yards will not give us all we require. My hon. Friend says we shall never get the labour.
You have got the labour for the present yards, and you require to keep them full up.
I read the statement made by the First Lord on the 1st November on that point. Now I come to the question of the provision of labour for these new yards, which is a very important matter. The House has been told to-day by the First Lord that these ships will be standardised on a very simple design. The effect of that will not be lost on my hon. Friend. As regards their speed, which is the point mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), I do not propose to mention the actual speed except privately. It is a matter which has been gone into with great care. So far as possible, all manufactured work will be done in places other than the national shipyards. The national shipyards will be to a very large extent indeed places of assembly. That is the genius of the scheme on which they are based. We shall use soldier labour. There is a number of men even now with the Colours who are skilled craftsmen, shipwrights, turners, and others, and we shall hope to get some of these. We have stated that we shall use prisoners of war.
There is another thing. In consultation with my hon. Friend—we shall be only too glad to have his co-operation in this time of national crisis—we have been discussing a system under which we can teach numbers of men the use of pneumatic tools. With good will and hearty cooperation on the part of my hon. Friend and those with whom he is associated, which I am confident we shall get, we shall have schools for this purpose, and thereby largely increase our labour complement in that direction. We shall certainly have to borrow some foremen and leading hands from the Royal dockyards, and I have no doubt we shall be able to get some by agreement from the private yards. For the rest, all that will be required is unskilled labour, and here we shall have to make a big demand upon the Ministry for National Service. As the right hon. Gentleman says, we want men and more men in order to get these ships. We hope to secure them. The task before us is a very grave, urgent, and vital one. The replacement of merchant tonnage is vital not only to the successful prosecution of the War, but to the industrial and economic position of the people after the War. I welcome heartily any criticism which is designed to help us and strengthen our hands and to show us where we have inadvertently gone wrong. But I must say that criticism like that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton is not helpful, because it is always nagging, and is based upon a misapprehension of the facts, although the right hon. Gentleman was formerly at the Admiralty. I feel sure that, barring that, of which I will say no more, we shall receive the full support of the House and the country in the very great endeavour we are bound to make and shall make to solve this vital problem.
The right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary, as an old colleague of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert), to read him a lecture on the demeanour which he should observe towards his old Department. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to describe all criticism of the Admiralty as nagging, and imagine that he can dispose of it in that way, I assure him he is greatly mistaken.
I never suggested anything of the kind. Quite the contrary.
Then I hope my right hon. Friend will be a little more courteous in the use of the word "nagging" when answering discussions in the House. I must make that personal statement at the very outset of my remarks, for I do not intend to indulge in anything which either my right hon. Friend or anyone else by reason of a lively imagination or through sensitive nerves can call nagging. In this House the best service which can be given, whether by private Members, by Gentlemen who were formerly at the Admiralty, or Ministers who have held any responsible position, is to give every possible assistance to the Admiralty, and whatever criticism is offered I presume would be given with the idea, not of diminishing but of increasing the national efficiency. With these preliminary remarks, which I am quite entitled to make after the statements which have been made by my right hon. Friend, I proceed to ask him whether it would not be possible for the Admiralty to tell us definitely what has been the output of new tonnage this year. The First Lord gave us an indication as to what the output of new tonnage had been, but he did not definitely say what figure had been reached up to date. It would have been better if he had informed the House and the country exactly how far we had gone in the production of new tonnage up to date. Any estimates which are made on a calculation of the rate for two months being maintained are not what we want to ascertain. What we want to know is how many new ships are going to be available for the carriage of cargo to and from this country. I believe the First Lord could give us the figure. I have no doubt it is available. I know it can be obtained in some quarters which are unofficial, and I invite him, if he has the figure, to let us have it in order that we may have a sound basis on which to continue the discussion, if it is to go any further. I do not think the estimate made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) was far wrong. The output by the end of this year will be somewhere in the region of 1,100,000 tons. If it reaches that figure we can at all events say that it has reached it simply because of the accelerated rate of output in the last six months of the year, for which I think the private yards as well as those who are officially responsible for shipbuilding deserve every credit. They have, with their short staffs, and especially the shortage of skilled men, whether in the shipyards, engine works, or boiler shops, really performed wonders.
When I had a more direct official connection with shipbuilding I endeavoured to make something of an estimate of the output that we should get for 1917. I counted on the enthusiastic co-operation of the shipbuilders, the engine-builders, the boilermakers of every class and every grade—not only the employers, but the workmen themselves—and I counted on an increase in the number of women who would be employed both in the engine shops and the shipyards, and last year I made an estimate of the output for 1917 which turns out to be almost exactly the output which we shall attain this year. That was an estimate made not in April, or in July, or in August, or even on 1st November. It was made twelve months ago. I do not wish to plume myself on my extraordinary accuracy, but I am delighted to find that the figure has not fallen below that which I anticipated at that time. Much has been made of the various estimates which have been given for the output of mercantile tonnage this year. The Prime Minister has not been happy in his statistics. Lord Curzon took a curiously rosy view of the possible out-put. But all these figures have been used not only with the object of keeping the national spirit up, but for dialectical purposes. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping Control gave us a new version of some statements which have been made on this subject in the past. I have the exact words with me, and there can be no doubt about the figures. The impression which was intended to be given by the figures which have been printed was as stated by my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend. What I suggest to those in charge of Admiralty affairs is that in the future they should request their colleagues to take the Admiralty figures and not to make any of their own. They should accept the Admiralty figures exactly as they are presented, without endeavouring to add anything to them for purposes of effect. When speeches are made on the Navy let us at all events have the true facts. Speeches which are made with an object, or made because they are intended to be agreeable, or disagreeable, may well be reserved for other subjects, but on Admiralty affairs the House and the country will be much more satisfied with the kind of statement which was made to-day by the First Lord than by the dialectical adventures of some of his colleagues.
My right hon. Friend, when he was in charge of shipbuilding, I think made an estimate for 1916 which proved to be very much greater than the actual figures turned out to be. He gave that estimate with the best intention of telling the truth. Can he say that the figures I gave the House the other day can in any way be described as rhetoric?
My hon. Friend need not be sensitive about the matter. I was not referring to his rhetoric. I really had not got him in my mind. I was thinking of Ministers—Members of the War Cabinet—who had made statements.
But you referred to my statement.
No, what I referred to was the interpretation which my hon. Friend was prepared to put on the speeches of his Cabinet colleagues. The speeches themselves are perfectly clear. There is no reason why we should debate them. What we want to know is what are the actual figures. Do not let us try, as apparently my hon. Friend would, to make comparisons between the actual output attained by the various Ministers. The output ought to be progressive, and the only way in which it can be progressive is by providing more material and more labour for the shipyards and the engine rooms. Every effort was made, in the time when I knew more directly the details of mercantile shipbuilding than I do now, to get men back from the Army. There was the greatest possible difficulty in obtaining them. Those in command of batteries in France made a very good case for retaining their clever engineers. They said they were useful on the spot. So they were. What we were bound to claim was that they would be even more useful in the shipyards here. I believe the Controller has continued to press on the Army authorities for the return of those engineers, fitters, copper smiths, boiler makers, plumbers, and so on, who are still with the forces. The First Lord might have told us, for I believe he can obtain the figures, how far he has been successful in getting these men back. Are there still men with the Army who should be returned for this purpose? I go so far as to say that unless he gets them back the anticipation which we all look forward to of a large output next year may be disappointed. The new crop of young men who naturally would be coming into the shipyards are to some extent still drifting into the Army. Even before they become skilled men there is some of that wastage which has to be filled. But even more than that, if these new berths are to be occupied, and the output is to be accelerated, many more of these men must be abstracted from the Army and devoted solely and entirely to mercantile shipbuilding. I am sure the House wishes the First Lord every success in obtaining these men. I hope that when he withdraws them from the Army he will not reserve them entirely for the national shipyards. Why should he not use those who come back for the filling up of the private yards? My right hon. Friend pointed out that certainly one fairly large firm is still short of labour, and men whom they have asked for, giving the unit, the number, the full name and address, and the work they were doing at home, have not yet been returned to the yard, and they themselves are complaining that they cannot reach their maximum output, because those men are still in the Army, whereas they ought to be in the engine room. I hope the First Lord will see to it that when they come back they will be returned to yards in the districts where their families live, to the work to which they have been accustomed in the past, and that by this means we may have the yards at present in part equipment fully equipped.
A point which was put to the Admiralty, and which the Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with directly, was this: Are you not running a danger, in equipping your national shipyards with skilled men. in withdrawing or withholding for the private shipyards many men whom they can use? That is a really practical question. There is no nagging about it.
I thought I had dealt with it.
:I do not think you did. The difficulty that the private shipyards are in will be intensified if you are going to take away from them by any means, either by pressure or by persuasion, the skilled men who are at present working with them. I know the Admiralty has declared it will not press private yards to part with their men, but there are ways of arguing with private firms which would make the employers appear to be rather unpatriotic if they retained in their own yards those who might go to Chepstow and elsewhere. I hope there will be no attempt to poach on the private yards to the national detriment. That is the main anxiety we have. Whether they were the result of the advice of the technical advisers of the Admiralty or, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) said, of some other genius, whether they are likely to be costly or to be economic, does not matter for the moment. What matters is that all combined, national and private yards alike, will be able to attain the maximum output. If any powers are required which Parliament can confer with that object, I am sure they will be given. If any assistance can be given privately or publicly to the Admiralty by those with whom they are associated, I am sure it will be given; for we all feel, as many of us have felt from the beginning, that this War is going to be won or lost afloat. I cannot believe it is going to be lost, but if it is going to be won afloat it can only be done by the maximum effort of- those who are concerned—private as well as official.
7.0 P.M.
The statement which we have had to-day has taken into account the losses by submarine and other enemy action during this last year and the possible losses in the months which are to come. Those losses are very grave. It is no use offering a calculation merely of the losses of British ships. We must take the losses amongst the Allied tonnage into account, and as the world is now organised we must take the losses of neutral tonnage into account. A very large number of the neutral vessels which were lost were under time charter to this country. They were just as much in out service as though they were flying our flag. At the present moment practically all the tonnage of the world is in one way or another serving the Allies. Any diminution, no matter what be the flag from which it is drawn, will be to our detriment. Therefore, we must have the whole of the losses, not only British, but of Allied and neutral tonnage also, taken, into account. We ought also to take into account the marine losses, for that is just as much a diminution of our carrying power as if they were lost by enemy action. When we do that, what is the total figure for this year? I understand that the Admiralty would rather that the total figure is not mentioned. Naturally anything that they request in that way we would comply with immediately, and I will not give the total figure, though there are means of ascertaining it, and those of us who have those channels of information open watch the figures with the greatest anxiety, sometimes with hope, sometimes, I will not say with despair, but with a feeling that unless there is a stop put to this continuous drain upon our carrying power the Allies will find themselves crippled in every particular. The total losses this year have been stupendous. The month of November has certainly been lighter than any of its predecessors since the month of April, and it is to be hoped that the losses in December will prove equally favourable. What may happen next year no one can prophesy, but it appears from all the information which is available to us that Germany is apparently going to use a maximum of mechanical power under water and in the air. Steps have already been taken to accelerate the output of aeroplanes, and the accession to our aeroplane fleet from America will be of enormous advantage to us in the coming year. But under water Germany is adding to her fleet week and week, and I am sorry to say—not because he said it, but because it is a fact—the First Lord of the Admiralty declares that we are not yet overtaking by our sinking of submarines the creation of submarines by the enemy. There, again, we run the gravest risk of our cause being hampered if not absolutely foiled. In the efforts which are being made by the Admiralty I have every faith. I believe that all the ingenuity of our sailors, afloat and ashore, is being used with the object of destroying the enemy submarine and hampering him in his works and endeavouring, if possible, to make our sea routes safe even if the number of enemy submarines increase. In that we shall wish them every success; but if they are not successful the House must realise that our national strength will be diminished.
I regret that there has not been more—I scarcely like to use the word—frank statements to this House for public consumption in the past. There is nothing I have deplored more, if I may say so, than the optimistic statements occasionally made by Ministers in regard to the submarine menace. One of the most serious problems that we have to face in the future is how to maintain the confidence of our people, and nothing could more disappoint them than that they should suddenly find themselves short of the necessities of life. Throughout the whole spring and summer a campaign was carried on with the object of teaching people economy in food, and the strongest argument that could be brought to bear upon those audiences was the growing menace of the submarine and the heavy losses in our merchant navy. I regret that my right hon. Friend, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, did not extend his table so that we could see the losses of Allied and neutral tonnage as well as the losses of our own tonnage. Even if he had given the losses of ships leaving the tonnage out of account, if it was desired to keep that quiet, I believe it would have added enormously to the strength of the argument which could have been brought to bear by the people all over the country who were urging economy upon the food consumers.
The neutral countries object to our doing that, and the Allies object.
I do not think we have been told that fact before. If that is so, I naturally do not press the point. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. At any rate, it is necessary that we should impress upon our people that the losses of foreign tonnage are just as serious to us as the losses of British tonnage. It is impossible for our people to realise that the losses of ships are the natural result of this War, and that they must go on progressing until the submarine is overcome, unless you tell them such of the facts as can be told. I suggest that in their statements Ministers should not attempt to put too rosy a colour upon statistics. The statement made to-day by the First Lord is the best type to be followed. It is a model which I hope will be followed by his Cabinet colleagues; and, if I may say so, the statistics which he has provided to the House to-day, in so far that they were actual figures of work done, are accepted by us as an earnest of the success which we hope can be attributed to him in the future.
We have arrived at a serious crisis in this War. At the very outset I would like to say in a personal way that as the German peril becomes more and more menacing I feel my own instinct as a fighter rising. Speaking as an individual, rather than see the Germans triumph I would give my last ounce, and I would give my last shirt. I would rather that the Germans should walk over my dead body on the road to Paris than live to see Paris degraded by the representatives of German Imperialism. Having said this, it is quite consistent with that declaration that I should also maintain that the present Government is not winning the War. I will proceed to make good that statement. Last night I listened to several interesting speeches, one of the most remarkable being by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who, while he was sending heavy metal into the Government trenches, found them retiring into their dug-outs and praying to Heaven apparently that their concrete defences would last long enough until the onslaught had passed. Is that the attitude of men after three years of war, feeling that they are winning, that they are the heads of a great, victorious nation, the representatives of a great, victorious Alliance? Do these men inspire confidence? Do they seem like great, hopeful leaders of a great cause? Theirs is the attitude of hesitancy, of defence, timid policy, and subterfuge.
One of the speeches made had reference to Boloism. A strong point of the Government is to attack pacifists. I am not a Pacifist. But let me take that one argument of Boloism; I will carry the war into the enemy's camp. I will say, "There are Bolos on the Government Front Bench." I will prove that. We recently had an exposure of the conduct of ex-King Constantine, which showed that for two years he was the most dangerous agent of the Germans; that he used his royal office to plot, to spy, to get the secrets of the Allies in order to reveal them to Germany. When at length he was deposed, would it be credited, if it were not true, that this Government is still maintaining him? Would this House or would this country believe that that man, that royal spy, that man so deeply steeped in treachery to the country over which he ruled, that relative of the German Kaiser, is paid a pension of £20,000 a year, which comes from the pockets of the British taxpayer? What is the recipient of this pension doing at the present time? He is the centre of a system in Switzerland of spying and of enemy propaganda. He has founded one paper which is an active organ of pro-Germanism, and he is now about to launch a second paper, the "Réveil National." The first paper he founded was the "Echo de Génève." As I have stated, he is now about to launch his second paper to attack the cause of the Allies, to foster throughout Europe pro-Germanism, and yet he is being supported by funds allowed to him by this Government, which come from the pockets of the British taxpayer. And those men— [pointing to the Treasury Bench]—have the effrontery to talk of Boloism.
I will pass from that subject and take a general review of the whole situation. At the beginning of this War the Allies had eighty chances out of a hundred of success. How many chances now remain? I am almost afraid to put that question. I do not know how many hon. Members now listening would be bold enough to answer it. How have those chances been thrown away? If one could reveal the whole history of this War as it will be seen by the future historian, simply estimating the dynamic forces, removed from party passions and prejudices, it would be seen that the operations of the Allies, step by step, have been frustrated and thwarted, partly through the power of the foe, but also by influences working within the Government itself. Take, for instance, the expedition to Salonika. That expedition if it had any meaning whatever was meant to divide the Germans from the Turks, to immobalise Bulgaria, to secure the safety if not the victory of Serbia, and ultimately, if it had any real military meaning, to be used as a means of pressing home the sword to the vital parts of Austria, and finally of Germany. That was one avenue to victory. It has ended in failure. Why? Because it was never used as a military force. When the leader of that expedition again and again wished to use it in an energetic and determined way his hand was stayed, not for military purposes, but with the desire to prop up a dynasty—a dynasty not of a friend, not of an Ally, but the dynasty of a most dangerous enemy to this country. Again I leave the people of this country to appreciate that fact, which is undeniable, and if this War is lost—remember that is a possibility always hanging over us—it will have been lost on account of these dynastic reasons which have been a poisoned breath in all the diplomacy of the Allies.
Let us look now at the food problem, at one of those human features of the case which, multiplied and intensified, give a real sense of the immense struggle of this nation to live, a struggle which is destined still to increase. On a bleak winter's day you find a long queue, perhaps twenty yards in length, of working women waiting for the necessities of life. One of those women, a young mother, has a young child in her arms. The life of that child depends upon obtaining proper sustenance, upon obtaining milk. She waits, half-hour after half-hour, and hour after hour, looking from time to time at the face of that child whose life is hanging in the balance. She reaches the door at length; she gets nothing. There is no food. She goes home disappointed That child dies. That child was all in all to her, her world. Had she been told "these are sacrifices which you are called upon to make for your country and for the great cause of the Allies" she would have found strength in that inspiration to sustain her, but if some wicked devil had whispered in her ear, "those sacrifices have not been made for that cause; those sacrifices have been made to support the blunders of the Government, to support the dynasty of an enemy King." I say that the power to whisper that into her has been given by the men who sit on that bench. I wish that example to be multiplied by hundreds or thousands so that the true lesson of this War may go home to the people of England. That sacrifice was unnecessary. There did exist food enough in this country, milk enough, for the sustenance of the life of the country, but the profiteers stopped it in its path, and those profiteers are still being protected by the Government.
Let us see in broad lines the factors which mean success or defeat in this War, and afterwards I will fix definite responsibility on the person of the Prime Minister himself. I have glanced at the food problem. I will touch for one moment on the question of Ireland. It is a favourite target for the enemy's mark. It is a familiar reproach that Irishmen have not taken their fair share in this War. I may remind the House of an incident. Being personal again, I beg pardon for intruding it, but yet it is instructive. On the day after the declaration of War I made an offer of my services to the cause of the Allies, and even if it were thought that my own personal service counted as nil, yet I believe that at that time, with a certain reputation which I possessed among Irishmen, while the air was electric, while men were capable of enthusiasm which has now passed, while great things were looming, and while the great ideals of the Allies were flaming on their banners, I believe that if I had been granted carte blanche to work out the plans which I had designed, I might have been the means of bringing thousands of men, I almost fear to say how many thousands, to the ranks of the Allies. That proposition was cold-shouldered. I bowed to the superior wisdom, the superior statecraft, of the Briton. When the present Prime Minister came into power I renewed that offer, but with a like result. Yet so intense was my own desire to serve the cause of the Allies, that I had a cable sent to Australia, thinking that there was a chance of getting in there; the result was the same. What has been the consequence? A great number of the young men of Ireland, seeing that the sacred promise of the Government was broken, that it was a scrap of paper, that the hopes of Ireland were betrayed, have stood aloof from that cause—men, many of whom I know for certain by the letters which I received at the beginning, would have been available for the Allies if faith had been kept with Ireland, and if the War had been entered upon in the spirit which was proclaimed at the begin- ning. Those young men in Ireland have not perhaps stood aloof. To immobilise them requires a great force of British soldiers, so that lack of insight, that sort of faithlessness of policy, have meant in this instance alone the loss of a quarter of a million men. Yet blame is thrown upon the Irish.
Let us consider the question of the air. I have noticed in to-day's paper that a Committee of Inventions has been set up by Lord Rothermere. I approve of that the more heartily because as long ago as three years I recommended that Committee, and could have worked it out in complete detail. If it is a good thing to do now it was a good thing to have done then, but the value then would have been a hundredfold what it is now, because the German power in the air was weak at the beginning of the War, but now the Germans are bending every energy to make that one of the strongest, if not the decisive factor. There, again, you have that sense of the cold hand of the Government placed upon the actions which should have been taken. The Act which we passed through this House a short time ago is an inefficient Act. It will fail to accomplish its purpose. It was sufficient only to satisfy the mind of Parliament, and to stop a Press campaign. It was totally insufficient and inefficient to meet the great German menace.
I pass from that to another topic. Lately we have heard of a great victory, and we have heard rumours, at least, of a set-back. There never has been one occasion since the War began on which this House was asked to pass a Vote of Credit when some great and striking victory was not announced. I remember at one time the previous Prime Minister came down with great joy and announced a victory in Mesopotamia. There was a change there, unfortunately, a very short time after that announcement. Now we have the victory of Jerusalem. I do not wish to minimise the great feat of arms on the part of British soldiers in all those regions, but what I do say is that not one of those theatres of war is really vital. The vital theatres of war are on the Western front, in Italy, and in the Balkans. The Balkans may not be considered as a theatre of war for the moment. I think that they are destined scon to be one of the great theatres of war, and I look forward with gloomy forebodings to that happening. On the Western front some months ago I ventured to say in this House that it was impossible to drive through, that what was possible was that certain victories would be obtained at a huge cost in men, but that after those successes the military problem in its vital character would remain unchanged. We have had that spectacle precisely as I there indicated or prophesied. Step by step it has become realised, and half a million men have been sacrificed for a military advantage, that is inestimable. The military situation remains essentially the same as it was when General Haig first began these tremendous frontal attacks. It is impossible to break through there, and it is indicated by common sense that the line should be closed, and should be made a Hindenburg line on the British side, so that at any rate it would be impregnable to the assaults of the enemy and Paris and Calais would be covered and a great amount of strength would be liberated for use in other theatres of war where victory might then be expected.
The Prime Minister, for a long time past, has been talking of unity of command. Has he achieved unity? This day I read from a French source a very lucid account of the whole situation on the Italian front, and that account said with perfect truth that unity of command was absolutely essential for victory. But unity of command means real effective unity of command, such as Napoleon Bonaparte himself had when he fought and gained his laurels in that very country which once again has made the old names famous. Napoleon was able to win with inferior forces because, when he formed a plan in accordance with his own great conceptions, he was able to realise it, and to drive it home with energy and power, and because the Austrians were hampered by having their plans filtering and trickling through an Aulic council which was set up in Vienna. This Government has set up an Aulic council to defeat the tremendous thrust of Mackensen. The Leader of the House said that that name does not appal him, but that name is the representative of realities, and if he is not appalled it simply means that he refuses to face those realities.
Let us consider again the question of ships. We had to-day an instructive Debate, and I believe that the First Lord spoke with power and with candour. I am able to give one or two figures myself which I have taken from official sources. One of the most striking has been taken from the report of the Naval Committee set up in France to consider the whole question. I find from that report that the new constructions of this country in 1916 were less than one-third of the constructions of the same country in 1913, and therefore before the War, so that after the outbreak of War, when we should have increased our production and spurred on every energy in the carrying out of huge and great plans in 1916, which was one of the most important years of the War, necessarily so, the production of shipbuilding of this country according to these official figures was less than one-third of what it had been in 1913. It was that very falling off which gave the Prime Minister an opportunity, which he seized on with avidity, of bolstering up the amount of production which is now being undertaken, when he declared that it was now at a rate four times what it had been during the previous year, but he neglected to tell us that in that previous year it had sunk to less than one-third of the normal rate before the War. During this same year I find, from the same figures, that Japan had increased her output nearly four times, that the output of Holland had been doubled, and that the output of the United States had been almost doubled, and that since that time the United States has multiplied its output by a figure which I am unable to give, but which far exceeds anything that has been effected in this country.
In the same speech the Prime Minister said, "I am not afraid of the submarine menace." That catchpenny style is altogether unworthy of a man standing at that Table as leader of the nation in such a crisis as that through which we are now passing. Immediately following his statement that he was not afraid of the submarine menace he said, "We destroyed five of them yesterday." The meaning he wanted to convey or imply was that we were destroying submarines at such a rate that we were beginning to eliminate that method of warfare; otherwise, his words had no meaning whatever. Any man in such a responsible position as that of the Prime Minister, in making this statement, would weigh his words, would feel how serious was the situation, and he would not have consented to speak in that clap-trap style—"We destroyed five only yesterday." A man feeling the responsibility of his position would have taken the list, of sinkings week by week, or for a month or two months or more, in order .to get a fairer average. He would have taken the sinkings during that period and the new constructions during the same time, and he would have struck the balance. I appeal to the common sense of the House that, where there is a sort of match between two countries, one building large ships and the other simply building the means of destroying them, the fair way is to take the average of each, and not merely an instance where a few have been destroyed on a particular day. That would be absolutely logical where it is a race between the submarine menace and new construction, and it would not be giving away any secret, because the Germans know the rate of sinkings and the rate of construction just as we do. There must be some new and different means of combating the submarine menace, and I say that those means exist, and those means can be found. If the representatives of the Government are not able to find them, they must give place to men who can.
The main responsibility for this state-of affairs rests upon the Prime Minister himself. Since he has come to this highest office he has been a failure. I say it with profound regret, for I was one of those who in a very minor way helped to make that wave which floated him into office. Nor do I now regret it, for I believe that he was, at any rate, an improvement, and is an improvement, on his predecessor. But since he has reached this highest office, instead of manifesting even those qualities which he formerly evinced, the quality of energy, the quality of push, the quality of great enterprise, the quality which enabled him to tear up the red-tape system, to-day he has fallen away from each one of those attributes which should mark the great statesman. He seems like a new man. Perhaps he is a new man—that is to say, he is come within an entirely new environment, an environment which on his temperament and on his ideals seems to have laid a chill influence. I am one of those who in the old days admired his democratic spirit. I appreciated the great Acts which he passed through this House; I was one of those who applauded the splendid work he did as Minister of Munitions, where, even in opposition to the opinions of his military advisers, he conceived and helped to carry through that great work of the supply of munitions which kept back the Germans and even turned the tide upon them for so long. Yes; but since the right hon Gentleman reached supreme power not one of those qualities have been in evidence. The fatal quality of one of his predecessors was that, being unable himself to rise to the height of a great crisis, he contented, himself with hiding his own inefficiency behind great reputations—these reputations in nine cases out of ten being not the merited reputation of men of really great power, but newspaper reputations, Parliamentary reputations, fetiches and idols. When those idols were found wanting he had no other resources, and this fatal tendency has fallen upon his successor, the present Prime Minister, with regard to his own policy. In face of the great advances of the Germans, in face of the great plans carried through with vigour and determination, which, evidently to the minds of all of us, are changing the whole character of the War, the Prime Minister's reply is to make a speech in this House, an opium dose of optimism once again, while hoping for something to turn up which will change the tide setting towards defeat. Where can you, in the whole history of the world, point to any one nation which has drifted to victory; how many can you point to which have drifted to defeat? I take him on his own policy and on his own declaration in his speech delivered in November last, as to the necessity and vital importance of unity. Has he secured unity of command? Unity of command does not exist on the Western Front, unity of command does not exist on the Italian Front. I have read from French sources to-day that lack of that unity of command on the Italian Front is jeopardising the campaign for Italy, and jeopardising the campaign for Italy means jeopardising the vital chances of this nation.
On the whole, perhaps, we have expected too much from the Prime Minister, because, taking a review of all that which pertains to his reputation, I find on analysing it coldly and scientifically that there was nothing there to warrant the hope that, if ever he were placed in such a position as that which he now holds, he-would prove a great leader. In this House a man climbs up by special circumstances, from one position to another, not being necessarily endowed with great brain power, and not greatly troubled with rigid principles. There is an atmosphere in this House of ambiguity, of putting forward a proposition never definitely, but with a view to loopholes through which to escape. The word "compromise" here is like the word "Mesopotamia" in religious circles—a blessed way to assuage every evil or to cover every dereliction. These negative qualities are the great strength and forte of our politicians and statesmen; they live in an atmosphere of doubt, of hesitancy and of subterfuge, and by virtue of these qualities they climb higher and higher, even reaching the highest position. They are the type of men already famous in history and literature; I have become acquainted with them in Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress": Mr. Littleheart, Mr. Facingbothways, and Mr. Time Server—these are the men to whom we are asked to bow down, even when the nation is struggling in the great agony of the death-grip.
The Prime Minister has the virtue, a doubtful one—he has the doubtful quality or power of being able to tune up the Press, as Queen Elizabeth tuned the pulpits. He has the psychological faculty of judging the feelings of this House, and a power of oratory which has raised him to be a great and potent figure, not in the history of the world, but in this House. Yet the German danger is a great objective problem and the qualities required to meet that, and to combat that, and to lead the nation to victory indicate the standards we should adopt in choosing leaders. We ask the qualities of men of great intelligence, I will not say of great intellect like Carnot, the organiser of victory, but the intellect of such a man of plain, downright, honest mind as Abraham Lincoln. To him I come again and again as a type. He always faced the facts; the man had freed his mind from cant and humbug; he desired to look at realities and form his judgment accordingly, that he might to the best of his ability act unswervingly upon that judgment. Will any man in this House say that in the present Prime Minister we have such a leader? No! But we have the right to demand such a leader, and if we are to win the War that man must come forth. Such a man should have courage, not merely the fervent courage of a soldier, but the courage of allegiance to good faith—the courage, perhaps even more difficult, of a man who can hold his own in a certain moral atmosphere, who is always determined to do the right, even if opposed, and who has faith in his own plans because they have been truly and deeply based, and who is determined to press them to their intended result. Do those qualities mark the present Prime Minister? Such a man should have willpower—perhaps the greatest masculine quality of all. The Prime Minister has again and again come to us and told us that unity of command is essential, but has he shown will-power to make that effective, so that he may be able to come to this House and say that we have unity of command. A man in that position should stand out like a buck in a herd of deer.
There is one quality very subtle, very delicate, yet very electrical, and that is the faculty of belief in high ideals, the faculty of the great Danton, who, when the fate of France was trembling in the balance, when people were discouraged, when the vast hordes of Europe were pouring upon that defenceless country, kept his faith, and inspired and electrified by his ideals, stamped his foot on the sacred soil of France and raised an army to repel the invaders. I say if the present Prime Minister had been true to these great democratic ideals on which he rose to his present position in this House—ideals which rendered him so much appreciated in the country—and if he had applied his principles unerringly and unfalteringly, so that men would feel that he was really sweeping away all the rotten privileges and prerogatives which have come to us from the bad past and hung like a millstone around our necks, so that all would feel that we were really fighting for the freedom of nations, if he had made all men feel that they were being carried on by something greater than themselves, greater than they had known before, greater than life, he would have inspired the world to still nobler sacrifices, he would have aroused a spirit of energy in this country which would have rendered defeat impossible. It is in virtue of these terms I appeal to you to look at these facts not in the House of Commons manner, not in the journalistic way, but in regard to that great exterior menace, in regard to that crisis which means one of the turning points of history, whether the great ideals emblazoned on the banners of the Allies shall live to lead on the soul of man for 500 years to come, or whether that accursed thing, German Imperialism, shall grind us for generations beneath its iron heel.
After the example of eloquence, insight, survey, and denunciation which we have had from the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Lynch), I simply rise to ask a question as to which I have given notice—as to the attitude which the Government, or rather, perhaps, I should say the Foreign Office has for the past eight months taken up towards revolutionary Russia.
On a point of Order. I understand that the hon. Member at Question Time put a question on a subject which he had been already informed it was not in the public interest to raise. He had been so informed by two other Ministers of the Crown besides the Home Secretary, who spoke to-day. I understand he thereupon gave notice that he intended to raise the subject again this evening. I wish to know whether there is any means by which the hon. Member can be restrained from taking that course?
On that point, I gave notice that I would call attention to the matter in my questions, and by that I signified, not necessarily, that I intended to infringe what should be, I think, the due restraint of all, of all patriots at any rate, at this time, but that I did intend to call attention to the way in which I had been treated, the answers I have received, and generally to refer to what is a very common subject of discussion in the Press at the present time, what I have stated to be the diplomatic treatment which our Foreign Office gives to revolutionary Russia.
The hon. Member when he asked Questions 72 and 73 to-day, was warned by the Secretary of State that he could not give an answer on the ground that it would be detrimental to the general public interest.
On that point——
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. He was warned that it would be detrimental to the public interest to give any answer to those questions. Thereupon he said that he would raise the matter in Debate. I would appeal to him not to do that. He has been warned that it would be very detrimental to the public interest to raise these questions. The hon. Gentleman has just said he is a patriot. If that be so I am sure he would not wish to do any- thing that would be detrimental to the best interests of the country, and as he has been informed by a Cabinet Minister that discussion of this topic would be highly detrimental, I hope he will see his way to say that he does not propose to, deal with that particular thing.
On that point, I have not been informed by any Cabinet Minister——
The Home Secretary.
May I suggest that the hon. Member could have all the information in private, if I chose to espy strangers.
With due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any information or warning given to me by any Cabinet Minister.
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was present this afternoon when the questions were asked.
The answer was given by the Home Secretary. With due respect——
Is not the Home Secretary a Cabinet Minister?
Cabinet rank.
I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether the Home Secretary is a member of the War Cabinet?
The hon. Member is getting away from the point. It does not matter whether he is a member of the War Cabinet or not. He is a Secretary of State, and if a Secretary of State points out that it is detrimental to the public interest to deal with a particular topic, I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to say that he is not proposing to deal with that particular point.
I am in some difficulty.
You will be in more!
The hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Jardine) can speak afterwards. I am in some difficulty. I have taken due regard to the answers that have been given to me. I have carefully considered what I have to say and even the language in which I wished to put forward my point of view. I do not desire and I do not intend in any way to say anything but what I think is a perfectly legitimate criticism at the present time, and in fact almost everything I had to say was by quotation from newspapers, many of them Conservative newspapers of the last few days. Why the Noble Lord, without consulting me, and after having refused to speak to me, should endeavour altogether to take away the rights of Members of this House in the way in which he has attempted to do, I cannot understand.
The hon. Member is not replying to my question at all. He is wandering away from the point. Does the hon. Member intend to deal with this topic, which has been pointed out by a Secretary of State as a dangerous topic to deal with, and one detrimental to the interest of the country to deal with—does the hon. Member intend to deal with that topic or does he not?
I do not intend to deal with the question which I had on the Paper today; and, of course, if I am not allowed to speak about our diplomacy at all, that is a different matter. But I certainly do not mean to say all I could say, and all I have said, in private, to the Noble Lord. If he still persists in appealing to you, Mr. Speaker, to take away our right of discussion, I shall have to consider my position.
The hon. Member knows perfectly well that I have always endeavoured to give to him, and to every other Member, all information in private that I thought could be given with due regard to the interest of the country—and in public also. I have no wish to keep anything on this particular topic; and I am ready to speak—and did speak—to him on this very point, as he knows. All I say is that I am quite confident that a discussion on this subject will be a very great danger to the public interest, and if he persists in doing it, I shall have to consider what course I shall take.
I wish to ask the Noble Lord whether he means that any discussion of our policy since the revolution towards revolutionary Russia is detrimental to the public interest, and is——
No; what I mean is any discussion on the topics raised in Questions 72 and 73 on the Paper to-day.
If the Noble Lord had put a plain, straight question, instead of all this beating about the bush, I would have told him.
I put a plain and straight question to the hon. Member, and asked him whether he intended to deal with the topics discussed in these two questions, and my difficulty was in getting an answer from him. If he says that he does not propose to deal with those topics, then I shall be perfectly satisfied, and I am sure the House will too.
8.0 P.M.
I must apologise for not at once understanding the purport of your question, but from the way in which the Noble Lord intervened I understood him to desire that I should immediately sit down, and say nothing at all. That is a very different matter to what I now understand is urged. Let me say at once that I propose to call attention to the attitude which our Foreign Office has taken up towards revolutionary Russia during the last eight months. Let me say in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Healy) that I have attempted to get information in private from the Foreign Office, and it has been refused. I attempted to speak this afternoon to the Noble Lord, and he refused to speak to me at all. That being so, I shall endeavour to show that the Foreign Office has not had any real grip of the position, that it has been negligent of our interests, unsympathetic to democratic ideals, and at the present time is pursuing a policy of pure and simple drift. This is a very old and very long-standing question. Over four years ago, on three occasions before the War, I endeavoured to call the attention of the House to the danger we were in in relying on the reactionary autocratic elements in Russia. The whole of our policy during that time and for many years past has been, unfortunately, made for us by two men, Lord Hardinge and Sir George Buchanan. They were totally out of sympathy with commercial and business interests. They were quite out of touch with the great Intelligencia movement in Russia, which prepared for and to a large extent has carried through the revolution, and from first to last, unfortunately, our policy in connection with Russia has been dictated—and, alas! is still dictated—by two men who know nothing about the needs of the British Empire—I mean Lord Hardinge and Sir George Buchanan. Let me remind the House that when the War began, we were told that Russia during the last two or three years had become organised, efficient, free from all corruption, and free from all inefficiency, and we were led to believe that within a few months, if we could only withhold the Germans from being in Paris, the Russians would be at Berlin. That was a policy which was supported by the utterances of statesmen, and was a common- place of the Press. We know better to-day. But it must have been, and could only have been, on the information of Sir George Buchanan and Lord Hardinge, who had been for years associated with Russia, that that idea of Russia found favour with our Government and with the Press of the country. I do not intend to follow the argument out in detail during all the months of the War. It is sufficient for my purpose to point out that we have from first to last, for the last twelve years, relied on Lord Hardinge and Sir George Buchanan for our information about Russia, for all our dealings with Russia, and that at the present time we are still, unfortunately, relying upon them to represent us and to carry out, I have no doubt really to be the authors as well as the administrators, of our Russian diplomacy at the present time.
I rise to a point of Order. I understand that a warning has been given to the hon. Member with regard to discussing matters which are contrary to the public interests of this country. I would ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether that warning does not cover the enunciation of such sentiments as we have just heard with regard to a British Ambassador now representing this country amidst untold difficulties and dangers, and does not necessitate some action to prevent the hon. Member continuing this line of argument?
The hon. Member is possibly not conscious of the harm that he is doing. Perhaps the intervention of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) may point out to him the possibility of mischief. If that be so, perhaps he may see fit to avoid continuing that particular line of attack. I have no power unfortunately—or fortunately, I venture to say—to stop hon. Members who indulge in criticisms which in ordinary times would be, of course, quite permissible.
I really do not know how to reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts.) He evidently does not read the newspapers. He evidently knows nothing about what, is going on day by day in the public Press upon this subject. He evidently does not know that the leading Conservative papers——
I espy strangers!
Question, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw," put, and agreed to.
Strangers withdraw .
In pursuance of the Resolution of the House this day, the remainder of the Sitting was in Secret Session .
[ Extract from Votes and Proceedings .]
Secret Session
Ordered, That the remainder of this day's Sitting be a Secret Session.—[ The Chancellor of the Exchequer .]
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution [ Supplementary Vote of Credit ] agreed to."
Supply
Considered in Committee.
CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.—Class II
£3,495 (Supplementary), War Cabinet.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Ways and Means
Considered in Committee.
Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, the sum of £550,004,495 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[ Mr. Baldwin .]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Supply [10th December]
Resolution reported.
Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1917–18
"That an additional number of Officers and Men, not exceeding 50,000, be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
Resolution agreed to.
Navy and Army Expenditure, 1915–16
Resolutions of 12th December [ see OFFICIAL REPORT, 12 th December , columns 1330–1334] reported, and agreed to.
National Insurance (Unemployment) [Money]
Resolution reported.
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of Moneys to be provided by Parliament of such additinal sums as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the National Insurance (Unemployment) Acts, 1911 to 1916, with respect to the proportion to be borne by the amount of unemployment benefit to the number of contributions paid."
Resolution agreed to.
The remaining Order was read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes before. Ten o'clock.