House Of Commons
Tuesday, 27th March, 1928.
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Motor Taxation
I beg to present a Petition of the Automobile Association and 920,000 motor owners and users, as follows:
"We are gravely concerned with the continuance of the system of motor taxation imposed by the Finance Act of 1920, which in the view of your petitioners is inequitable and unjust to the vast majority of motor owners, chiefly because it levies a lump sum per vehicle entirely ignoring the extent of road users. We therefore humbly pray that the present method of motor taxation be amended in favour of a flat rate duty on petrol, plus a small registration fee, thereby more equitably distributing the burden over all motor taxpayers."
Private Business
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Luton Extension) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
PRIVATE BILLS (Petitions for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with).
laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for additional Provision in the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Rotherham Corporation Bill.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill.
Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Dartmouth Corporation Bill ( Prince of Wales's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Llandudno Urban District Council Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Ministry Of Health Provisional Order (Worthing Extension) Bill
"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Worthing," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
Ministry Of Health Provisional Orders (No 3) Bill
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Basingstoke, Bingley, Brighton, Halifax, Mansfield, and Taf Fechan Water Supply Board," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
Oral Answers To Questions
Trade And Commerce
Empire Cotton
1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the freight rates charged upon raw cotton from Mombasa to this country and the freight rates charged upon raw cotton between Mombasa and Japan?
The freight rate for raw cotton from Mombasa to the United Kingdom is 40s. per ton of 40 cubic feet, less 10 per cent. deferred rebate. I am informed that the rate from Mombasa to Japan is 32s. 6d. per ton of 40 cubic feet.
Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that, on a subsidised Japanese line from Mombasa to Japan, raw cotton is being transported without any freight charges whatever?
No, Sir, I have no information about that, but I will make inquiries.
58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether cotton grown in British East Africa is subsidised by public funds through the Empire Cotton Growing Association; and what proportion of this cotton is annually exported to Japan?
I have been asked to take this question. According to the published accounts of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation for the year ended 31st March, 1927, the corporation's total expenditure in Nyasaland, Uganda, and Northern Rhodesia amounted to £4,840 16s. 11d. About one-third of the income of the corporation is derived from public funds. This expenditure was incurred almost entirely on experimental work designed to improve the quality of the cotton produced in the several countries. Of a total of 790,748 centals of 100 lbs. exported from His Majesty's East African Dependencies during 1926, 99,281 centals were consigned to Japan. Final figures for 1927 are not yet available, but in the first three quarters of the year 429,340 centals were exported from Kilindini, of which 101,629 were consigned to Japan.
Are we to understand from that answer that in point of fact the Lancashire cotton industry is paying a subsidy to its former competitors?
The hon. Member must draw his own conclusion.
May we not adduce from the somewhat involved nature of the answer the fact that the cotton manufacturers of this country are being compelled to pay subsidies for the production of raw cotton which their competitors in the cotton industry are able to get for nothing?
That is a repetition of the previous question.
Was not the subsidy for the purpose of encouraging the growing of cotton granted on the understanding that the cotton was for consumption in this country, and if it is proved that it goes elsewhere is the Government prepared to make any alteration in the subsidy?
That question should be put on the Paper.
Safeguarding Of Industries
4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of applications for safeguarding made to the Board of Trade; the number referred to a committee of inquiry; the number granted; and the number still under consideration?
Forty-eight applications have been received. Twenty have been referred to committees for inquiry; in seven of these cases safeguarding duties have been imposed, and in five the committees' reports are pending. In four other cases duties have been imposed in Finance Acts.
Are there any cases being considered at the moment?
I have said that in five cases the committee is being asked to report.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the industries concerned in the five cases which are pending?
The five cases which have been referred to the committee include cotton hosiery and various trades of a similar character, buttons and so on, and one other which I am sorry I cannot remember.
Germany
5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the objections raised by the German Government to recent tariff changes in this country, he will state the volume of British exports of manufactured goods to Germany for the years 1913, 1924, and 1927, respectively, and the volume of German manufactured goods imported into this country during the same years?
Our exports of articles wholly or mainly manufactured to Germany in 1913 were of the value of nearly £27 millions, and in 1924 of £24½ millions. Our imports of articles wholly or mainly manufactured from Germany in 1913 amounted to £56 millions, and in 1924 to £32½ millions. Corresponding figures for 1927 are not yet available.
Canadian Tariff
6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how far the new Canadian tariff is likely to benefit British trade; and what is the exact nature of the provision affecting the percentage of Empire labour in Canadian imports?
The new Canadian tariff involves considerable changes in classification so that it would be difficult to give any exact comparison with the former tariff. There are certain reductions in duty, and a maintenance, and in some cases an increase, of the British preference. With regard to the second part of the question, detailed proposals have not yet been formulated, but I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a notice published in the Board of Trade Journal for the 8th March, which gives the latest information I have received on the subject.
May I ask whether a considerable advantage will not accrue to the textile industry of this country?
I have not had the whole of the details before me, but I think the answer I have given does give a fair summary of the position. The preference is maintained. In some cases there is an increase in the preference.
British Industries Fair
69.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that many of the fabrics in the textile section of the British Industries Fair were of foreign origin; and if in future stipulations will be made that articles shown at the fair must be of British manufacture throughout?
I have been asked to reply. My attention has been called to the fact that some of the linings of overcoats shown in the textile section were of foreign origin. The regulations regarding the admissibility of exhibits at the British Industries Fair require that they must have been manufactured or produced mainly within the British Empire, and I have no reason for supposing that any exhibits did not come within the terms of this regulation. With regard to the second part of the question, I feel that it would be undesirable to lay down a regulation that exhibits must be 100 per cent. British manufacture. Such a regulation would exclude many exhibits which are essentially British in character, and can usefully be shown at the fair to the advantage of British industry.
Motor Chassis (Exports To Australia)
70.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the fact that Great Britain in the year ending 30th June, 1927, had nearly half the trade in sterling value in motor chassis in Australia, and that from July to November these were only a trifle more than one-tenth in number as compared with American machines and not quite one-fourth in sterling value, he has any official information to account for this falling off in our exports?
I have been asked to reply. There was a considerable decline in the last six months of 1927 in the imports of motor chassis into Australia, but I regret that the fall in the British share of the trade appears to have been more immediate and more severe than in the case of the United States of America. I have no special information as to the causes of this recent falling off in our exports. My hon. and gallant Friend is doubtless aware that the whole question of the Australian market for motor cars has recently been explored by a mission sent out by the industry itself.
Is my hon. Friend aware that it is to a very great extent dependent on the horse-power tax, which prevents the building of a type of engine suitable for the Dominions?
Does not the hon. Gentleman's answer knock the bottom out of the main argument for the McKenna Duties on motor cars?
I cannot see in what way it does that.
It was going to increase our exports.
Since the motor industry is protected in the United States as well as in this country, I do not think there is anything in the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). With regard to the other point, I think my hon. and gallant Friend's question should be addressed to a different Department.
Is it not the fact that American firms, owing to the enormous profits they have made during the last two or three years, can afford to dump motor cars into Australia and spend large amounts on publicity campaigns?
Were not we told that the trade in motorcar chassis was to be increased as a result of the imposition of the McKenna Duties?
Mercantile Marine
Direction-Finding System
2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has yet instituted any experiments into wireless loop direction-finding system?
The rotating loop direction-finding system has been developed by the Air Ministry as an aid to air navigation. The system has been investigated by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and preliminary trials have been carried out in connection with marine navigation. The Board of Trade have considered the results of this investigation and are now examining, in conjunction with the Air Ministry and the Trinity House, the question of establishing an experimental station of this type in a position where its utility, as an aid to shipping, can be fully explored. It is hoped to reach a decision on this question very shortly.
Atlantic Ice Patrol
3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent this country co-operated with the United States of America during 1927 in the maintenance of the Atlantic ice patrol; what was the cost of the service; and whether any ships of His Majesty's Navy participated?
The ice patrol service in the North Atlantic is managed by the United States Government in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Safety of Life at Sea Convention of 1914. Under these arrangements the patrol is carried out during the ice season by two of the United States Coastguard cutters, and the cost is borne by the Governments specially interested in these services, in fixed proportions. The cost of the service during 1927 was approximately £29,700, and the contribution of His Majesty's Government will be about £9,300. Ships of His Majesty's Navy do not participate in the patrol.
British Army
Pension Claim (Charles Spain)
7.
asked the Secretary of State for War the grounds on which a claim to a modified pension and to the long service and good conduct medal was rejected in the ease of Charles Spain, of No. 4, Crayford Road, Holloway, N.7, whose record of service in the Army and Royal Air Force extended over 18 years, namely, 4th Essex Regiment, joined April, 1888, served nine months; private, No. 2,345, 1st Northants, joined 11th December, 1888, served 13 years; private, No. 6,501, 3rd Northants, joined 7th March, 1902, served nine months; private, No. 30,369, Royal Flying Corps, joined 6th June, 1916, served three years 10 months, and whose service would have exceeded 20 years had he been allowed to complete his contract, i.e., service for the duration of the War, into which he entered when joining the Royal Flying Corps on 6th June, 1916, a contract, the man contends, which should not have expired until the official termination of the War, namely, 1921?
I have been asked to reply. Mr. Spain, whose case has frequently been reviewed, had insufficient service to qualify him either for a modified pension or for the long service and good conduct medal. He had no contractual right to be retained until the official end of the War, and even if he had been so retained, it may be added, he would still have been ineligible for a modified pension in view of the conditions of his discharge. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend remembers the correspondence that he had with the Air Ministry about this case in September, 1925, when the reasons for which neither pension nor long service medal could be given were explained to him in fuller detail in a letter of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air is sending him a copy.
Salisbury Plain (Land Purchases)
8.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it has been definitely decided to purchase further land for the War Department on Salisbury Plain; and, if a decision has been arrived at, will he give assurances that agricultural workers who are displaced will either receive compensation or will he take steps to find them work in some other part of the country?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, as farms are acquired they are relet to tenants, subject to military reqirements. It is too early to say whether this will involve any reduction in the number of agricultural workers required on the farms, but should this prove to be the case, endeavours will be made, as in the past, to find employment on the War Department Estate on Salisbury Plain for such of them as may be suitable.
In view of these extra purchases of land by the War Office, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to move the buildings from the neighbourhood of Stonehenge?
That matter does not arise on this question.
Mechanised Cavalry Regiments (Foreign Service)
9.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the forming of two cavalry regiments into armoured-car units will alter the roster of these regiments for foreign service; and, if so, with what result as to the change of stations in Egypt or India?
It is not possible to say what effect the conversion of the two cavalry regiments into armoured-car units will ultimately have on the foreign service roster.
May I ask whether this means that the 12th Lancers in Egypt will go on to India in two years as an armoured-car unit instead of a cavalry regiment; and whether the armoured-car regiment in Egypt will then be relieved by a cavalry regiment and leave no armoured-car regiment there?
That is precisely what I cannot say. I do not know what developments will take place in the next two years.
Have the War Office made up their mind?
They make up their mind as the problem is being solved.
Army Of Occupation (German Wives)
10.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many marriages have taken place between soldiers in the Army of the Rhine and German women since the Armistice; whether any, and, if so, how many wives of the soldiers now serving in Germany are of German birth; and how many of these German-born wives are on the strength of the units to which their husbands belong?
The answer to the first part of the question is approximately 690. As regards the remainder, the information is not available at the War Office, but I am inquiring whether the figures can be obtained without disproportionate labour and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member in due course.
Documents
11.
asked the Secretary of State for War what are the regulations governing the length of time the discharge and other documents of a soldier are kept before they are destroyed; if he is aware that in many cases a soldier claims that bounty or gratuity was not paid to him owing to his absence abroad or other reasons, and when he does claim he is told by the War Office that all relevant documents have been destroyed, and therefore the matter cannot be investigated; and whether he will consider retaining all documents for a sufficient length of time to ensure that no hardships can occur?
The length of time for which discharge and other documents are retained is governed by the Schedule submitted to Parliament in February, 1923, in accordance with the Public Record Office Act, 1877, and should be sufficient to enable all valid claims to be put forward and examined without any hardship arising. I regret that I cannot agree to have the documents retained beyond the scheduled period.
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot keep the documents, may I ask if he has any system of card indexing at the War Office where the details can be put on the cards and kept for reference?
I am governed at the moment by the Act of Parliament, to which I have referred the hon. and gallant Member. They vary from 50 years to a very short time indeed.
Is he aware that last week the War Office turned down the case which I brought to them of a soldier who served during the War, because his document had been destroyed. Can he not have some record kept?
If there is a sum of money to a man's credit it is noted before the documents are destroyed. Claims have arisen 10 years after the sum was alleged to have been payable, and frequently documents have been destroyed, and it is impossible to check them.
Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman reorganised this side of the Department, possibly reducing the staff and effecting considerable economies?
I think we have organised it very efficiently and economically.
Scotland
Milk And Dairy Order
12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Milk and Dairy Order is inflicting hardship on small farmers,, especially in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where good milk and good butter are made, although the byres do not conform to the Regulations; and whether he will have the Order suspended?
My right hon. Friend assumes that this question refers to the bylaws made by individual district committees under Section 8 of the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, for the regulation of byres and cowsheds in their areas. The Scottish Board of Health have confirmed such bylaws in respect of certain districts in the Highlands and Islands but they have no evidence that the operation of the bylaws in these areas is inflicting hardship on small farmers.
Would it be too much to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to point out to these local authorities that it is the dairy-maids who make the butter and cheese and not the byres; and to take into consideration the fact that if these people have to build new byres and have not the money to do it they are ruined?
This is not the time for speeches.
Necessitous Areas (Assistance)
13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of Poor Law authorities in Scotland that have approached his Department for assistance on account of industrial depression?
Since 1921, 16 parish councils applied for loans from Government funds in respect of their expenditure on relief of able-bodied unemployed, and 41 parish councils applied for advances from Government funds in 1926 to enable them to continue the payment of relief to destitute dependants of persons involved in the coal mining trade dispute during that year. In all cases loans or advances were granted. Grants were made to 134 parish councils under Section 2 of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1927, in respect of relief afforded to destitute dependants of miners. Representations that Exchequer grants should be made to the Poor Law authorities of necessitous areas have also been received from numerous parish councils, and from associations of parish councils.
Unfit Houses, Glasgow (Rates)
16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that several houses in Langside Road, Glasgow, have been rendered uninhabitable owing to subsidences, whereby the tenants have been warned out and compelled to seek other accommodation; is he aware that these dispossessed tenants are now required to pay the whole rates and taxes in respect of the houses lately occupied by them, notwithstanding that in most cases they will also be paying taxes for alternative accommodation; whether he is prepared to take steps to authorise some relief in the payment of the rates, seeing the corporation in regard to water rates, and the landlord in respect of rent, have already done so; and is he prepared to introduce legislation to remedy the present law?
My right hon. Friend understands that the statement in the first part of the question is correct. He
| Parish. | Number of persons in receipt of able-bodied relief at | Amount of relief paid during year ended | ||||
| 12th March, 1927. | 12th March, 1928. | l2th March, 1927. | 12th March, 1928. | |||
| £ | £ | |||||
| Glasgow | … | … | 36,917 | 28,372 | 511,425* | 518,678 |
| Govan | … | … | 23,117 | 18,816 | 314,168* | 333,322 |
* Exclusive of cost of relief to miners' families during coal stoppage, namely, Glasgow £24,781, Govan £2,771. | ||||||
Agriculture
Small Holdings, Scotland
14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a boarding
has no power to take the action suggested, but he is informed that applications for exemption from the payment of rates, including water rates, for the Period during which the premises were not occupied are now under consideration by a sub-committee of the corporation. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman will recognise the unfairness of a law which compels a man to pay rates and taxes for a house out of which he has been ejected, and also to pay rates and taxes for the alternative accommodation supplied to him under the same local authority?
Poor Law Relief, Glasgow
20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of people in receipt of able-bodied relief in Glasgow from the respective parish councils; the number a year ago at the same date; and the total amount of relief paid in each year at those dates?
As the answer involves a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The following table contains particulars of the number of persons in receipt of able-bodied relief in the parishes of Glasgow and Govan at the 12th March in each of the years 1927 and 1928, together with the amount of relief paid in each year ended at these dates:
house is about, to be erected on the small holding of Springbank, near Brodick, Arran, an d that the party who has secured the site and is erecting the building is not resident in the district but in another part of the island; whether he is aware that similar encroachments on small holdings have in recent years taken place on this same estate in the Island of Arran; and whether he contemplates taking any action in the matter?
The Land Court have no knowledge of the case referred to. My right hon. Friend understands that a boarding house is being erected on feuing ground adjacent to, but lying outwith, the smallholdings constituted on Spring-bank Farm. Three applications for partial resumption of holdings in Arran for feuing purposes, were made to the Land Court in 1924, one in 1925, two in 1926 and none in 1927. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the numerous cases in which there has been resumption of small holdings, in whole or in part, for building purposes or for the personal or family requirements of owners, under the Acts of 1886 and 1911; whether he is aware that the security of tenure of crofters and statutory small landholders is thereby being impaired; whether he will take steps to discourage the breaking up in this way of holdings, especially in cases where alternative sites are available; and, if his powers are not sufficient, whether he will introduce the necessary amending legislation?
The resumption of smallholdings can only be effected after application to the Land Court, and with their authority, for purposes specified in the Small Landholders Acts, and the cases are enumerated in the Court's Annual Reports. The extent to which small holdings are affected may be measured by the fact that, since 1923, 154 applications have been granted by the Court, a number of these being for partial resumption. My right hon. Friend sees no necessity for legislation.
Is there not great hardship in a case where there is only an acre and a half of arable land and where perhaps half-an-acre is taken for building? I have such a case in mind; and does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not recognise that that is a serious encroachment on the small piece of arable land held by the crofter?
I am sure that would be regarded as a thing which must be carefully guarded, and that is why it can only be put through after an application to the Land Court which considers each specific case and goes into all the details concerning it.
Agricultural Land (Lime)
57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many official demonstrations showing the benefit to agricultural land of the application of lime in its various forms were given, and where, during the financial year drawing to a close; and if he is proposing to hold further demonstrations this summer?
Demonstrations of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend are carried out by local agricultural education authorities. Similar work of a more experimental nature is arranged by University Departments of Agriculture and agricultural colleges, both directly and through the local authorities. Both types of work are aided by grants from the Ministry. The numbers of such demonstrations and experiments are not immediately available; but they were carried out generally in those parts of the country suffering from lime deficiency. This work will be continued in the normal course during the coming season.
Franchise Bill
19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated number of women voters who will be added to the roll in Dennistoun, Whitevale, and Mile End Wards, respectively, of the Camlachie Parliamentary Division of Glasgow by the new Franchise Bill?
The information available does not lend itself to accurate estimation, but in each of the three wards named the increase referred to will probably be between 2,000 and 2,500.
65.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many plural voters are on the electoral registers; and is he able to state how many persons in receipt of Poor Law relief are registered as local government and Parliamentary electors in the County of London and how many for the rest of the country?
The number of persons registered as Parliamentary electors in England and Wales for the business premises franchise is 205,538 and for university constituencies is 60,712, though it does not follow that all these persons are "plural voters." The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
Housing
Camlachie Division, Glasgow
21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, the number of houses which have been built in the Camlachie parliamentary division and are occupied; the number under construction; the time when they wig be ready for occupation; and the number that it is still proposed to build under the various schemes?
In the area in question the number of houses built with State assistance and occupied is 150. The number of houses under construction is 66, which are expected to be ready for occupation in the course of a few months. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend understands that the corporation contemplate the erection of 804 additional houses in the area?
Rural, Workers Act
22.
asked the Secreatry of State for Scotland what progress is being made in Scotland in the improvement of labourers' cottages under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act; and which counties are taking most advantage of this Act?
Up to the 31st December, 1927, the latest date for which information is available, applications had been received by local authorities in Scotland for assistance in respect of the improvement or reconstruction of 385 houses; applications had been approved in respect of 281 houses; and grant amounting to a total of £25,763 10s. 10d. had been promised. At the same date work had been completed on 62 houses and grants, amounting to £4,380 13s. 8d., had been paid, while in respect of 156 houses work was in progress. Most advantage is being taken of the provisions of the Act in the counties of Haddington and Peebles, and in certain of the districts in Aberdeenshire and Rossshire.
Coal Industry
Low-Temperature Carbonisation
23.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether tests have been carried out on behalf of his Department on the low-temperature carbonisation of North Wales coal; and, if so, the yield of tar oils obtained?
No tests have as yet been carried out on the low temperature carbonisation of North Wales coal.
25 and 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether he can give details of results of tests carried out at the fuel research station on the low-temperature carbonisation of coal from the Somerset coalfield; and the names of the collieries from which the coal was obtained, with the yield of oils, gas, and carbon residue obtained from each ton of coal treated;
(2) whether he can give details of the results of the tests carried out at the fuel research station on the low-temperature carbonisation of coal from the South Wales coalfield; and will he give the names of the collieries from which the coal was obtained, with the yield of oils, gas, and carbon residue obtained from each ton of coal treated?The results of tests of low-temperature carbonisation of coals from various coalfields are published from time to time by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The laboratory results already published for South Wales' coals will be found in Technical Papers Nos. 1 and 10 of the Fuel Research Board, which should be read in the light of information contained in the Report of the Fuel Research Board for the years 1920–1921, Second Section. Some large scale results for a South Wales coal are contained in a report by the Director of Fuel Research on the Freeman Multiple Retort. The results of large scale tests of a Somerset coal are being prepared for publication. No summary of the results of such tests could be given without technical particulars of the kind contained in these reports, since such particulars are necessary for the correct interpretation of the results.
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware of the fact that this investigation as it is called into the Bergius system is simply a means of intimidating the progress of the British plants now on a commercial scale?
The research is for the benefit of the coal industry.
Yes, but is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that we have commercial plant working in this country, and the excuse has always been that we are getting something from the Bergius system or somewhere else, so as to keep back British interests and to help the combined financial interests of Germany and the combines in this country?
Closed Mines, Yorkshire
24.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that collieries are being closed down at the present time in Yorkshire and thousands of additional miners are being thrown out of work; and will he inquire into the connection between this policy and the new scheme for selling coal which is being arranged by the coalowners?
Four pits employing 1,918 persons have closed down in Yorkshire since 1st February; but according to the statistics of output and persons employed furnished to my Department, the general position in Yorkshire in recent periods has fluctuated in substantially the same proportions as in the rest of the country. I therefore see no need to undertake any special inquiry.
Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman hear the speeches made during the last two days with regard to the scheme that has been adopted by the coalowners; and has he not heard that they are bringing down their supply to a particular quota to meet the necessary demand for coal, and is not that having some effect in closing the collieries? Some of us know it is having that effect.
I believe the effect of the scheme is as the hon. Member states with regard to the quota, but I have no evidence that the setting up of the quota is reducing employment at the moment.
In my question I asked that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should make inquiries into this matter. Acknowledging these facts as he has done just now, is it not necessary that he should make these inquiries and get his Department to work in this matter?
As I have said in the answer, the position in Yorkshire is substantially the same as in other parts of the country, and I see no reason for making special inquiry.
In addition to the pits which have been closed altogether, is it not a fact that in South Yorkshire particularly a good many collieries have reduced the number of men, owing to the operation of the quota?
Boys (Employment Underground)
27.
asked the Secretary of Mines if he has received any complaint that boys under 16 years of age have been kept down the pits in Durham for 16 hours per day; whether he has inquired into the complaint; and can he give the result of his inquiries?
Yes, Sir. A complaint of this kind was recently sent to me by the hon. Member, and I have had it investigated. It was found that on three occasions during January and February a boy had been kept to work a second shift on account of the absence of other boys through illness. The management considered that the circumstances constituted an emergency which made it lawful for them to take this course, but consequent on representations made to them by my Department they have agreed not to adopt this method of meeting the difficulty in future.
Seeing that to keep these boys 16 hours a day is a breach of the Eight-Hours Act, does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to take some action against the company?
I do not think that from the nature of my answer that will be necessary.
Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman state in this House that there is one law for the mine-owners and one for the miners; if not, what is the reason he is not prosecuting the mine-owners for this definite breach of the Regulations?
I have stated the reason of the coal-owners, and they will not repeat the offence.
Does the keeping of boys over 16 hours constitute an emergency reason?
That is the reason given by the coal-owners.
Why is there a difference of treatment between miners and mine-owners? If an offence were committed three times by a miner, would not he have been prosecuted; and why has the Minister not prosecuted the owners in the same way as he prosecutes the miners?
I make no difference between owners and miners.
At the end of questions I shall ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to this matter.
Is the Minister aware that the necessity of keeping these boys all that time in the mines is to make them do the work of the two shifts of eight hours of the men?
At the end of Questions:
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"The failure of the Government to prosecute certain coal owners for breaches of the Coal Mines Act, 1926, by the continuous employment underground of a boy on three occasions for more than 16 hours per day?"
The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until Half-past. Seven o'Clock this evening.
Export Trade
28.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the inquiries of his Department into the question of the coal export trade have been completed; and whether he is now in a position to Make a Report to the House?
I am continuously keeping in the closest possible touch with the position of the coal export trade, but am not conducting any special inquiries, nor have I any unpublished information which could be usefully reported to the House.
Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman noticed any increase in the export of coal, either in 1927 or 1928, as compared with 1925?
I shall want notice of that question.
Transfer Coal (Prices)
29.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his Department are considering the desirability of securing a return of the prices paid for transfer coal in order that the information regarding the coal industry may be as complete as possible?
The Quarterly Statistical Summaries issued by my Department give particulars for each district and for the country as a whole of the quantities and values of all coal commercially disposable. It is not practicable to give details of the prices of the widely different qualities and sizes of coal which go to make up the sum total—and without such information aggregated figures of the prices paid for transfer coal, even if obtainable, would be of little value and would be misleading.
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that we are not able to get to know exactly what the prices of transfer coal are? There have been one or two cases where it has been shown that the prices were too low, and have had to be raised, and, even then, we have not been able to get the original price, and for the people working the coal it is essential to know exactly what the prices are?
The hon. Member understands that the question of transfer coal is dealt with by district committees, and the joint auditors of the owners and the men have full access to all the books showing the prices of transfer coal.
The auditors of the men may have access, but the men are not allowed to see the honks, and the auditor is not allowed to give the men information; that is the point I want the Minister to take into consideration.
Yes, Sir; the auditors are the representatives of the men, and the auditors are given full particulars.
Is it not a fact that the auditors are not permitted to investigate the books as they desire to investigate them; that the Yorkshire Miners' Association had to appeal to an umpire to get permission for that to take place, and that they succeeded in justifying their claim?
Yes, I understand that there was a dispute, and that they were given the books they required.
Would it not be quite easy to get the figures if the miners only had good leaders?
Transport
Automatic Traffic-Regulator
30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the automatic traffic-regulator at the crossing of Park Row and Bond Street, Leeds; and whether it is proposed to erect similar apparatus in the Metropolitan area?
The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The question of making experiments in the Metropolitan area with automatic traffic regulators is under consideration.
Traffic Obstruction (Stationary Vehicles)
31.
asked the Minister of Transport what conclusions he has arrived at with regard to the obstruction to traffic in busy urban thoroughfares, caused by vehicles drawn up at the side of the road; and what measures he proposes to adopt?
So far as my information goes, the powers possessed by the police authorities under the existing law are adequate for dealing with any such obstruction.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware from his own observation that the nuisance referred to has become notorious?
It is a matter within the discretion of the police.
Is the right hon. Gentleman, from his own observation, satisfied that such obstruction does not exist?
I can only repeat that this is a matter within the discretion of the police, who have ample power to deal with it if they think that an obstruction is created.
Has the Traffic Advisory Committee ever considered the possibility of prohibiting two vehicles stopping in a roadway opposite one another, and thereby causing one way traffic?
I do not think that that specific point has been considered, but I will look into it.
Is the right hon. Gentleman again not sheltering himself behind some authority or other?
No, I am not at all. I said what is a fact that the police have ample powers to deal with any obstruction that exists, and I have every confidence in them carrying out that duty.
Bridges, Scotland
32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that it has been found necessary to close the bridges at Burngrains and Brigend, in Aberdeenshire, and also the Taitswell bridge, on the main road between Peterhead and Banff, in the interests of public safety; and, in view of the inconvenience thus caused whether he proposed to take any steps in the matter?
I am aware that the District Committee of the Deer District of Aberdeen have closed the three bridges in question, the recent failure of a similar bridge having drawn attention to their weakness. I should be prepared to consider sympathetically an application from the District Committee for assistance towards the substitution of stronger bridges on suitable lines provided it embodies a satisfactory arrange- ment with the railway company as to the contributions to be made by them in respect of their liabilities.
33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the highway bridges over the London and North Eastern Railway in the Deer District of Aberdeenshire are in bad condition, and not in any way up to present requirements; and whether, seeing that the railway company is at present only bound to maintain the bridges in the condition in which they were originally constructed, which is inadequate for modern purposes, he proposes to take any steps to secure that the necessary reconstruction of these bridges is carried out?
I am aware that many of the bridges in question are too weak to carry unrestricted loads and that the liability of the railway company is limited. In replying to my hon. Friend's other question to-day I explained my policy in respect of such structures. I may add that with regard to the general question of weak bridges, I am hoping that it may be possible to promote legislation embodying clauses which will facilitate negotiations between local authorities and the statutory undertakings concerned.
Are we to have this legislation this year?
It is a private Member's Bill, and I am afraid that the prospects are rather uncertain.
If there be substantial agreement as to the necessity of giving these powers, which are very long overdue, cannot the Government give time?
As far as I am concerned, I am anxious that this legislation should be passed.
Will the right hon. Gentleman press for facilities to be given to this Bill, if it be an agreed Measure?
That is for the Prime Minister to decide.
Roundabout Traffic, Hyde Park Corner And Marble Arch
35.
asked the Minister of Transport if the roundabout systems of traffic at Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch are now considered to be permanent; and, if so, whether he is making any arrangements for a fresh lay-out of the refuges and monuments at those places?
It is proposed to continue the present "roundabout" systems of traffic working at Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch as a permanency. The position of several of the refuges both at Hyde Park Corner and at the Marble Arch has been altered to facilitate the working of the systems, and it is not at present proposed to make any fresh lay-out at these places.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dangerous condition of affairs just outside St. George's Hospital?
No, Sir, I am not aware of that.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what actual alterations have been made?
Quite a number of alterations have been made.
Road Works (Cont Racts)
38.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the repeated comments made by the Auditor-General on the special arrangements made by the Ministry with contractors to carry out certain road works; and whether, in view of the fact that under these contracts remuneration paid to contractors approximated in some cases in 1927 to 22 per cent. of the cost of the works, he will at once take steps to abolish this system and carry out the work with local authorities' aid instead?
The contracts to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers were let during the years 1920–1922 in very exceptional circumstances, as owing to the urgency of instituting these works for the relief of unemployment it was not possible to obtain the data requisite to enable tenders to be invited before the contracts were let. The circumstances were fully explained to the Public Accounts Committee in 1924. Since 1922 no similar contracts have been let by my Department. I may add that the per- centage mentioned in the question was reached only in one case, and that the average percentage to cover the contractor's fee and bonus on the whole of the contracts was about 12½ per cent. of the net cost.
Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this criticism is in the Report of the Auditor-General for 1926? Has he given the Auditor-General a reply about this matter to which attention was drawn in this 1926 Report?
I do not know in what year the Auditor-General made these comments, but the facts are as stated in the question, and no similar contracts have been let since 1922.
Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the Auditor-General asked for a reply to this matter in his 1926 Report? Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made that reply, and has he satisfied the Auditor-General?
The point was fully explained to the Public Accounts Committee in 1924. I have no knowledge as to whether we satisfied the Auditor-General, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question I will look into it.
But has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the Report of the Auditor-General—has he any knowledge of it?
No, Sir, I have not seen that particular Report.
Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made any definite statement to the Auditor-General arising out of his Report?
I did not quite hear that question.
Are we to understand that Reports of the Auditor-General which refer to the right hon. Gentleman's Department are not brought to his notice?
No doubt they would be brought to my notice if there was anything to answer, but the circumstances were explained in 1924 to the Public Accounts Committee, and they were satisfied.
Has it not been definitely stated that the Auditor-General in 1926 made a further Report on this subject, which could not have been considered in 1924?
Perhaps the hon. Member will put down that question.
Road Fund (Irish Free State Claim)
39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the claim on the Road Fund by the Irish Free State has yet been settled; if not, when is it anticipated that the transaction will be completed; and what is the amount still outstanding?
This matter is still under discussion with the Government of the Irish Free State, but I hope that a settlement will shortly be reached. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that pending agreement between the two Governments as to the basis of settlement it is not possible for me to state the amount outstanding.
If there is any sum due to the Irish Free State, is there any possibility of attaching that sum for the purpose of paying British civil servants the amount found due to them by the recent decision of the Privy Council?
Bentley Road, West Riding
41.
asked the Minister of Transport when the negotiations between the West Riding County Council and the Doncaster Corporation regarding the remaking of Bentley Road are likely to be concluded; if he is aware that this matter has been under discussion for nearly six years; and whether, in view of the state of the road concerned, he will give the question his immediate attention so that the work may be proceeded with as soon as possible?
I understand that agreement has been reached between the county council and the corporation that certain preparatory works have already been put in hand and that the widening is likely to be completed in the near future.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only within the last week or two the county council passed a resolution protesting against the delay, which they say has been caused by the Doncaster Corporation. Does he know that this business has been occupying those bodies for six years, and will he step in and put an end to it?
Preparatory works have already been put in hand, and the widening is likely to be completed in the near future. I do not know what more I could do.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that preparatory works have been going on now for nearly six years, and that the main work still remains untouched?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the cause of much bad language?
Electricity Supplies
Hospitals And Institutions (Interrupted Service)
34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has had any complaints as to the failure of public electric supplies during the past six months and to the danger of interrupted service in hospitals and similar institutions; and whether alternative supplies are being established or recommended for establishment by his Department?
The Electricity Commissioners have received a certain number of complaints as to the failure of public electric supplies, but no specific representation as to the danger of interrupted service in hospitals and similar institutions. One of the objects of the schemes of interconnection to be carried out under the Act of 1926 is to ensure increased reliability of supply by providing alternative sources of supply for authorised undertakers whose systems will be linked up in due course with the main transmission system of the Central Electricity Board.
Has the Minister considered what steps it is necessary to take to prevent Socialists from cutting off the supply in time of disputes?
Charges
36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any applications from any of the municipal authorities in the County of London asking him to set up an inquiry into the prices charged by the County of London Electric Supply Company; and what decision he has arrived at?
I have received no such application, but I understand that one is likely to be received shortly.
37.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can inform the House what changes, if any, in the charges for electricity have followed the redistribution of the areas of supply brought about by the Electricity Commissioners?
I am afraid that I do not follow the hon. Member's question. Perhaps he would be good enough to send me some further information showing more fully what is in his mind.
Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman requires a statement of all changes in charges, seeing that that is one of the objects?
If the hon. Member will communicate with me about that, I will try to give him an answer.
Bonus Shares
40.
asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the statutory limitations placed on dividends of electrical undertakings, he can supply figures showing what transfers, if any, of funds from reserves to capital account in the form of bonus shares have taken place in those electricity undertakings whose area of distribution has been enlarged as a result of the decisions of the Electricity Commissioners?
I am not aware that any electricity undertaking has transferred funds from reserves to capital account in the form of bonus shares as the result of its area of distribution having been enlarged.
Post Office
Telephone Subscribers (Deposits)
42.
asked the Postmaster-General the amount of deposits held to the last convenient date by the Post Office Telephone Service for and on behalf of telephone subscribers in England and Wales?
The amount at 31st December, 1927, was, approximately, £2,146,000.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that amount includes deposits for telephones which have since been discontinued and which the telephone subscribers have not reclaimed?
I could not say that without notice. I think the amount would be very small.
Inland Telegraph Service
54.
asked the Postmaster-General if he proposes to take immediate action to carry out any of the recommendations of the committee on the inland telegraph service?
Some of the proposals recommended by the committee were in fact being carried out before the report was received, and arrangements are now in progress for giving effect to others. The remaining proposals affect various interests both external and internal, and a good deal of time will be required for their consideration both by the Government and by the interests affected.
Will the right hon. Gentleman invite the assistance of a leading business man in regard to this service?
55.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his Department makes a close study of the working of the telegraph service in countries where this system is carried out under private enterprise with satisfactory financial results; and whether he will consider introducing certain of these business methods into this country?
My hon. Friend presumably refers to the United States of America. I hope to arrange shortly for another visit to be made by officers of the Post Office with a view to a close study of the American telegraph service, but it cannot be assumed that all the methods in force in the United States will be found suitable for adoption in this country, where conditions are very different.
Does the Postmaster-General agree with the speech made by his Controller of Telegraphs in which he refers to this Report as
Does he approve of that or not?"the vapourings of a so-called business committee and a monument of inconsistencies."
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as long as the telegraph service is conducted by a Government Department it can never reach years of discretion?
Publicity
56.
asked the Postmaster-General which department of the Post Office undertakes the work of Post Office publicity which places before the public the various facilities which the different departments of the Post Office offer; whether a single individual is employed; by whom is the appointment made; and what salary is paid?
The department controlling the administration of each of the Post Office services is, generally speaking, responsible for publicity, whether through personal canvassing, the distribution of posters and leaflets or by other means. An officer appointed by the Postmaster-General at a salary of £485 per annum is employed for the distribution of information to the Press and for other similar duties.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make a trial of one of the well-known business firms who have undertaken very successful publicity work for several years on behalf of the Government?
I have considered that point more than once, but I think the present arrangements are probably more effective and economical.
Is it not false economy and does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that for £480 a year you cannot get a very high-class man in that line because he can get much more in business?
Cable And Wireless Commun Ications
43.
asked the PostMaster-General whether his attention has been called to the possibility of tapping beam wireless messages to and from Australia; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure the privacy of such messages?
I am aware that the Anglo-Australian beam service, in common with other wireless services, has been criticised on the ground that it is liable to illicit interception. In practice, however, the beam services are worked at so high a speed that interception would only be possible by means of complicated and expensive receiving apparatus requiring expert operating staff. I think, therefore, that the risk of such illegal interception is for all practical purposes negligible.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain parties have instruments which are able to tap these private messages between Australia and this country, if they wish to do so?
No, Sir; I am not aware of that fact, indeed, any such action is contrary to the terms of the wireless licences.
51.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, and, if so, what, reductions in cost of cable messages to India and South Africa have been conceded since the introduction of beam competition during the past year; and whether he can give an assurance that such reductions will not be annulled as a result of a cable-wireless merger or through other causes?
A year ago the cable rates to India and South Africa were 1s. 8d. a word and 2s. a word respectively. The present rates to India are Is. 5d. by cable and 1s. 1d. by beam; and the rates to South Africa are 1s. 8d. by cable and 1s. 4d. by beam. Corresponding reductions have been made in the rates for deferred telegrams and letter telegrams. No statement can be made concerning future rates until the Report of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference has been received and considered.
Broadcasting
Scotland
44.
asked the Postmaster- General whether, seeing that the service in the East of Scotland is worse than it was two years ago and that the British Broadcasting Corporation is ready with new plans to improve this service, and are waiting only for the permission of the Post Office to begin operations, he can state when such will be given so that the service can he materially improved?
would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 23rd March to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels).
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything has been done to improve the broadcasting service to the East of Scotland? Does he know that there are very serious complaints all up the East Coast, at Arbroath, Montrose and other places? I should like to know whether anything has been done?
I have had personal experience in the locality mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member. As he probably knows, the British Broadcasting Corporation have a scheme of regional distribution under consideration, but at the moment the position is that I have received no such applications as he referred to.
Interference (Tramways)
52.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has any official information as to the success of the experiments in Germany in effecting the elimination of interference with broadcast reception caused by friction-bow trolleys as compared with the roller-trolley system; and whether he will state what tramway authorities are co-operating with his technical officers in the endeavour to eliminate this technical difficulty?
I understand that no effective remedy has yet been found either in this country or in Germany for interference with broadcasting caused by trams working on the roller-trolley system. Tramway authorities in various parts of the country, notably at Birmingham, Blackpool and Glasgow, are experimenting with various devices, but the experiments are not yet completed. The engineers of the British Broadcasting Corporation and of the Post Office are co-operating with the tramway authorities in an endeavour to find a remedy.
Seeing that a tremendous number of complaints continue to be made in the Bristol area on this matter, will he invite the local tramway authorities to co-operate with the engineers of the British Broadcasting Corporation in an endeavour to find a remedy?
The tramway authorities are already co-operating with the British Broadcasting Corporation and ourselves in that endeavour, but I will have the attention of the British Broadcasting Corporation specially drawn to the cast of Bristol.
Experiments
53.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the British Broadcasting Corporation are experimenting with the Post Office in regard to low-wave length telephony: and what the results have been?
The British Broadcasting Corporation were authorised last September to undertake experiments in broadcasting on a short wavelength. These experiments are still in progress and the results hare not yet been reported.
Is there any likelihood in the near future of any station of the British Broadcasting Corporation transmitting under 100 metres?
Chelmsford Experimental, of course, works under that at the present moment.
Committee Of Imperial Defence
45.
asked the Prime Minister how often the Committee of Imperial Defence has met during the present Parliament?
I propose to give these figures during the course of the Debate this afternoon.
Would the right hon. Gentleman give the particulars now?
I propose to speak very early in the Debate, and the hon. and gallant Member will be able to hear the particulars. I have got several figures of a similar nature to give.
National Finance
Super-Tax
40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the Super-tax outstanding on the 31st March, 1927; and what steps are being taken to recover it?
It is estimated that the amount of Super-tax due to be paid but not paid at the 31st March. 1927, was £19,325,000. The assessment and collection of the Super-tax proceeds continuously throughout the year. The amount unpaid at any given date thus includes tax in respect of which demands for payment may have recently been issued, and must not be regarded as tax outstanding for any considerable length of time. The bulk of the tax in question has, in fact, since been paid. I can assure the hon. Member that no step is neglected by the revenue authorities to ensure the prompt collection of the revenue.
Agricultural Rates Acts
47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the 75 per cent. abatement in the assessment of agricultural land and farm buildings is repaid by the Treasury to local authorities to meet the deficiency caused by such abatement?
I have been asked to reply. It is estimated that in 1926–27 (the latest year for which the estimate can be made) the amount of rates, to which the Agricultural Rates Acts, 1896 and 1923, apply, which was paid in respect of agricultural land was £3,450,000. and that if the Agricultural Rates Acts had not been in force the amount so paid would have been £12,460,000. Of the deficiency. amounting to £9,010,000, £4,684,000 or approximately 52 per cent., was met out of Exchequer grants. The 75 per cent. abatement in the assessment of farm buildings has not yet become operative. There is no statutory provision for an Exchequer grant in respect of this abatement.
Imperial Defence (Expenditure)
48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost incurred for defence for the latest year for which figures are available in Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and also the cost in 1913?
Estimates for the years 1926–27 or 1925–26 are to be found in the Armaments Year Book published by the League of Nations. I am taking steps to obtain more recent figures and will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT when available.
Wine Duties
49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that is felt by Empire wine importers that they should be charged a duty of 4s. per gallon against a home-produced article at 1s.; and whether he will consider raising the duty on the home-produced article to 4s. per gallon?
I am aware, that dis-satisfaction on this point has been ex-pressed in some quarters. As regards the second part of the question, my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement.
Does the hon. Gentleman not recollect that this home industry is practically only of a few months' standing, and will he see that he does not kill a goose when it is only a gosling?
May I be permitted to ask if it is a fact that it is hardly fair to the foreign importer to have this disparity?
That point will receive due consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Motor Taxation
50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any representations or petitions with regard to the present horsepower tax; and whether, in view of the fact that a 2s. 6d. horse-power tax and 6d. a gallon on petrol would bring in a similar amount, he will consider an alteration in the present system of motor taxation?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him on the subject on the 21st February last.
Will my hon. Friend remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a petition signed by 920,000 owners and users of motor cars was presented this afternoon in favour of the change over to a petrol tax?
Yes, Sir.
Will the Financial Secretary represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the imposition of this tax would make a very heavy additional burden on business firms?
Will the hon. Member represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the desirability of deciding this question of the motor spirit tax upon its merits, and without reference to the need of future Chancellors of the Exchequer being able to take a certain amount out of the Road Fund?
That question does not arise.
Afforestation, Denbighshire
60.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the number of acres planted in the County of Denbigh during the years 1924 to 1927; and what the plans of the Department are for 1928 and 1929?
The Forestry Commissioners have not planted any land in the County of Denbigh, as they have not yet acquired land in that county.
Is it the case that afforestation employs more labour than sheep farming?
Assistant Factory Inspectors
63.
asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that assistant inspectors of factories were appointed owing to their practical acquaintance with industrial processes, he will state why their inspections are restricted to milliners, dressmakers and similar workshops; whether inspectors on first appointment are put on duty in factories in which dangerous machinery and processes are employed; and, if so, whether, in view of the high percentage of fatal and non-fatal accidents, he will consider utilising the services of assistant inspectors in work more appropriate to their previous experience?
I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) on the 14th instant. The assistants selected were not required to possess the technical qualifications necessary for the discharge of the full duties of an inspector, and few of them had, before their appointment, more than a limited experience of industrial processes. Inspectors, on appointment, are always given a thorough course of training before visiting by themselves important factories where dangerous machinery and processes have to be inspected.
Charities (Supervision)
64.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is intended, during the present Session, to bring in legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Supervision of Charities?
A Bill for this purpose is in preparation, but I fear that it will not be possible to take it this Session.
Prison Conditions
66.
asked the Home Secretary the average cost of maintaining male prisoners in the various prisons of this country; whether in any prison stone breaking, stone pounding, or oakum picking is imposed as a task of work and, if so, whether such tasks are imposed as punishments for offences committed in prison; and whether any prisoners are allowed to earn money while serving as prisoners, and, if so, how much per week or month such payments amount to?
As this question raises a number of points, and the reply is necessarily long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
The Annual Reports of the Prison Commissioners always contain particulars of the cost of maintaining the various classes of prisoners. For the year 1926–27, the net cost, after deducting the value of prisoners' labour, was £1 9s. 5d. a week for convicts and £1 0s. 6d. a week for local prisoners. Stone breaking, stone pounding and oakum picking are not now regular prison industries. There is a stone breaking machine in the quarry at Dartmoor; occasionally some stone is broken by hand, but the work is not tasked, nor is it imposed as a punishment. Oakum picking is never imposed as a punishment, but it is still occasionally required to be done when no other work is available. For instance, when an outdoor working party at Dartmoor is prevented by the weather from going out to its ordinary job, it may be employed on picking oakum. A measured task is usually required. As regards the earning of money, prisoners committed for trial and prisoners treated under the rules for debtors are allowed to earn small sums, amounting in the case of trial prisoners to not more than 5s., and in the ease of debtors to not more than 2s. 6d. per week. Convicted prisoners, generally speaking, do not earn money, but there are arrangements whereby convicts undergoing preventive detention, and certain other long-term convicts, may earn small gratuities by good conduct and industry.
67.
asked the Home Secretary in how many prisons concerts, lectures, and other work of a reformative, educational and recreational character is carried on; in how many is actual task work of a fixed character imposed; and whether he is able to say that the majority of persons detained in prison are engaged in useful work of a character which does not tend either to degrade or demoralise the prisoners?
At every prison for convicted prisoners there are educational classes and occasional lectures and concerts, Prisoners work in the day time in parties under supervision, and for most kinds of work the practice is not to require a measured task, but to rely on the supervising officer to see that diligence is maintained. In the evening, prisoners who are not occupied by educational courses do industrial work in their cells, and, so far as the nature of this work permits, a measured task is usually required. All work done in prisons is useful, and I do not regard any useful work as degrading or demoralising.
Landlord And Tenant Act
68.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make as to the date of coming into operation of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927?
I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the fact that 25th March—the date on which the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, came into operation—was a Sunday, and that tenants whose leases will expire on Lady Day next year, and who wished to make a claim under Section 4 of the Act, or to serve a notice under Section 5, were obliged to make their claim or serve their notice on Sunday. Section 23 of the Act provides that instruments under the Act may be served in one of three ways—by personal service, by leaving the instrument at the last known place of abode of the landlord or his agent, or by sending the instrument by registered post. I am advised that of these three methods, the first two would constitute good service, even though service was made on a Sunday. As regards the last, the question is not altogether free from doubt, and, if it appears that tenants have been damnified in this respect, I am prepared to consider the matter further.
Motor Vehicles Insurance
I beg to move,
I would like to assure the House that, in bringing this Bill forward, I have not done so without very careful thought, or without discussion, so far as discussion is possible, both with Members of the House itself and with those outside who are interested in this subject. As to the necessity for this Bill, I do not think there is really any difference of opinion. I think that Members in all parts of the House are well aware of the very large number of accidents that have occurred in which, unfortunately, persons who have sustained damage, and sometimes, in case of death, the relatives of the person fatally injured, have been unable to get any compensation at all. From inquiries that I have made, I find that there appears to be throughout the House a general knowledge of such conditions throughout the country, but perhaps I may be allowed to mention only two cases that have come very definitely to my notice, cases which I believe are typical of many others. One is the case of a woman employed in a mill, who was knocked down, had her leg broken in three places, and was laid up for something like nine months, incurring, as a result, expenses amounting to something like £150, and she was unable to recover any compensation whatever. Another case was that of a young man, the sole support of his mother and sister, who was killed by a motor cyclist, and there, again, his relatives were unable to recover any compensation of any kind. I do not think it would be desirable to give in detail instances in which the Courts have referred to this matter; at any rate it is probably not desirable to give names; but perhaps the House will allow me to read an extract from one case. I will not, unless the House decides to the contrary, give the actual names. In this case the Judge said this was the second case he had had in that week:"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it obligatory for owners of motor vehicles to be insured against third-party risks."
In the short time at my disposal, I cannot deal further with the necessity for the Bill, but I do not think that there is any necessity to do so, because I have not heard in any quarter of the House any opposition to it. I want to deal with what the Bill will involve. It is to make it essential that any person who owns a motor vehicle shall be insured against the possibility of damage caused to the public. Damage to the owner's car is another matter altogether, but, so far as liability under the Common Law exists, I and those who support me desire that insurance shall be compulsory. The position as regards motor cars, so far as I can ascertain it, is that something like 85 per cent. of all the motor cars owners are already insured. That leaves only 15 per cent., but, in regard to motor cycles, there are only something like 33 per cent. insured. These are the figures I have been given. I believe there is hardly a single motor car or motor cycle owner who will not really be in his heart of hearts in favour of the Bill. He cannot but see the necessity, in these days of rapid transport, of insuring that if by any chance damage is caused to the public he should be in a position, if he is responsible for the accident, to pay for the damage. The position as regards compulsory insurance and its difficulties has often been exaggerated. Some 60 per cent. of all the motor cars in this country, I am told, are obtained on the hire-purchase system, and the owners are compulsorily insured, and we may assume that if the remaining 15 per cent. of uncovered cars are also insured, acute competition will produce reasonable rates. Not only will competition insure that the rates will remain reasonable, but the Minister of Transport, in the Bill he intends to bring forward at an early date, is proposing to make it compulsory for all public vehicles to be insured, and in fact in the case of chars-a-bancs compulsory insurance exists at present, because by means of arrangements with the local authorities it is impossible to get a licence unless third party risks are covered. I believe the Bill meets with general acceptance, and I hope the House will unanimously give it a First Reading."In both cases the man has not been insured, and therefore cannot pay the damage. I hope soon it will be compulsory for all motorists to be insured."
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, Major Braithwaite, Mr. Compton, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Allan Burgoyne, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Snell.
Motor Vehicles Insurance Bill
"to make it obligatory for owners of motor vehicles to be insured against third-party risks," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.
Government Of Scotland
I beg to move,
This Bill establishes a national Legislature in the form of a single Chamber of 148 members elected by the present constituencies. It will deal with all the subjects which are meantime treated by Parliament in this House and in another place. It reserves certain subjects as common services. Questions relating to the Army, Navy and Air Forces, questions of foreign policy, and the like are to be jointly administered by England and Scotland. As soon as this Parliament is constituted, the representation of Scotland in this House will cease. If we are insisting on managing our own affairs, we cannot claim also to manage the affairs of England at the same time. It has been represented to me from all sides that this proposal of the withdrawal of the Scottish representation would be something of a national calamity and an injury to this House. I say, quite frankly, that I, and those who are acting with me, have an open mind on this question. What I see in the future is the separation of Imperial matters from more local affairs, which might by common consent be assigned to local Parliaments in England, Scotland and Wales, or wherever a district may be marked out, and, when that day comes, Scotland will claim a worthy part and her rightful share in the administration of these Imperial affairs and also in the wider field that is covered by what we know as the British Commonwealth of Nations. I will put forward some of the grounds on which we urge that a First Reading at least should be given to this Bill. In the first place, in the interests of this House itself. On 4th June, 1919, a Committee was appointed, known as the Speaker's Conference. The proposal put before that Committee was to devise a scheme of federal devolution. The reference was passed by a vote of 187 to 34, and it is remarkable that the Scottish vote for devolution was 35 to 1. There was only one Member for Scotland who did not support the proposal for devolution. There arose in that Committee some difference of opinion as to the character and composition of the Grand Councils, or Legislatures, but there was no difference of opinion whatever as to the powers that should be conferred on such Legislatures and that Scotland was an area which should have such a Grand Council or Parliament. In the next place, this is proposed in the interest of the dispatch of Scottish business. 4.0 p.m The House may not be fully aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has control of no fewer than 16 departments, and, whether he works with boards or, as he now proposes, with departments, it is an impossible task for any human being. We are given two days in the course of a Session to discuss Scottish affairs, Last year, when I spoke on this subject, I was surprised at the number of hon. Members opposite who came to me and said some movement of devolution was necessary in the interests of Scottish business. We have some special questions in Scotland—land, housing, education and public health—in which we have our own laws and customs and in which we have even more acute problems than there are in England. 4.0 p.m. These can only be properly organised, supervised and ameliorated if we have a Parliament in close touch with them. Then we advocate this in the interests of public economy. To secure the amalgamation of Edinburgh and Leith, a sum of £51,771 was spent in legal expenses at this end; and to secure an extension of the boundaries of Glasgow, £46,308 was spent at this end, and if the expenses of the opposing bodies are added at the other end, the sum was about £100,000. Demands have been made in Scotland for this Measure, or a similar Measure, ever since 1890, whatever the complexion of the Government, and we have not failed on any occasion to get, a large majority of Scottish Members for some such scheme of devolution as this. In 1912 the vote was 43 to 6, and in 1920 it was 38 to 9. I will not trouble the House with the names of the public bodies in favour of such a Measure. Support for this Measure passes far beyond party lines. On the 15th April, 1926, the Duke of Montrose wrote a letter to the "Glasgow Herald" saying he was in favour of a Scottish Legislature being established. I do not claim his support to the particular Measure I have in hand. He thinks it is in bad hands, and is being handled unwisely, but he stands for a Scottish Legislature. I will give his words:"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the better government of Scotland."
On the 18th April, 1926, Principal A. P. Lawrie, an eminent educationist, supporting in the "Glasgow Herald" what the Duke of Montrose had said, observed that the establishment of such a legislature"I cannot believe that for all time coming Scottish affairs will continue to be settled by Englishmen in London."
When I was in Australia I was very much struck by one of the speeches at a Scottish Home Rule meeting in Granville, New South Wales. The speaker said:"would bring about a revival of national life in every department of thought and art."
One word more. We also put this forward on the ground of national sentiment. I need not say that in Scotland our whole literature pulsates with the passion for Scottish freedom and Scottish nationality. A protest was made in regard to this matter in connection with the panel, "The Building of Britain," in St. Stephen's Hall. I was not here to take part, but I will tell the House of the conclusion to which I have come. I am quite willing that that panel should remain, on condition that we realise that the building of Britain is not complete, and that we have another panel in which the grant of self-government, which was surrendered then, will be restored. As one of the common quotations regarding that old surrender of self-government was that of Lord Belhaven on the 2nd November, 1706:"We need no argument in Australia to convince us not merely of the utility but of the absolute necessity and inevitability of every nation managing its own affairs."
so I would propose to the House that the artist should take for the motto of the new panel:"None can destroy Scotland save Scotland's self"—
"None can save Scotland but Scotland's self."
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barr, Mr. William Adamson, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Wheatley, and Mr. Wright.
Government Of Scotland Bill
"to provide for the better government of Scotland," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]
Auctioneers
I beg to move,
The object of this Bill is to protect the public, particularly the members of the working-classes, against a form of fraud practised by men who hold Inland Revenue licences to trade as auctioneers who are a disgrace to an honourable profession, and are exploiting the public in a way that, I think, ought to be prohibited. Many Members will have noticed these gentlemen and their operations in the main streets of London, in the main streets of many of, our large towns and cities, and particularly at the seaside resorts during that portion of the year when large crowds of visitors are attracted thereto. The system they adopt is to pretend to have a bankrupt stock or pawnbrokers' forfeited pledges, or to offer some other pretext. They have their own touts, who mix amongst the crowd, and, by misrepresentation, big prices are obtained for apparently worthless goods. These men are practising this trade throughout the country day in and day out. It may be said, why is not the law put into operation to deal with them? As a matter of fact, there is a case, but as it is sub judice I cannot mention it here. If hon. Members, however, will only take the trouble to read the evidence in that particular case, they will realise how very difficult it is to get a successful prosecution, because, under the present law, you can only prosecute for selling by false pretences. There is a difficulty in getting a person who has been "had" to come forward and give evidence, because people do not like to expose their foolishness and ignorance to the public. I have the testimony of chief constables of various towns saying that it is indeed most difficult to get a prosecution, and asking that a Bill such as I am introducing should be passed by this House. Let me read the opinion of the chief constable of Blackpool, where, undoubtedly, this matter is becoming a public scandal. He says:"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to auctioneers, and to prohibit the holding of mock auctions."
I have also letters from the chief constables of Edinburgh, Great Yarmouth, Southend-on-Sea, Hastings, Margate, Southport, Brighton and Plymouth, all asking that something should be done by this House to amend the law as regards this particular form of fraud. There is also another kind of operation with which this Bill seeks to deal, namely, rigged sales of this description: An empty house is taken and stocked with goods, and bills are displayed announcing the sale of household goods in that particular house. People are induced thereby to come along and to bid probably very high prices for the goods. This practice has been in operation a great deal in the Brighton district, but it is not by any means the only district where it is being practised. It is being practised all over the country. Let me give an instance that came under my own notice. It is the case of an old-fashioned inn in a country district on a road passed by a number of motorists. A smart man got hold of this inn. It was not doing very much business. He took it, and stocked it with dummy antiques, such as what were supposed to be old glass and old Sheffield plate. I am reminded that the term "dummy" is not a correct one; I will therefore amend it, and say "sham" antiques. Motorists who passed saw those things, thought they were genuine and admired them. Shortly afterwards a large bill was posted outside the inn, and advertisements were inserted in London newspapers that these goods were to be sold by auction. I can assure the House that the innkeeper made more money out of that sale than be could have made in 25 years out of selling beer. He retired, and went to another district. I suggest to this House that, bearing in mind that these frauds are being perpetrated on the public day in and day out, it is time an amendment of the law took place, and I suggest that the Bill I have asked leave to introduce will meet the case. It has the support of the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents, the Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute, the National Chamber of Trade, the National Association of Goldsmiths, the Scottish Association of Watchmakers and Jewellers, and the London and Suburban Traders' Federation. The Bill is backed by 12 Members, and I could have got many more if the Rules of the House had permitted."The existing law is inadequate to deal with this matter, and I am quite satisfied that the proposals in the new Bill would effect a definite improvement in the present position."
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Womersley, Mr. Duckworth, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Mr. Grotrian, Mr. Hayes, Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Templeton, Sir William Perring, Mr. Looker, Mr. Fenby, Colonel Applin, and S0ir Cooper Rawson.
Auctioneers Bill
"to amend the Law with respect to auctioneers and to prohibit the holding of mock auctions," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]
Message From The Lords
That they have agreed to—
Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law of Scotland relating to the division of counties into police districts." [Police Districts (Scotland) Bill [ Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate and simplify the law of Scotland relating to false oaths, declarations, and statements." [False Oaths (Scotland) Bill [ Lords].
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board relating to vessels sunk, stranded, or abandoned; and for other purposes." [Harwich Harbour Bill [ Lords].
Dover Gas Bill Lords
That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That is is expedient that the Dover Gas Bill [ Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
Consolidation Bills
That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
Private Bills (Consolidation)
That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolutions, namely:
"That it is desirable that in the present Session all Private Bills for the exclusive purpose of consolidating the provisions of existing private Acts of Parliament be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament:
That the Joint Committee shall not take into consideration any petition against any such Bill which seeks to alter the existing law."
Harwich Harbour Bill Lords
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Selection (Standing Committees)
Standing Committee A
reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Haslam; and had appointed in substitution: Mrs. Philipson.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Orders Of The Day
Consolidated Fund (No 1) Bill
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Ministry Of Defence
I wish to raise a question which has for long agitated Members of this House. I want to examine how far we can alter our administration of the Services, and to see if we cannot get some greater co-ordination and control over the three Services than we have at present. We have expended and are expending enormous sums upon our Defence Services. This year the total, as taken from the Estimates, is £121,495,000 odd, and that does not include the amount of money which will be required for our Forces in China, and no doubt the additional sums that will be contained in Supplementary Estimates. At the end of the War, our two old Services of the Navy arid Army were joined by a third Service, the Air Force, and this in itself added another difficulty. Each Department puts forward its individual Estimates, has its own General Staff and prepares its own plans for the application of the forces under its control, and, except through an advisory body, the Committee of Imperial Defence, there is no real control which can give any unity of action for the three Forces. It is undoubtedly true that in latter years, since the War, there has been more co-ordination and consultation between the Forces than we had before the War, but I, for one, think we have not gone nearly far enough in the direction of central control.
During the War, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) found it necessary to improvise a central control over our war activities, and he created that very useful body, the War Cabinet, created out of Ministers who were not embarrassed by the control of Departments, and towards the end of the War this body exercised a very useful and necessary control over the whole of our activities. It had the support of the whole country behind it, and the result was that its various decisions were treated as executive and were given effect to by the various Departments concerned; but since the War this body has disappeared, nothing has taken its place, and the Services have dropped back into the position in which they were before the War, each under its own Departmental Chief. The general tendency in the world as we see it to-day is for a movement of units into bigger organisations. You see it in commerce. You see whole businesses being co-ordinated and brought together in the form of amalgamations and combines, and this does not mean that the actual boards or individuals who are managing those businesses are done away with; it means that there is a superimposed body, a body which really represents a holding company in the commercial world which is superimposed over the various individual units, and, this controlling body, headed probably by the most eminent person in that particular business, deals with policy, with high finance, with general standardisation, and with prices, either for buying or selling, and in many directions it unifies that industry, reduces costs, and undoubtedly creates greater prosperity in that industry. It seems to me difficult to understand why we cannot apply a similar movement to our Services. I know it will be said that the Services in themselves are not businesses, but that does not mean that the actual control of these Services cannot be conducted on the same lines as, we will say, the controlling body in the chemical industry or any other of those large combines, to the very great advantage, not only of the nation and the Empire as a whole, but of this House, which has to find the money. One has only to follow that simile to see that there arc certainly, on the face of it, a great many advantages to be gained out of such a control. I know it has been said that you have got the control at present exercised by the Committee of Imperial Defence, but anyone who knows the workings of that body and who knows how often it meets, will realise that there is no real control at all. This body is purely an advisory body and a meeting place for the Chiefs of Staffs to get in touch with our various Dominions and the General Staffs of those Dominions, and that undoubtedly forms opinions on matters military, naval, and aerial which are of very great value and which, applied to the various Departments, produce very excellent results. But there is no responsibility by this body, there is no definite control, and it is extremely difficult to get any co-ordinated action between the three Services from the point of view of doing away with overlapping. This question has been debated, or attempted to be debated, under the various Service Estimates, but it has always been pulled up to the extent that it has not been applicable to the Army, to the Navy, or to the Air Force, as the case might be, and again and again we have had the repudiation of responsibility by the Minister at the Box. In these circumstances, I think this House owes a debt of gratitude to my party and to my right hon. Friend who has allowed this Debate to take place. It is a subject which has certainly excited interest ever since 1922. We have had various Committees which have been assembled to examine the question, and we have had articles written, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Sir F. Sykes), who used to be associated with me in the War Office, has written very able articles on this subject. Altogether, the question has aroused an interest, both in this House and outside, which demands very careful investigation. There was a Committee which was formed under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who was afterwards succeeded by Lord Weir; we had the question examined again by a Committee under Lord Salisbury we had the Colwyn Committee dealing with it; and we have had it examined on various occasions from inside the different Departments. I would like to point out that when you deal with a subject of this nature it is almost impossible to have a Committee examining into the desirability of amalgamation or unified control when you take evidence from the heads of the various Services concerned, because, obviously, those Services must stifle any Committee. Therefore, it is necessary for any Government which deals with this subject to have courage and conviction, to say that they intend to carry out some unification, and to put it to a Committee, if necessary, to see what steps are requisite, and in what rotation those steps should be taken, in order to arrive at the desired ideal. There are many questions in regard to which a unified control would give us very great advantages. We should get a far better application of our forces wherever they are required in the world. Everyone knows that at the present moment the Air Service is absolutely necessary, both to the Army and to the Navy. In fact, the Army cannot fight without the air any more than the Navy can fight without the air, and we have three separate Services dealing with the different types of arm, whereas we have a separate Air Ministry. You cannot move in the Army without your Air Arm, and the same thing applies to the Navy, and yet we get the Air Ministry taking over an area like Iraq to run the defence of that particular area. It is well known that if we had trouble on the frontiers, the Air Ministry must immediately draw in the War Office for bringing in men to defend the frontiers. Though aeroplanes move with very great speed, they cannot hold positions that are necessary to defend frontiers. Therefore, we should immediately get two Ministries brought in, and it, would be a very great advantage if we could have one controlling authority which would deal with all three Services, thereby enabling us to use a portion of each arm or each Department as required without any conflicting or dual control in any way. Then there is the question of the provision of material, of supplies, of stores, of hospitals, and subjects of that nature, and undoubtedly a very great advantage could be obtained if we could co-ordinate under one authority the provision of those articles. Anyone who is in the Service knows that a large quantity of stores and supplies are necessarily held in reserve for mobilisation and other measures, which no doubt overlap and are held in duplicate or triplicate by the various Services, and it would be a very great advantage to the State and to the Exchequer if we could remedy that. Then we have the difficulty of the interchangeability of personnel in the various Departments. We have heard only recently about the short-service officers in the Air Force, who come to a dead end at the end of seven years. Surely, if we had a central control, those officers could be used in other directions, in the other arms. There is no reason why young officers should not go to the Army or elsewhere and carry on the very useful service which they have begun, and in many such ways, we could get the interchangeability of personnel. I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), below me, will agree with me when I say that it is quite possible to have one medical service for the three Forces. It has been pointed out that medical recruits join a particular Service, that they want to serve in the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, as the case may be, but there is a possibility that we might get a much wider and bigger Service by having one combined for the three Services. In the same way, our chaplains might be combined, and in various other ways we could get economies. I think we should get a betterment of the Service, certainly in dealing with hospitals, the provision of wagons and supplies, and in dealing with contracts, and in all those directions we should get great advantages by having a unified control. The great difficulty that I see at the present moment is the difficulty of getting over what are called vested interests. You have the vested interest of the staff. You have the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force each with its general staff, and each Serice has its own staff college. You will have great difficulty in getting over this difficulty, but there is no reason why, by a different system, by a unified education, by having your staff college for the three Services, you should not ultimately produce a staff officer who really has been brought up to the idea of one central controlling authority. By establishing a central control we should be able to meet a great difficulty in modern war. In the late War we had to build up control during the fighting period. We had to break down all kinds of difficulties during the War. We had to deal with competition in contracts, competition in regard to recruits; in every way we had to deal with the Services competing with each other. Should it be our misfortune—I trust it never will be our misfortune—to go into another war, I hope that we shall be able to avoid these difficulties by having a central control board. I do not wish to mention the name of the Ministry of Defence, because it commits one to a line of thought for which we are not yet prepared. We want to examine how far we can move forward, building on present institutions, to a better control. Take, for instance, the present control in the form of the Committee of Imperial Defence. That body lacks responsibility, and it lacks control. It would probably be a good thing if the Government could gradually change the personnel of that body and ultimately evolve it into the form of an executive general staff; in other words, gradually change it from its present advisory position into an executive position. There is no reason why it should not take the same place in the Service world which is filled by an over-riding body in the commercial world, forming a board of control. That board might consist of, partly, full-time officers, who would be the best staff officers we could collect from the various Services, and as the unified education in the staff sense produces the necessary personnel it would become better and better fitted for the purpose required. Added to that, we should have the part-time staff officer drawn in to give the information required, in the form of staff officers of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force. It would be necessary to have a Minister in charge of the central control authority, acting under the Prime Minister. No one could really control the whole of the Services unless you had a Prime Minister, someone like the President of the Council, who has not a Department at the present time, who would be put in the position of the Minister in charge of the board of control of the three Services. It would be of great advantage from the point of view of this House. The money would be voted to this central control Department, who would allocate the money between the three Services, knowing the difficulties and the necessities of the Services. The Services are kept as a provision against war, and any provision that is made must necessarily be towards war efficiency. Anything we pay for is with a view, ulti- mately, to producing the fighting machine, if required. The money voted is not given merely for peace provision, but for the definite purpose of preparing for war. If the central control body, with an expert staff behind it, could allocate with knowledge the money required by each Service, we should get in this House a far better account of our expenditure, and we should be able to get a definite result in economies through their efforts. At the present time, we have a sort of control by the Treasury. Any additional demands for money have always to be examined by the Treasury; but the Treasury knows very little about what is required for the Services. It acts purely as a brake on the expenditure on these Departments. There is no relation between the three Departments from the purely expert point of view. The control board would, undoubtedly, with knowledge, as is done in commerce, be able to control expenditure and to see that we get really good value. One great criticism by the Estimates Committee is that there is no relation between the three Services as regards expenditure, and they say that it is very difficult for them to understand how the actual money is being spent. I believe, having some knowledge of one of the Departments, at least, that we should get very great advantage if we evolved some sort of central control board. After the South African War, we had the Esher Committee. That Committee altered the whole of our War Office system; the whole control of the Army. It was done arbitrarily. I believe that Lord Roberts did not know what was going to happen, until he saw the note on his desk. The administration which was then provided for the Army was a very great advance on what we had before. The Esher Committee evidently pointed to some central control of the two forces of that time, the Army and the Navy, and foresaw that ultimately we should have to establish a control board on the top of those two Services. Now we have a third Service, the Royal Air Force, which is vital to the Army and to the Navy, and, therefore, there is greater reason now than in the days of the Esher Committee for the setting up of a central control board. I know that there are many arguments which can be advanced against it. You get professional advice against it; you get the Civil Service giving advice against it. A great many hon. Members who have examined this question as closely as they can, feel that we are up against a dead end in the way of economy. No matter what Ministers may say, there is, undoubtedly, expenditure going on that might be stayed. It is only by having some central authority that we can get economy. It would be an advantage to this House if we could have such a, board set up. There is no certainty that the various services will continue as they are now. We are moving in a world of transition. There is no certainty that our great, wonderful battle-line ships will be of any use in the next war. We have the testimony of that great Admiral, the late Sir Percy Scott, that the battleship is an absolute myth; that their day has gone. It is possible with the development of the submarine, or something even more terrible than the submarine, that that class of battleship and that type of warfare will have gone. It is true that the movement in a future war may take the line of a financial war; it may take the line of an oil war, a raw materials war, or a war of chemicals. In that way, you might absolutely eliminate one or, at any rate, part of your present fighting Services. Therefore, there is all the more reason for some central control board being established, which could examine all the means of offence or defence, that we might use against any potential enemy, instead of the purely advisory body in the form of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Committee of Imperial Defence has done wonderfully good work and has advanced greatly our knowledge as to the requirements of the various Services. It has brought us into touch with our Dominions and with the Empire generally, and solved questions which otherwise we could not have solved, but it has no executive power at all, and in order to give it the necessary executive powers we must constitute some body of control and give it a Minister at the head of it who will be able to give orders that certain things shall be done and see that they are done. We are faced with enormous estimates of £120,000,000, divided as to £61,000,000 for the Navy, £41,000,000 for the Army, and £19,000.000 for the Air Force. That is an enormous sum, and, considering the terrible burden of armaments I do think that a case has been made out for having this question very closely examined from every point of view. I am not talking from the technical point of view, but rather from the point of view of the man in the street, the common-sense point of view, following modern procedure in commerce and elsewhere. The Government would do well very seriously to consider this matter and go ahead on the lines of forming some executive body of control for the three forces, and I am sure the House and the country would benefit thereby.The hon. and gallant Member said that the House owe a debt of gratitude to his party. I gladly pay my tribute to that. This is a discussion that we have desired for some years, and my only regret is that it has never been selected for discussion on one of the days on the Estimates, so that it might have been taken before. I should like, at the outset, to assure the hon. and gallant Member that we on this bench desire to take into most careful consideration anything that may be said from any quarter of the House on this subject that interests us all so much. I had intended, in any case, to make, I am afraid, a somewhat lengthy statement to the House, because these matters have not been discussed, and it is useful to discuss them; and when my hon. and gallant Friend said that we had dropped back into the pre-War conditions, I felt that when a man of his experience, knowledge and skill could make such a statement it was all the more necessary for the House to have some such statement as that which I propose to make this afternoon.
On one general principle I feel sure that we are all agreed. We all want economy. We all want to avoid duplication. We want efficiency, and we want to get full value for the money we spend. The real difference between us, or one of the great differences between us, is how we may best achieve the end which we all desire. There are, I know—this will probably be said this afternoon, as it has been said in the article to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred—those who advocate in some form or another what is called a Ministry of Defence: a very wide term that covers a very great principle in many different ways. It has been spoken of either as a fusion of the three Departments into one Department under one Minister, or as a position in which the Ministers themselves are abolished and one man does all their work. The amalgamation of administrative services, staff colleges and so forth have all been adumbrated as variants to these proposals. In so far as I speak about any of these matters, I do not speak about them in any controversial spirit. I want, to try to examine them on their merits, and say here that I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend that we are in a period of transition. Evolution is going on. I cannot say what the form of administration is to be in the years to come. I can only say that it is not static, and give my reasons for considering that a continuation of the present progressive methods, which have been adapted for some years past, is, I believe, what meets our peculiar conditions best at the present moment. Administratively, over-centralisation is an evil; it is as great an evil as excessive decentralisation. We have a number of Ministries in this country dealing with internal affairs—Agriculture, Health, Labour, the Post Office and so forth; and external affairs are dealt with by the Foreign Office, the Dominions and Colonial Office and the India Office. Over them all you have financial considerations and the Treasury. No one with administrative experience would consider for a moment the amalgamation into a single Department of these groups of offices on the civil side. You would have over-centralisation and would inevitably lose your grip on the whole. You would have an insufficient grip, and in my view any Minister trying to work a group of that kind, and certainly his staff, would break down. We must remember that these Departments have not grown up haphazard. They have arisen gradually to meet a real administrative need, and in the past it has been just the same in the Departments that have to deal with defence. Their common denominator of course is war—the defence of this country—but the principles are the same for all of them. The policy should be a single one. But we must remember that, in spite of all developments up to date, the work of the Navy still is on the sea, of the Army on the land and of the Air Force in the air. That being so, each of these Services has its own very peculiar problems—problems of staff and strategy and tactics and personnel and armament and supply and organisation.Strategy is the same with all three.
That is a fine distinction, but I see the hon. and gallant Member's point. Our problem is to see that they all act on a common principle, that they carry out a single policy, and that their various functions and responsibilities are defined and—here I am going to use the blessed word that the hon. and gallant Member who raised this question used so often—"co-ordinated," so that on the one hand you will have no overlap and on the other hand no hiatus. But even in peacetime the work of supervising these three Departments effectively would be a very heavy burden for a single Minister. I think that anyone who is not a superman, which I have never claimed to be, would find the burden intolerable. Such a Minister would have to co-ordinate the work of these three offices, the defence force as a whole and the groups of services relating respectively to the air, the sea and the land. He would require a Navy Council, an Air Council and an Army Council and probably a Defence Council, and he would have to preside at all these Councils himself, because both in the Cabinet and in Parliament he would have to speak with the same knowledge as is displayed to-day by the three separate Ministers of the three separate Departments. In addition, if he was to pull his weight in the boat, he would have to take his share of Cabinet Committees; and, while it is true that, I believe, the Prime Minister combines in his person more Departments even than three, I do not think there are many men in Europe who would safely undertake more than one.
The Services exist, however, not for peace, but for war: that is their raison d'être. It is quite true that our armaments to-day are maintained at the very minimum necessary to meet the obligations of our Empire. There will be few who would object to that statement. They are little more in the world to-day than a police force, and the machinery under which we can organise ourselves if, which God forbid, there should again be war. But should a great expansion of the forces again become necessary, it. seems to me that a single Department, a single control, would inevitably break down. On this subject the Leader of the Liberal party, who, I believe, will follow me, of course had more experience during the War than any living man,, and we shall all be interested to hear his views. We have to remember that, although you had the titanic energy of Lord Kitchener and those who worked with him in the creation of the New Armies in the early days of the War, yet additional Departments were formed rapidly, and before the War was over there were 10 new Ministries created in this country and over 160 boards and committees. That this was no singular fact in Europe is shown from this—that France, presumably a country more ready for war than we, created nine new Ministries, and Italy at least four. The war problem was not one of centralisation: it was a matter of co-ordination, and, if I may so put it, co-ordinated decentralisation. In a future war of magnitude there is no doubt, I think—although I should be prepared to listen to argument to the contrary—that your single Ministry would have to be expanded before long into many. By analogy with the Great War that is certainly so. I cannot say that a scheme is sound under which you would have to expand the Ministry of Defence into Ministries such as that of National Service and Munitions, and add the separate Ministries that you would undoubtedly have to form of the Navy, Army and Air Force. Then, of course, the alternative, Which has sometimes been described, to the single Ministry of Defence, is the super-Minister over existing Ministries. I do not know whether the phrase used in the Order Paper, of co-ordinated authority with full executive powers over the Departments, the Navy,, Army and Air, would be such a super-Minister, but it does introduce difficulties of another form. What is going to happen in the Cabinet when the super-Minister differs from one of the Ministers under him? Matters of dispute must come before the Cabinet. In the Cabinet all Ministers are equal. The position will be an extremely difficult one. Of course, I know it has been said, and said often, as the reason for having one Minister, that three Ministers representing the fighting Services give undue weight to the demands for money for the fighting Services in battling with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I think it is only fair to remember—none of us wants to see our fighting Services skinned below the safety point—that if you have but one Minister, then again, unless he is very much a super-man, one Minister in the Cabinet to defend all the fighting Services will have a very unequal handicap against the Cabinet and against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Member made allusion to sundry committees which in the past have considered this subject. I do not propose to take much time over these, but I must refer to two or three of them. Between 1921 and 1925, we began with the Geddes Committee. That was the first Committee held. There my hon. and gallant Friend got what he wanted. It was a Committee of business experts. The next Committee was the Weir Committee of 1922, and after that Lord Salisbury's and Lord Balfour's Committee of 1923. Both those Committees reported. Lord Salisbury's Committee thought that the reasons were overwhelming as against all proposals for setting up a Ministry of Defence or any Minister of Defence with authority overriding that of the Ministers at the head of the Service Departments, or combined staff. That was a Committee formed out of the then existing Cabinet, with the addition of Lord Weir. The Weir Committee of 1926 reported thatThat was a Committee on which no Minister sat. Those two inquiries confirmed the views expressed by a Committee of which Lord Haldane was Chairman—on "The Machinery of Government," in 1918—in favour of maintaining the present system. That was a rather remarkable Committee. It may interest the House to recall to mind the names of those who composed it. Its members were: Lord Haldane, Mr. Edwin Montagu, Sir Robert Morant, Sir George Murray, Sir Alan Sykes, Mr. J. H. Thomas and Mrs. Sidney Webb. Those views, of course, as my hon. and gallant Friend indicated in his speech, have been shared both by the Service and the civilian advisers of the Government. At the present moment I can see no useful purpose in having a fresh investigation on the lines of the investigations which have taken place so recently. It would re-awaken the controversy—there is never any advantage in that—and it would tend to take the spring out of the machinery of defence. When hon. Members have been good enough to listen to the end of what I have to say, they will see that a great deal of progress has been made, and in all the circumstances I hope they will agree that to continue on that line of progress is on the whole the wisest course to pursue in the immediate future. People do not always. realise that defence questions do concern many other Departments besides the Departments of the Fighting Services. They concern the Foreign Office, they concern the India Office, they concern the Dominions and Colonial Office and they concern the Board of Trade. It is rather interesting to remember that out of more than 50 sub-Committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence only one is confined entirely to Service representatives. Out of the last 100 subjects which came before the main Committee, it was found that only five did not involve one or more of the civilian Departments. The present system—and I think it is well for us to try and keep this firmly and adequately in our minds—hinges to-day, as it has done for 5.0 p.m. many years past, on the Cabinet. The defence policy is a part of Government policy, and it cannot be considered apart from the foreign and Imperial policy for which the Cabinet, as the Executive of Parliament, is and must be responsible. But since the creation of the Committee of Imperial Defence, the Government of the day have been advised by that Committee. The Committee of Imperial Defence have also been invited to assist the Governments both of India and of the Dominions, and, whenever their advice is asked, they are always ready to examine any question submitted to them. The Committee of Imperial Defence is an advisory and a consultative body. This does not mean that all their recommendations go to the Cabinet. No Cabinet would have time to deal with them. All questions of policy, of course, are referred to the Cabinet, but many recommendations on lesser questions, which, if they were departmental, would fall to be dealt with by the departmental Minister, are dealt with under Ministerial authority. It is possible at any time, bearing out what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) said, to convert in case of emergency the consultative body—the Committee of imperial Defence—into a deciding body. The position of the Committee of Imperial Defence was very strongly upheld from that point of view by Mr. Asquith as an advisory consultative body. Speaking in this House in the early days of the working of the Committee he always laid great stress on the authority of the Cabinet, and under our system, if I may repeat it, the Cabinet, as the executive body of Parliament, must be the body which has the ultimate voice and the ultimate authority. The Committee consists theoretically of the Prime Minister and such persons as he chooses to ask to assist in the deliberations of that Committee. I think a statement has been made before on the present composition of that body, but I will make it again. The Prime Minister has asked to be summoned regularly, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, the Colonies and Dominions, War, India and the Air, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Chiefs of Staff of the three Fighting Services and the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury as the head of the Civil Service. Other Ministers, officials and experts are summoned ad hoc. The Esher Committee laid down in 1904 that they considered it vitally necessary to have the Prime Minister of the day as the invariable President of the Committee of Imperial Defence. In the pressure after the War, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who is going to follow me, knows that it had to be delegated at times and that it will be necessary again, perhaps, to do so. On the death of Lord Curzon, who had been presiding over that Committee and was presiding over it when I became Prime Minister, I decided myself to resume the Chairmanship, and I have conducted it ever since. Experience has shown me, as I think it must show everyone in office, that as all important questions of policy come before the Cabinet, it is very important that the Prime Minister should be familiar with those subjects from their inception. He is far better able to handle them, and if, unhappily, there should be a war again at any time, it is necessary that the Prime Minister should be familiar, as far as a layman can be, with all the defence problems and with the higher personnel in the Services, because the responsibility for much of the control in war-time must fall on the Prime Minister of the day. Thirdly, and not unimportant, unless the Prime. Minister of the day is familiar with the defence problems, it is not so easy for him to do what lies in his power to effect such economies as are practicable in dealing with the Estimates of the various Services. I should like to pay tribute to the great work that one of my colleagues, who, unfortunately—I hope only temporarily—is laid aside by illness, Lord Balfour, has rendered to this Committee for a great many years. The Committee of Imperial Defence, from its personnel the House will see, contains a number of men who are very busy in their ordinary work, and it would be impossible for them to examine in detail all the questions that come before that Committee. That is the primary reason for the creation of the sub-committees which do so much of the work. At the present time, there are over 50 of these sub-committees. Some of them are permanent and some ad hoc. Last year about 400 people worked on these various committees, including. 20 Ministers, 126 Service representatives, 158 civil servants, and 86 outside experts. Now I come to the question asked of me by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He asked how often the Committee of Imperial Defence had met during the present Parliament. The answer is: the main Committee—that is, the Committee of Imperial Defence itself—44 times. That is to say, once in every two or three weeks during the Session of Parliament. The sub-committees have had 556 meetings, making a total of 600 meetings. I have excluded from this total many inquiries by Cabinet Committees or Inter- Departmental Committees which bear closely on defence and where the Secretariat of the Committee of Imperial Defence have rendered very valuable assistance. I want to say a word or two about the organisation of this Committee. Hon. Members who are familiar with the working of the Service Departments will recollect that the Minister at the head of the Department presides at the Board or Council. The first professional member deals with General Staff questions, strategy and tactics; the second professional member deals with Personnel; and there are one or more professional members who deal with questions of Supply and Transport and so forth. The Committee of Imperial Defence is organised on these lines. The Prime Minister corresponds to the Departmental Ministers inside his office, and he presides over the whole body. Then the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee corresponds to the Chief of Staff of the Service Departments. The Man Power Committee, which I shall have occasion to mention later, corresponds to the second professional member, and there is a committee called the Principal Supply Officers Committee, which corresponds to the third and fourth professional member. The great step forward which has been taken quite recently has been the creation of the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee. The functions of this Committee have been described and, I think, given to this House in the Report of Lord Salisbury's Committee of 1923."in existing circumstances the complete or partial amalgamation of the common services of the fighting Departments is not advisable, as no substantial economies would thereby be effected."
This individual and collective responsibility has been emphasised in the last year by the issue to each of a warrant signed by the Prime Minister. The advantage of this change is that the Committee of Imperial Defence now receive collective advice on all General Staff questions instead of receiving, as in the past, separate and even contradictory advice from three different quarters. Another great advantage of this Committee working as a single unit is in regard to the initiation of questions to be raised by the Committee of Imperial Defence. Initiative used to rest with the Prime Minister alone, but now the Chiefs of Staff have a direct responsibility to advise the Chairman in the matter of initiative. They are particularly well equipped for performing this function, because not only do they study the different problems of Imperial Defence as they arise, but they have to furnish the Committee of Imperial Defence every year with a survey of the whole defence problem. This survey which they present every year to the Commitee of Imperial Defence is founded on a separate survey of the International situation by the Foreign Office, and contains recommendations—and it is a point worth noting—as to the priority of Service needs. That is where, in defence, the spending of money can be postponed if the amount is limited where money in any case ought to be spent. We have found that of very great value in the last year or two. The Committee of Chiefs of Staff is under the direct control of the Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence. When political guidance is required on questions they are discussing, then the Prime Minister presides over the meeting of the three Chiefs of Staff. When matters under consideration are technical, then the Chiefs of Staff meet, and the chair is taken by one of their number. Questions of detail are remitted by them to the appropriate members of the Staffs of the three Services for study and consideration. Thus we get the close contact throughout the three Services, which certainly has been lacking in the past and which, so far as I am able to judge, has brought the three Services for the purpose of consultation into far closer co-ordination than they have ever yet attained. There is an Overseas Defence Committee which has been functioning for 40 years, and a Home Defence Committee which has been functioning for 20 years, and the Joint Committee of the two, as well as the Committee of the General Staff Officers recently established at the instance of the Chiefs of Staff themselves, work together in the orbit of the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee. That has a co-ordinating effect right through bodies which used to meet separately and entirely by themselves. I cannot over-estimate the value of the work which has been done and is being done by this Chiefs of Staff sub-committee. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose was evidently feeling after something of this kind when he alluded to Iraq. I would like to assure him that when the crisis arose a year ago in Shanghai we found that the Chiefs of Staff of the three Services working together had explored as a common service the possibility of trouble of that kind before it happened, so, when it did arise in Shanghai, and it arose very suddenly, they were able to give a full joint appreciation to the Cabinet of the whole position, and it was of very great assistance to the Cabinet in taking the decision it had to take in getting out that expedition, in deciding on its numbers and its personnel. We were advised all through the critical months by this joint committee with promptitude and with wisdom. Then as to the Imperial Defence College. That was started as an experiment on a small scale. It was established only in January of last year. The object was to train a body of officers drawn from all the Services, with just a sprinkling of civilians, in all the aspects of Imperial strategy. The college is situated in Buckingham Gate, and is fortunate enough in having as its first director Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond. I have had the pleasure of going over the college, talking to the men, and seeing the work they do. The first course was completed at the end of last year, and the second course is just beginning. At the present time there are 25 students there, and we are hoping that in time the college may grow. There are five naval officers, six Army, four Air Force, four from the Dominions, two from India, and four civil servants, including one Australian. We believe that this bringing together of officers of the type that are attending this course at present will result before many years are passed in our having in the officers of higher rank men who have been trained not only in the strategy of the branch of the Service to which they belong, but in the broadest general strategy comprising Air, Navy, and Army, and that therefore we may gradually get amongst those who in years to come will be the leaders of the various defensive forces of this country that habit of working together and regarding defence problems as a single united problem which will be of the utmost value to the country in the future. I have already alluded, with only one or two dissenting voices, to the smallness of the forces at the disposal of this country to-day. However remote we hope and believe the prospect of war to be yet, bearing in mind how we are situated in our island, with these small forces, I do not think any Government can allow the country to be unprepared, and so it is that we are following the example of other countries and are examining with great care and keeping under examination, reviewing the whole time, the steps that will be necessary to take in the event of trouble. The bulk of this branch of the activities of a Committee of Imperial Defence falls on the two Sub-Committees, the Man-Power Committee and the Principal Supply Officers' Committee. Both have been at work for several years, and have made considerable progress. Both work under the Chairmanship of the President of the Board of Trade, who had exceptional experience during the War on the very matters with which these Committees have to deal. I do not think the House will expect or desire that I should go into the details of the work of these Committees, but I may just mention in addition to them, the main Sub-Committees that are constantly at, work in connection with the Committee of Imperial Defence. There are the Committees on Disarmament, on War Trade questions; Censorship of all kinds; Imperial Communications; Oil Fuel; Insurance in Time of War; Air Raids Precautions, and the protection of civilians in time of war; War Emergency Legislation, and the Coordinating Committee, whose duty it is to keep the War Book up-to-date. All these Committees, even those whose work is practically finished, are kept alive by having to send in an annual report to the Committee of Imperial Defence of their work for the year. So far as the Empire Overseas is concerned, India has always been represented by the Secretary of State, or by his military Secretary or one of his officials; and the present Commander-in-Chief in India and his predecessor, and the Chief of the General Staff in India, have all attended meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence. So far as the Prime Ministers of the Dominions are concerned, we keep them informed on all matters relating to our work with which they ought to be acquainted. The documents which are forwarded to them for their confidential use are supplemented, as the House knows, by unreserved statements at the time of the meeting of the Imperial Conference, and not infrequently the Dominions consult us on matters relating to their own defence, and in such cases, as I stated earlier in my speech, we are only too glad to give them such advice as we can or lend them such technical help as we think desirable in their case. The Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence is Sir Maurice Hankey, who is also Secretary to the Cabinet, and there, again, that link gives you the closest co-operation between the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence and the work of the Cabinet. There are four Assistant Secretaries, one drawn from the Army, one from the Navy, one from the Air Force, and one from the Indian Army. This Secretariat supplies the secretarial duties of the whole organisation, and when it has to be reinforced, as it sometimes has for the purposes of a particular inquiry, it is reinforced by experts from other Departments. The co-ordination of principle, of policy and of detail in the sphere of defensive preparation on the staff side is very complete. I am afraid I must say a little about what has been done on the administrative side—I am sorry to take up so much time of the House. In 1922–23, the Weir Committee, which was set up to examine these matters, advised against a complete or partial amalgamation of the common services of the Fighting Departments, but they did recommend the establishment of a number of co-ordinating Committees, and, as a result of that recommendation, a number of such Committees have been working and reporting on the common services. A hundred meetings took place during last year on this subject, additional to the figures I have given for the meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The House was informed two years ago that in addition to the collaboration secured in matters of detail by direct and frequent intercommunication between officials of the Service Contracts Departments, co-ordination on general questions was secured by the Contracts Co-ordinating Committee, composed of the three Directors of Contracts. This system has been extended on the recommendation of the Estimates Committee of this House by bringing into the Committee the Post Office, Office of Works, and a representative of the Treasury. The Committee is also linked up with the Principal Supply Officers' Committee, and these methods of co-ordination are supplemented by the work of five co-ordinating committees, to which all questions of the co-ordination of patterns are now referred by the Contracts Co-ordinating Committee, and which act in general in consultation with that Committee. The five technical committees deal with foodstuffs, clothing, textiles, mechanical transport, and with general stores—dealing with which there are 11 sub-committees—medical stores and veterinary stores. The closest possible touch is thus maintained between the three Departments in regard both to contract policy and the adoption of common standards, patterns and designs of supplies and stores for the three Services. The policy of the service Departments is directed to agency contracts, wherever they are appropriate, and in other cases to the synchronisation of tenders and the utilisation of common specifications and co-operation in costing investigations. There is a technical costing staff borne on the Naval Vote which undertakes investigation for all the Service Departments and the Government of India. There are joint contracts for some articles of common use between the three Departments, and contracts are placed concurrently, after joint comparison of tenders, for petrol by the Admiralty, War Office, Air Ministry, Post Office and Office of Works. Again as a result of the suggestion made by the Estimates Committee, household coals are treated similarly. Contracts for condensed milk for the Navy and Army are placed after consultation between the two Departments, and in the case of other articles there are joint contracts, or else one Department will purchase for another. Foodstuffs, rifles, small arms ammuni- tion, and other necessaries are supplied or purchased by the War Office for the Air Ministry, while torpedoes, compasses and marine parts and spares are purchased by the Admiralty for the Air Ministry. In addition there are co-ordinating Committees dealing with the Chaplains' Services. All this work, very detailed, and involving in the case of thousands of articles, different demands on the part of the three Services, is continued throughout the year. From the voluminous and technical reports on the subject showing what is, in the aggregate, a remarkable achievement, it is difficult to pick out what is sufficiently outstanding to interest the House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose said a word about the Medical Services, and I would like to show, by way of illustration, what, is being done by co-operation between the hospitals at the present time. I think in that respect there has been a move forward in the last year or two. The Air Force maintains no separate hospital at home except the two big isolated stations of Halton and Cranwell, which have no hospital in the neighbourhood, and a small officers' hospital of five-and-twenty beds at Uxbridge for dealing with flying accidents which may occur at that centre. But, abroad, where the Royal Air Force is in control, they maintain their own hospitals, and during 1926 there were up to 3,000 admissions of personnel of the Navy, the British and Indian Armies, and local forces of Iraq and Palestine treated in the Air Force hospitals. The military hospitals at Cosham and Devonport were closed in that year and arrangements were made for the sick of the Portsmouth military area and of the military stations in the Devonport area, to be treated in the Royal Victoria Hospital at Netley or the Royal Naval Hospital at Haslar and the Royal Naval Hospital at Plymouth. No less than 3.000 of the Royal Air Force personnel received treatment in the Navy and Army and civil hospitals during the last 12 months period for which figures are available. In the same way there has been a considerable treatment of Air Force and Army patients in the Navy hospitals both at home and abroad. The possibility of pooling other hospital arrangements has been examined and in some cases found impracticable, but there are some others which are still under investigation. The Air Force makes no general contracts in regard to medical supplies itself, They take the existing Army contracts; and standardisation and pooling have been agreed to, in principle, in regard to the ambulance trains, and the details are being worked out. The India Office are being invited to co-operate and a number of other matters are being studied now by the Joint Medical Services Committee. In research, co-ordination is effected through three co-ordinating Boards for Chemistry, Physics and Engineering. Service and civilian wireless research is co-ordinated by the Radio Research Board. The Estimates Committee, again, in one of their admirable reports, draw attention to the danger of overlapping between scientific research undertaken by the Service and Civilian Departments, and the Government, therefore, referred the whole question to the Committee on Civil Research. That Committee has recently reported on the subject, and their recommendations are at present under consideration by the Government. The various co-ordinating Committees to which I have referred, present reports annually and simultaneously to the Committee of Imperial Defence by whom they are examined and, supplementing all this work, is the work of the Treasury in securing economy and avoiding overlapping, and the valuable labours of the Estimates Committee of this House and of the Public Accounts Committee. I have no doubt that the Weir Committee was right in advising that no substantial economies would necessarily follow amalgamation, but I am convinced that, on the administrative side, we shall produce, as we are producing, better results by the steady and continual pressure of the present system which I have endeavoured to describe."In addition to the functions of the Chiefs of Staff as advisers on questions of sea, land or air policy respectively to their own Board or Council, each of the three Chiefs of Staff will have an individual and collective responsibility for advising on defence policy as a whole, the three constituting, as it were, a Super-Chief of a War Staff in Commission. In carrying out this function, they will meet together for the discussion of questions which affect their joint responsibilities."
Who examines the reports in the Committee of Imperial Defence? The right hon. Gentleman said that the reports of all these Committees were referred to the Committee of Imperial Defence. What then happens to them?
The Committee of Imperial Defence itself examines a great many of them and the reports for the Cabinet are examined by the Cabinet. I examine a great many myself. A great many deal with Departmental matters, and are examined by the Ministers concerned and the Departments concerned. I do not think that such a system as I have attempted to describe, which has been slowly evolving, can be properly described as a Ministry of Defence but it certainly has provided a vast system of co-ordination of principle, policy and detail between the three Service Departments, such as did not exist before the War. You get it in the principal sub-divisions of General Staff, Personnel and Supply. You get it throughout the administrative functions of the departments wherever those services are common, and you get it in the activities of all Departments wheresoever defence is concerned, whether those Departments be, miliary or whether they be civil. That form of wide co-ordination is one which a Ministry of Defence by itself could not obtain, at any rate without having made the same exertions as we have made, and yet it is of the first importance to get that co-ordination because as Sir William Robertson said quite truly at the Royal United Service Institution:
In the system which is stressed in the Resolution on the Order Paper the decision rests with the Cabinet, where the power of final decision always lies and must lie under any system. Now, the existing system does preserve the responsibility of the Cabinet for deciding policy and the responsibility of Ministers for carrying it out. It provides for the continuous investigation of every kind of defence problem, whether it be of policy or of detail, and in the annual review by the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee, there is an annual stocktaking of the position as a whole. Owing to its consultative character the machinery available can give advice to His Majesty's Government here and to His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, and to the Government in India and it can pass by easy transition from a state of peace into a state of war. The Committee of Imperial Defence provides a meeting place between Ministers and the Fighting Services and the Civil Service and enables all branches of the public service to study together the problems which would confront the country as a whole in the event of war. The Committee of Imperial Defence, in my view, is of the very greatest value to the present system. The present system of three Service Ministers instead of one ensures that the Cabinet, be the Government what it may, will always contain a certain proportion of Ministers with past and present knowledge of the Services and of Defence problems. The system is progressive; it is trusted by Ministers and by the Services and is not unsuited to our Constitution. We are in an age of transition, and what I have attempted to describe is a process of evolution which is going on. Where that process of evolution may bring us, I do not know. I will make no prophecy this evening as to what developments may take place. Whatever proposals or suggestions are made this afternoon, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government are prepared to consider without prejudice and with care; but to make so great a change quickly now, from the existing system which we know is working well, and to exchange it for a system untried and open to many objections, would be to throw over many weighty reports made in the last three or four years. Before we do that, we should require the production of very solid and very convincing arguments. I have to thank the House for having listened to me so patiently, but I wanted to give the House all the information I had up to date. I hoped that it would make a good foundation for discussion. Much of what I have said may be criticised. We welcome criticism. We have no objection to it at all. It is all legitimate matter for discussion. I have only, as I said before, to thank the House for the attention with which they have listened to a long and rather dry discourse on this subject, and I await the remainder of the Debate with interest."War is not nearly so much a matter for soldiers and sailors alone as soldiers and sailors sometimes think. On the contrary, it embraces all the activities of the nation."
The Prime Minister certainly need not have apologised for the technical statement, which was crowded with very informative matter, and was also instructive as to the present position, and as to the developments which have taken place since the War in the Committee of Imperial Defence. Personally, I inter- vane with very great reluctance in these discussions on defence. I have done so very rarely, but, having had some experience of the difficulties with which Governments arc confronted, I should like to make one or two observations. The Prime Minister, in the first part of his speech, was very critical of the proposal put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) with regard to unification of control, but I think the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was simply a long argument in favour of it. He gave us a list of a very large number of committees. There was a regular warren of committees, all breeding a numerous progeny of sub-committees, and the only suggestion which my hon. and gallant Friend makes is that it is about time that a keeper was appointed to look after them. I think all these committees are invaluable for the purposes of exploration. I am not criticising the appointment of one of them, and the same remark applies to the sub-committees and the sub-sub-committees, and the co-ordinating committees. Putting them together, no doubt, they are all valuable, and it is a very valuable organisation, but what is needed is some sort of control—some sort of unification. They are all useful for exploration, but futile for action. In fact, there is a real danger that the activities of all these sub-committees may end in more expenditure unless there is control.
The Prime Minister has dealt a good deal with the question of Cabinet control. I have been a member of a great many Cabinets, and the control of the Cabinet is not as intimate, as close, as effective, as one would wish it to be. After all, what really happens in the Cabinet is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War brings forward his Estimates and then his right hon. Friends bring forward their Estimates. They never criticise each other. There is a tacit understanding that they will always vote for each other's Estimates. I am not talking about the present Ministers, but of the practice. The Prime Minister says that if you have only one man, the Chancellor will have only one man to deal with. I agree that with the present Chancellor, at least three men would be needed. What is the present state of things? You have three to one. It is idle to pretend that when the War Minister brings forward his Estimates he has only himself to depend upon; he can always depend upon the support of the other two Service Ministers. I remember a story told about the late Sir Michael Hicks-Beach when he went to the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Somebody asked one of the Ministers what had happened. He replied: "Hicks-Beach was I against 19; all the Ministers combined in order to rob the Exchequer." The same thing happens in regard to the Services. The sub-committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence sat for over 500 days, and I am sceptical whether the members of the Cabinet read 5 per cent. of the voluminous reports that are produced. After all, all the other Ministers are peppering their colleagues with memoranda on every conceivable subject under the sun. They could not read them, if they had nothing else to do. The idea that the 20 members of the Cabinet could sit down, and laboriously peruse and blue pencil all the documents produced by the innumerable subcommittees, which have taken 550 days' work of able men to prepare, is perfectly preposterous. I am not criticising the present Cabinet, but am talking in the abstract about all Cabinets, with this difference, that it seems to me that the control is getting more remote than ever. You have to go through a labyrinth of sub-committees in order to find the smallest rabbit in the warren before you really can control anything. I should be sorry to say the least thing against the Committee of Imperial Defence. It was founded by Lord Balfour, and undoubtedly justified his prescience in the appointment. The work that they did in the matter of exploration was invaluable when we came to the War, but nobody ever dreamt of considering it as a controlling authority. It was an informing and instructing body, and it was a very good thing to get these great experts to meet politicians, for whom they have the greatest contempt, in order that they could compare their ideas. But, after all, it did not solve the difficulties which actually arose in the War. War makes short work of all these things unless there is a reality. What were the difficulties? I agree with the Prime Minister that we hope that there will be no more wars. We are increasingly hopeful. I think Europe is so exhausted that we will not get wars, however much the provocation, for a great many years to come.What is the use of the Army and Navy then?
I am coming to that later on. That is the experience of the past. A great country like our's cannot proceed on the assumption that a war is utterly impossible, and take all risks and hazards and have no preparations. That is the assumption on which I am proceeding. I am not proceeding on the assumption that there is a probability, or even the possibility, of war. I am only taking into account the fact that this country must not run that hazard. Proceeding on that assumption, I say that we ought to learn the lessons of the last War, and it is very odd that nations do not do that. They had not even learned the lessons of the Boer War when they came to the Great War. There were lessons in the Boer War for the Great War. There was the lesson, first of all, of trenches. How formidable they were as a means of defence. That was the lesson which was taught to the Boers by a French officer who came out of the French Army. Yet the French Army itself had not learned the lesson when the Great War began. They had not learned the lesson that the ordinary light artillery and shrapnel were worthless for trenches. At Paardeberg there was hardly a man killed in the trenches. Tugela and Magersfontein were the same, and that lesson was never taken up by any army in Europe until the German Army took it up. I am only taking that as an illustration of the fact that we are not now learning some of the lessons of the late War from the point of view of defence.
One of them is the danger of dual control. I do not want to raise controversial issues, but I am bound to point out two things that happened. I shall never forget, for instance, the time that was wasted in the controversy between the Army and the Navy upon the question of the Air. Weeks were wasted in discussing that matter; for instance, who should control and who should manu- facture, and what were the relations of the one to the other? Valuable time was wasted over the competition between the Army and Navy for material, for manufacturers, and on the question as to where munitions should be manufactured, and on the question of filling process. The most disastrous illustration of all was the Dardanelles; that most decisive, disastrous, and irreparable incident of the whole War would not have happened if there had been one control. I am not criticising anybody in particular; I am criticising the system. There was an attack by one force, and an attack by both. If the Army had been ready to go to Gallipoli when the Navy attacked, it would have made the whole difference. There was no co-ordination between the forces of any sort or kind. One Minister was in control of one part of the attack, another Minister was in control of the other part of the attack, which was probably the more important. It was really only a question of a few hours that did it, even in the end. Those hours would have been saved, and a great deal more would have been saved also, if there had been, not co-ordination in the sense of committees to explore, but co-ordination of action, of command and of direction, and the worst disaster of the War would have been prevented. I do not like to express an opinion with regard to that. It is obvious to anybody who reads, and certainly for all those who sat there and saw what was happening, and saw that there was complete lack of co-ordination between the two forces. Take the instance of the coast of Flanders. I do not believe that coast would have been lost—and everybody knows what a disastrous effect that had on the course of the War, especially in regard to submarines—if there had been more complete co-ordination between the two forces in strategy, in realising the importance of Flanders, and in making the Army and Navy work together, and even to realise the strategical importance of that particular coast to the whole of commerce, trade and life of this country. These are only two or three illustrations of what I mean. The Army, the Navy, and the Air Force are not three separate defences; they are only one branch of the defence forces of this country. That is the great lesson of the last War. The Prime Minister has quoted a very striking sentence from Sir William Robertson. No man can speak with greater authority upon this subject than Sir William Robertson, and no one can criticise him on the ground that he has not a proper appreciation of the importance of the military as a defensive element. What was the lesson of the last War? May I give a list of what turned out to be the most important defensive elements of the whole War. First, there was foreign affairs. It was vital. We had Italy on our side, we had the United States of America on our side: they were triumphs for the handling of foreign affairs. But we missed Turkey, we missed Bulgaria, and we certainly did not get the full benefit of Greece. It shows that the Foreign Office is a vital part of the defence arrangements of the country when we go to war.What about Russia?
That is a more debatable point. If Russia is thrown in, it is only another illustration, but it is a much more arguable problem.
You were responsible for losing Russia.
6.0 p.m
I do not want to go into another Zinovieff letter. The Foreign Office turned out to be as vital as the Army and Navy and the Air Force. Finance, of course, played a greater part in this War than in almost any war, even in the days of Pitt. One of the greatest contributions that America made when she came in was not so much her man-power as the fact that she came in at a very critical moment in the history of the finances of the Allies. Our shipping was a vital link, and, if that had broken down, the Army would have been no use. We could not have supplied our own troops and we could not have supplied the Allies with the necessary supplies and equipment. Man-power! The recruiting sergeant broke down altogether. We had to hand recruiting over to the civilian powers. I am not at all sure that it was not done largely by the Local Government Board; at any rate, it was done through the municipalities and through political agents. The agents of the Con- servative party, the agents of the Liberal party, and I am not at all sure that the agents of the Labour party did not also all come, in and form part of the department dealing with the man-power of the country. Manufactures—that became a civilian department, being essential to defence. Raw materials and coals—the organisation of the exports of this country. Then there were the experts who discovered most of the expedients which enabled us to combat the submarines; and those who deciphered and decoded messages—university experts were useful there. Then there was the organisation of the resources of the Empire. It was not merely the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force that were organised; the whole country was organised, like one huge tank crushing all opposition with all its resources, all its strength, all its motive power. It was the first time that we had waged war in that way. Therefore, when we come to consider questions of defence we must consider the lesson of the late War, and not treat this merely as if it were a problem of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force alone, and say there must be three separate Ministers, one for each. They are one, and we have to supplement them by all the others put together.
What was it that delayed victory? It was not that we had not studied questions of strategy. It was not that we had not about as perfect a little Army as has ever turned out, or as gallant a little Army. It was not that we had not a magnificent Navy. It was due to the fact that we had not the equipment necessary for our increased man-power. I remember perfectly well how we raised a million men in a very few weeks, and then saw them trudging about without uniforms and without rifles. There was no artillery, there were no machine-guns: and this went on for months and months. As a matter of fact, the equipment of our millions of men was not complete for nearly two years after the War began. That is not quite the ease now, and that has to be borne in mind when we come to the question of expense. The guns are there, the machine-guns are there, the rifles are there. The difficulty with regard to all these things was not merely that we could not manufacture them in time, but that we had not the machinery for their manufacture. We had to begin by manufacturing machines for the manufacture of the parts of guns and of rifles, and that all took time. We have now got our rifles—millions; we have got our guns; and all that ought to be taken into account when we come to the question of expense. Then there is training. The one thing the War demonstrated with regard to training in all branches, the training of workmen as well as of soldiers, was that it did not take as long as people had imagined. There was the case of the workmen who were called the skilled workmen. I remember a General telling me that we could not get the men to make the machines—only those who had been at it all their lives. Before the War had gone on very long tens of thousands of girls who had had only two or three months' training were manufacturing the most delicate fuses and the most complicated machinery. The same thing applied to gunners. I saw the other day a quotation from General Rawlinson in which he said I had criticised the gunners. I did not. I passed on to the Army a criticism which was made by Lord Kitchener. Lord Kitchener's view was that you could not train gunners in a short time, that it would take longer than the War would last to train gunners. As a matter of fact, the machinery is there—for any man who has the knack for machinery. There are some of us who if we spent 15 years over it would know nothing about machinery. It is a question of the knack. There are others who can pick it up in a very short time. That was the experience with regard to the gunners. Lord Rawlinson in his report said our gunnersfired with the greatest precision, they were better in many respects than the enemy, or at least quite equal to them; and they were all men who had had a very short training. Therefore, the trouble was not about the training—of raising the men and of training them. All these things have to be taken into account, and I am very glad there are committees, but what we really want is somebody who is in supreme control, and that we have not got at the present moment. I have pointed out what happened in war; the same thing happens in peace. You just have a fight between Ministers as to who shall get the biggest share of such loot as is left. If there is one of them who is either more forcible or more crafty than the others—the First Lord of the Admiralty seems to think I am alluding to him. [Interruption.] I do not in the least deny it. He gets his share of whatever is going. After all, there is only a certain sum of money available. The Government are beginning to realise that. They have been compelled to cut down, after they said they could not. They were forced to do it. What really matters is that we ought to have somebody there, who is quite impartial, to decide, if so much money is available, on what it can be most usefully expended. That we have not got at the present time. Our problem is different from the problem before the War. I have no doubt the Government have decided as a matter of policy—though I do not ask them to state one way or the other now I am sure they must have done it—that in their judgment no war is possible, let us say, for 10 years or 20 years, whatever the date is, and they have organised their policy upon that basis. That is right. The 1914 position was different from the present one. Then there was in existence the greatest military empire the world has ever seen, so far as its Army was concerned. There has never been an army comparable to it. Marshal Foch told me so himself—that the German Army which marched into France was the finest military machine the world had ever seen in equipment, in training, in everything that made a powerful, resistless military machine. In addition, they had a very formidable Navy, formidable enough, at any rate, actually to challenge us on the high seas. It is very doubtful whether, as a question of policy, they ought not to have been a little more intrepid. That is one of the things which will be discussed in history. I am sure that if we had been in their position we should have shown more intrepidity than they did, and done more damage than they did. If we had had the same number of ships as they had, and the same ships, and they, on the other hand, had had the same number of ships as we had, we should have made a far better show of it. At that time our relations with that Empire were—I will not say unfriendly, but they were not cordial. They were really better than they had been, but three years before the War we were actually discussing the probability of war and how it should be waged. That Empire, that military machine, is shattered. The Fleet, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, is at the bottom of the sea. I am making no predictions and the Prime Minister is wise in taking that line, but I am perfectly certain that nothing will enable the German Empire for a generation or two to get anywhere near the same position of dominant force and menace that it was in before the War. I do not say they desire it—I do not believe there is any such desire in Germany at the present moment. A quarrel with France is simply undebatable—perfectly undebatable. A quarrel with the United States of America is quite unthinkable. Further, there is always the dominant fact that Europe is exhausted, and that we have never had a great war for 40 years after a prolonged war had taken place. We have to take that into account, and, therefore, what we need is a force that will police the Empire and will also be a nucleus for expansion, whatever the emergency may be. You should first of all discover what is the vital minimum. There is a certain class of officer who is invaluable. The non-commissioned officer is very rarely mentioned, but in the late War he turned out to be absolutely essential when it came to organising new forces all over the country. Therefore, a considerable amount of training of a small force is essential. That was one of the arguments used by the French against allowing Germany to have a force of 100,000 men engaged for long service. They would have preferred even conscription—within limits. They did not like the 12 years' service. They said "Every one of those 100,000 men is a potential officer—they are potential non-commissioned officers or potential officers. They will know everything that is to be learned about war from training." Our force ought to be a force which is capable of expanding should the emergency arise. The next thing is that we ought to be capable of expanding rapidly from the point of view of equipment. We have the equipment in so far as our knowledge of war goes now. I agree that we may discover some mechanism or some new resource which will make existing equipment obsolete, and if so, we shall be confronted with a new situation, but at the moment there is nothing to make the rifle, the machine gun, or the great guns we had in the last War obsolete. We must consider the possibility of expansion from the point of view of manufacturing capacity. The War Office, the Air Force and the Navy ought to look into the question of whether we have in this country the necessary machinery for producing the things required if they were needful. I have another argument in favour of having some greater co-ordination. I am not at all sure that my right lion. Friend is right in assuming that you can do it by means of a Committee of the Cabinet. I agree with the Prime Minister that nobody will listen to a Committee of the Cabinet unless the Prime Minister presides over it, and that means he has to be the Minister of Defence. I do not think that, with the other duties which the Prime Minister has to perform, it will be possible for him to perform those duties as far as control is concerned. During the last two years of the late War there was a Committee of ex-Ministers who held no office at all. They sat every morning and afternoon, and often late into the night, and they were practically controlling the Department and administering it. It was really an administrative Department. The Haldane Committee recommended the same thing in regard to peace, and that is an idea which cannot be dismissed. You have Bills put forward by Ministers. They are circulated, although they are not always read. They come before the Cabinet, and the Minister for the Department makes his statement and then the Cabinet say, "All right." There is nobody there who really sits in control over our peace department under the present organisation. There is a good deal to be said for the principle of the War Cabinet being applied in peace time. There should be a body supervising our peace policy, and co-ordinating our forces for emergencies. If you had a body of that kind now, the problem of unemployment would have been solved long ago. At present it is the business of a Minister to look after his own Department, and he says in regard to these other matters. "I must leave them to somebody else." There is one argument which I hesitate to advance, although it is true. You have three Ministers now in charge of defence. There is no Cabinet which has more than a limited number of very able men. Some Cabinets have had more than others. I am not referring to the Coalition Cabinet, but will take the Cabinet of 1895. In that Cabinet you could pick men from two parties who were very able men. That was the first Cabinet I saw in this House, and it was a very able Cabinet indeed. Those men had been trained in two camps and that Cabinet contained a very large proportion of exceptionally clever men. I do not mean to be offensive to the present Ministry, although I could be offensive if I wanted to. I am now dealing with party Cabinets as a whole. As a rule, in a Cabinet there are six very able men, and sometimes there are only about three. The quality of Cabinets varies. Sometimes there are a few very able men in a Cabinet, and it is filled up with people who are net so able and efficient. During times of peace the most important Departments are not the Air Force, the Admiralty, the Navy or the Army, but the Departments dealing with trade, agriculture, labour, education, health and the mines, because all those Departments deal with the vital things of the nation and they are vital to our defence. The nation that is the most formidable in war is that which is strong and prosperous, has reserves behind it, and possesses the capacity to build up those reserves. These defence Ministries have a great tradition behind them. If you have these three Departments and one co-ordinating Minister, it is idle to say that he cannot control them. The sort of work Ministers had to do in the War was 20 times as much as the work which is being done by any Minister at the present, time. It might do if you assume that a Ministry is going to last for 20 or 30 years, but God forbid that the present Ministry should be in office for a period like that! On the assumption that Providence will be good to us, I think we shall get a change. It is a good thing to put this pressure of work upon the Ministers. The Minister who goes into every sort of detail which ought to be left to the clerk is not administering his office. I have never seen Ministers of that kind who are worth anything. The Minister who examines every paper most carefully often forgets that he is administering a great office. In a great business the head of that, business does not examine every de- tail, and no great Minister ever does that in a well-conducted Department. If you have a man in complete control who is a first-class roan you can spare the other two first-class Ministers. In every Department there are men who are distinctly not first-class. I have listened to all these arguments, and my view is that you will never economise. By economy I do not mean merely saving money but seeing that the money is wisely spent. If it is absolutely essential that the nation should find the money, I do not believe that there is a party in this House, and certainly not in the country, who would deny it to any Government. There is, however, a feeling that the money is not wisely spent. At the present moment you have a competition between three departments, and you have to propitiate this one and that one, and see the other chap does not starve. The result is that you build up a huge expenditure. On the other hand, if you said, "We will give you £100,000,000 for the defence of this country upon the assumption that there is no peril of real war with any great Power for 10 number of years," and put it in the hands of one Minister, then you would have a much more effective system than you have got at present. I appeal to the Prime Minister not to be satisfied with this interminable stream of committees who issue reports which we spend a lot of time reading and digesting. At the same time, you must handle this thing, and it is the handling of it that the country wants.We ought to be grateful to those who initiated this Debate, because it has produced a lengthy statement from the Prime Minister which gives us some indication of the work that is now being done by the imperial Defence Committee and the various subcommittees. In the labyrinth of committees which he has recited to us, it seems to me that the Prime Minister has made out the strongest possible case for co-ordination. We have been told the position which the Prime Minister occupies in regard to those committees, and the number of meetings held by the Committee of Defence. All this seems to strengthen the case for a reconsideration of the whole question and for the appointment of somebody in the nature of a chief or a Minister of Defence.
I want to make it quite clear in speaking from these benches that I feel very much as other hon. Members feel, that no party as a party has yet definitely made up its mind exactly where it stands in regard to all that is involved in this particular position. We are all exploring the situation and we are willing to discuss and try to find ways and means, but we are all convinced that something must be done to supplant the present system which is haphazard, and which cuts across the various departments. I want to recall to the House what I think has given rise to the position that led up to this discussion. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, that we are considering this question in the light of the lessons we learnt during the last War. We have to consider this question now in the face of post-War conditions and the developments which have arisen out of those conditions. We have to consider such questions as the rise and development of the Air Force, the increased mechanisation of the Army, the dispute which exists among experts as to whether or not the capital ship has any place in the Navy of the future, and the various problems that have arisen with regard to co-ordination and efficiency. We have to consider the necessity of finding some point of focus with regard to the future defence of this country. The points are threefold. The first is war efficiency, then comes co-ordination and economy, and the third is finance. I deliberately separate economy and finance as not being synonymous terms. With regard to war-time efficiency, there has already been given to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs some indication of the confusion that arose owing to the division of commands and the difficulty of getting proper co-operation during the last War. Judging from the discussions which we have had on the various Estimates during the last few weeks, these difficulties are by no means as simple as they are presented in the development of our three great Services I remember in earlier Debates that the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) raised the question of the development of the Air Force. All of these facts indicate that the House ought to come to a very definite conclusion on many of these matters. The question has been raised more than once by myself and other Members as to what is going to be the position in the event of a combined naval and Air Force attack—who is going to be in charge, and where is going to be the co-ordinating centre? It is no good waiting till war breaks out, and you are actually involved in a position such as that at Gallipoli, before facing this problem. We have now all the lessons and experience of the last War, and this problem ought to be faced now. To carry that still further, we have the position that might arise with regard to naval and Air Force operations in the wide seas. What is going to happen there? What is going to be the position of the capital ship in circumstances like that? Some people believe, as I humbly, with no expert knowledge, believe, that there is no place for the capital ship in circumstances like that. These matters ought to be faced at a very early opportunity. We have had before us the three sets of Estimates during the past week or two, all of which have had certain provisions for the respective Air Force services, and I defy any hon. Member to get a clear vision of what exactly is entailed with regard to the Air Force, divided up as it is in that manner and presented in separate parts to this House.Not in the case of the War Office.
I accept that correction—in the case of the Navy and the Air Force. Surely, on the ground of finance, it is necessary that there should be an opportunity for this House to consider the question of defence as a whole, and not in three separate bites, as we now do with regard to the three separate Services. We are unable to visualise the position from the war point of view, or consider exactly what is involved in either co-ordination or finance. With regard to co-ordination, in the Estimates Committee we have been giving some considerable attention to a number of services which are common to the three fighting Services, and, from what the Prime Minister has told us to-night, we gather that those Reports have not fallen on deaf ears, but that some consideration has been given to them, and co-ordination has taken place in regard to hospitals, stores and so forth. It must strike the House that services of this kind can be dealt with in a lump rather than divided up in the manner in which they have been, and in that respect something has been done, so that we need not give much time to that; but with regard to other matters it does seem that the country has a right to have the Estimates presented in such a form in future as to afford some general idea of what money is to be expended, and to make it possible to discuss the Estimates with regard to the application and the operation of all three Services at once.
The Prime Minister, in his statement just now, led us, as I have said, through a labyrinth of committees and sub-committees, which I imagine has rather overwhelmed the House, and left it without any very clear idea as to what exactly the separate functions are; but one thing that must stand out quite clearly is that, given a time of emergency, no Prime Minister, be he ever such a super-man, can combine the duties of Prime Minister and Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence, with all these complications and ramifications of committees and sub-committees. It seems to me that in that statement the Prime Minister has made the case for a co-ordinating head, whose sole business it shall be to visualise the whole problem of Imperial defence, and to be the person responsible for it. I wish to make it quite clear that in this matter I speak entirely for myself, and I imagine that no Member of the House is quite in a position to commit his party as a whole to any definite policy with regard to this matter. All of us are open to conviction and argument with regard to it. It, seems to me, however, that there can be no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister himself has put forward an unchallengeable argument that it will be impossible for him or anyone else to carry on work like that, should an emergency arise when we might find ourselves having to consider the question of war. Surely, then, we ought not to wait until the time arrives when we are faced with an emergency, but ought to consider the whole problem with a view to finding the right person or persons to study this position in order to be ready fully equipped should that time ever unfortunately arise. That, really, is the main problem with which we are concerned at the present time. We know, of course, that there are a great many difficulties in regard to it. There is, first of all, the tradition of the old Services. They, naturally, and one Cannot blame them, will resent any attempt to push them down from the position which they now occupy into a secondary position under general scheme, but war cannot be waged on traditions, and events are rapidly changing, so rapidly that it is almost impossible to keep pace with them. The whole question of war in the future on land, having regard to the mechanisation of armies, and at sea in connection with the defence of our narrow waters, which has now largely been taken away from the Navy and handed over to the Air Force; the re-orientation of our naval forces, the re-distribution of our dockyards, with more and more of the dockyards in our home waters falling out of use, and other dockyards being opened up in other parts of the Empire as bases for our naval forces—all this calls for fresh views and a fresh outlook. I submit that, at least, it is worth while considering, and the Government might consider, having an Expert Committee to consider whether the time has not arrived when a Ministry of Imperial Defence, or some equivalent, should be established for the purpose of planning out the scheme in a very different way from the present one. One point that I want to press is the position of this House with regard to its control over matters of finance. It is absolutely impossible for us to exercise proper control in the present circumstances, with the Estimates presented, as they are, in three separate parts, and I do plead that at least a good step can be taken along the road that has now been advocated, if the Government can think out ways and means whereby a day or days could be set apart to discuss the whole problem of finance in regard to national defence, when the position of all the three Services in relation to each other could be discussed as a common problem of wartime defence. I do not propose to detain the House any longer, but I put forward these points tentatively, knowing that I speak quite confidently for my party with regard to matters of co-ordination and economy, and particularly with regard to the discussion in this House of matters concerning the Estimates, but putting forward solely on my own initiative anything that I may have said with regard to the need for a Ministry of Defence on the military plan, in order that others may follow and explore it, so that, in the clash of discussion, we may perhaps arrive at an agreement with advantage to the country and the Empire.I should like, if I may, first of all to join in thanking my old colleague, the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir Hutchison), for having raised this subject to-day. I will try to be as brief as possible, but, as we have already seen, it is such a vast subject that it really is almost impossible even to scratch it in the few moments at one's disposal. At the outset, as has been said more than once this afternoon, we have to take it that defence is now on an absolutely different basis from that on which it was before the War. The greatest factor in that alteration is, in my opinion, the advent of the air. It has been said, I think by the last speaker, that the Air is now so mixed up with the other Departments that it is almost impossible to say exactly how it stands in relation to those other Departments. The fact really is, however, that the three Services are now so inter-dependent that, if for no other reason, it seems absolutely logical that they should be considered as one, as a matter of defence as a whole. Curiously, it is the Air which has brought this new condition into defence as a whole. It has bridged the gulf between the Army and the Navy; it has made it possible for the Navy to attack an Army, and for the Army to attack a navy, and yet, curiously, the Air itself is dependent in a very large degree upon the Army and the Navy for its support. I only say that in order to try to show how absolutely inter-dependent the three Services now are, and for that reason to go on to try to show how much I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose when he says that there should be some definite form of control, in order to ensure that the best is obtained from this, as I would call it, unified service, both in money and in results.
After all, there is no doubt now that strategy is three-dimensional. We have tried to meet this changed condition since the War, or rather, at the end of the War and since, by two great changes. One, of course, was in the last year of the War, the institution of the Air Ministry, which was an absolutely radical alteration, and one which no other country in the world had undertaken. I think that that change was absolutely right, and that it had the effect of developing the Air, and so assisting the Army and Navy in the best degree that was then possible. The second alteration which has taken place is that of the reassessment of the functions of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and the setting up, as the Prime Minister has said, of a large number of sub-committees, all with the object of trying to co-ordinate the activities of the three Services, both in policy and in administration. But, as I think and believe, neither of these two acts has really met the case. Under existing conditions, at all events, they are entirely inadequate to meet the requirements as things have developed. We still lack that co-ordination which has been mentioned many times already today, and, as I see it, no number of committees, no number of advisory boards, no number of bodies of any kind without executive power, can have the effect of holding this thing together and getting the best value from it. After all, as has also been said, committees are generally for exploring and recommending, and there must be some executive power which can put the results of those committees' work into effect. Of course, obviously, the Cabinet is the authority for doing that, but, unless you have one man within the Cabinet responsible for grouping the results together, you will not, in my opinion at least, get full results from or carry out the intention of all this amount of work that has been done. So it is, I think, that both the steps which have been taken have been unsatisfactory in their results. The Committee of Imperial Defence has in the past done, and is still now doing, an immense amount of very good work, but the scene has shifted and you want some other form of mechanism to carry on the good work they have so far done. The possibilities of a single Ministry, or Defence Organisation, call it what you like, are, of course, very great and, as far as I can see, it is the only alternative to the present system. We have tried to co-ordinate by getting a three-legged arrangement instead of a single one, and it does not work out. I do not really mind what you call this central controlling authority, whether a Central Control Board or a Ministry of Defence, but what I think is essential is that there should be some mechanism which has direct executive power and responsibility to this House. Short of that, you will never really get anywhere with it at all. Where there is direct divergence of opinion, as there must inevitably be between the three Services, those subjects will probably not be brought up at all and, if they are, they will be compromised and shelved and pushed out of the way, and it is exactly those subjects which are really most vital to the whole concern. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) mentioned the case of the Air as between the Army and the Navy. That dissention in minor form continues to this day. The Navy does not think it has enough air, or has enough control over the air it has, and so on, and unless you have some executive power which can, if necessary, force the three into one mould in order to ensure united and common action, you will never get the results you ought to achieve from the vast sums the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose says we are spending. The main objection that has been raised to this mechanism has always been, as I understand it, that no one man can handle it and that no single Department can look after the three Forces. It is clear that a Defence Ministry must, as I see it, be directly under the Prime Minister, because he alone, as he says himself, has the full knowledge that is necessary to grasp all the subjects which directly and in practice affect the drawing up of schemes of defence. One of the greatest disadvantages of the present system, both in the Services and in the Government Departments, is the impossibility of an overladen Cabinet maintaining close touch with policy and getting to understand what is going on. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has said has an enormous amount in it, that there should be some form of War Cabinet investigating this and other subjects of a similar character in order to draw the results up to some pivotal height where they can be dealt with. As it is, there is the day to day routine work and it is almost impossible for those responsible, who have this vast work to carry out, too, to separate the important elements from the work that is going on. The second criticism is that too much power will be given to one man. I, really, think that is beside the point because, after all, if this House of Commons is worth anything at all, it is not going to allow that to happen, so that might just as well be dropped. As far as that goes, if one man is going to have so much weight as against three, he deserves to have it. Finally, there is the frame of mind of those who will not risk the upsetting of vested interests and want postponement. In my opinion, reorganisation should be thought out in all its aspects now. Those aspects should be put into effect on a systematic, gradual, step by step basis. No one who has ever thought on this subject imagines that you could bring in a Ministry of Defence or any form of control by a stroke of the pen. It is entirely on the basis of a step by step, gradual, systematic arrangement on a systematic thought-out plan. What I urge, and what I think a great many Members will agree with, is that the whole subject should be explored and if the ultimate result is obviously desirable, a systematic plan might be worked out and gradually and steadily put into effect. Of course, there would be innumerable problems which would arise as you went into this investigation, but, after all, if the principle of a unified machinery and the amalgamation of the Services were right, and if you were able to frame your policy on right lines and carry it into effect on right lines, it is certainly worth putting up with a good deal of difficulty in getting through minor troubles in order to secure the inevitable ultimate end of the investigation.I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir P. Hutchison) on giving the House this all too short opportunity of discussing a matter of the very highest importance to the Government, not only as it affects the defence Services, but as it also affects the civilian life of the country in peace time, as the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Liberal party said. This idea is by no means new. In 1922 a Bill was introduced for a Ministry of Defence, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and I and other Members in all parts of the House supported it. So the idea is not new, but the chance of discussing it is new, and that is what I welcome.
It was proposed before the War.
I did not know that. I only wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman and other advocates had been more successful, because the War would only have lasted two years instead of four. I was appalled, amazed and disgusted at the speech of the Prime Minister. He showed that he realises the need of this great co-ordination, to put it no higher than that, and he tried to bring it about by the appointment of innumerable committees, and yet he will not take the bold step that is required by modern conditions, and urgently required. All he could say was that there was a committee that purchased house coal required by the three Services by means of a single contract. What an anti-climax He told us, to use almost his exact words, the three fighting Services have different problems of strategy, which are distinct and separate. Strategy is common to them all, and the problems of strategy are common to all three Services, and it is impossible to separate them. If that is all the Prime Minister of England, after his experience of four years of presiding over Committees of Imperial Defence has learnt about the strategical needs of Empire, all I can say is Heaven help us all!
This problem divides itself into two parts. There is the much less important question of economy in peace time. All these Committees say is that they purchase condensed milk, house coal and petrol in common among the different Government Departments, but the Departmental staffs remain at Whitehall or Gwydyr or Adastral House. The Weir Committee has been quoted. It was composed of a number of busy and overworked people and divided itself up into sub-committees, and each one looked into the question of the chaplains' department, the medical department, intelligence, supply, education, etc. The subcommittee of medical services were the people who were set to work to discover whether they should abolish themselves. The Chairman was Sir Philip Nash, a business man, and the Director-General of Medical Departments and the Deputy-Secretary to the Admiralty were on the sub-committee. There was also the Adjutant-General of the War Office and the Director-General of Army Medical Services, and there was the Director of Personnel of the Air Ministry and the Director of Medical Services of the Air Ministry. These were the people who were set to work to see how they could effect economics by amalgamation of the Medical Services of the Army, Navy and Air Force. You might just as well call together a committee of bookies and jockeys to abolish horse-racing. Take the question of the chaplains. I do not know whether in the future the Navy intends to use the old Prayer Book, the Air Force the new Prayer Book and the Army the old Prayer Book, or whether there is some spiritual difference. I have never understood why there should be a chaplains' department for the Army, a chaplains' department for the Navy and a chaplains' department for the sky pilots of the Air Force. Anyhow, a subcommittee was set up to report whether it was possible to effect economies by reducing the personnel, not of the chaplains, but of the administrative people, who never preach sermons and never carry out the office of Holy Communion, but do the paper work in Whitehall, some of them chaplains, some clerks and some officials, but all pen-pushers, and those are the people who go away with the money. It is obvious that these people were the very last who should have been set to work on any sub-committee. Let us see who the people were who were set up to consider this. Again Sir Philip Nash was the Chairman, the Admiralty were represented by Sir Oswyn Murray and the Venerable Archdeacon Ingles, Chaplain of the Fleet, the War Office by Sir Harry Creedy and the Right Reverend Bishop Taylor Smith, Chaplain-General. There was Air Vice-Marshal Swann for the Air Ministry and no chaplain for the Air Force at all. It is obvious that these people were the very last who should have been set to work on any such Committee to see whether they could bring about economies in the three separate spiritual departments of the three Services. This is the precious Committee the Prime Minister relies upon. It was like bringing together a committee of men who are to be hanged to decide the date of their execution. Naturally they would put it off for 100 years. While you have these three Ministries administering Services which should be common to them, you have overlapping and waste and expense, and of course you have jobs, and that is the secret of the whole thing. You have swollen staffs at the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry and you will never get rid of them as long as you tell them to reduce themselves. 7.0 p.m. There is a far more important thing, and that is the strategical question. The fact of the matter is that there has been in the last 10 years a shifting of the balance of power. The Navy is of far less importance to-day, relatively, than it was 20 years ago. The first line of defence is not the Navy to-day but the Air Force. While soldiers cannot go to sea to-day as sailors, and sailors are not particularly efficient as soldiers on land, the Air Force can do the work of both to a very great extent. I do not want to exaggerate this, but there has been this shift of power, and you have this situation in a nutshell, that the Navy is over whelmingly strong. There is no Navy comparable to the British Navy to-day, even on paper. We have the same battleship force as America, we have more cruisers, naval bases, personnel and men, etc. The Air Force, which is admittedly weak, is under strength. The Government require something like 60 squadrons for the defence of this country according to themselves, whereas there are only in existence between 40 and 50 squadrons. That is the position. As for the War Office, it is, I think, notorious that from the mere point of view of efficiency, mechanisation should be applied on a far larger scale, not only for one division but over a far greater range of the Army. Therefore, you have to-day too much money being spent on the Navy, not enough on the Air Force, and I do not think you get sufficient value for the money spent on the Army. I think it is common ground, and the only way you can meet this, I do riot hesitate to say, is by a combined Ministry of Defence, with one Minister in the Cabinet. If the present Government have not any man big enough for the post, they ought to resign and let somebody else supply the man. There should be a combined General Staff. That is the most important thing of all, because I am quite certain if another great war should come upon us, before that war is over, if we survive, we shall have a combined General Staff controlling all the means of defence of this country. It would be far cheaper and more efficient to set up that combined General Staff in time of peace. I am speaking as a pacifist, as we all ought to be to-day. Anyone who is not is a traitor to this country. But, speaking from these benches, I have no hesitation in saying that every penny voted for the Fighting Services should be looked at twice, and expended to bring 100 per cent. efficiency. I want to make this appeal to any of my colleagues whom it may reach, or who do me the honour of reading my speech, that I believe the Labour Government would gain far more from having a Ministry of Defence than from the present system. There should be one Ministry instead of three Ministries. There is another reason. The Committee of Imperial Defence is becoming a very powerful body, an obstructionist body, and any future Government will have more difficulty in getting past the vested interests entrenched there. For these reasons, I hope my friends in my own party will support this idea, and I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving us this opportunity of discussing it.The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) kindly alluded to the fact that on 3rd May, 1922, I brought in a Bill under the 10 minutes' rule entitled the Ministry of Defence (Creation) Bill. At that time I could only get nine supporters, hut now we have a great Liberal party supporting what practically becomes a Ministry of Defence. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) says this idea was mooted before the War. It was mooted by Lord Randolph Churchill many years ago. For years and years the whole question of defence has been one of our greatest problems. When we had only two Services the high-water mark was a very good line of demarcation. Now we have three Services the problems are much more difficult, and it is no solution to them to carry out what the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone wants, to split up the Air Force into practically three forces, because then you would have an independent Air Force and a small Air Force for the Army and Navy. It is no solution to the problem to split it up again. It would make the problem more difficult. The Air Minister put his finger on the problem in the speech on the Estimates last year when he said:
But who is to decide where the economies are to be made? The First Lord of the Admiralty presses for the largest Estimates, the Minister for War would not be carrying out his duties if he did not do the same, and the Secretary for Air does the same, and there is nobody in control to criticise that expenditure. The Committee of Imperial Defence have done good work in the past under their able secretary, Sir Maurice Hankey. The opinion of Sir William Robertson was quoted by the Minister. I have looked up another quotation. It reads:"I believe the air might be used as an instrument of economy in our system of Imperial defence rather than as an additional form of expenditure."
That is a great condemnation of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Who decides whether we are to have battleships, tanks, and so forth? There is no one to go into this question properly. The Admiralty got out a very good Memorandum in 1910 in which it was stated:"The most regrettable feature was not the time spent in reaching a final decision when war became imminent, but the omission to lay down beforehand an appropriate military policy upon which comprehensive preparations and plans could be based."
That is perfectly true to-day, and the battleship plays no part in that picture. Hon. Members in this House disagree, but I challenge them and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. C. P. Williams), who a year or so ago said the battleship was the backbone of the Fleet. I entirely disagree with him. The battleship has only a slight potential value, and we spend here £7,000,000 sterling on building them. How are you going to use battleships 3,000 miles away from their bases? I cannot get an answer."The really serious danger that this country has to guard against in war is not invasion but interruption of trade and destruction of our mercantile marine. The strength of our Fleet is determined by what is necessary to protect our trade."
As I have been challenged, may I ask, are all battleships 3,000 miles away from their bases?
The hon. Gentleman may be depended upon to answer me later at great length. It is not only the cost of the battleship but its upkeep. I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the cost of keeping in commission a battleship of the "Rodney" class, and he replied that the annual cost of upkeep was £432,960, which includes £22,150 for cost of oil fuel and £40,990 for cost of practice firing. That is nearly £500,000 for upkeep. We have 20 battleships allowed under the Washington Conference, and the "Nelson" class costs £360,000 per annum, the "Queen Elizabeth" £305,000, the "Royal Sovereign" £301,000, the "Repulse" £330,000, and the "Iron Duke" £229,000 per annum, and each costs for repairs £6,500—a tremendous amount of money. On these useless ships £6,000,000 to £7,000,000 a year is expended in the upkeep, money that could be spent far better in other directions.
Then look at the Admiralty staff. I asked a question of the First Lord of the Admiralty in July last, and he gave me the number of ships in commission in 1914, in reserve, and under repair, and compared them with 1927. Sea-going ships in 1914 in commission numbered 444, in reserve 102, and under repair 24. Naval personnel was 146,047, and the Admiralty Headquarters Staff 1,718. In 1927, there were only 190 ships in commission against the 444 in 1914, in the reserve 84 against 102 in 1914, and under repair 14 against 24. The naval personnel was 101,890, and they required 2,741 people to run the reduced number of ships with a reduced personnel. A Minister of Defence would put his probe into that and stop it at once. Now let us look at the War Office. The Secretary for War answered a question of mine last July. I asked him to compare the numbers in 1914 and 1927. He gave the number of men in 1914 as 181,568 and War Office staff 1,878. In 1927 the numbers were 152,501, requiring 2,387 people to run it. It may be right or wrong, but I think the Minister of Defence would put his probe into the Secretary for War and want to know the reason for that increase. I introduced my Bill, the Ministry of Defence (Creation) Bill, and went into the whole question of putting a Minister of Defence in charge of these three fighting services, with an Under-Secretary in charge of each of the three services. The Minister of Defence was to be responsible for all strategical and tactical questions of the defence of the Realm. I dealt with that at some length. I had a Clause as to the provision of materiel, personnel, finance, civil aviation and so on. I submit that with a Defence Ministry, as I think the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) would agree, we would not have had that shortage of ammunition during the War. They would have had some authority over them, and again I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that at the battle of Jutland we would have had Zeppelins and torpedo-carrying aircraft and the right sort of shells, we would not have been short of searchlights, and we would have had a sufficient number of aircraft carriers. We should have had an authority over these fighting services who would have asked questions, instead of anybody who came forward with a new proposal being turned down, as is generally the case at present. I submit that a Minister of Defence would look into all those matters. You have only to look at the Estimates for defence purposes last year and this year. Last year £115,115,000 was provided for defence purposes, of which the Navy took £58.000,000, the Army £41,565,000, and the Air Force £15,550,000. That is to say, the Air Force got one-seventh of the total amount. This year, 1928–29, £114,600,000 is provided, of which the Navy take £57,300,000, the Army £41,050,000, and the Air Force £16,250,000. Again the Air Force gets only one-seventh of the total amount provided, and yet we cannot protect our own homes. Our first line aircraft are only half what France has, and we find the Navy taking all, or the greater part, of the money and putting it into obsolete battleships when there is no battleship danger to this country in Europe, and we are not likely ever to want to fight with America. It is unthinkable, as Mr. Asquith said from that Front Opposition Bench when I first came into the House. Neither do we want to fight with Japan. Therefore, why do we build all these battleships which cost so much money? A Minister of Defence would put in his probe and stop that unnecessary expenditure. The hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) has dealt with the criticisms about a Minister of Defence, the notion that he would be a superman, and so forth. I think the Prime Minister must be a superman now, to understand a quarter of what he said in his speech to-day. A more complicated method of running the defences of this country I think I have never heard reported, and I think that that speech of the Prime Minister to-night will do more to establish a Ministry of Defence in this country than anything I have ever heard or anything that any other hon. Member will contribute to the Debate to-day.I want to pay a tribute to our Liberal friends for bringing this Motion forward, partly because it giver us an opportunity of seeing them packed so closely on those benches, a pleasure which is so often denied us, and also for having given us the opportunity of listening to our strategical pacifist, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). Undoubtedly the most bellicose Member in the House, he always finishes up all his speeches as a pacifist. This is one of the questions on which you get agreement from every side. I have not heard a speech against it to-night, and yet we all know that nothing is going to be done about it. I am not prepared myself to vote against the Consolidated Fund Bill, but if we ever get this question as a, definite issue, there is no doubt about it that the Government will be in a very nasty position, and I will vote against them on the question with enthusiasm if it ever comes to that. The speech of the Prime Minister to-night was the most damning indictment we have ever heard against the present system of administering the defence forces of this country. He told us that this was the first opportunity for four years which we had had of discussing this question, and yet there is not a soul in the House who will not confess that a Debate of this kind on the possibility of setting up a Ministry of Defence is admitted to be a method of getting more economy than in any other way, yet for four years we have been waiting for this Debate. This question is not one of cutting down Ministers' salaries. Government after Government have Shown a ridiculously false modesty about their own salaries. People who run Empires should be paid very heavily, and Ministers, I think, are not paid enough.
As we can talk about anything, I might introduce the fact that the time has come when we might reorganise the question as to who is in the Cabinet and who is not. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State for War, at a time when there is no possibility of war, should automatically have a place in the Cabinet, and that people like the First Commissioner of Works should always be in the Cabinet. I said the other day that his duty was growing bulbs in the park. which is a very good duty, but why should he have an important post in the Cabinet when a person like the Minister of Transport is not allowed in? It seems to me an extraordinary thing in these days, but the vested interests of the old occupants of these particular offices are too strong even for the House of Commons. I do not want to make a long speech, as there are many other hon. Members who wish to take part in the Debate, but I would like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman who, I presume, is going to reply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago actually promised us a date on which we could discuss the Votes of the three Services together, hut we have never got any further than that. Year after year we have raised this question on every opportunity, but every time these Service Votes come on what happens? The Ministers in charge know perfectly well. Labour introduces one of those delightful general Amendments on disarmament, on Geneva, on something which has nothing to do with the point whatsoever. They blow off on to us a lot of disarmament speeches, and we have Debates which have nothing to do with the question. This occurs year after year, Vote after Vote, and I ask the Government that they will at least tell us to-night, not that they are going suddenly to build up a Ministry of Defence, which must come slowly and by degrees, but that they will make a start. Let the Government promise us to-night that next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nobody else, shall introduce the Service Votes as a whole. We can then discuss them as a whole. When we get down to the details, Service by Service, let us talk about the Service and nothing else, and let us leave the larger question to be debated on the money which we are going to spend for the defence of the Empire.I think the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moorel-Brabazon) about the few opportunities we have of discussing defence questions in this House is one which cannot be made too often. The Estimates Committee, two years ago, in one of its Reports, suggested that one of the things that might be done was to put the three Service days into one and move the Speaker out of the Chair on all three Service Estimates together. That seemed a possible way of getting a general defence discussion, but nothing has been done about it. The House is grateful not only to the Liberal party for giving us this opportunity to-day, but, in spite of the things that have been said about him, I think it will be grateful also to the Prime Minister for having placed so much information at its disposal. I was not surprised that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who has himself fathered so many Committees, should have been appalled when the Prime Minister revealed how many grandchildren and great-grandchildren have sprung up since his day.
Of course, both he and the Prime Minister speak with a weight which no other Member of this House can claim on this subject. It is not so much the technical arguments in favour of a Ministry of Defence that I wanted to develop this evening as, approaching the question from a rather different angle, to use the demand that there is for a Ministry of Defence as a particular instance of a tendency which I think I can see running right through the whole of the machinery of Government in this country. The other day the Prime Minister said—and he said it again tonight, I think—that if a Ministry of Defence came at all, it would come as a result of natural growth. That was a very sensible observation to make, but I would just point out to him that "natural growth" is rather an elastic term. It might he taken to cover the riotous exuberance of a tropical forest as well as the well-kept orderliness of an English garden, and I venture to think that in recent years the development of our administrative machine has been rather in the direction of the tropical forest than of the well-kept English garden. The multiplication of Government services which we have had in recent years is, I think, a feature which has really come to stay. I do not think that, at the moment at any rate, there is any real chance of the number of Government services being reduced, and that makes one consider, in spite of what the Prime Minister has said, whether the grouping of Government Departments has not really got something in it. A Ministry of Defence, or a central control over the defence Services, is the most obvious of the groupings of Government Departments that might be resorted to, but it is not by any means the only one. It is a tendency which is going on now and which has gone on in the past. Take the financial arrangements for the administration of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is really the head, or at any rate the effective political head, of a whole group of Departments. He is the effective political head of the Treasury, Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue, and a whole batch of subsidiary Departments, but if anyone says that a Ministry of Defence is too big a job for one man, I would refer him to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has a very wide field indeed to cover, and I am sure that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would emphatically repudiate the suggestion that anything was too big for him. Take the Home Office, which has been the residuary legatee of Government Departments. The Home Secretary has been called the Pooh-Bah of the Government. One day he is leading the flappers, like Joshua, to the promised land, the next day he may be dealing with the orphans of constitutional storms like Ulster, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, another day it may be factory legislation with which he is dealing, and another day he may be exercising his powers as a quasi Minister of Justice. He has wide, extended, and varied powers. But these are already consolidated, grouped Departments. Something of the same kind is going on in other Departments as well. The Board of Trade has recently acquired two satellites. It has attracted the Mines Department from the Home Office, and, in conjunction with the Foreign Office, it has thrown off from itself the Department of Overseas Trade. Might there not be something to be said in favour of one head of the economic services of the country? Might not a case he made for a political chief of that economic general staff of which we had heard a certain amount even before the industrial policy of the Liberal party came out? Again, I cannot help thinking that the Debate which we had on the distressed areas yesterday, when the Minister of Health and the President of the Board of Education spoke, showed how very closely connected and interlocked are the questions connected with social services.It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question, put.
Coal Industry
Boys (Employment Underground)
I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I move the Adjournment of the House in order to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to prosecute certain coal owners for breaches of the Mines Eight Hours Act by the continuous employment underground of a boy on three occasions for more than 16 hours per day. I put a question to the Secretary for Mines to-day on this subject, and not only was I amazed at the reply, but the whole of the Members on these benches were amazed. The first intimation that I gave to the Minister of this particular case, so far as my memory serves me, was four or five weeks ago, when I received the complaint. I did not receive a reply, and not having received a reply I put down a question for to-day, and received an answer. May I refresh the memory of the House by reading the question and the reply? The question was in these terms:The answer given by the Minister was as follows:"To ask the Secretary for Mines, if he has received any complaint that boys under 16 years of age have been kept down the pits in Durham for 16 hours per day; whether he has inquired into the complaint; and can he give the result of his inquiries."
When the Minister was pressed as to whether he proposed to take any action against the coal owners for a breach of the Mines Act, he told us very clearly and distinctly that, seeing that they had promised not to repeat the offence in future he did not intend to prosecute the owners. Might I point out to the Minister so far as his reply is concerned that the excuse of the employers that they had to keep this boy on double shift because of the illness of other boys, is no excuse. Those who are acquainted with coal mines know that if on the second shift boys do not turn up for work, there is an abundance of others who can do the work and who can be employed. One thing which this House definitely intended when it passed the Eight Hours Act was that boys should not be kept underground more than eight hours per day. This complaint refers to the Tursdale Colliery, in the County of Durham. The complaint came to me that a boy—in the question I stated that he is under 16 years of age—15 years of age, went down the pit at four o'clock in the morning and did not come out of the pit until a quarter past eight that night. That is not all the story, because after the boy had worked in the pit from four in the morning until a quarter past eight in the evening, he was at work again at four o'clock next morning. It is a very serious state of affairs for a boy of 15 years of age to work such long hours, especially when we remember that there are so many accidents amongst boys in the coal pits. A question was put to the present Secretary for Mines by the hon. Member for Walls-end (Miss Bondfield) on the 13th March, and I would like to refresh the memory of the Minister in regard to that question and the answer. The hon. Member for Wallsend asked for the number of boys employed in the coal mines between the ages of 14 and 16, and the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents respectively occurring in this age group in the year 1927. The answer was:"Yes, Sir. A complaint of this kind was recently sent to me by the hon. Member, and I have had it investigated. It was found that on three occasions during January and February a boy had been kept to work the second shift on account of the absence of other boys through illness. The management considered that the circumstances constituted an emergency which made it lawful for them to take this course, but, consequent on representations made to them by my Department, they have agreed not to adopt this method of meeting the difficulty in future."
That is a very sad state of affairs, but can we wonder at such a heavy list of boys being killed and injured when we have boys of 15 years of age, mere children, sent down the coal pit at 4 o'clock in the morning and kept down until 8.15 p.m., and going back to work at 4 o'clock next morning? I would like to call attention to a Clause in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, which puts very clearly and distinctly what the House of Commons had in mind when it passed the Eight Hours Act. Clause 1 says:"The total number of boys of this age killed during 1927 was 37 and the total number seriously injured, 264. I regret that the particulars of the number less seriously injured during 1927 are not yet available, but during 1925, when 51,700 boys were employed, the total number of seriously injured and less seriously injured was about 9,200."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1928; col. 170.75, Vol. 214.]
Clause 7 says:"Subject to the provisions of this Act, a workman shall not be below ground in a mine for the purpose of his work and of going to and from his work for more than eight hours during any consecutive 24 hours."
We complain that the Minister refuses to prosecute the employers in this case. We believe that the answer of the Minister simply means that there is one law for the employer and another law for the workman. The Minister must have fresh in his mind the fact that hundreds of our men were not only prosecuted during 1926 but sent to prison for the most trivial reasons. One of my own local secretaries in my division, because he was a local official and out on a march during the dispute was sent to prison for a month's hard labour. That was the only crime he had committed. There ought not to be one law for the employer and another law for the worker. If this boy of 15 years of age had committeed a breach of the Act, if he had had, for instance, a match in his pocket and it had been found upon him, he would have been taken to Court and fined. When that happens in the case of a workman then, surely, when the employers are guilty they ought not to escape. The impression made on our minds is that since 1926 the employers consider that they have the Government behind them and that they can treat these Acts of Parliament as mere scraps of paper. One of the common complaints in our colliery districts is that there are other Acts of Parliament which the employers are continually breaking, especially the Minimum Wage Act. One hears innumerable complaints that the employers are continually breaking the Minimum Wage Act. The trouble with us is that your men dare not complain. They are in a different position from the position which they occupied in 1926. If before 1926 an employer broke an Act of Parliament, whether it was the Mines Act or the Minimum Wage Act, our men would complain and feel secure in making the complaint, but to-day they dare not do it. To make a complaint to-day simply means losing their employment. The complaint with respect to this particular boy came to me from a man who dared not give his name, and I dared not allow the man's writing to be seen, lest he should be detected, in which case it would have meant his dismissal. There is great need for the Government to protect our men, and when there is a clear breach of the Mines Act, as in this case, they ought not to hesitate to prosecute the employer. I believe that eight hours a day is too long for a boy to be down a pit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or to work above ground!"] Above ground, boys cannot start work until six o'clock in the morning, but they can be sent underground, as in this case, at four o'clock in the morning. I started work down the pit the first day after I was 12 years years of age, and my recollections of those years make me very enthusiastic in my support of boys and my claim that they should work as few hours as possible underground. Now that the Government have taken the step, with which we disagree, of saving that boys shall work eight hours, we do think that they should protect those boys and say that they shall not be called upon to work 16 hours, day and night. It is in order to call attention to the fact that the Secretary for Mines does not intend to prosecute the employers that I move the Motion."If a workman is below ground for a longer period during any consecutive 24 hours than the time fixed by this Act, lie shall be deemed to have been below ground in contravention of this Act, unless the contrary is proved."
I beg to second the Motion.
The protection of the lads in the mines ought to be the concern of every one in this House. When the Secretary for Mines gave his reply to a question today, I think it was a surprise to everyone, at least on this side of the House, and I should think to many of the Minister's supporters on the other side of the House. Particularly is it essential that the miners and boys working underground should have the special protection of the Mines Department at this time. We have not to-day the same facilities for protecting our men and lads as we had in days past. There is among the coalowners, in spite of what is said on the other side from time to time, a spirit of animosity and venom. There is in the minds of the coalowners a determination to get their full pound of flesh and to prevent us from having the facilities for taking care of our people that we have enjoyed in the past. In days past we had the opportunity of appointing men of our own to go on to the pit bank and to watch the men who were descending to see the time that they were descending, and to check the times when they ascended. To-day we have not those facilities. The employers are using all the power they have to divide us into two sections. They are trying to break the powers of the Miners' Federation, and to give all assistance possible to other kinds of organisations which have not the same understanding of our people, in order that our people may be victimised even more than they are to-day. It is because of this lack of understanding, this lack of the provision of the necessary facilities to assist our men and boys, that we are asking the Minister to consider carefully the Acts of Parliament governing the mines of the country, and to see that if the owners will not allow us to have the inspection that we used to have, the Government inspectors face the responsibility that they ought to face in connection with the working life of the men and lads. It cannot be said that sickness can be brought into the category of "emergency." As a matter of fact, there is sickness in all kinds of occupations, but there is no employer to-day who would consider that the sickness of a lad justified him in using that as an emergency in order to extend or double the shift of another lad who was working in the same factory or mine. The Act of Parliament provides for cases of emergency. If there is an unusual or very big fall that has to be moved in order to make the working places ready for the next shift, of course men are called upon by the manager, as that is an emergency. Men can be called upon to work longer time to remove that fall, or if there is any breakage in the mines in connection with the haulage of tubs, if the way is torn up by accident—all those things are provided for in the Act of Parliament as cases of emergency, and the manager has the power to call upon men to work additional time in order to get these things rectified, so that the colliery can go on working. But never in our history have we heard of a case of sickness being called an emergency. Therefore, we say definitely that Section 7 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act ought to have been put into operation by the Minister when his attention was called to this particular case. Clause 7 says:As my hon. Friend has said, if a workman commits any offence under the Coal Mines Regulation Act or the Eight Hours Act, he has no option; he has to "go through it." If strong action is not taken in this particular case this kind of thing will spread. It is quite possible that it may be spreading already, because we have not the same facilities for checking as we had previously. The time has come when the Minister should make himself a really useful Member of the Government by compelling the coal-owners of the country to face their responsibilities, by seeing that this kind of thing cannot occur again in future, and that the victimisation under which our people are suffering to-day is not allowed to extend. If the Secretary for Mines will do that, he will do a service to the country."A person guilty of an offence under this, Act, for which a special penalty is not provided, shall, in respect of each offence, he liable, on summary conviction, if he is the owner, agent, or manager of the mine, to a fine not exceeding £2, and in any other case to a fine not exceeding 10s."
In the first place let me say that I was very grateful indeed to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) for bringing this case to my attention, as he did in a letter on 17th February. I thanked him for it at the time, and I only regret now that he has to complain that he has not received a personal reply, following my investigation. I explained to him that it was the first information we had, and I instigated inquiries straight away. Those inquiries have taken a considerable time. After the first report from the inspector a period of a fortnight or more was allowed to elapse, and a second inspection was then made. Therefore, before the matter could be taken up by my Department and with the owners, a considerable time passed. But I do apologise to the hon. Gentleman that I have not been able up to now to send him a written reply to his letter. I would like to read a part of the Act which both of the hon. Members who have spoken have so far omitted. It is agreed that the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1908 lays it down that, subject to the provisions of the Act, a workman shall not be below ground for more than eight hours during any consecutive 24 hours. That is in Section I. But Sub-section (2) of that Section says:
Those are the words of Sub-section (2) of Section 1, under which the owners consider that they were exempted from the provisions of that Act. With regard to the case itself, I understand, not of course that this is the same boy who was employed on three different occasions, but that there were three separate occasions on which a boy was kept over from one shift to another owing to the sickness of boys coming on and the inability to continue the work of the mine unless some additional assistance was brought in. As far as I am concerned at the Ministry I am certainly going to see that these Regulations are carried out strictly—most certainly. I will even go so far as to say that I regret, from the humanitarian standpoint, that boys work below ground at all; but as we find the industry at the present time we know that it is a long-standing custom for boys to go down the pits quite early, and that, sometimes under their fathers or brothers, they work below until they become miners. So long as that custom exists, and so long as boys are allowed to go down pits, I believe they will go down; but I agree that it is most essential that the welfare of those boys should be looked after as far as is possible. That is done by His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines when they go round to the pits. Perhaps I can best explain the position that was taken by the owners by reading the report which was sent in reply to the Chief Inspector's letter. Within two days of receiving the hon. Member's letter one of the Inspectors of Mines visited the pit and went into the whole question. That was followed by other inspections. The Chief Inspector wrote to the owners and took up the case with them, and asked for their explanation. He received a reply from the owners on 2nd March. With their reply the owners sent a copy of their mine manager's report on the occurrence, and I think it will be to the convenience of the House if I read the following extract:"No contravention of the foregoing provisions shall he deemed to take place in the case of a workman working in a shift if the period between the times at which the last workman in the shift leaves the surface and the first workman in the shift returns to the surface does not exceed eight hours; nor shall any contravention of the foregoing provisions be deemed to take place in the case of any workman who is below ground for the purpose of rendering assistance in the event of accident … or for dealing with any emergency or work uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances which re- quires to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine or in any district of the mine."
It will be seen from that that the back overman had to be driving at the same time to get the coal clear."In the case of N. Fortune, one of the boys. A number of men and boys were off work in the pit through illness, and no one was available to do the work without keeping the boy in question. It was imperative to get the coal off the coal cutting face so as not to interfere with roof control. Failure to clean up probably meant actual danger to the next shift coming in. It may be mentioned that the back over-man was driving at the same time, so that the emergency was real."
You are making it worse now.
I hope hon. Members will listen to me. I am trying to put the case clearly and I am not trying to hide anything. The Report goes on:
That is the reply of the owners to the question put to them by the Inspector of Mines. They claim that under the Exemption Section of the Act that I have read, they were legally entitled to keep those boys back for the purposes of an emergency."In the case of the other two buys who worked an auxiliary haulage winch in the fore and back shift, again so many other employés were absent through sickness that no one else was available, and the alternative to keeping the boys back would have been to lay the district idle. Again there appears to be an emergency."
Under those circumstances was there no one employed at the coal face who would have done the duty of the boy?
8.0 p.m.
No, Sir. From the Report that I have read there was apparently no one else available, as even the back over-man was doing work which was not his work in the ordinary way. That being so, it seems clear that there was no one else available to do that particular work. I think it is quite clear that there were not sufficient men available. The wording of the Act is not very closely drawn, and I cannot help thinking that the owners may have had some excuse for thinking that such a state, where they could not clear the coal away from the face and where the work in that district would otherwise have stopped, came under the exemption which provides for dealing with "work uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances which requires to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine or in any district of the mine." I am not suggesting for one minute that that is the legal interpretation of that Section. All that I am saying is, that I consider, speaking without any prejudice, that there was an excuse anyhow, for that view being taken. Our inspector did not agree with that view, and, after considerable discussion with the owners, he managed to convince them that his view was right and obtained a promise from them that in the future they would most certainly not deal with a similar situation by keeping boys back. I should like also to mention, as the hon. Member's Motion is a sort of censure on me for not prosecuting, that I have, naturally, to take a certain amount of advice and guidance from those who directly deal with these matters. I should like to read to the House an extract from the report of the Senior Inspector who inspected the mine and who also communicated with and spoke to the owners. He said:
that is the manager and agent—"I came to the conclusion that they"—
He suggests that there were some grounds for that belief and goes on to say:"held the view quite honestly that on the dates mentioned, because of the particular circumstances in the district in question a real emergency existed and that in keeping the boys for a double shift they were not contravening the provisions of the Eight Hours Act."
Holding that view, and having obtained the promise of the owners that they would waive their view altogether and the definite promise that they would not do it again, it did not strike the Department in the first place, and it does not strike me now, that it is really a suitable case for prosecution. I will tell the hon. Member why. There are certain duties laid upon the Department of Mines and upon the Secretary for Mines to see that the Acts are carried out. I think hon. Members will agree that it is no good whatever for a Department light-heartedly to take up prosecutions which might fail when they came before the Court. This would he a legal question, the owners claiming that they were exempt in a state of emergency. It is as likely as not, in a case of this kind, that the decision would have gone against the Minister in favour of the owners. [Interruption.] Hon. Members have really no right to say what decision would have been given. There was a grave doubt as to which way a decision would be given. When we had already accomplished what was desired, that was to see that the offence would not be repeated, if offence it be, when we had already ensured that it should not again take place, I did not think that it was a proper case in which to take proceedings against the owners."The district is an isolated one. Old pillars are being extracted longwall, the coal being undercut by machine, and experience has shown that any failure to maintain the regular cycle of operations on the faces results in dangerous conditions."
Can we have the decision of the Chief Inspector after he had had these communications?
He concurred. I take the responsibility for it. I am not speaking for the Chief Inspector or for the Department; I am stating my own view in regard to the decision to which I have come. With regard to the suggestion made in the two speeches which we have heard and which was also mentioned at Question Time to-day, that there is one law for the owners and another for the employés, it may interest the House to hear how the position actually stood during the year 1927 with regard to prosecutions taken by the Mines Department against owners, agents, managers, and under-managers. There were 176 charges made by the Mines Department against these people. From those 176 charges we obtained 142 convictions; 16 cases were withdrawn; and 18 cases were dismissed by the Courts. It certainly shows that the Department is hardly lax in dealing with the coalowners when one realises that those 176 prosecutions were taken against a body representing perhaps less than 7,000 people. That is certainly a fairly heavy percentage, and, I think, shows that my Department is not overlooking offences as they come along.
There is another side of the picture. It was put to me to-day that my Department would not hesitate to prosecute a miner whereas it refused to prosecute an owner. I have made inquiries, and, as far as I can gather, certainly over three years back, not a single working miner has been prosecuted by my Department. [Interruption.] I am not saying anything unfair. I am merely stating that an accusation was brought against, my Department. These prosecutions were taken by my Department against mine-owners, managers and so on, but no prosecution, as far as I can gather, has been taken by my Department against a working miner during the past few years, the reason being that prosecutions of miners who commit offences in the mines are mostly taken by the owners. [Interruption.] I am only drawing the distinction, because at Question Time to-day it was my Department which was accused. I think hon. Members know quite well that in the ordinary course of events the owners are expected to take disciplinary action against people who offend against Mines Regulations and so on. It is more especially for the Mines Department to see that the mine-owners and those immediately liable under them are kept up to the mark and that they keep within the Act. The total prosecutions taken by mine-owners—I have stated that out of less than 7,000 owners, managers, etc., there were 176 prosecutions—in respect of nearly 1,000,000 mine workers last year numbered about 800. Hon. Members will realise that the proportion of prosecutions is nothing like as great as it is in regard to the mine-owners—I think it is nearly 140 to one as against the mine-owners.It shows where the great proportion of the criminals lie anyway.
Hon. Members, in dealing with these questions, are a little unfair sometimes, and therefore, I am trying to put what I think is a true picture. Out of these 800 charges which the mine-owners had to bring against the miners, 218 were in respect of contraventions relating to matches and smoking. All hon. Members connected with the mining industry will admit that these are very serious offences indeed. One hundred and forty-three of the prosecutions were for carrying timber, tools, etc., in the cage while ascending. Hon. Members opposite know that that is strictly against the rules and is one of the ways in which removals from the mines are prevented. I only mention these figures in order to defend my Department against the accusation made to-day that they are overlooking offences by the owners and are very hard on the miners.
I can assure hon. Members opposite that as regards all these questions I in- tend to deal with them as firmly as I possibly can. I believe that firmness is necessary, but at no time do I intend to be vindictive or unfair either to owners or to workmen. I am independent and have to take a fair-minded view of the whole thing, and it is left to my discretion to say in these different cases whether I consider that a particular case is a proper one for prosecution or not. Not wishing to be vindictive, and as there was a doubt as to the legal position in this case, and as we had already received the definite assurance that these boys would not be kept on over other shifts in future, I considered that it was not necessary to prosecute and that we had already achieved our object.The latter part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was very interesting but it was beside the mark and away from the case that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). He has raised the case of a boy who was called upon to work not on one occasion, but on several occasions for 16 hours a day.
Different boys on three occasions.
One can understand a first offender being treated as a first offender, but when an offence happens on a number of occasions one cannot understand the expression of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he intends to carry out these Regulations as strictly as possible. If those people who have been guilty of the robbery in Hatton Garden are first offenders, if this is the first time that they have ever stolen anything, I suppose he would agree that the law should excuse them because they have never been convicted of such a thing before. That is really what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said from that Box to-night; that because this colliery have carried out this particular thing with regard to a boy they should not be prosecuted. But they have carried it out on many occasions! They have broken the Act on many occasions.
I do not think there is any excuse whatever, even at this moment, for passing over the question of a prosecution. I know that His Majesty's inspector went to the colliery office, and, of course, we know, as many miners know, what the position is when His Majesty's inspector sometimes goes to the colliery office. We do not know what was said in the colliery office, but we do know from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he secured a promise that it should not happen again. They have violated the law on several occasions, but because he has secured a promise that it shall not happen again the Minister is not going to prosecute. This sort of thing would not happen in the ordinary affairs of life. I am going to say, as one who went to work in the pit at 12 years of age and who has no pleasant memories of my boyhood life in the pit—the worst part of a boy's life is when he has to work in the pit—that I would have no mercy on employers—and I am as gentle as most people—who kept a boy down a pit for more than 16 hours in one day. I do not think that the Mines Department ought to be doing what they are doing to-night and defending employers who are violating the Act and who have so little humanity in them that they have a boy under 16 years of age for more than 16 hours underground on several occasions. This sort of thing cannot be justified in any respectable company in the world, and as it is breaking the law I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to put the law into operation.I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to be unfair. He has repeated several times that the owners were breaking the law. There is no proof of the rupture of the law. That is what I have said. They claimed that they were within the law, and there being that doubt I think they are entitled to it.
The law says that a boy shall not work underground for more than eight hours, except under certain conditions. The Courts should decide that point. It is not for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say what is the law, any more than it is for me, and it is not for him to come and repeat parrot like the answers which the employers have told him to give. His Department should inquire into these things more thoroughly than it does. There is another point in connection with this matter. I do not know whether this boy was a pony driver or not, it is not said. Let us take it that he was a pony driver, then the pit pony was working 16 hours as well. That is a matter which might also be inquired into. One of the first speeches I made in this House was in defence of pit ponies, and it is important for us to know how long the pit pony was worked. I think it is Mr. Bernard Shaw who says, "Ladies and gentlemen may have friends in their kennels but not in their kitchens." There is no doubt that bon. Members in all parts of the House have friends who cannot speak to them in human fashion, and no one wants to see dumb animals treated unfairly and unwisely. If hon. Members opposite have no consideration for the wellbeing of the human individual—they have been ready to vote for any sort of treatment for the men and the boys working in the industry—I think they should have some consideration for the animals engaged in the industry. I suggest that this is a matter which the hon. and gallant Gentleman should watch very closely and upon which he should make some inquiry. I hope he is going to reverse his decision and make an example of the employers on this occasion. They may not be the only people who are doing it. I hope that even this Government will take steps to stop boys and animals being treated in this way by employers.
The answer of the hon. and gallant Member, in effect, was this, that the manager of the colliery admitted that on three occasions he had employed this boy longer than he ought to have done, but he claimed that it was a case of emergency and the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that there was a doubt as to what would have happened if the matter had gone into Court. I say that there is no emergency which can justify a boy of 15 years of age being kept at work for 16 hours a day, and I do not think there is any doubt as to the course the Secretary for Mines should have taken in a case where the offence has been repeated three times. In the Mines Act there is nothing which would lead any manager to believe that a boy could be employed in this way in any ease of emergency. I remember reading the discussions which took place at the time when the Act was passed, and the only emergency in the minds of hon. Members was an accident of a particular kind which might render it necessary for longer hours to be worked. There was nothing of that on this occasion; and what makes the situation worse is that in every colliery in this county, as in most counties, there are large groups of boys of this age who cannot get work. The work which was done by this boy of 15 years of age could have been undertaken by some other boy or miner. The hon. and gallant Member says that one of the chief officers was actually working at this time. All I can say is that any other boy or miner could have done the simple work that was being done by this boy, and in any case there was no emergency which could be justified in any Court for employing a boy for 16 hours.
The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) pointed out that men and boys hesitated to take on work in these circumstances, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that during the past year there have been complaints on the part of men and boys with regard to a loosening of the regulations, but they dare not lay their complaints in the proper way. That is the situation in the mines to-day. I have heard the men say that they dare not insist upon the application of the legal minimum wage. That is a very serious situation for any industry, but it is the position in the mining industry to-day; and if the Government does not protect men and boys by insisting on the regulations being carried out there is very little hope for them under present conditions. When we compare the hours worked in the coal mines here with the hours worked in other countries we are told that they work the same hours, or less than we do, on paper but that they do not carry out the regulations which govern the industry. Here is an instance of a boy 15 years of age working 16 hours in the mines. The manager admits that he did so on three occasions. If the law of this country is broken to this extent we cannot point the finger of scorn at other countries who do not carry out their laws and regulations. I hope we have heard the last on that subject. We do not want to be vicious in regard to the managers of collieries, but when it comes to boys of this age working these long hours the House should insist that the Secretary for Mines should see that those who are responsible are carrying out the law or take proper steps to bring them to the Court and have them dealt with in a proper way. That is our point of view. If many Members of this House had, as boys, worked a double shift in the mines, as some of us have done; if they had worked even 10 or 12 hours in the mine, then, I am sure this House on all sides would insist upon the Secretary for Mines seeing that these regulations were carried out. They would insist upon the Mines Department taking this manager into Court so that he might he dealt with in the proper way, instead of allowing him to ride off on the excuse of an emergency. The Secretary for Mines and those advising him should carry out the law in this case, as it would have been carried out, had the case been one against a mineworker.I heard with amazement the Secretary for Mines making out a case for these owners. I am sure that the colliery manager has played upon the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know anything about the matter. It is too much to ask us to accept a story such as has been told to the Secretary for Mines. We merely laugh it to scorn. To say that a pit is going to be thrown idle because a boy of 15 years of age is not kept at work in this way is absurd. All that these people have to do was to call in another man and nothing of consequence would have occurred. We know too much of the sort of thing that is going on. We know of the things that are being done with impunity in our mines by those who, on the slightest opportunity would take a miner or a boy before a court of justice for the smallest offence. I wish to tell the Secretary for Mines that he must not rely on stories like this. Many of us here who have had 40 years' experience of the mining industry can tell him something different. As some of my hon. Friends have been pointing out, the miners at the present time need protection. Thanks to the Government the miners to-day are in the position of being "down and out" and cannot take their own part. Men are forced into the position of having to walk the streets without work for no crime at all. They are simply told they are surplus.
That is what is happening in the mining areas, and if the miners have not the protection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department then bad as their state is to-day, it is going to be worse in the future. At the present time the situation in many places is such that no mine-worker dare say anything at all in the way of complaint. The man or boy knows only too well that if he mentions a complaint his work will be taken from him. There was another point mentioned by the Secretary for Mines which was of vastly more importance even than the question of the boys being kept for 16 hours. To take away a man who is presumably responsible for the safety of the pit, and to put him to do a boy's work and to leave everything else to take care of itself, is a very serious matter. Some of us who have been miners know how these things happen and I have seen a young boy taken into Court and sentenced to a month's imprisonment for doing things which others had done only the day before. In the present state of things, if the hon. Gentleman will not take steps to protect the miners, what is going to happen to them when they are at the mercy of vindictive people who can do all these things? There are people in this House who assume that the coal-owner is an ordinary employer of labour but my experience has been to the contrary. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has said that he does not want to be vicious but the position that is being disclosed here makes me more vicious than I have ever felt in my life. I ask the hon. Gentleman to do something for those who are compelled to live under such awful circumstances as we find in our mining districts. Let him do his duty and see to it that the miner is protected. He is the only man who can do so. The miners cannot protect themselves, because the Government have dragged them down and placed them in a position where they can scarcely call their souls their own. If the hon. Gentleman is going to leave them at the mercy of these people, they will be dragged down still further. The Government have done their best to cripple the miners' power by the Trade Unions Act and in other ways, but if the law is to be broken with impunity by the colliery owners, then the Minister will have more deaths and more accidents to record when the next Report of his Department is presented to this House. The Government have left our men without the power or the means of defending their own rights. It the Government do not protect the men against this kind of thing, then the day will come when they will regret that they did not take some action. I plead with the Secretary for Mines to do the right thing by these men. I plead with him to do his duty in this case and to let us have the matter tested in a Court in the proper way, and to have it laid down that a mere boy of this kind is not to be kept at work in a pit for 16 hours.I direct the attention of the Secretary for Mines to three important statements which he has made. First, on the question of emergency he has suggested that a Section of the Act has been drawn loosely and can be interpreted so as to imply that on this occasion an emergency had arisen, justifying the company in keeping this 15-year-old boy employed for 16 hours continuously. As the last speaker has truly said, nobody would ever dare to assert to people with practical experience that there could be such a thing as an emergency necessitating the retention of a boy of that age for 16 hours in the pit. We know the explanation because in days gone by we have suffered in similar circumstances. The reason why a boy of that age is kept in a pit for a double-shift is simply because they are too mean to employ an older person whose wages would be a shilling or two more than the boy's wages. By no stretch of the imagination, and by the exercise of no amount of charity, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman in this case credit the colliery company, or even his own inspectors, with attempting to meet the position fairly when they argue that this can be honestly interpreted as a case of emergency.
If the colliery agent were absent for a day the pit would not cease work. If the manager or one of the officials happened to be away the pit would not cease work. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and his inspectors must know that all over the country there is absenteeism at every colliery due to minor accidents and illnesses. Unless colliery companies made adequate arrangements to cope with these difficulties day by day, this sort of alleged emergency would occur every day, and the retention of boys for long hours would continue. It is true the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that this particular company will not offend again, but what guarantee is there that any one of the other 3,000 companies will not offend similarly? The hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us that the proof that the Mines Department are fair as between employés and others is the fact that, last year, owners were prosecuted in 176 cases, but that out of a million miners there were only 800 prosecutions. That goes to prove nothing at all. The only persons who can summons either an agent, manager, or under-manager is one of His Majesty's inspectors. They are the only people who can institute proceedings, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he had any practical knowledge of mining operations, would know that it is the duty of the colliery officials to prosecute any miner who happens to offend against the law. It is not the duty of the inspector of mines to do that at all. If a miner broke the law, and an inspector discovered it, he would intimate to the colliery officials that proceedings had to be instituted. Merely to say that His Majesty's inspectors have not prosecuted any miners, but had instituted proceedings in 176 cases against officials, in no way proves that the Mines Department are interpreting their duties fairly and squarely, or that officials and miners are receiving even-handed justice. As a practical miner who commenced to work in the pit at 11 years of age, and has had at least 18 years' experience down below, I know something of what takes place. Luckily, I am not so long removed from the pits but that I know what takes place to-day. While there may have been only 800 prosecutions of miners in 1927, in all probability there would have been tens of thousands of mine workers who committed indiscretions and who were fined by the colliery officials from 5s. to £2, and threatened that, unless they accepted the fine, they would be dismissed from their work with the resultant loss of wages and independence. Therefore, the mere figure of 800 prosecutions is in no way indicative of what happens to the mine workers throughout the country. This case, at all events, justifies those people, beyond the four walls of this House, who believe that the, law is not administered as impartially as it might be as between the owners of collieries and the people who work therein. I do not remember the date when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was appointed to his present office, but within very recent weeks I had occasion to write to the Mines Department because of a complaint that had reached me from a colliery not 10,000 miles from my home, where the ponies were roofing to such an extent that they were rubbing their backs absolutely bare. No workman in that colliery dare lodge a complaint; they would have been deprived of their wages. The horse was made to suffer because the men dare not lodge a complaint. I had to lodge a complaint to the Mines Department, who in turn sent the complaint back to His Majesty's Inspectors, who went to the colliery and insisted on the cause of the trouble being instantly removed. It was removed, to the credit of the Mines Department, when they got to know, but not before the driver of a pony which had been roofing, and which had been made so sore that it dashed off and broke its own neck, had been dismissed for not preventing the horse killing itself, and because he would not bear a fine of anything up to £10 for the loss of the horse. He applied for unemployment pay, and was refused because of a report sent by the colliery company, and yet, when the Mines Department received the report, their inspectors acted upon it so that the cause of the trouble was removed, but no prosecution of the colliery company took place. They were merely permitted to kill this horse, as it were, and dismiss the driver, and yet the only thing that happened when His Majesty's Inspector brought it to their notice was that they corrected their error. These things are common knowledge to most of the men who sit on these benches, who have had practical experience in mines. That is a very recent ease. I recall, not so very long ago, the case of a fatal accident at a colliery—This is not the occasion for a general indictment of the management of mines; that is an entirely different question from that for which the Adjournment was asked and given.
I was merely attempting to illustrate the general feeling that the Coal Mines Acts are not applied quite as impartially as they ought to be, and that there are cases on record, which are constantly brought to our notice, where men for mere indiscretions are prosecuted, heavily fined, sometimes dismissed from their work, and tyrannised in various ways; while, on the other hand, where the loss of human life takes place, the law is not carried out to the extent that some people think it ought to be. I was merely illustrating that point. I am content to say that, so far as this particular case is concerned, I in no way doubt the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he argues that it may have been that there was a state of emergency at this colliery; but I am bound to confess that no hon. Member, who has had any practical knowledge of the working of coal mines at all, would dare make a statement of that description. I would further tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, unless he can acquaint himself with the practical side of mining life, he is going to have some very difficult times in this House. There are so many people here who have lived their lives round coal pits, who have not only a practical, but a technical knowledge, of coal mines, that, unless answers are given to questions or replies to discussions based—
I would remind the hon. Member that the Debate is only on the one point in regard to the boy.
With all respect, I am suggesting that the reply given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the case that has been submitted is not consistent with the knowledge of any person who has had a close acquaintance with the working of mines. I leave it at that, and merely tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this was no case of emergency, and that if the offence or indiscretion had been committed by a workman, there would have been no shadow of doubt as to what would have taken place. He would have been prosecuted. We have no desire to be vicious, but we do want to see the law administered fairly and squarely and impartially as between men and employers.
The case submitted by the Secretary for Mines for taking no action is about the weakest which has ever been stated to this House. He has stated as evidence of its being a case of emergency that the back shift over-man was actually doing work on that particular night. But surely that is no evidence. The back shift over-man was merely one of the running charges in connection with that particular shift. With my practical knowledge of mining I know that if they had desired to get someone who was 19, 20, or 22 years of age and could have got him at the same wage as the boy of 16 there would not have been this trouble. It has merely been a ease of trying to save Is., 2s., or 2s. 6d. on the shift. I am interested in safeguarding the lives of our boys in the mines and preventing accidents happening to them, and I have heard what other hon. Members have said about their experiences. My own experience has been worse than that of almost any other Member in the House. I wanted nine days of being 16 years of age when I was carried home on a stretcher, and lay there for 13 weeks. I was off work 11 months. Therefore, I have a vivid memory of working underground before I was 16 years of age, and I think it is a crime on the part of any Department of the State which has power to take action to safeguard the lives of our boys if it fails to do so. To employ a boy for 16 hours is not to give him a chance of escaping accidents; indeed, it is creating the possibility of accidents. It is participating in a crime to allow boys to be employed in our mines for 16 hours at a time. The chief reason given by the Secretary for Mines for taking no action was that he wanted to prove that he was not vindictive against the owners. At any rate, he said that he was trying to be unbiassed in the exercise of his powers of administration. Despite the fact that on three occasions boys under 16 years had been employed in the mine for 16 hours, the Minister was satisfied with the owners' promise that they would not do the same thing again, and says he took no action because he wanted to show that he was not vindictive. Are we to have it suggested that one of his colleagues in the Ministry, the Home Secretary, allows his Department to be vindictive because there is a prosecution if any one is handed a glass of intoxicating liquor only two minutes after closing hours?
I am afraid the hon. Member is getting a little wide of the subject.
I was submitting this case by way of illustration. I want to show that there would be no question of vindictiveness if the Secretary for Mines had ordered a prosecution in this case. Anyone selling a packet of cigarettes after hours is brought before the Courts, but when a manager of a coal mine, in order to save 2s., employs a boy for 16 hours, though it would have been quite possible for him to employ an adult, no proceedings are taken. Again I have a vivid recollection of my own experience. I well remember a mine manager coming to me when I was only 15 and saying, "Westwood, how old are you?" I said, "Fifteen—past." Oh, he said, "You ought to have said" Sixteen, past, and you would have got a double shift." He wanted me to tell a lie for the purpose of having a chance of working a double shift. Action ought to be taken against those who break the law. We are told that in this ease managers were not quite sure and the Ministry were not quite sure whether there had been a breach of the Coal Mines Act, but where they are not sure then, in the interests of safety, and the lives of our boys, they ought to take action. There ought to be a prosecution in this particular case. It is not a question of vindictiveness, but of seeing that the lives of our boys are saved, and I trust the Secretary for Mines will admit, I will not say that he has made a mistake, but that he has been wrongly advised in this connection. We feel that action ought to be taken because this is not the only case in which the Coal Mines Act is being broken. We are sure it is being broken every day of the week, but our men fearing victimisation, will not stand up for their rights. I submit that the Minister ought to agree to institute a prosecution in this particular case, so as to prove to us and to the outside world that the Mines Department are prepared to safeguard the lives of our boys and not to allow boys to be employed for 16 hours.
After listening to the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion, I felt that the first thing the Minister would do would be to advance the emergency Section. Even if the employer did have it in his mind that he could keep the lad on because another lad did not turn up, it is no excuse for keeping him on during the whole of the shift. He could have retained the boy for a short time until he had got someone else to take the place of the boy who did not turn up. The fact of his keeping the boy on for the whole of the shift tells me that the manager had no idea of trying to carry out the Eight Hours Act. Because of the extent to which this thing has gone on, the Minister ought to have taken a case to Court in order to get the question settled once and for all. In the minds of the employers there is a feeling that they can use these emergency powers on any and every occasion, and I am sorry to say that the inspectors of mines have assisted employers to form that opinion.
When the Seven Hours Act was passed, I say without hesitation that the inspectors of mines thought seven hours was too short a period, and in scores of cases which, on my own information, were notified to inspectors in not one did they prosecute. They warned employers, who promised not to do it again, but there was never any prosecution. But if they thought the seven hours' day too short, when the eight hours' day came into operation I did expect that the mine inspectors would at once see that the law was carried out in its entirety. Even if they did not think seven hours was long enough, surely eight hours is long enough, and that Regulation ought to be rigidly carried out. The Secretary for Mines is new to his position, but he must not leave himself entirely in the hands of the mine inspectors because there has been far too much of this kind of thing in the past. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will examine this question impartially, and if he feels that something ought to be done I hope he will not let the office dictate to him. I know if the lead given by the Mines Department is followed, there will be very few prosecutions in cases of this kind. I am glad that this matter has been brought forward on the Floor of the House, because it will show mine managers and inspectors what we intend to do. This question cannot stop where it is now. Probably the Secretary for Mines will not take any further action in this case, but when the next case comes up, there should be no doubt as to what he ought to do. He should let the Courts decide these cases. We are demanding a more strict enforcement of the Mines Act. That Act is on the Statute Book, and somebody should see that the mine-owners fufil their duty, and this kind of thing ought not to be carried any further. I am glad that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has brought this case forward in the House of Commons for the purpose of preventing this kind of thing happening again in the future.The Secretary for Mines dwelt for a long time on the point that he was not biased in favour of the employers. I put certain supplementary questions on this question earlier in the afternoon, and after hearing the hon. Gentleman's answers, I have nothing to withdraw. I believe the Mines Department has taken the employers' point of view, and has not even given up defending the employers in this House.
9.0 p.m. Of course, I do not expect that any good will be done in this particular case, but the Debate we have had will do two things. First of all, it will put a little heart into the men employed in the coalfields, who will see that somebody is taking notice of their grievances; and, secondly, this Debate will be a warning to those who are breaking the law and to the inspectors, because it will show that we are insisting upon the law being carried out, and that inspection should take place from day to day. The speech made by the Secretary for Mines can be divided into two parts. The first part consisted of an apology for the employers, and the second was an attempt to show that the Mines Department was neutral in regard to these matters. I propose to examine both those points. The first part of the speech consisted of an apology for the employers. It is no good the Secretary for Mines coming here and stating that he is neutral. We did believe that the Government was neutral in 1925, and the Prime Minister was looked upon at that time as neutral in these matters, and hon. Members went about the country talking about the simple, honest Prime Minister. We accepted the man at his face value, but we have been done once and we cannot stand it twice. After proposing to increase the hours of miners from seven hours to eight hours, the representative of the Mines Department cannot come here and talk about neutrality in these matters, and it is time that humbug and nonsense of that kind was stopped. The Secretary for Mines has read two or three documents sent to him by one of his inspectors and from the owners. The owners' case is that these boys worked on three different occasions for 16 hours. It is admitted that the Act of Parliament says they should only work eight hours, but the Secretary for Mines hangs on to a Clause which makes an exception in the case of sickness and emergency, and under those circumstances it is claimed that a person can be worked for more than the regular hours. I do not believe that mine inspectors are empowered to overlook a thing like that. I know that there is a kind of hidden belief that if a man is an official, his word is to be taken like the laws of the Medes and the Persians. The point put in this connection by the last speaker has not been met, but assuming that there was an emergency and a difficulty occurred, it did not justify the working of these boys for 16 hours per day. The Secretary for Mines says that this is an isolated colliery, and we are asked to deal with this as an isolated case. The representative of the Mines Department does not say how far this colliery is from a place where another man could have been got to fill the vacancy. I am told that there is a district close at hand where a man could have been obtained to fill the vacancy. In districts like these there are frequently motor bicycles near the colliery, and a place that is usually a 20-minutes' walk can be reached in a very few minutes on a motor bicycle. Assuming that there was an emergency and admitting there was sickness, it was quite easy within half-an-hour to notify a man in the neighbouring village that there was a shift vacant. In a village near to this colliery there were many unemployed men signing on at the Labour Exchange, and this work would have meant to them a day without receiving unemployment benefit. Instead of that course being taken, the Secretary for Mines comes here and defends the action of the employers who on three different occasions worked these boys for 16 hours a day without attempting to bring any other men to take their places. The Secretary for Mines says there was reasonable doubt in the employers mind, but I should like to know who was consulted by the inspector. Did he consult the boys? Were they asked a single question? Were the victims ever asked a question by the inspector of mines? The boys were not consulted, and the men who worked with the boys were not consulted. I would like to know if the union officials were consulted. The only persons whom this neutral department and the neutral Government representative consulted seems to have been the employers, and of course the criminals are bound to make any excuse. The Secretary for Mines consulted the criminals but he never consulted the boys, and so far as I know he does not say that he consulted the check-weigher. The employers were consulted. We are told that an inspector was sent down and he consulted the person who committed the offence, but the person consulted says that he did not commit the offence and we believe him. We are asked to say that that is the action of a neutral Minister. The hon. and gallant Gentleman sought to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) when he said that the law was being broken. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite indignant, and said that there had been no breaking of the law, but that there was a doubt as to whether the law was broken or not. Surely, that is all the more reason for undertaking a prosecution. Take the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own words. He says that the Act was not drawn so tightly as it might have been, or, at least, as some people thought it should have been; it leaves a doubt. That is one of the very reasons why a prosecution should have been undertaken, not the third time but the first time, in order to get a case decided in the Courts, so that the miners, the boys and the owners would know exactly where the law stood. Further, if that case had gone against the miners, it would have been the duty of the House of Commons to take immediate steps to put that right. What is the position now? This is vague. We cannot come here and ask for an amendment of the law, because we do not know whether the law says that this is a crime or not. The hon. and gallant Gentleman refuses to undertake a prosecution, because he wants the law to remain vague. When some of my hon. Friends on this side occupied seats on the Front Government Bench at the time of the Campbell case, the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends nearly went wrong in their minds because an ex-soldier, who had not committed any offence like this, was let off. They demanded all sorts of inquiries. Here, however, when their friends are in the dock, when their friends are deliberately committing an inhuman crime, we are asked to believe that the thing was not seriously meant at all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted his figures. He says that so many men were prosecuted for carrying matches to the danger of their fellows. He says that that is dangerous, and everyone admits that it is; no one denies it. But is it any more dangerous than this crime of working a boy of 15 for 16 hours, presumably using the ordinary miner's lamp? You see hon. Members here sleeping after eight hours in an atmosphere like this—eight hours less than the time for which these boys of 15, growing boys, were down a pit with an atmosphere 50 times worse than this, bad as this is. Fancy a boy at the end of 14 hours, and, indeed, more than that, because there is the time occupied in going to his work—possibly 15 or 16 hours, with a miner's lamp, and every temptation for a lad of that age. I never worked in a pit, but it was bad enough in the old days to leave home at five in the morning in order to start work at six, and for growing boys, apprentices, to have to stand on their feet at the bench till about five o'clock at night. Think of the danger to which the employment of these boys in the pit exposed their fellows, and yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about the dangers of people carrying matches, as if this other offence were not far more dangerous. I am told that these boys are even responsible for machinery that is worked in the pits. Imagine that—boys of that age, after all that time down the pit. Then we are told that really no offence was committed, and that we must be satisfied with a guarantee that it will not be done again, and are asked to believe that there is no difference in the administration of the law. I remember a case with a colleague of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's, the Secretary of State for Scotland, at the end of last Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) had a case where some boys of about the same age started to steal some coal from a bin outside the pit. It was the first time they had ever been in trouble, and we came down to this House to ask that their sentence should be reduced from the three months which was imposed. The Secretary of State said, "No; the law must be administered; we must carry out the law with its utmost rigor." That was a case in which poor boys were concerned. This time it is rich mine-owners, and, therefore, they are to be exempt. I say that the case which has been raised to-night is an indefensible case, a shocking case, and that a Minister should never have undertaken the task of defending it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted right at the outset that even to work a boy for eight hours was against a great deal of the laws of humanity, and that from a humanitarian point of view it was hard to defend, but he comes down here to defend working a boy for 16 hours. He ought to have been ashamed of the task that was set him, and no decent man should have taken the job of defending a Government that would allow that to go on. It is said that we must not be vindictive towards the owner. I would not be vindictive towards him, but I would see the law carried out and put into full force against him, for a person who would commit a crime like that deserves an even stricter and harsher law than has hitherto been passed to punish him.I want to say, in the first place, that the new Minister has started very badly so far as the management of mines is concerned. I speak from experience of these matters. In my time I have had the privilege, or the opportunity, of meeting mining inspectors in many cases in connection with our mines, and I know of cases where they have refused to take proceedings. In my time I have had to go to Doncaster myself and see the chief inspector of the York- shire district, submitting to him what evidence I could, and have obtained convictions in prosecutions which have taken place against colliery companies and managers. How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know what would be the result of a prosecution in this case? Was not the Coal Mines Act passed for the purpose of ensuring safety in our mines, and how can we amend the Act unless we know its weakness in regard to various conditions in the mines? This is one of the very cases in which there should have been a prosecution. The hon. and gallant Gentleman alleges that there might not have been a conviction, but this is a case in which, if the law is not clear, it ought to be made clear.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he was going to deal strictly and justly with both sides, but he cannot do that so far as prosecution is concerned, because the jurisdiction of his inspectors is only on one side. If, as has been already said, a workman commits any offence, he is in the hands of the management, and, as has also been said by an hon. Member on this side, there is no telling how many offences have been convicted. I can corroborate the statement that has been made that hundreds of cases happen in the year in our mines in which no conviction takes place, which are compromised by the payment of money, sometimes to hospitals or other kinds of charities, and they are allowed to go free under those conditions. The Coal Mines Act needs remedying if that sort of thing can go on, and if an offence is committed on either side a prosecution ought to be undertaken in the interests of the safety of the men. If this boy had been killed on the third shift the Minister would be in a very serious position. Fortunately he was not killed or injured. Here is a case where the Minister admits a doubt as to getting a. conviction if action had been taken. I have no doubt at all in my mind that a conviction would have been obtained. But assuming that he did not succeed in getting a conviction, it is worth taking the trouble with a view to amending the Act to make it safe for humanity in the mines. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bring in a short Bill to amend this Section so that there shall be no doubt in the future?
A question of amending the law is not in order in this Debate.
It is new legislation I agree, but the thing is of such importance that I thought I should be allowed in the interests of humanity and the safety of life to put it. The point has been put and I hope the Minister will consider what I have said. If we have no amending legislation in the near future it will be up to us to take the necessary steps to bring in an amending Bill.
I think most Members on this side who know anything about coal mines were pretty sure in their own minds what would be the defence made by the coalowners concerned in this case. In every case that has come to my notice ever since this Clause was put into the Act about working over eight hours a day, whether it has been the subject of a prosecution or not, the defence by the coalowner has been that it was a question of emergency. It has been the boast of these people for years that they could drive a coach-and-four through the emergency Clause. They have used it from that point of view and they have broken it scores, hundreds and thousands of times. When they have been faced with it they always ride off on this question of emergency. I was hoping the Secretary for Mines would have known this and, having such a glaring case in front of him, would not have been persuaded by such a, weak and flimsy excuse, because that is what it amounts to. He knows, or should know, as every coal miner and every coalowner knows, that the word "emergency" was never intended to be used in that way. It was intended to be used in cases where something had occurred and a gang of men was necessary to keep the pit going, whereby a good many men might have lost shifts, and particularly in cases where ventilation was impeded and gas might accumulate.
Let us look a little closer at this and see what it really means. It appears to me, and I think to most of us on this side, that the trouble was not that they could not get someone else on the shift that was just going on to do the lad's work, but that they would have had to get a higher paid worker than the lad of 15. Maybe he got half a crown per shift and they would have had to pay another man 4s. 6d., 5s., or even 6s. or 6s. 6d. I guarantee that if the Secretary for Mines cares to sift this business to the bottom he will find that was the real reason why the lad was kept on. I should like to have been present when the coal mines inspector interviewed the coalowners and heard what he said to them in private when they told him it was a question of emergency. The very fact that be reported as he did is proof positive that he did not think it was an emergency case, and I warrant he told them a lot more than has been read out in his Report. I wish we could get the whole business relating to it. It is too flimsy an excuse. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to take his duties seriously he has got to treat these cases much more seriously than he has done up to the present, and when he gets a case as outstanding as this it is his duty to prosecute, if it is only to prevent other people doing the same thing in the future. It has been done too often in the past and, if he is determined to stop it, he has got to take more vigorous action than he has ever taken in the past. There is another question I should like to raise apart from the humanitarian point of view. I remember the question that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) asked a week or two ago about the number of accidents occurring to boys between 14 and 16 and when the figures were given a gasp of astonishment went through the whole House. There were 37 fatal and 264 serious accidents, and the number of less serious accidents could not he given. Serious accidents are those in which there is the loss of a limb or an eye or a fractured skull, which often results in death. In face of that, with a glaring case like this in front of him, the hon. and gallant Gentleman refuses to touch the people who have so flagrantly broken the law. If he wants to reduce that terrible toll of accidents to boys it is in this direction that he has got to act. I was in Doncaster Infirmary a week or two ago. On one side of me was a collier with a broken leg and on the other side a boy of 16 who had been run over by a tram. What position would a boy be in after being in the wretched atmosphere of the pit for that length of time, through loss of energy and physical fatigue, to take care of himself? If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows anything about mines and the haulage roads and the work the boys have to do, he must know they have to use every ounce of energy they have and have every nerve fixed on their work and to be alive to the utmost extent in order to take care of themselves and to prevent accidents happening. When boys are kept in a, pit this length of time the manager is guilty of a criminal offence. We shall be having these accidents going up by leaps and bounds if this kind of thing is to be allowed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman complains because it has been suggested that there is one law for the coalowner and one for the miner. He suggests that while he occupies his office he is going to carry out his duties without fear or favour. I hope it is true, but I have not been very much assured in that respect up to the present. He has been in his position a very short time, and perhaps he has a lot to learn yet. If he can prove to us, after he has had a little more experience and has got thorough knowledge, that he is going to do it, so much the better, but he has got something to live down, not only on the part of his Department hut on the part of his Government. We have a very keen recollection of what has been done in the last two years in regard to the miners and the mineowners and when we charge them with being a mineowners' Government it is because we remember what has been done in these last two years. The hon. Member has got that to face, and, in view of that, I think he will admit that he has got to watch this Question very carefully or we shall be on his toes every time, and we shall make no apology for doing so. I want him to remember that we are suffering under a sense of resentment and indignation at the treatment which has been meted out to us by his Government, and that it is up to him to be as keen as it is humanly possible for the Secretary of Mines to be in watching the interests of our people. Reference was made to the number of prosecutions—176 out of about 7,000 people. He says it is a pretty high average. Maybe it is, but it does not meet every prosecution that ought to have been taken against them by a long way. As the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said, when talking about 800 prosecutions against men out of 1,000,000, there are probably thousands and thousands of fines inflicted on these people and the figures are not comparable. In any event, he must remember that our people are not in the position to prosecute as the Minister of Mines is. They dare not complain in a good many cases where they ought, for the sake of their own lives and welfare, because of the tyranny which would be exercised against them if they dared do it, and because they would lose their jobs. The right hon. Gentleman's Department is subject to no such conditions. He can afford to be impartial and to act when it is necessary, knowing he will suffer from no such tyranny. Having these things in view, I hope in the future if any similar case crops up he will not hesitate to prosecute these people immediately, in the interests of the safety and welfare of the whole mining community.I do not know very much about coal mines. I have not had the misfortune to work in a coal mine, but I know something about boys, for I have boys of my own. It is from that point of view that I approach this question. I approach it as a father and as a member of the working classes hearing of one of his class being treated in this brutal and unnatural fashion in which the colliery owners are now treating my class. Then there is the Secretary for Mines, like all the great men who have occupied that Bench since this Government came into office, who have come there with a great reputation, from the Prime Minister downwards, and whose reputations have gone by the board. It is evident that here is another reputation going by the board. There is the reputation of the present Secretary for Mines. It is a terrible price that a man will pay to get into the Government, a sacrifice, that it should be more to any man than anything else, because
"Who steals my purse steals trash,
But he that filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
The last Secretary for Mines left those Benches with his reputation gone. The present Secretary for Mines is evidently going to walk in the same path, because there is no denying that he is taking an animal view such as those represented on those Benches have taken right down the ages ever since there were coal mines. This animal view is responsible for the hellish conditions in the mines. The animal view of the ruling classes of this country is responsible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down!"] I will not sit down because an hon. Member says so. Do not you say that or I will put you down.And makes me poor indeed."
I would point out to the hon. Member that we are on the Adjournment Motion, and he should keep more strictly to the subject.
I am keeping very strictly to the point, and it will take a better to put me off the point. I am dealing here with the case which has been brought before this House in the most respectable and honourable fashion that a case could be brought. It was brought here when you, Captain FitzRoy, were not in the House, but I was, at Question time, and it was as a result of the offhand manner in which the Minister dealt with the question that we decided that it should be raised on the Adjournment, and we got the Adjournment from Mr. Speaker. Those are the circumstances which we are discussing here to-day, and at the moment I am putting my point of view. I hold that I have every right to put it, and I am going to put it, and you can do what you like with me afterwards.
The hon. Member must confine himself to the point at issue.
I am confining myself to the point. I am pointing out that the Secretary for Mines has got an animal view in dealing with this, and I am showing that it is because of that animal point of view that I will put a direct question to him. How many times has he or his Department prosecuted the mine owners for abusing boys? How many times have the coal owners prosecuted boys for abusing ponies? There is more interest in them because they are ponies and private property, but no interest is taken in the boys. In the same way that animal point of view pervaded that Front Bench when it was suggested that here was a great industry where the Welsh miners work—this is part and parcel of this question—and the individual who spoke for the Government yesterday suggested that the people who were right up against it through no fault of their own, should send round the hat and beg, so that they should be reduced to beggars.
The hon. Member must resume his seat when I rise.
I will do that.
The hon. Member must realise quite well that he is straying from the point.
You say I am straining the point. I agree, but this is a point that is value for straining.
I said the hon. Member was straying.
Oh, I see. I was trying to modify your language, and accommodate it to my point of view. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are not able to pick me up. I spoke about the animal point of view, and, of course, animals cannot understand a Scotsman. My point is this, against the whole of this idea, this complex of mind that is in charge of affairs in this country, that it is all right that the boys of my class should he working 16 hours a day, working like galley ayes, under most unnatural conditions. I was only once down a mine in my life, and I would not work down a mine for all the gold in Christendom, and as far as the present Government are concerned—[Interruption]—I believe those individuals who are interfering with me, if they had to work in a mine, would go and make a hole in the Thames first.
Think what it means. Here are boys, 15 to 16 years of age, working away down in the bowels of the earth, far away from everything that is pleasant, working at work that is brutalising. If it were not that they were reared by heroes—the greatest heroes of unwritten story are their mothers—they would become completely brutalised because of the hellish work which they have to do in order to carry on this great Empire of ours. If every boy in Britain had to be subjected to this I could understand it, and I would not be standing here to-day doing my uttermost to trounce the ruling class at the moment, to try and whip them and make them squirm for the way they have put it on to my class. If every boy, if the boys of the Government at the moment, had to go and work down the pits, do you tell me that this would be allowed to go on? They would hang the employer who would dare do that to their boys. What do they do to their boys? They send them away to Eton, to Cambridge, to Harrow, to Oxford. I have seen them, boys who never work."They toil not, neither do they spin:
[Laughter]—Hon. Members laugh, but a man may smile and smile, and be a villain all the while. It is that type who have never worked, that type who have been reared to enjoy life, who know what it is to be out in the blessed sunshine, paddling in a boat, that type who have the best that this country can give them, making them physically and mentally fit, while my class are condemned to live a hellish life in the bowels of the earth. My class have to work under those hellish conditions, working these damnably long hours, under a system that is crushing the very best that is in them, in order that these other individuals can get so much, all the good things of life. Then we have to send our lassies to go and be servants and wash them and school them and keep their houses in order—And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
The hon. Member must please keep to the point.
Yes, Sir. Here you have a poor boy. Think what it means—16 hours on end. His mate happens not to turn up. A hundred and one things can happen. Probably his mate has been overworked, and he has not been able to come out, and because of that fact here is a little fellow, a manly little boy, somebody's darling—[Interruption]—as much a darling as any of your boys—[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"]—I can speak up, and I can come and hit you on the ear as well as speak up. This
Division No. 60.]
| AYES.
| [9.44 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fite, West) | Barr, J. | Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Batey, Joseph | Buchanan, G. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Bondfield, Margaret | Cape, Thomas |
| Ammon, Charles George | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Charleton, H. C. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Briant, Frank | Cluse, W. S. |
| Baker, Walter | Bromley, J. | Connolly, M. |
| Barnes, A. | Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Dalton, Hugh |
little lad, a better boy than anything that is produced—[ Interruption].
I have told the hon. Member so often to keep to the point that, unless he will do so, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
No, Captain FitzRoy. I want to tell you this.
Order!
I want to—
Sit down!
Is it you with the white shirt front who is telling me to sit down? [Interruption.]
I have told the hon. Member so often to keep to the point that I cannot keep on telling him any more, and I must tell him to resume his seat.
I have a point to make, a point of Order. My point of Order is this, that while I have been speaking I have been interrupted, and it is your duty, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as well as keeping me in order, to see that I am not interfered with by those individuals who are entirely out of sympathy with the topic that is being discussed to-night, who do not give a damn for the working class—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Here you have the miners in the country who are up against it, who are absolutely stabbed in this House. and the Government are doing nothing whatever to try and remedy that terrible state of affairs. [Interruption.]
I do not want to have to take stern measures with the hon. Member, but, if he persists in disregarding my ruling, I shall have to do so.
Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 179.
| Davies Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Lawson, John James | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Day, Harry | Lee, F. | Smillie, Robert |
| Dennison, R. | Lindley, F. W. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Livingstone, A. M. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Lowth. T. | Snell. Harry |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Lunn, William | Stamford, T. W. |
| Gillett, George M. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Gosling. Harry | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins) | Montague, Frederick | Strauss, E. A. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morris. R. H. | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Murnin, H, | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Groves, T. | Haylor, T. E. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Hall, G. H. (Mtrthyr Tydvll) | Oliver. George Harold | Tomlinson, R. P. |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Owen, Major G. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Hardle, George D. | Palin, John Henry | Viant, S. P. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Paling. W. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Potts, John S. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Richardson, R. (Houghfon-le-Spring) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Hore-Bellsha, Leslie | Riley, Ben | Westwood, J. |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Johnston. Thomas (Dundee) | Rose, Frank H. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St.Ives) | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphitly) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Williams, T. (York. Don Valley) |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Saklatvala, Shapurji | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Kelly, W. T. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Windsor, Walter |
| Kennedy, T. | Scrymgeour, E. | Wright, W. |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Scurr, John | |
| Kirkwood, D. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury), | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Lansbury, George | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley. |
NOES
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Ellis, R. G. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Maclntyre, I. |
| Albery, Irving James | Fermoy, Lord | McLean, Major A |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Ford, Sir P. J. | Macmillan. Captain H. |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Forrest. W. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francle E. | Macqulsten, F. A. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Gadle, Lieut-Col. Anthony | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Apsley, Lord | Ganzonl, Sir John | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Gauit, Lieut -Col. Andrew Hamilton | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Atkinson, C, | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Meller, R. J. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Goff. Sir Park | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Greene. W. P. Crawford | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F.E.(Bristol,N.) | Murchison, Sir Kenneth |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Blundell, F. N. | Gunston. Captain D. W. | Neville, Sir Reginald J. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Hamilton, Sir George | Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hunnon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Oakley, T. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Harland, A. | Pennefather, Sir John |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Penny, Frederick George |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Haslam, Henry C. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Henderson. Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley) | Pilcher, G, |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Ramsden, E. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hills, Major John Walter | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Holt, Capt. H. P. | Rees. Sir Beddoe |
| Buchan, John | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Remer, J. R. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hopkins. J. W. W. | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Hopkinson. Sir A. (Eng. Universitles) | Richardson. Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cassels, J. D. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Ruggles-Briss, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.( Ladywood) | Huntingfield, Lord | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Rye, F. G. |
| Christie, J. A. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Couper, J. B. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Lamb, J. Q. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Llndsey,Gainsbro) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip | Sandon, Lord |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Loder, J. de V. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Davidson. Major-General Sir J. H. | Long, Major Eric | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Davies, Maj, Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil) | Looker, Herbert William | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) |
| Davies. Sir Thomas (Clrencester) | Lougher, Lewis | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Skelton, A. N. |
| Dlxey, A. C. | Luce. Major-Gen Sir Richard Harman | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glan | Smithers, Waldron |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Storry-Deans. R. | Vaughan-Moroan, Col. K. P. | Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel George |
| Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Wallace, Captain D. E. | Withers, John James |
| Streatfeild, Captaln S. R. | Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hutt) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Styles, Captain H. Walter | Warrender, Sir Victor | Woodcock. Colonel H. C. |
| Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Watson, Rt, Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Watts, Dr. T. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Tasker, R. Inigo. | Wayland, Sir William A. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) | |
| Tinne, J. A. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
|
| Tltchfield, Maior the Marquess of | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) | Major Cope and Captain Viscount |
| Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) | Curzon |
Consolidated Fund (No 1) Bill
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Question again proposed.
When the Debate was interrupted, I was trying to elaborate the argument that the movement in favour of a Ministry of Defence and of greater co-ordination in the fighting Services was part of a general movement discernible throughout the whole machinery of Government. I had been trying to illustrate that point from what was happening in various fields of Government activity and I had come to the last of my illustrations, which was that of Imperial affairs. In Imperial affairs one Cabinet Minister runs two Departments, which have only just been separated, besides the Imperial Economic Committee, and so on, and I want to ask whether it would be really absurd to suggest that the time might come when there might he a Secretary of State for Imperial Affairs, and that Indian Affairs might come under a Secretary of State for Imperial Affairs and not have a separate Secretary of State as at the present time.
I have wandered some way from the question of a Ministry of Defence in order to bring out the point that a unified administration of the fighting Services is really only part of a much wider problem. The main aspect of the problem was touched on by the Prime Minister when he referred to the functions of the Cabinet. I am not at all sure that the time may not come when we shall have to choose between two quite distinct conceptions of the functions of the Cabinet. On the one hand, there is the prevailing view of the Cabinet as a group of small people—[Laughter]—I mean a small group of people acting as one man; people who are Cabinet Ministers first and heads of Departments second. If you hold the view that the essence of Cabinet Government is that the Cabinet should consist of a small number of people, it seems to me that the right thing to do is to have as many Under-Secretaries as you like, so long as you group all the work under the major heads. Recent Cabinets have consisted of something like 20 members. Anyone with experience of any sort of committee work knows that it is very difficult for 20 people to act as one, or at any rate not as easy as it is for halt a dozen or a dozen at the most. The other view is that it does not matter much how big a Cabinet is, because you can split up the work into committees and you can co-ordinate the work of those committees by having a standing secretariat. I would not be so presumptuous as to give a definite opinion as to which of these two views of the Cabinet is the better one. I must say that my inclination is towards what I call the traditional view of the Cabinet. But, as a matter of fact, during and particularly since the War we have gone quite a long way in the other direction. If this is to be the future line of development, a Ministry of Defence is not so necessary; that is to say, if you are to have a large Cabinet and if all the committees about which the Prime Minister has been telling us are the right way to arrange these things, then I am not sure that a Ministry of Defence is so necessary on broad grounds, although it may very well be justified on technical grounds. But if you take the other view, if you take the view that your Cabinet ought to be a small body of people, then I think a Ministry of Defence is essential, because it is only by reducing the representatives of the fighting Forces in the Cabinet to one, and by making some similar reduction in the number of Ministers that attend to other services in the Cabinet, that you can possibly have a small enough body of men to be able to think and act together without the cum- bersome machinery of secretariat and sub-committees into which we are gradually drifting? The Prime Minister mentioned the Haldane Committee on "The machinery of Government," and my recollection is that on the question of the? Ministry of D efence what they said was that they thought the thing had better remain as it was, because they sat at the end of the War and they recognised that war conditions could not end all at once and—I think it was in the latter part of 1918—they could not see their way to make definite recommendations on the subject. But conditions have changed a great deal since 1918. What I would like to ask the Prime Minister is this: Would he consider carrying on and bringing up to date the work of the Haldane Committee on "The machinery of Government"? The reason why I ask that question in this particular connection is this: It seems to me that it is only by examining the place of the fighting Services in the administrative machine as a whole that you can come to a conclusion as to whether or not a Ministry of Defence is worth while on the broad view, apart from the technical points which have been put by my hon. Friend.10.0 p.m.
I had hoped to take part in this Debate earlier in the day and to say various things, but I now find that most of them have already been said, and I will confine myself to one point. I would like, first of all, to thank the Liberal party for having given us an opportunity of discussing this very important question. Important as was the subject of discussion a few moments ago, the subject we are now debating is even more important, and, speaking for myself, I wish that we had been able to devote the whole of our time to it. My one point is this: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) quoted one of my statements and rather challenged my contention that the battleship was the backbone of the Fleet. As it at present exists, it seems to me that the battleship, and nothing else, is the backbone of the Fleet. I do not mean to say that I believe the battleship cannot be defeated from the air. I do not know; I do not believe that anyone know whether a mass attack by dozens and perhaps hundreds of aeroplanes would demolish a Fleet or not. No one can be dogmatic about it. Put the matter the converse way. Supposing the First Lord of the Admiralty came to the House and said: "I am going to risk it, and to abolish all our battleships, even if other countries keep theirs." Should we then be safe?
Yes, perfectly safe.
I cannot contradict my superior officer, but I am bound to say that I am doubtful whether cruisers and aircraft could protect merchantmen in all parts of the world against an enemy battle fleet. It would be a very serious risk, and, while I am not in love with the battleship, I do not believe that as a nation we can abandon battleships before other people do so, without running very serious risks indeed. Let me add that the first thing I want to see abolished by common consent is the battleship. It is the most expensive engine that humanity has devised for destruction, not only in itself, but in its dockyards and all its various appurtenances. If the countries of the world cannot agree to promise never to fight each other again, they might at any rate agree to make peace time a little more pleasant by reducing expenditure on their most expensive arm, by reducing battleships. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year wants the race between revenue and expenditure to be a little more uneven and to have his revenue well ahead of expenditure, the best way to do it is to get on as far as possible internationally with the reduction of the size and fire and number, and the increase of the age of battleships of all kinds.
In conclusion, let me say that it does not seem to me that the Prime Minister was quite clear on one matter. Undoubtedly what the man-in-the-street feels to-day is that we are spending a tremendous sum on the Navy and on battleships, and that we are spending a very much smaller sum on the Air Force. He feels uneasy about it, and he feels that the relative expenditure between the three Forces is settled in rather a curious way. He feels that it is settled by a wrangling between the three Ministers concerned. In other words, the relative strength of the three Services of this nation is decided when the Prime Minister decides which wrangler he is going to put into office. If it be a question of wrangling, and the devil takes the hindmost, the Secretary of State for Air seems to me to be in the clutches of the devil at the present time. From the national point of view—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman in winding up the Debate will make this clear—how is the decision come to with reference to the relative expenditure of the three fighting Forces? As a naval officer, I rather think we are spending too much on the Navy and not enough on the Air Force, that there is a threat to the centre of our Empire from aerial attack which is greater than the threat to our battleship and sea supremacy. I think I am expressing the feelings of a great number of Members on this side of the House when I say that we are not satisfied that this decision on the relative expenditure on the three fighting Forces is come to in a cool, calm and clear atmosphere. The decision seems to be come to by a wrangling between the three Departments.I would like to offer one or two comments on this subject, which is, to my mind, a question of unity of control—whether it is desirable to have complete unity of control or not. Let me refer for a moment to what happened during the War. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was in control at the time, was very anxious to achieve unity of command during the War, but, from our point of view, there was only one way of achieving it and that was by appointing a Generalissimo. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would not have that, and in this House, in November, 1917, he stated that it was his definite conviction that that solution was unthinkable—that was the expression he used—for this reason, that if he put the British Army under a French Generalissimo the responsibility for the safety of the British Army would really devolve upon the Cabinet and not upon the British Commander-in-Chief, and it would make extraordinary difficulties for the British Cabinet. He much preferred to have Committees to effect the unity of command. We find precisely the same thing to-day. It has been described this afternoon that the unity of control in the three Services is being secured by Committee, a multitude of Committees, which is a weakness. When these Committees are really co-ordinated by a very powerful Secretariat, I think they make for still further weakness.
I am not one of those who advocate running straight into a Ministry of Defence right away. I think it is quite impossible to do so. I am one of those who believe very strongly in the Report of Lord Haldane's Committee on the machinery of Government. I believe it is absolutely sound, but there, again, we cannot get that straight away. I think that we have to make greater progress towards a Ministry of Defence, which is the obvious solution, never mind what anybody thinks. Obviously, we have to get to it in course of time. We are going too slowly at the moment. We have to make greater progress. I congratulate the Government upon taking one step, and a very important step—the establishment of the Imperial College in Buckingham Gate. It is a step in the right direction. I have always advocated the construction of a combined General Staff, or whatever you like to call it—a staff which will study the naval, military and air problems. It is essential that we should train people up to it, and I am glad that the Government have established such a college. But we are not going quickly enough. A greater pace is required. I asked the Prime Minister—I think it was two years ago—whether he would not give a day in this House for the discussion of Service Estimates as a whole, and the answer he gave, as far as my recollection goes, was that on that particular occasion it was impossible, but he would think about it on another occasion. We have not had it this year. I say that we want it next year. We want some evidence of progress towards this end, which we all know must come in the establishment of a Ministry of Defence. I feel very strongly that the Government ought to promise us a day for the discussion of Imperial Defence as a whole. If I were to get up on the Army Estimates and talk on naval matters or on air matters I should be ruled out of order, and on the Air Estimates and the Navy Estimates I should be limited to those subjects. This question is one whole question. You cannot divide it into parts; you have to discuss it as a whole. We have to get this unity of control, and the sooner we realise that the better. My whole object in rising to-night is not to say that we ought to have a Ministry of Defence at once, which I believe is impossible, but to urge that we should make some progress towards it. Let us next year have a chance of discussing the subject as a whole and not in the watertight compartments as we have been forced to do in the past. I certainly think that Ministry of Defence is the ultimate solution, and we have to work towards it gradually, but regularly and systematically.A discussion on this question as a whole certainly was promised to us in the past. There may have been reasons why that intention could not be carried out, but I certainly think that it is desirable that we should have such a discussion before the Service Votes are disposed of. I venture to think that if this question of a Ministry of Defence were submitted to a free vote of the House, it would be carried by an overwhelming majority. I do not think that would be because the question would be carried entirely on its merits. One reason is that we do not trust the multitude of confidential committees to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred. We have never been given since the War a public inquiry into the question of the unity of the Services for war purposes, and how to bring about economy and efficiency in the three fighting Services. In the old days we referred to the evils of being insured in two offices. Now we are insured in three offices, and the question has become more complex. With regard to those confidential committees, of which the Prime Minister told us so much, we know nothing about witnesses or about the terms of reference. I think we have had quotations from the Colwyn Committee given in the Debates in this House and we have had quotations in the House of Lords, and quotations against the Navy and in favour of the Air. Then it emerged that Lord Colwyn had never even asked the Chief of the Naval Staff to give evidence. What is the value of a Committee of that kind?
Then there was the Salisbury Committee. I only know of two of the conclusions at which they arrived. One was that the menace of a military invasion had become less. I say that the menace of a military invasion never even existed. They also said that the air menace had become greater. That is true; and yet it is not exactly true. Aircraft have become so powerful that no army would part with it for the purpose of raiding cities. They want it in order to destroy the enemy army's communications and to protect their own; and that is now in the French war plans. Therefore, I say that the air menace has become even less than it was during the War, because it is so valuable that aircraft cannot be spared for the purpose. We have been told of the working of the Committee of Imperial Defence. It has done very valuable work indeed, but on the major propositions the Committee of Imperial Defence utterly fails. It failed on the major proposition of providing the machinery for the conduct of war. What happened on the outbreak of the War? On the 5th August, 1914, the Committee of over 30 assembled, consisting of 22 Cabinet Ministers and a number of officers of the. Army and of the Navy. There were great differences of opinion. The Committee sat a long time and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the Army should go to France. Thereupon, the whole of the General Staff fled to France, and when Lord Kitchener arrived at the War Office he found no General Staff there. Then there was set up a Committee of the Departments, presided over by an Admiral. That Committee was superseded in 1914 by the War Council. In May, 1915, there came the Dardanelles Committee, with 12 Cabinet Ministers on it, and following that came another War Council, and then at last we reached the right solution, referred to by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the War Cabinet, of Ministers without portfolio. These changes took place. because the Committee of Imperial Defence had not prepared on the important question of the conduct of war. The reason why we have such great difficulties, it seems to me, is that we will not face facts during peace. We have to learn during war. I take the Crimean War. The only use that was to us was that it taught us the impossibility, as the Secretary of State for War knows, of having a separate artillery and engineering force under the Master-General of Ordnance. That was stopped in 1855; but we have repeated that mistake in connection with the Air Force in having a separate Air Force independent of the Army or Navy. The South African War taught the Army to form a General Staff, but it did not teach the Navy. Then came the Agadir crisis, and Mr. Asquith decided that the Navy must have a war staff. He sent a, Cabinet Minister to the Admiralty, but all he did was to form an Intelligence Department, not a war staff, and it was not until after the Great War had taught us the lesson that the Navy got a war staff. I could refer to the wrong conclusions arrived at by the Committee of Imperial Defence with regard to invasion in 1912 and 1913. The Committee of Imperial Defence considered the question of invasion, and they decided to tie up a large part of the Army in order to resist invasion. It was not until the disaster in March, 1918, that this policy was finally stopped, and within two weeks we had thrown across the Channel 287,000 men in order to retrieve that disaster. I turn for a moment to what the Prime Minister has said about the Chiefs of Staff Committee. They have, he said, reached agreement on many points, but is it not because the main questions referred to the Chiefs of Staff Committee are questions on which they are likely to reach agreement? They have not referred to them questions on which there are likely to be differences of opinion; and I put it to the Secretary of State for War, if the Chiefs of Staffs have ever had referred to them the important question of the defence of commerce in the Mediterranean? It is largely an air question, because the declared policy of France is to apply the air menace to merchant ships, just as the Germans applied the submarine menace to merchant ships. Therefore, the Navy must know, in connection with the defence of commerce in the Mediterranean, what possible assistance it can get from the air, and that is a very important question. It is often said that a Minister of Defence would be in exactly the same position as a Cabinet Minister is in now, that is to say, that he would have to be guided by experts, but he would have the advantage of choosing his own experts, and I am not sure that, if the right men were chosen, he would not be an expert himself. The leader of the Liberal party, when he was Prime Minister, asked the question, "When does a man become an expert?" and he answered it himself by saying that it was when a man had had experience. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman anticipated another answer which one might have made. I felt inclined to tell the story of Frederick the Great who, when discussing with his generals the value of experience in war, said he had two mules which had been through 20 campaigns, but, he added, "They are still mules." You will find mules among generals, and among admirals, and among politicians too. I acknowledge the difficulty of getting the right man as Minister of Defence, but types of men have been produced in this country like Cardinal Wolsey, Cromwell and Chatham—all men who could conduct war and impose their will on their experts. In the old days of Greece and Rome, when they were in their primacy, they produced men of this type, who were statesmen in times of peace and commanded armies in the field in times of war. It was only when they began to specialise that Greece and Rome fell. Then the statesmen became politicians and the generals became technicians. But quite recently in our own history we have produced these men. In south Africa, Botha was one of them, and so was Smuts; and if we could only bring Smuts home he would make a very good Minister of Defence indeed, but I venture to say that he would have to be freed from the trammels of being elected to Parliament. When we introduce our House of Lords Bill we will have to provide for Ministers from the other Chamber coming to speak in this Chamber.That will be never.
We would also have to do another thing. A Minister of Defence would be of no use in a Cabinet of 21 members. You cannot conduct affairs in connection with a war with 21 members. Such a Cabinet is only a debating society, and it would be necessary to reduce the Cabinet to an efficient working force of five members.
I think hon. Members must be thankful that we have had a Debate of this kind introduced in a non-party spirit. That has been the spirit not only of those who introduced the Debate but also of those who have followed. I was extremely interested to find that the vast majority of speakers in the Debate have been in favour of a Ministry of Defence. Speaking in favour of the proposal have been representatives of the Navy, of the Army, of the Air Force, and, if I may say so, of the civilian population. It is a most remarkable achievement that Members of such divergent views should be brought to agreement upon this matter. I think we ought to examine the reason for this great change over of opinion since the Haldane Commission of 1918. I think we must realise that the Haldane Commission was set up at a time when we were overcome by war problems, and when we were thinking in terms of the Great War. We have had time to forget that, and to disabuse our minds of a great deal of prejudice and false doctrine that we generated in that War. Now we realise, perhaps, that the three forces in that War are not separate forces, but one force.
Before the War, we had only the Army and the Navy, and there was a very nice distinction between the two. The Navy took charge of everything below high-water mark and the Army of everything above high-water mark, and even then there was often difficulty as to how the coastal defence batteries were to be dealt with. Now we have more confusion between the three forces. I am interested in anti-aircraft, and I should like to draw the attention of the Government to the difficult state of confusion that exists in air defence, as an illustration of the necessity of a Ministry of Defence. If hostile airships ever came over the North Sea, they would presumably be attacked by the Navy, but the moment they crossed dry land, they would probably come under the aircraft guns of the Army. If they went to the north coast of Lincolnshire and along the Humber, they would fly about first over the sea, and then over land, and they would come under the Army and Navy alternately every few seconds. We cannot control the defences of the country with a complicated system like that. We must have one Minister in charge during peace time to co-ordinate the policy of air defence. I should like to issue a distinct caveat against dealing with defence by committees as against putting it under one person, such as a Minister of Defence. However efficient, willing, and competent committees are in peace time, they can be no more than advisory bodies. We want someone to take charge of the defence of this country, and for that reason, we are, sooner or later, bound to come to a Ministry of Defence. The difficulty of saying whether we want more cruisers or more airships has been mentioned, but we have to decide what is to be the future of the personnel of these Services. We see the Army becoming mechanised. Are we going to train separate mechanicians for the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, or are we to have one school, so that we can transfer the men from one Force to another as they are required; the same with signals and wireless telephony, with clerical staffs, the hospital staffs, and the general administration services. It is time we stopped suggesting to ourselves that we have three Forces. It is essential that we should concentrate on the idea that we have one force to deal with, a force that is split up into three parts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that it was impossible to say where we were journeying, and he gave the instance of gunners in the War who were trained more quickly than we thought was possible. As an old gunner, I agree that it is amazing how quickly gunners were trained, and they were perfectly all right as long as it was trench warfare, but once the guns began to move it was difficult for them to carry out their duties. It is perfectly true, as he said, that we do not know on what courses we are moving. Therefore, we must have one head to say how the three Forces are to divide the money. We are all interested in economy, and we have considerable doubt whether at present the money is expended in the right direction. For myself, I take the view that competition among the three equal heads is not the right way of deciding to which services the money shall go. Therefore, I wish to associate myself in a non-party spirit with those who hope that the future of defence of this country will be in the hands of a Minister of Defence.I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating the Liberal party on bringing forward this subject, and I would support the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) in regard to the lack of opportunities for dealing with this question. When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and I tried to bring this subject up on a certain occasion, we were talked out, and therefore this is an opportunity which we welcome. I would recall a point to which I referred on that occasion. In 1922 the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) had brought in a Bill to deal with this question. The Geddes Committee, after considering the subject, had reported in favour of a Ministry of Defence, and on that occasion the late Sir Henry Wilson, who was a Member of the House, dealt with the subject in this way. He said the air is not to be under the Army or the Navy nor is the Navy to be under the Army or the Air, nor is the Army to be under any body except itself, but they are all to co-operate. The word "co-operation" translated into action in this way, means to lose the war. The Prime Minister at that time, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), said such a Minister was impossible because a super-Minister would be necessary. From his remarks this afternoon, to which I listened with great interest, I am glad to see that he has altered his opinion on that subject. We all welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister, because at last we have some idea of the workings of this subject. I trust he may be prepared to consider this question rather on the lines I propose to develop. One recognises that a Ministry of Defence may not be possible at once and must develop, and that from a strategical point of view probably in the present Committee of Imperial Defence the best solution. We all recognize— all who happen to know anything of the general staff—that that committee has done valuable work and is now in a position to put forward a considered case. Further, the establishment of the Imperial College will enable an Imperial trend of thought to be developed, which was not possible before, when they have produced an Imperial General Staff to deal and to think imperially.
if the Prime Minister will allow me to say so, I think he is really the Minister of Defence, but we must all recognise that with his enormous responsibilities and duties it is quite impossible for him to be able to devote sufficient time to study the very contentious questions which are put up to him by the three chiefs of the Imperial General Staff, who, in virtue of the positions they occupy as representing their own particular arms, are bound to differ on important subjects, and it is impossible for the Prime Minister to study their minutes with sufficient care to form an opinion as detailed and concise as he would wish to do. Therefore, I suggest that under the present organisation there ought to be a Deputy-Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence, say either the Lord President of the Council or somebody in a very high position, who would be able to balance the considered knowledge of three officers in the position of the chiefs of the Imperial General Staff and be able to co-ordinate their opinions sufficiently to present a case to the Cabinet. I feel that something of this kind might be a possible solution of the qestion. In the case of the Administrative Service I cannot help feeling that the House will agree that the details which have been given by the Prime Minister were particularly necessary. I have known many who have served on some of the Committees which dealt with the various subjects referred to by the Prime Minister, and I know that the Departments have been criticised a good deal in regard to overlapping. Accordingly, in this connection, I do not think that the Committee of Imperial Defence can be the final body. It has already been pointed out that that body is advisory and consultative, but it is necessary to have an executive body represented in the House of Commons. Without wishing to suggest anything which would unduly upset the present arrangement, I feel that we might continue the present system, giving more power, say, to a Deputy-Chairman of the Imperial Defence Committee; but I think we should also have some Minister who can deal with the Services, and who would be able to co-ordinate all the problems which have been criticised in this House. Perhaps the Minister who is going to reply to these questions will be able to consider my suggestion. Generally, it is quite easy to suggest a Ministry of Defence, but, as the Prime Minister pointed out, we shall have to rely upon the present organisation, and I hope the points I have put may be a stepping stone towards achieving that object. I think more power should be given to a Deputy-Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and that there should be a Minister to co-ordinate the Administrative Services.Before I say anything about administration and defence, I want to refer to a remark which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), who spoke about the Gough disaster in 1918. No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not mean to impute anything to General Gough, but, in case there should be any such impression, may I say that so far as my own knowledge goes it was not General Gough who was responsible for anything that happened in the spring of 1918. I do not want to suggest that we should find a scapegoat, but, if we did, it would not be Sir Hubert Gough.
I think anyone who has been concerned in any way with the conduct of war must have been very unimpressed by the description which was given by the Prime Minister of the mechanism of the Committee of Imperial Defence as a means of organising for war, and far more so for carrying on a war. I never thought when I entered this House that I should ever find myself in accord with the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but this afternoon, in reference to almost everything he has said, I find myself in complete agreement, and the same applies to what was said by the hon. Member for Fareharn (Sir J. Davidson). He and I were associated in the conduct of the War in France on the staff of the Commander-in-Chief. He knows better than I do, but I know, perhaps, as well as other Members of the House how much one was hampered all through those operations by the lack of unity of control and unity of purpose. It is a question not only of unity of command but of unity of purpose, and that is one thing that you can never achieve by committees. However formidable the names of their members may be, however assiduous may be their work, they can never achieve promptness and unity. A committee will either report as a compromise or will waste time, which is valuable in war and nearly as valuable in peace, in trying to come to agreement. That is not the way in which war can be organised, conducted or run. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs pointed out, I think with complete justice, that the three Service Departments, as we know them now, are only in fact one part, and perhaps not even the most important part, of the whole machinery that has to be brought into play to conduct and win a war. But, at the same time, although they are only one part of the machinery, they must be directed together. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs referred, again with complete justice and truth, to the loss of the Channel ports in the earlier stages of the War. I can hardly conceive of a General Staff, comprising Naval, Army, and Air Force officers, losing sight as completely as they did lose sight of the importance of these Channel ports to the future of the War. Then there was another point which, so far as I know, has not been brought into evidence in this Debate, and here, perhaps, I may part company with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. If, in the conduct of war, you find a Minister of the Crown, whether he be the Minister for War, or the Prime Minister, or any other Minister, who may have some ideas on the conduct of war which are not in accord with military principles or practice, then, in one or other of these committees, he will find the means of getting people to support him for technical reasons in carrying out his scheme, which may be entirely unsuited to the conduct of these operations. That in itself, I think, is a sufficient reason why these innumerable committees, all of them independent of one another, can never be successful in organising or carrying out a war. It is quite true that the control of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force may require what the Prime Minister called a super-man, by which I think he meant a man out of the ordinary. That is perfectly true, but it is equally true that war, above all things, does throw up men who are out of the ordinary, and I have not the least doubt that the British nation would throw up, in due course, a man competent for such a big thing as the control of the three integral parts of war, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham pointed out that it was really a question of the pace at which we advance. He and other hon. Members have also pointed out, and I think it is quite true, that the great majority of the Members of this House are already convinced, as, indeed, any student of history must be, that the ultimate solution of this problem lies in a Ministry of Defence. The question is not what we are aiming at, but how fast we can advance towards the goal which is not only aimed at by us but is inevitable, and I admit that there is room for great diversity of opinion. It would not be possible at the present moment, by any Resolution of this House, to institute an active Ministry of Defence. The first step, or one of the steps, has been taken by the present Government in the organisation of the college which is now in Buckingham Gate, but I do not think we should wait until that college itself produces a scheme for the transition before we take the initial steps. The ultimate scheme no one now living can foresee; it must be the result of experience, it must be the result of mistakes. But the sooner we begin to start an organisation, to get that experience, to make those inevitable mistakes, and so gain knowledge, the better. The committee of the Chiefs of the General Staff, to which the Prime Minister referred, is undoubtedly a step forward as compared with anything which has existed before in giving what may be called a General Staff view to the Cabinet; but that committee of General Staff officers, like all committees, will probably only consider questions on which they are more or less in agreement already. No one can imagine the Chief of the General Staff of the Army or the First Lord of the Admiralty, or the Chief of the Naval Staff, bringing to the committee some point on which he knows he is directly and strongly at variance with either or both. He will keep it away as far as he can from the committee. It seems to me that the committee, existing as it does and doing good work, remains the basis on which we can make the next step forward, and one of the first steps should be to give that committee a small staff and say to it, "You will continue to be a committee, but, instead of being co-equal, one of you, selected by the Prime Minister, shall be the head and the chief and the presiding person at the committee and with due responsibility." There is a great danger, which has not been emphasised in this Debate, but which became very obvious during the War, that in a permanent staff committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence you may obtain a dangerous rival to the General Staff, a rival, not in knowledge, not in study of the subject, but in influence, and it may well be that at some stage or other, either in preparation for war or in the conduct of war, you may find the Committee of Imperial Defence urged one way by their permanent staff, who are in the main drawn from the fighting Services, and the other way by the permanent technical advisers of the Navy and Army and Air Force. That ought not to be. There ought to be one, and only one, definite source of technical advice to the Ministry, and the technical advice ought to be in a unified form from one staff representing those three most important parts of the great machine which represents the defence of the country. We were discussing in Committee this morning a Bill in which every fault of this system of Committees and Boards and advisers without responsibility was contrasted with a system in which there was. one responsible Department giving one system of responsible advice. No words I can say could have been more eloquent and forcible than those that fell from a Member of the Ministry in favour of the single system and against the Board system. Every word that fell from that Member of the Cabinet is equally applicable when one is considering the question of this system of Committees as against a unified staff representing the three Fighting Services, representing an educated and a considered opinion on a Service problem to the Cabinet. I quite realise that in this Debate we shall probably go no further forward. We have talked it out, and we must wait until next year before some active step can be taken. I hope by the time the Debate is renewed, as I trust it will be next year, the Prime Minister will have seen his way to take another step forward towards the goal which is quite inevitable and whereby we can alone obtain not only the security of our country but true efficiency and true economy.The Government are very glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) has raised this question. I do not propose to repeat the very complete statement made by the Prime Minister earlier in the day. As there has been a great number of speeches mostly in favour of some form of Ministry of Defence—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—there is great variance between the conceptions of hon. Members who have spoken, but I admit that they were mostly in favour of some form of Ministry of Defence—I think it is right that I should at least endeavour to reconcile the position of the Government with the aspirations of many of those who have spoken. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened this discussion did not pledge himself to a Ministry of Defence. Those who were present will have observed the care with which he shied at the name Minister of Defence. As he developed his argument, he showed that really he had in mind a super Minister who was to be in complete control of the three Fighting Services. He called it a Central Control Board under a Minister, with a grant of money from Parliament for its services, indistinguishable from a Minister of Defence except in this one particular—Which was rather noteworthy—that this Minister of Defence was to be one of the lucky individuals who were to escape Treasury control. He was to be so much superior to any Chancellor of the Exchequer that he himself was to be the sole arbiter in the expenditure of the money voted to him.
No.
It was so noticeable that I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to see what he did in fact say in his speech. However, the main argument was that there should be a Minister of Defence called by some other name, such as a Board of Control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was quite outspoken. He was in favour of a Ministry of Defence. He admitted, of course, that committees were useful, but he said they were futile in action. Of course, we never have supposed that committees were to have executive powers, but that they were in fact to be advisory. In fact the Prime Minister made it quite clear that the Committee of Imperial Defence and all the other committees were advisory and advisory only. It was not intended that they should supersede the responsibilities of the three Ministers who now represent the defence services. The right hon. Gentleman complained of these committees nevertheless.
I think it was highly desirable that the Prime Minister should have informed the House of the amount of co-ordination which has already taken place, and the amount of examination which has already been made into the overlapping which the War showed up and which would take place if no such co-ordination was in fact in operation. The committees have examined the different questions and have reported to the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Committee of Imperial Defence have made their recommendations to the Cabinet and the Cabinet have come to a decision. The decision binds the various departments, and when these decisions have been accepted by the Cabinet the various Fighting Departments are bound to, and do, in fact, carry them into operation. I think it is most useful that Members of the House should realise that the Departments are not careless of overlapping and are not competing with each other and duplicating services. On the contrary, where there is any suspicion of such duplication, the Committee of Imperial Defence has made an investigation, and executive action has followed in the way which I suggest is the right way, on the decision of the Cabinet through the Departments which are responsible to this House for administration. It is odd to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs jeering at these Committees—and he was supported by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)—because, if there is a sinner in this matter, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is the greatest sinner of all. At the end of the War there were in existence over 200 Committees which had been doing exactly this work, which has been co-ordinating the various services in the War, and which had been reporting to the War Cabinet, so that the War Cabinet should take action in those matters. That is what we want in peace as well as in war, and more in peace than in war, and it is precisely for that reason that these Committees have been set up, so that appropriate action shall be taken, on the responsibility of the Cabinet, by the various Departments.But you have not got your super-Cabinet now.
It may not be a super-Cabinet according to Members of the Labour party, but from the point of view of the Conservative party, whether or not it is super, it is a Cabinet which makes decisions, which puts the various Departments into action, and in which these overlappings or other evils are dealt with.
The right hon. Gentleman represents a Department, and is putting out the Departmental point of view.
Is it not right that the House should hear the, other side? The House has heard quite a number of speeches by very well-informed hon. and gallant Members giving one point of view, and is it not well that the House should hear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman calls the Departmental point of view, though I should have said it was rather a wider point of view myself? I do not understand what the hon. and gallant Member's complaint is.
That it is from the narrow point of view.
Is the complaint that I am too narrow? Let us develop that. Whether or not there is a Minister of Defence, it is not suggested that the personnel of the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force should be amalgamated, nor is it suggested that they should be entirely interchangeable. Presumably the Army will continue to be an Army, the Navy will continue to be a Navy, and the Air Force will continue to be an Air Force. It is true that strategy and some part of the administration might be unified, but it is not proposed that each organisation should be either scrapped or amalgamated. Then their functions, to a certain extent, will continue, and there will be overlapping unless it is cured, and the Committees of which we are speaking will still be necessary, whether there is one Minister or whether there are three Ministers, unless yon scrap separate Services altogether and amalgamate them as one, which you cannot do. Then why complain of the Committees? Why say it is an excrescence of three Ministries? It is not. It is a necessary part of a great administration.
11.0 p.m. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) asked whether, amongst all these Committees, the problem of the Mediterranean had even been considered. Yes; there has been an inquiry into that very question by a Committee of the Imperial Defence Committee. The Chiefs of Staff Committee is the nearest approach towards a Ministry of Defence that has yet been made. The Chiefs of Staff Committee is a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, to which questions are referred, especially questions which relate to joint action by the three Services. Over and over again questions, for example, of what should be done in regard to the position in Shanghai have been referred to the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and they have given us not three separate advices, but one advice. [An HON. MEMBER: "A compromise!"] Not a compromise. Who says a compromise? Why a compromise? Not a compromise at all. It is advice given by the responsible chiefs of the three Services, who will not compromise, but who will give fair and proper advice, according to their merits.
Suppose that one of these three members holds diametrically divergent views from the others. What is he to do? Is he to sign a minority report, or is he to compromise?
My hon. and gallant Friend hardly does credit to the Chiefs of the Services. They are men who are considering a question which takes the form of what is the best kind of force to apply to a particular situation.
They may differ.
Why should they differ? The reason why they should not differ is that the occasion does require a decision which is clearly plain among instructed people, and they are instructed men. I do not know of any case, although a great many references have been made to that Joint Staff Committee, where there has been a difference of opinion between them. It is a most valuable Committee, which is now advising the Cabinet, and whether there were a Ministry of Defence or not I cannot believe that anyone would scrap a Committee of that sort. It does co-ordinate, in a degree which has never been surpassed, the force at the disposal of the Government, and does bring into operation the force most suited for the occasion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs accuses us of not having learned the lessons of the War, and he proceeded to illustrate that. He said that there was competition between the Army and the Navy for supplies and for manufactures during the War. I am very well aware of that fact. I was at the Ministry of Munitions for some part of the time, and I know very well that we always found the Navy was getting ahead with various supplies which the Army and the Air Force would well have liked to have. It is precisely because of that experience that some of these Committees, which hon. Members are inclined to deride, have been set up, so that the supply, where there is a limited amount of supply, shall be properly allocated between the requirements of the Services. We have now set up an organisation which, should there, unfortunately, be a war, could be put into operation, which will prevent the sort of competition to which my right hon. Friend referred. Already, these Committees have been considering these questions, and from them, if necessary, should the war be big enough, a Ministry of Munitions or a Ministry of Supply could be formed, and some part of the permanent personnel is actually being formed in the work of these Committees, so that, instead of having the scramble and the muddle which we had at the beginning of the last War, we shall have men who have been following up the work in these Committees, and can take their place in a Ministry of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman next asked us to remember that not only the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, but that foreign affairs came into war. It was hardly necessary to remind us of that, but never-the less he did. He explained to us that Turkey and Bulgaria were lost and the United States and France had been retained; also that finance and the power of manufacture took a part in war. He advanced all this as evidence that there should be a Ministry of Defence. Is the Minister of Defence to govern the finance and foreign affairs as well as the Navy, Army and Air Force?My right hon. Friend never suggested that. He used the argument that if the three Services were combined in one Ministry of Defence it would not be an overpowering Ministry in the Government, but the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would be as important, and that during the War we failed in that we did not get in Turkey and Bulgaria and other powers. My right hon. Friend was only giving an illustration, that a Ministry of Defence would not be over-powerful in the Cabinet.
I accept that statement from my hon. and gallant Friend, but I do not quite know why the right hon. Gentleman advanced that argument, nor do I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has succeeded in making it much clearer to me. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was a great danger that we had not learned the lesson of the War, that dual control was a serious thing, and that all these results had followed because of dual control in the War and the want of concentration in the hands of a Ministry of Defence. The truth is that all those things are undoubtedly essential for the winning of a war. Finance is an extremely powerful weapon. The getting or losing of allies is also an extremely important affair. But that is not an argument in favour of a Ministry of Defence; it is an argument in favour of a strong War Cabinet; it is an argument in favour of a strong central control which will control finance, foreign affairs, the Army and the Navy and other services.
But whether there were three Ministers or one Minister, that form of central control would be just as much required, and I cannot see the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He painted another picture, in his inimitable way, of the three Ministers on this Bench all struggling to share what he called the loot—an odd phrase. What was the loot to which he referred'? Is it money which apparently in a lump sum the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day can spare? Was that it? Who are the three Ministers who are all scrambling for a share of it? I do not know whether that is going to be what will be done by a future Labour Government, or a Liberal Government for that matter, if there is one. If that is what is going to happen I can tell the right hon. Gentleman this: That is not the way in which the Conservative Government conduct their business. It is not a question of a lump sum which is thrown at three Ministers and of the cunning or obstinate getting the share that they deserve. On the contrary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Government is most careful to examine every estimate, and he does not allow the Admiralty or the War Office or the Air Ministry to have a penny more than they can show is absolutely essential for the purpose of the Service. Do I not know it? It is not a question of sharing the loot. I would not mind that, probably, from my own point of view. I try and get my share. But that is not what happens in our Government.I think we know of that. If the right hon. Gentleman were the Secretary of State for Air, would he be very pleased to see six heavy batteries in the South of Ireland scrapped? That is much more important.
Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to proceed in my own way. I am answering questions that have been put, not questions which, on second thoughts, can be put, because that is a process which would keep us all up very late. The right hon. Gentleman said one single Minister would be the arbiter, and an impartial arbiter, between the three Services under his control and I see some assent to that view. At first sight, it is rather attractive that there should be a Minister who is not specially the Navy nor specially the Army nor specially the Air Force but who should have an equal responsibility with regard to all of them and should thus be the sole arbiter of how much of the lump sum he had extracted from an unwilling Exchequer should be devoted to the three Services. On consideration, I think hon. Members will see that what would happen is that the so-called fight between the three Ministers would be transferred from them to the three staffs under the single impartial Minister.
The Admiralty would naturally through their staff, having been deprived of a Minister, struggle hard, and I assure you the War Office would do the same and the Air Force would not be backward. And you would transfer from the Ministers, whose business it is to deal with finance and political arguments, to the technical staff the very duties of which you are trying to relieve the Ministers.Would it not be possible ultimately to have one combined General Chief of Staff to give the responsible Minister considered advice?
That is exactly what the Chiefs of Staff do now. It is a representation of the combined Staffs. The hon. and gallant Member smiles. He has not the slightest idea that the Chiefs of Staff are doing the precise thing which he, with his want of experience, does not seem to realise is being done at this very moment. The right hon. Gentleman thought that there ought to be a great reduction in the expenditure on the defence forces. He said that Europe was exhausted and that with regard to the United States and France it was unthinkable that they should be in a position of antagonism; that there should be a force to police the Empire, and that there should be a power of expansion. As far as the Army is concerned, it is not greater than that; it is a force only just sufficient to provide the Empire garrisons and to keep a force in existence for expansion, if expansion should be necessary.
The House should realise the great reductions that have been made. I should welcome a Debate when the major questions could be considered, because I do not think hon. Members realise the great reductions which have been made. Although the atmosphere is peaceful and the outlook good we have to remember that emergencies may arise—it is not long since there was an emergency at; Shanghai—and we have to keep a force which can operate at short notice. The problem has been envisaged by hon. Members in quite different ways. The hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) suggested that the Ministry of Defence should be directly under the Prime Minister. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone saw the possibility of an expert Minister, of a Cromwell or a Chatham, who would be expert as Minister of Defence. These suggestions are so far from possibility that hon. Members have not really thought out the position. How can you put the Ministry of Defence under an overworked Prime Minister? It is impossible. Where, are you to get your Cromwells and your Chathams? How long are they going to take to be expert in their job? I happen to have been in one of the Ministries of Defence longer than most men. I have been Secretary of State for War for four years, and in the last 15 years, before I was appointed to this office, there were 10 Secretaries of State for War. Are you going to get 10 Cromwells or 10 Chathams in 15 years?I was rather developing that line myself. The present Prime Minister has to come to these decisions himself in addition to all his enormous responsibilities as head of the Government of this country and Empire, and I suggest that there should be a Deputy-Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence, who should study and consider the reports of the Chiefs of Staffs Committee, and possibly deal with them with a more intimate knowledge than the Prime Minister could possibly possess.
I understand that; it is an alternative. One is a superimposed Minister, and the other is a Minister on the loose. My hon. and gallant Friend wants to have a Minister on the loose, who will be studying these questions but not taking responsibility for expenditure or be responsible to this House. He is to be a fourth Minister; a Minister of Interference. He is going to interfere with all the other Ministers who are trying to do their duty and who are responsible to this House. There are two ways of doing it.
The Chair would like to see the Minister's face occasionally.
I assure you that no disrespect to the Chair is intended. I must refrain from following my hon. and gallant Friend, except most furtively, and try to conclude what I have to say to the House. There is this difficulty, that, if this Minister is to be a super-Minister, although we were asked not to imagine that he would be too powerful, I am not at all sure that there is not a great deal in that criticism. It was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that as things stood now the Chancellor of the Exchequer was overwhelmed by three Ministers, who conspired together to bring pressure to bear upon him. I believe the truth is that one Minister would be much more powerful than three. As it is now, the Chancellor can always play one Department off against the other, to a certain extent. The idea that all three Ministers combine against the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a myth. In my experience it is not so. In my experience the Chancellor of the Exchequer, taking each one of the Ministers separately and one by one, probably does a great deal better than he would do if there were one Minister, who had three staffs all acting together and willing to support him in demanding that such and such a sum should be allowed for the Defence Service.
Does that conduce to efficiency?
In my judgment such a Minister would be infinitely stronger and more likely to obtain what he desires, but I myself think we have not yet got to the time when we can have a Ministry of Defence. I will not say that at no time will it be possible to have a Ministry of Defence. Great progress has been made towards the unifying of policy and administration of the three Services. The Committee of Imperial Defence has been evolved, as most of our institutions have been evolved, by the neceesities of the case.
We have to remember that here we are at the centre of an Empire. We cannot dictate to the Empire forces, but the Empire is frequently willing to have these problems considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence, and is willing to consider the advice given by the experts there. But it might be quite different if it appeared to the Ministers of the Empire that, instead of getting advice, they were being asked by a Minister of Defence to conform to the views of a Ministry set up in this country. The Committee of Imperial Defence has already had the advantage of Dominion Ministers sitting with British Ministers and conferring together upon the policy of the Empire. That is a delicate instrument, which it is highly desirable should be maintained in being, and should not be brought to naught. I do not disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam that if there is to be a Ministry of Defence, it can only be one which is brought in step by step, and the Committee of Imperial Defence, as it now stands, is a useful instrument which, should war break out, can be rapidly converted into a war cabinet with all the essential committees already in existence for the purpose of carrying out war work; and, while we are willing to consider all the suggestions which have been made, while we are not desirous of prophesying for the future, or of saying that certain progress has been made and that no more can be made, I cannot do more to-night than say that we believe that we have an organisation best suited for the position in which we find ourselves, and any advance on that must be gradual, and such as experience justifies.Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Adjournment
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Sir G. Hennessy.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.