asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the plight of our nationals in Tientsin?

Arrangements are being examined for remedying the deficiency of perishable foodstuffs in the Concessions, where only 10 per cent. of the normal daily supplies are now arriving. Ample stocks of non-perishable commodities such as flour and rice are in hand. Hon. Members will no doubt have seen reports of further indignities to which British nationals have been subjected. My Noble Friend has requested the Japanese Ambassador to see him in connection with those incidents to-day.

May I thank the Prime Minister for the courtesy of his answer and ask him whether he will inform Tokyo that these indignities to which our nationals are being subjected may have the most serious consequences on Japanese nationals in various British territories throughout the world?

I have no doubt that my Noble Friend will make very clear to the Japanese Ambassador, when he sees him, what we think of these intolerable insults.

Can the Prime Minister give the House any information about Swatow, following the ultimatum of the Japanese authorities?

I have no official information before me this morning, but from the reports I see in the Press, the Japanese seem to have somewhat withdrawn from that view.

In view of this deplorable situation, will the Prime Minister consider putting into effect immediately, retaliatory measures?

No, Sir; I do not think we have got to that stage yet.

Can the Prime Minister state the total number of our nationals who are at present in residence in Tientsin?

Not without notice.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the temper of the British people is rising and that they will be entirely behind him when he refers to intolerable indignities?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make any further statement with regard to the scheme for an exchange of emergency reserve of certain commodities with the United States Government?

I am glad to be able to inform the House that the negotiations with the United States Government for the exchange of a stock of cotton, to be held in this country for use only in case of a major war emergency, against a stock of rubber, to be similarly held in the United States of America, have reached the final stages, and I hope that the United States Ambassador and I will be able to sign the Agreement during the course of the day. Copies will be made available to Members as soon as possible after signature.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out paragraph (a).

This Amendment is designed to remove, I hope, certain doubts which arose in the Committee stage regarding the powers of the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman will observe that this is not an Amendment which we desire to press to a Division, because if we did so and succeeded it would cut out powers which, in our view, are already not too strong. The purpose of the Amendment is to afford to the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making a statement, which he undertook in Committee to make after consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown, as to whether or not the form of words in this Clause imposes a limit of quantity on the purchases which he is entitled to make and on the operations in regard to storage, and so forth, which he is entitled to carry out. When the matter was before the Committee, the Minister explained that there was no limit of quantity, but some of my hon. Friends were not satisfied with that statement, unless it was fortified by consultation with the Law Officers, because we observed there was not in the Clause what some of us desired to see, namely, a statement that no limit of quantity was imposed.

The House will remember that other forms of words were suggested, one by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). Objection was taken to the form of words, but I am not proposing to ask any questions to-day about that. We should, however, be glad if the Minister would report to the House the result of his consultation with the Law Officers and give us, if he can, a statement that he is not limited in the powers proposed to be conferred in this Clause as to the scale of purchases and operations, that any operations which the broad interests of the community seem to require will not be interpreted in a narrow business fashion, but that the articles which may be required for the public service will be purchased and stored without limit, particularly in the eventuality of war.

When the Bill was passing through the Committee stage and we were discussing Clause 2 and the powers which the Minister had under that Clause, I was interrogated as to the extent of the Minister's powers and in particular as to limits on those powers. I refer to the Official Report of 19th June, cols. 1907–1913 inclusive. It will be within the recollection of the House that the framework of the Ministry of Supply Bill provides: (1) for the setting up of the Ministry, (2) for the giving of permanent powers, (3) for the giving of temporary powers, and (4) certain ancillary provisions. The question we are now discussing arose on the permanent powers of the Minister, powers notably set out in Clause 2 to buy, manufacture, produce, store and transport articles required for the public service with corresponding power to exchange, sell or dispose of them.

The impression which I desired to give to the House was, that where a Minister has power to purchase and there is no express limit inserted in the Clause, the Minister exercises complete discretion as to the quantity of the articles to be purchased. The Minister is responsible so far as the expenditure of money is concerned to the Public Accounts Committee of this House, and the Minister for everything that he does, either with regard to the expending of money or as to the exercise or failure to exercise his powers, is accountable to this House in the appropriate way. I expressed the view that the motive for the purchase of any particular commodity at any time was not stated in the Clause. I, therefore, deprecated an Amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), introducing an element of motive. In the course of the discussion I was asked whether my conception of the Clause and of the powers given by it had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and I gave an express undertaking to consult the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject matter of the discussion and to obtain their ruling upon the interpretation to, be put upon the Clause. I have carried out my undertaking and have consulted the Law Officers, and the following statement is in accordance with their advice.

It is the fact that in exercising my discretion as to quantities, I must consider what would be essential to the needs of the community in the event of war. It is a matter for my judgment whether any particular quantity of any article required for the public service comes within my powers given by this Act or not. I have, that is to say, complete discretion as to the quantity of the articles which in my opinion are essential for the needs of the community in the event of war, which are the relevant and very wide words of the definition clause—Clause 18. I am perfectly entitled to determine that for supplying the needs of the community in the event of war I must be on the safe side and I may order accordingly, and if it ultimately turns out that the quantity I have purchased is too much, the only persons who can question the exercise of my discretion are the Public Accounts Committee and Members of this House.

In view of the statement of the Minister, which I, for my part, regard as reasonably satisfactory, although I still think it would have been better to have put explicit words in the Clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

With regard to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), to leave out Clause 4, I do not propose to call the hon. Member unless he can give me some particular reason for putting it down.

In the Committee stage the Minister of Transport was unable to give us entire satisfaction and promised that he would give further information upon the Clause, particularly as to how it would operate, and it was for the purpose of eliciting this further information that the Amendment was put down.

Mr. Benson.

I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.

In the Committee stage certain questions were raised, in regard to stocks which it was proposed to arrange to be held in private hands, as to the effect of the fluctuations in values of those stocks. I want to say quite definitely that in this matter I am not concerned with the question of profiteering. I do not think that can possibly arise, because in the event of war one thing is inevitable, and that is that a most rigid system of prices will be introduced. It is not so much what is likely to happen in war time as to the difficulties which are sure to arise if, as we all hope, war does not arise, or if it is long postponed. The difficulty I see is that the Minister may be faced by what I may term a moral claim for depreciation of price. He may find himself in a position in which it will be dfficult for him to resist what is almost a reasonable claim, despite the fact that it might have been made perfectly clear at the outset that these stocks were held at owner's risk. The time factor enters seriously into this matter. How long is it proposed that these stocks shall be held? Are they to be held indefinitely by the owners at the Government's disposal? Are the Government to have a lien on them, or may they be disposed of without the Government's consent.

If the owners are unable to dispose of them without the Government's consent we might very well get this situation, that a serious appreciation in prices would enable the firm holding heavy stocks to dispose of them at a handsome profit but the Government say, "No, we have financed these stocks to a certain extent, we have paid in the insurance and storage and they must be held." There may be a depreciation in price and the owners may be compelled to dispose of them at a lower price than the price at which they were originally purchased. In that case the Government will be in an extremely difficult position if it simply throws the loss on these stores on to the owners of the goods. They will have missed a good market owing to Government control and will have been compelled to dispose of them in a bad market. Frankly the Government will have to face that position. Suppose the firm holding these stocks goes bankrupt. Are the stocks to be protected in any way in that case? That is an example of the difficulties and perplexities which will arise if these stocks are held for any long period, and it was with a view to eliciting answers to difficulties of this kind that we put down the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting down the Amendment and to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling it, because it enables some explanation to be given of the type of transaction which the Government are contemplating under this Clause. I do not propose to deal with the hypothetical difficulties to which the hon. Member has referred, but I should like to tell the House really what is behind this suggestion. It does not so much matter whether the firm goes bankrupt, as to have the stocks available. The important thing is to have the stock. If there were an emergency of a sudden character there would be powers of requisition, and the Government have to see that stocks of this and that commodity are available in the country, so that there would not be a drain upon the convoy system and the importing capacity of the country at a time when difficulties had supervened. Broadly speaking, we are not concerned with the ownership, but only with the existence of the stocks, because the power to requisition will apply whether they are in warehouse A or warehouse B. Therefore, that type of consideration is not a primary one. I think that if I explain briefly some of the types of transactions which are either in contemplation or have been done, it will perhaps give the House a rather better idea of the ambit of the Clause. The assurance I gave on the Committee stage was that I would look at the extent of the framework and give examples of it rather than worry about justifying the Clause, which I think justifies itself. Every transaction in which the Government are going to pay anything, such as warehouse charges or freight, must obviously be the subject matter of a contract. Consequently, it will be for the two parties to include in the contract the sort of points that have been referred to by hon. Members. The Debate in Committee and on Report will be of great use in showing us some of the points which occur to hon. Members as matters for which provision should be made in the contract.

With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the

Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), 1 should be glad to know whether, in the general question of stocks raised by the Bill, the Minister will follow the same principle as is followed in connection with the flour reserves now held under the schemes of the Food Defence Plans Department. There is an annual rent charge allowed of 2s. 6d. per sack per annum, but almost immediately the stocks have been put in, there is the levy for the quota, and therefore, a fall in the market value of 1s. per sack. There is no provision either for a rise or a fall, and I should like to know whether it is the general attitude of the Government that, if there is no provision for compensation to a holder of stocks for a fall in the market, there is no claim of the Government against the holder for a rise. To use a phrase which the Minister used the other day, is that rough justice to be the basis of such a contract?

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has cited an instance that has already been put into effect in the holding of flour by bakers. Broadly speaking, I want the House to understand that if, in my view, a parcel of a particular commodity is a good purchase, I buy it under Clause 2 and not stock it under Clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman has said correctly that if. there was nothing in the contract to deal with either a rise in price or a fall in price, it would be right, as part of the consideration for the firm making no claim against the Government, that as a counterpart the Government should make no claim against the firm. This would be a natural corollary for that set of circumstances. If there were a purchase on Government account, it would not be under Clause 4, but under Clause 2. I think these matters must be dealt with by the terms of the contract providing for the storage in each individual case.

A good deal was said in Committee which rather suggested that the sort of transaction that would be carried out would be mainly with people operating on the market. While I might wish in certain cases to enter into such a transaction, the majority of cases would relate to the accumulation of additional reserves of raw materials at manufacturers' works. It is much more a question of manufacturers building up supplies than it is a question of brokerage and operating on the markets and exchanges. The idea is that the manufacturer would accumulate at his works a sufficient additional stock to safeguard the productive capacity of the country against interruption of supply in time of war. That is the sort of principle behind the Clause. Anxiety has been expressed as to whether, when commercial firms had stocks, there would be either no safeguard that the stocks would be forthcoming, or that the firm would take advantage by withholding supplies for higher prices. The provision with regard to the supply being forthcoming is a matter for the contract, and there must be a proper notice about the termination of the contract. These stocks, wherever they were, would in the event of an emergency at all times be subject both to price control and requisition, which means actual power to seize.

Examples are not very easy to give. The transactions that have been undertaken so far have been largely under the Essential Commodities Reserves Act, which has a much more limited sphere of operation than the transactions contemplated in Clause 4. Arrangements are being made with a firm which produces a certain metal in another part of the Empire to keep a stock of that metal in this country in order to save haul and to avoid a drain on importing capacity. Arrangements have been considered for the storage of a certain kind of raw material for fertilisers, stocks of which vary very considerably according to the season of the year, going down to almost nothing in the Spring and rising again to the full amount in the late Autumn. In that case, short-term loans might enable manufacturers to stock up earlier in the year than would normally be the case, so that at the time of the year when the stocks are normally low they would be ample for emergency purposes. I might wish to encourage a manufacturer to hold increased stocks of raw materials at his works rather than in the port areas. There might be a great deal of pressure on any warehouse accommodation near a port and it might be a very good arrangement that all storage near the port should be kept available for overside discharge and that the manufacturer's stocks should be kept intact. In such a case there would be a handling charge. It might be prudent to encourage warehouse keepers in particular areas where increased transport work was anticipated in time of emergency to duplicate storage accommodation. Those are some examples of what I have in mind.

I should like the House to realise that it is intended that the powers should He extremely wide, and that the object is to ensure that within our own shores, without straining the convoy system or our importing capacity, there should be stored the greatest amount of these stocks that can be held. I hope that with this explanation I have helped the House to realise sóme of the provisions that I have in mind.

In the Second Reading Debate, I raised the question of the Minister's power, and whether he. would exercise that power, to encourage manufacturers to keep blast furnaces in this country going at full speed and to store the pig-iron at their own works, or if necessary, at other places. In my remarks, I referred to the system of warrants that was formerly in operation, and pointed out some of the difficulties that were encountered with regard to the gambling in warrants that took place. I should be glad if the Minister would refer to this matter.

I speak again by leave of the House. This Clause is wide enough to cover stocks of pig-iron. If the stocks were held not by the Government but by the steel makers as raw material, it would be done under Clause 4, and there would be the appropriate storage and financial arrangements.

I have always regarded this Clause as being one of the most valuable parts of the Bill, but one of the observations made by the Minister filled me with apprehension. I understood him to say that if he saw a parcel of goods which he regarded as a good purchase, he would buy it under Clause 2, rather than provide for storing it under Clause 4. I hope very much that will not be the Minister's attitude to this matter. In this country, we are in the forefront of commercial and industrial practice. We have unrivalled experience and facilities in trades of all kinds, and I hope that in the first instance the Minister is going to see whether he cannot avail himself of the existing machinery of trade and industry before, as a last resort, he himself enters into operations as a buyer. It seems to me that the more we can provide protection for ourselves by inducing those whose business it is to deal in certain commodities, either for sale or for processing purposes, to increase their normal stocks and to anticipate purchases which in any case they would have made, the more easily and the more satisfactorily we shall assist ourselves by increasing our available supply. I hope the Minister did not wish it to be understood that his approach to the problem would be, first, to see whether it was possible for him to make purchases himself and then to utilise the provisions of Clause 4, by which the trade can help him, only as a second line of defence. I would rather see the process reversed. I would prefer the Minister to resort to Clause 4 first, and then only, if he finds that it is not going to help him in any given case, to operate under Clause 2.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has drawn attention to this Clause. What is in our minds is that in every case where the Government propose to take over these business matters, the private contractor attempts to make something out of the Government's difficulty. Because of that, we want some assurance from the Minister that steps will be taken to see that those who axe called upon to hold these reserves will not look upon this as an El Dorado. Statements have been made to the effect that they must be left with a big percentage. That is where the trouble arises. Every Government contract seems to give the people who get the contracts, the idea that they must make enormous profits out of the trouble of the Government. I want these people to know that Parliament in dealing with these questions, is watching very closely any attempt to make profits out of the country's dilemma. For that reason, I am glad that my hon. Friend has called the attention of the Minister to this matter, and I hope he will get an assurance that the Minister's Department will keep a very special watch over this and see that the Government is not fleeced when the question of settlement and the disposal of the reserves, comes up for consideration.

I wish to ask at what stage will the goods which are to be stored under Clause 4, become the property of the Government? Will they remain the property of the individuals owning or producing them, until such time as the Government acquire them? In that case clearly the Government are not concerned with the question of rises and falls in the market. May I further inquire whether, at some stage, the Minister should not consider the actual outright purchase of these stocks, as being desirable in view of the state of the market? Should he not exercise his authority to take outright possession, in cases where it would be an advantage in view of a possible rise in the market?

Looking at this matter from a business point of view, I think it is a very good thing that this question has been raised, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation which he has given of the sort of cases in which he will require these powers. What he has said, has made it clear that it is necessary that the Minister should have elastic powers of this kind. But certain things which have been said require, I think, further elucidation, and the point which I put to the right hon. Gentleman is this. I fully appreciate the fact that he may use these powers with great advantage in cases of the sort indicated by him, but if an occasion arises, when he considers it to be in the public interest that certain stocks should be held in excess of what people engaged in manufacture or trade would require for their normal business purposes, then I put it to him that it would be wise that those stocks should be held on Government account, and that there should be no mixing up of Government purchases with private business.

If the Government go to a firm and say, "We would like you, in the public interest, to increase your stocks of a certain commodity," the managers of that business may say, "We are prepared to use our machinery in the market for buying these stocks, but we would rather that you held them on your own account. We will buy them and hold them for you, but, as far as our own business; is concerned, we do not want to increase our stocks." If that situation arises, I think it will be right that the Government should take over and hold those stocks for its own account. Otherwise if large market fluctuations occur, difficulties are bound to be created. If there is a substantial rise, then there is bound to be the feeling that large profits are being made on stocks financed by the Government. If there is a heavy fall, the Government will be put in an undesirable and uncomfortable position. I put that suggestion to the Minister and I believe that it represents his intention. It is not a question of the Minister coming into the market when he thinks the price is favourable. This sort of Clause will be used when, in the public interest, it is thought desirable to hold stocks above the normal, of certain commodities. Where that involves going outside ordinary business requirements, I suggest that the Government should come in for 100 per cent, on its own account and, thus, any possible conflict of interest, or any uncertainty as to what the equities demand, would be avoided.

I hope that the Minister, in dealing with the obviously important point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) will retain a free hand. The whole question arises out of the variety of commodities which must, of necessity, be held from time to time for emergency purposes, either through the trade or directly on behalf of the nation. Some of these commodities are more perishable than others; some are more subject to world fluctuations in price than others, and some are much more difficult to store on private account than others. The essential thing is that, the powers being there, the Minister should have freedom to act, and the only warning that I would utter about it is that in a fluctuating world market for important commodities, there is often the possibility of artificial inflations of price if the normal market channels are open. That must be borne in mind even though you still adhere to the principle put by the hon. Member for Walsall(Sir G. Schuster) of the total storage commodities on Government account for the nation's purposes.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 35, to leave out "section," and to insert "Part of this Act" This and the following Amendment are consequential upon the acceptance of the new Subsection (2) which was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).

I beg to move, in page 7, line 37, after "person," to insert "concerned."

This matter was well debated in Committee, when the Minister made the suggestion that words which had been put forward from the opposite side might meet our position, but they did not fully meet it. I am, however, convinced that this is the best that I can get out of the Minister, and as he has been kind enough to say he will accept the insertion of this word, I think it might help to tie up the position properly.

I accept this Amendment. Amendment agreed to.

In calling the next Amendment, I might mention that the Minister has set a good example, which I think other hon. Members had better follow to-day.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, to leave out "by the Minister."

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that you correctly anticipated my own intention, and I take it that I may deal with the series of Amendments in my name on Clauses 7 and 8 together. The House will remember that on the Committee stage we had a very long debate on this question of arbitration, and a division took place as to whether the Minister's Clause or an Amendment, which was different from this Amendment, should be accepted. At one stage the Minister was good enough to make a suggested concession, which is now dealt with in this Amendment strictly on the lines of his own proposal. Therefore, without more ado, I move it.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will not think me disrespectful to you or inconsiderate of the House if I am not quite so short in my remarks as my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I have at least one excuse, in that I did not speak in the previous debate on the question of arbitration, and I wish as briefly as I can to persuade the House that there really is, in what may appear to be a small point, matter of very great substance. There are two constitutional principles involved here. The first is that nobody, and perhaps least of all an administrative authority to whom unprecedented powers are being given, ought to be, or to appear to be, obviously and wholly judge or arbitrator in his own case. That there should be some recognition of the principle is, I think, all the more necessary on this occasion, because while I do not in the least wish to go into the more controversial aspects of the previous debate, I think everybody would agree that there were some unfortunate expressions which fell from speakers on both front Benches and which made more clear than otherwise would have been the case the necessity that this principle should be brought to the attention of this House and, I hope, in some way indicated in the Bill.

There is another constitutional point involved, but I propose not to weary the House with it, in order to save myself time to put a practical point in this connection also which has, I think, not yet been suggested. There was an assumption throughout, in the support for the Bill as it stood, which came from the opposite Benches, that the Minister would always and as a matter of course be, so to speak, anti-contractor, always against the industrialists, the suppliers. I am in the recollection of the House, and I venture to ask anybody who shakes his head to read the Official Report. I do not think that that impression can be escaped, that the assumption was that the Minister would always have one interest, an interest opposite to that of the supplier. That seems to me to be, from the point of view, if I may respectfully and without impertiness say so, of hon. Members opposite, a dangerous assumption. It is not in the least necessary to have any desire to criticise or suspect an existing Minister to remember that the "unjust steward" is at least 1,900 years old, and, for all we know, even before the days of our Blessed Redeemer there were such persons. Their method was, if they thought that there was any chance of their losing employment, to make previous bargains with those who supplied their employers. There were Ministers of Supply in Holy Writ who did quite well by that method. I have never quite understood why they were commended in Holy Writ, but that is not immediately relevant.

What I want to persuade the House is, first, that there are constitutional principles here involved—it is not necessary further to insist on that—and, secondly, that this Is not purely a question of constitutional theory or even constitutional practice. There is a question of business practice involved here too. There might be such a Minister that even hon. Members opposite would be glad that the sole control of the appointment of arbitrators should not be in his hands. I have one other word to say which, I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will not think out of order, because if I were longer, I could explain why it is in order. That is, that on this Clause there was some promise by the Minister on an earlier Amendment that we should have it explained to us that arbitration was not going to apply solely to price, but would apply to other conditions too; and possibly it might be for the convenience of the House if the Minister could give us some short explanation of that kind now.

When we were in Committee some heat was generated on this subject, and I think that possibly too much importance was attached to this Clause. On the other hand, I insist that we have to realise that this Department will go in for colossal and you might almost say universal trading, on a scale almost unprecedented in business times. We are setting up a large buying and trading Department. We have read in

the Press to-day that elaborate and expensive new offices have been secured, employing some 800 officials, and I think that is only a beginning. I would not mind prophesying that before long, as this work develops, a very much bigger organisation, much larger even than is anticipated at the present time, will be set up. When we talk about the Minister, we somehow visualise the right hon. gentleman sitting down and carrying out these contracts, personally selecting who shall judge on disputes and so on, but, of course, when this Department is in operation, the right hon. gentleman will, I hope, be involved mainly on questions of priniciple, in the administration of the staff, and in the bigger problems of protecting the public interest. When we criticise the method of providing for the settlement of disputes, we are not criticising or attacking the Minister, because we have to visualise the necessity for going to arbitration on questions arising out of the work of this new, great Department. Therefore, I hope the right hon. gentleman will not think we are criticising him or any potential Minister. We are dealing with the question of principle, and on that basis only we shall have to discuss these questions.

When the right hon. Gentleman said that he should be trusted to see that any arbitrator would be impartial, we know, of course, that that is the case, but we must remember that a great number of transactions will be involved. There is bound in the future, during succeeding months, to be a great number of disputes, and it is vital that when they come to be settled, not only should there be justice, but both parties concerned should feel that they are being fairly treated and that the arbitrator who decides the case has been impartially selected. A business man, or a trader, or a manufacturer who is involved will not know who selects the particular person to adjudicate in his case, but if he has an idea that the other party to the case, the State, this great business organisation, with untold wealth behind it, is to have the right to select in each case who shall be the arbitrator in his case, there may be the suspicion, no doubt unjustified, that he is not being given a fair deal. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that if this great new organisation is to work smoothly and to pro- duce the results that we all want, of protecting the public interest and getting production on a large scale, he must have the good will and co-operation of the trading and business community.

This Amendment, which is, after all, adopting words that the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested, seems a reasonable way out of what is an important issue. When we hear all this talk abroad of the State being all-powerful and the individual being unimportant, we say that it is vital that Great Britain should retain the principle that every man should be sure that he will get fair and impartial justice. In Germany to-day it is their view, and it is preached in propaganda universally, that the individual has no rights against the State. Indeed, we are sometimes having this sort of doctrine preached in this country, and it is vital that in this House we should retain the principle that every individual, however unimportant, however small, should have rights against the State and should feel secure that he will have a fair trial when involved in a dispute with a great and powerful Department like that which we are now setting up.

Having regard to your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to say that we on this side are not responsible for the way in which this Debate has developed. We had to express ourselves very strongly in the last Debate, and we thought the Minister then was very unfairly attacked on the situation which he had to defend in the drafting of the Bill. On this occasion those responsible for the Amendment have left out some of the objectionable features of the case which they have presented. They have come back to suggestions which were bandied about in the Debate as being a possible compromise, but if there is any question now of compromise it must be borne in mind that a decision made here this morning in a comparatively small House will become a very important precedent.

We are not yet aware that any case has been made out for a precedent for this particular formula in dealing with these classes of arbitration which may be contemplated under this Clause, and whilst we are not objecting to the Minister, if possible, making some reasonable approach to the points of view expressed in the House, we consider it to be essential, from our experience of a whole range of arbitrations carried out under statutory authority that the appointment of the panel should be a ministerial appointment. If, within that, the Minister can see his way to recede so far from what we thought was the very strong position that he was endeavouring to take upon the last occasion as to provide for the arbitrators in any particular case to be selected by the panel, under that chairmanship, we would not object; nor should we object if he was prepared to say that, so far from adhering to the first suggestion put forward on the Committee stage, that it must be composed of certain members of certain professional bodies, he would put on people of practical experience, we should also welcome any suggestion of that kind in view of the importance of this precedent on whole classes of arbitrations under statute. It is essential that the' Minister should retain the appointment of the chairman of the panel in ministerial hands.

If any of the heat engendered on the last occasion was in any way attributable to the manner in which I handled the matter I at once unreservedly apologise. No one could more regret such an occurrence than I do. There has, I think, been a certain amount of misunderstanding, and before addressing myself particularly either to the Amendment as now proposed, or to the speech of the right hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. Alexander), I should like to indicate a little more clearly what is in my mind. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) quite rightly said that if there is a question of principle here and British justice is involved, we ought to be very careful what we do, but the curious part is that the proposal in the Bill as it was passed in Committee was really conceived to help the very interests which sometimes seem to be opposing it. Where there is a dispute as to whether a woollen and worsted garment is being made in the right way or whether the right price is being paid for an Army gun, there is such a tremendous gamut of possibilities

that it was thought that a tribunal consisting of a lawyer, however eminent, of an accountant, however skilled, of an engineer, however well qualified, might not be the appropriate body having the knowledge to deal with that particular point.

I used an expression which caused a certain amount of opposition when I spoke of "rough business justice." I was merely speaking colloquially, meaning a common sense business arbitration, and decision on the point at issue, and I was a little surprised to be told that I was speaking "like a Chicago tough guy." I do not recognise any close resemblance. What I was attempting to say was that there might be a number of points involved in the dispute as to which a man who knew the conditions of the industry could say to the complete satisfaction of both sides. "Well, you know, this is out of the question in this industry and such and such a rule ought to prevail." Those were the circumstances in which it was thought right that a panel sufficiently wide to include the main supply industries should be selected. Then if there were a gun dispute we could make a gun expert the man who arbitrated and not a woollen and worsted expert. I beg hon. Members not to think there was any attempt to create a tribunal which made the Minister the judge in a cause in which he might be interested.

The conception of the Clause was that it should be of an eminently practical character. We were endeavouring to set up a practical tribunal such as there is in the different grain and produce exchanges in Mincing Lane, where a tribunal is always made up of those who know all about the business. The late Sir John Holland, a very famous lawyer, made a tremendous fortune out of the gift which resided in his fingers of being able to judge the quality of wheat by the touch. He could run his fingers through a parcel of wheat and say almost instantly whether it was Manitoba hard or some other quality. When hon. Members talk of questions of principle and of constitutional practice I beg them not to overlook the consideration which I have advanced in Committee that if there is a ministerial appointment the Minister is responsible and can be called in question by the House, whereas if a tribunal is appointed from outside that power of control does not exist. I want hon. Members to appreciate that I was jealous of that question of ministerial responsibility in accepting the Clause as drafted in the Bill.

The Amendment takes the Bill as drafted, but adds on to it a proposal that the tribunal nominated by the Minister, the panel, should then proceed to work in a businesslike way and elect a chairman, and that that chairman should nominate the particular individual to deal with a particular dispute. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I am sure that whether those words are included or not, in practice if you had a large panel they would elect a chairman and a deputy-chairman and I should have thought that the election would have taken place on the vote of a majority of the panel and not on that of a minority, and that the Minister would probably have consulted the chairman and the deputy-chairman in every case when an arbitration arose. Supposing it was first understood that the Minister provided that there should be someone of eminent impartial legal experience as chairman, I wonder whether that would not go a long way to meet what is desired; and I wonder whether, if the Minister appointed as chairman a person of impartial experience, we should not this time kill all the birds with one shot.

If my hon. Friends who support this Amendment felt that the spirit of what we are all trying to reach, namely, a tribunal that is practical, which consists of a panel necessarily chosen by the Supply Minister because he alone knows who is doing the supply, but that the Minister undertakes that on that panel there should be some person of recognised impartial judicial experience, I wonder whether that would meet the case. This person would not be the gentleman who would be the arbitrator; it is a suggestion that a person of legal and impartial experience can prevent a miscarriage of justice by seeing that the right member is selected to do the right thing. If it was thought that that was a sensible suggestion I should not have thought that my hon. Friends who support this Amendment would have found it very difficult to allow me to undertake to nominate that person of judicial experience as the chairman. If that were done, the Committee will see, we should have a panel nominated by the Minister, we should have the chairman selected by the Minister, and the chairman would be a person of wide, judicial, impartial experience. Then there would have to be some words inserted to say that that chairman or his deputy, properly nominated by a majority of the panel, could select a particular arbitrator for a particular case. The sort of solution I have endeavoured to arrive at is an undertaking to put a judicial person on the panel, and if the power of appointment were in my hands I would consider, before the Bill leaves another place, the proper words to insert to give effect to the undertaking. That would be the way I should approach the matter.

So far as we are concerned, I think the right hon. Gentleman has made a proposal that, broadly, would be acceptable to us, but whether it is acceptable to those behind him I do not know. I hope he is not going to give way much further. If necessary we should back him up as we did the other night. On the last point he made let us get things clear. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion now is that he should appoint the chairman, that the chairman should not be a person with a narrow interest, narrow commercial experience, but a legal person of impartiality and reputation, but none the less appointed and selected by the Minister, and that that chairman should then choose arbitrators from the panel for particular cases. That suggestion my hon. Friends would be prepared to support. But almost in his last sentence the Minister also suggested that there should be a deputy-chairman—that no doubt is reasonable—but a deputy-chairman, not to be appointed by him but to be chosen by the arbitrators as a body, and to exercise the chairman's functions when the chairman was too busy or was ill. That, I think, is going too far. If there is a case for a deputy-chairman the Minister should appoint him also.

Would the hon. Gentleman object to the chairman selecting the deputy-chairman.

In practice that is probably what would happen; in practice no doubt there would be consultations, but what we are anxious about is that the Minister should retain the power of nomination of the chairman. Having got this principle established with regard to the chairman, we do not want to find that it is only a theoretical position, and that in practice there is to be a deputy-chairman who in many cases would do the work which it was thought that the chairman would do. I suggest that if there is a deputy-chairman to be named and specifically referred to, my hon. Friends and I certainly desire it to be made clear that that deputy-chairman should be appointed by the Minister. I suggest that it is better to leave the Bill as the Minister has suggested and not to put in anything about the deputy-chairman.

Why does the hon. Member attach great importance to the Minister appointing a chairman instead of the panel?

I do not want to go back over arguments that were used when the Bill was in Committee. We have in mind a very unfortunate previous example of the whittling down of the power of the Minister of Transport with regard to the persons who control London Transport. That power was given to outside people. Our view is that the Minister can do the job and stand the racket of responsibility in making this appointment. The appointment could be criticised by the House, but the responsibility ought to lie on the Minister.

I shall endeavour not to forget, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion which fell from your lips when this Amendment was called, and shall try to be brief. As a matter of fact the length of the speeches from these benches rather depends upon the answers which are obtained from Ministers. The Minister's answer in this case has been so acceptable and conciliatory to us that I do not think there is any reason to prolong the debate on this matter much further. On both sides of the House there is, however, a considerable amount of uneasiness lest the appeal to this arbitration panel should take away from a contractor the justice to which the hon. Baronet has referred as being the right of every individual in this country, however insignificant he may be. We are concerned to set up a panel which shall be really impartial.

If I understood the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hills-borough (Mr. Alexander) he rather took the view—and I know that he will correct me if I am wrong—that the panel should be as wide and as impartial as possible, but that the appointment of the chairman should be in the hands of the Minister. The Amendment follows as closely as possible the Minister's own words when he spoke on this matter during the Committee stage. I have no desire to refer to the discussion and to the heat which was generated on that occasion, but I rather agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough. The panel should either be as wide and as impartial as possible and the Minister should retain the right to appoint the chairman, or, if the panel is to be restricted and appointed within narrow limits by the Minister, then the chairman ought in order to be impartial, to be an outside appointment.

In my view the best solution of the difficulty is to have a panel as wide and impartial as possible. The Minister will presumably appoint upon that panel individuals who are best able to carry out the duties which they will be called upon to perform in the interests of the community. I agree that if the panel is wide and impartial then it would be better for the Minister to appoint the chairman. I certainly accept the suggestion that the chairman should be an outside legal gentleman of high standing known to be completely impartial. I would like that point to be made quite clear to the House. The appointment of that chairman should lie in the hands of the Minister but perhaps we can go a stage further. The last speaker referred to the question of a deputy-chairman I agree that the appointment of a deputy-chairman will be essential, because there may be illness, or something may turn up which may make the performance of his duties by the chairman impossible for a time. Therefore, it will be essential to have a deputy-chairman. The fear of the hon. Member who has just spoken is that the panel should appoint a deputy-chairman and he feels that the appointment ought to remain in the hands of the Minister. I rather agree with him. Might it not be a solution of the difficulties of both sides of the House that the panel should be as wide as possible and that the appointments by the Minister should include those of the chairman and deputy-chairman? There should be an outside impartial rule over this tribunal and therefore the deputy-chairman should also be a legal gentleman. It might be that the chairman should come from one branch of the law and the deputy-chairman should come from the other branch. If the Minister can see his way to accepting my suggestion I believe it would satisfy the majority of Members of this House.

In view of what the Minister has said—and we can all refer to it in the records—and in view of the fact also that there is practically no disagreement between one side of the House and the other I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, at the end, to insert:

"and to submit to the Minister a report thereon, and the authorised person, who may be the person who has previously carried out the regular audit of the books and documents of the person providing, dealing in, storing, or having control of the said articles, may incorporate in his report any information which he considers relevant whether he has acquired it from his study of the books and documents or from any other source."

I move the Amendment to get an answer to a question which I put to the Minister upon the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). In dealing with the Clause the Minister said that we all wanted the same thing, which was to prevent all excessive profits. I want to try to preserve that atmosphere. I am not one of those who suggest that hon. Members are not sincere when they say they want to limit profits, but I think I can add something which will not create ill-feeling but which will not be disputed. There are certain people who question whether the Minister and hon. Members opposite are sincere in their desire to limit profits. Certain things have been said and done upon which such people can found their suspicions, however wrongly. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will try to accept the Amendment in order to sweep away those suspicions. I fully appreciate the powers contained in Clause 9 (2). The Minister has power to direct that a company or an individual shall keep his records in a particular form. I hope that the Minister will also appreciate the very real importance of being told to hold a post mortem examination in a particular case. The Minister will not be able to send his servants around to the thousands of people who are now contracting for the Government in order to tell them in what form to keep their books, but over and over again the real effectiveness of Clause 9 will be shown when someone will suggest, in relation to a certain contract, very likely one which is to be repeated, that excessive profits are being made. Then the Minister will want to investigate the suggestion. I am sure the Minister will agree with me.

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I certainly do not agree with him, because he seems to misunderstand Clause 9. It is a Clause which gives ample power to hold a post-mortem and for a post-mortem to be held by the firm's auditor.

To decide what shall be done with the remains?

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what I had in mind. The Minister will, I am sure agree, that seeing the books does not tell you very much. You can go to a firm, wave Clause 9 in their face, and say, "These are our powers." They will reply, "All right, these are our books." I remember a case in which the very eminent lawyer for whom I was "devilling" at the time thought he had secured, after tremendous difficulty, a great triumph in forcing from a very large company disclosure of their documents. They brought up 10 lorry-loads of them and put them in a huge set of offices reserved for the purpose, with the observation, "There are our books; do what you like with them."Of course, nobody could make anything at all out of them.

The point that the hon. Member for Ipswich was making was that there is one gentleman who knows about the firm's books and to whom a disclosure will really be of some value, and that is the man who has been through the books, perhaps for many years, for the ordinary audit purposes. The Minister has satisfied me that Such a person may be appointed to examine the books, and, therefore, the first part of my Amendment may seem superfluous, but I felt that I must put it in its order in order to hang the second part upon it. The point on which I am not satisfied by the Minister is whether that person, if he is appointed, will be quite sure that he is entitled to use, for the purposes of his examination, the knowledge he has previously acquired, and whether he will not feel that he is in the position of having to divide himself into a dual personality, so to speak—the one personality who knows everything about the firm's accounts, and the other personality who merely has to look at the books of the firm as they stand and accept such explanation as the firm's officers may give him in relation to the matter he is then reviewing, but feeling that it would be wrong of him to cross-examine the officers of the firm on the basis of the knowledge which he has acquired while working for them as their auditor.

If this Amendment were added to the Clause, it would put both of these points beyond doubt. I cannot claim that the words of the Amendment are necessarily the best words for the purpose, but they are the best words I could devise to cover the purpose. They would show quite clearly that the person to be appointed may be the person who has previously conducted the audit, and that, in examining the books as the servant of the Minister, he may make use of information which he has acquired when he was acting as the servant of the company.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I must ask the House to accept my assurance that Clause 9, as one Clause of the Bill, gives to the Minister ample powers of a most general character to achieve the object which Members in all parts of the House have already said they desire shall be achieved. We are most anxious that all the discovery Clauses in the Bill, giving power to call for returns, to press for information, to look at books, to determine the way in which the records shall be kept, to ask for their production, to take copies and extracts, and to call for verification, should be as ample and as wide as possible, and these Clauses have been drawn with the full advantage of the whole experience of the Ministry of Munitions in the last War and of the advances in accounting and costing that have been made in the 20 years that have since passed. The words of the Amendment are not necessary at all. At any stage, before a contract is entered into, during the lifetime of the contract, and afterwards, it is possible for the Minister to call for the production of information in whatever form the Minister likes to demand, to verify it in whatever way he likes and to have that verification made by anyone that he cares to appoint. There is unlimited power to cross-examine, to verify and to ascertain. On all these matters the cost must be completely reconciled with the financial accounts of the business if the real profit is to be ascertained, and that is a cardinal principle in investigation. I do not want to put any limit on the sources from which the information will be obtainable, and I want the obligation of the contractor to supply it to be wide. I am advised that all the different Clauses under which returns have to be made, records kept, and disclosures made, are ample in the Bill as drafted.

May I ask the Minister whether the governing words of Subsection (1) of Clause 9:

"The Minister may direct any person producing, dealing in, storing or having control of any articles required for the public service,"

and so on, would in fact permit of the post-mortem which he has mentioned? It seems to me a little doubtful, if a contractor had actually gone out of business, whether he would be covered any longer by that provision.

I have been advised that it does cover the power to undertake a post-mortem. We dealt with that question when the new Clause moved by the hon Member for Ipswich came before the Committee, and the ground on which I asked the Committee to decline to accept that Clause was that the powers were expressly given in Clause 9. I will, of course, look at the matter again, but I have no doubt at all about it.

In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich(Mr. Stokes) made such remarkable accusations in the House, and that the Minister undertook during the previous stage of the Bill that he would accept certain assistance from Members on this side in ferreting out these people, we intend to asist him in that direction. It may be unnecessary, but I should like to get complete satisfaction on this point: When Lord Baldwin made his first statement about rearmament, he used these words:

"We are determined that this national interest shall not be exploited for private gain,"

and I think the present Prime Minister repeated those words. I should like now to ask the Minister whether he is satisfield that in the Bill as it stands he has complete power to give satisfaction to the community that the promise of Lord Baldwin will be carried out satisfactorily.

I can only speak again with the permission of the House. My understanding of the matter is that, long before you come to the question whether profits have proved to be abnormal, or ought to be taxed in some special way because they are abnormal, the business like, proper method is to control those profits in the contract which you are making with the contractor. This Bill is designed to give to the Minister powers of every kind to ascertain what is the proper price, as well as the proper profit, to be paid for particular services or a particular manufacturing contribution, and the reason why I gave that assurance so definitely to the right hon. Gentleman for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) is that Clause 9 deals with

"any person producing, dealing in, storing or having control of any articles required for the public service."

That defines the class. Almost everything is required for the public service, and that, therefore, means any person who is dealing, not necessarily under a contract, with these substances; and it gives me power, whether before, or after, or independently of a contract, to make all these inquiries. I am satisfied that the powers are as wide as an Act of Parliament can give me, and that they should be adequate, properly administered, to achieve the purpose we have in view.

With great respect, the Minister has not answered the question which I have now addressed to him on two occasions. If he will allow me to say so, he is quite ingenious in these matters, and I cannot avoid the feeling that he is failing to give a direct answer to the quite simple question which I asked him, because the direct answer would be "No."

What is the question?

I think the Minister will find it in what I have said before to-day and on Tuesday. It is: Will a firm's own auditor, if and when he is chosen to conduct a post-mortem into a contract to see whether the price is fair, within the wording of this Clause—

Will the hon. Member confine himself to asking a question? He has already spoken.

The Minister asked me what was my question, and I am merely repeating it. Will the auditor, as a servant of the Government, be able, within this Clause and within the etiquette of the profession of accountancy, to make use of the information he has acquired as a servant of the company, perhaps 12 months earlier? Will the Minister give an answer, yes or no?

I should not have thought the answer was as simple as that. I am not able to state the position as to the professional etiquette of an auditor's relations with a client. That is not within any Minister's knowledge. But I am entitled to procure information from the firm's auditor. If he is instructed to do the work, he is under an obligation to reveal information which he has. There is no means, short of the rack, to make a person reveal information which he does not wish to; but an auditor who knows facts in relation to a matter which he has to investigate will not only be enabled, but be under a duty, to reveal that information.

The Minister has gone very much further than before, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.

I put this Amendment down merely in order that information might be given which circumstances prevented us from obtaining during the Committee stage. This Clause gives very great powers. It enables the Minister, in certain respects, to authorise people to disobey existing Statutes. But I do not wish to deal with the general aspects of it. At the request of public utility organisations, I wish to have an answer to this question. As hon. Members will be aware, municipalities and companies carrying on gas, electricity and water undertakings do it to some extent under public Statutes, and also to some extent under private acts. Those Acts and Statutes and provisional orders made under them define the areas in which these undertakings have to carry out their duties, and they also impose a variety of limitations, in the public interest, as to the way that those duties should be carried out. Some nervousness is felt as to whether orders given by the Minister might override these limitations. Clause 18, paragraph (c) interprets "articles required for the public service" as meaning:

"anything which in the opinion of the Minister is or is likely to be necessary for or in connection with the production of any such article as aforesaid."

That clearly includes gas, electricity and water. There are all sorts of difficult problems constantly arising—as the Minister knows only too well, because until recently he was Minister of Transport, and in that capacity was connected with electricity. Those concerned with the undertakings are anxious for some assurance that, in his operation of the Clause, the Minister will be careful not to do things which will create inconvenience and which might create a position by which, when the emergency is past, embarrassment might be caused to all concerned. It is a point of substance as to how the Minister is going to use a power so great that he can authorise people to commit a felony.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Certainly I have no intention of doing any of the things which the hon. Member suggests that I might be able to do under the Clause. I have no intention either of committing felonies or

of generating electricity in areas that are not mine. If the Minister was proposing to generate electricity under Clause 2, he would have to have transferred to him the powers of someone who was already authorised to do it, that is, the existing Electricity Commissioners—and there would have to be an Order in Council, which would require an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. So there is no danger of these powers being transferred surreptitiously.

It is not a question of the Minister himself generating electricity. He might, for instance, order the Birmingham Corporation to generate electricity within the boundaries of Coventry. That could be done without an Order in Council.

I wanted to approach the problem from the beginning. Wherever there are wide powers, it is right to give the House an indication of what use will be made of them.

If there were a great emergency and the Coventry electricity supply was disabled, why should not the Minister have power to supply electricity for Coventry?

Perhaps we should go on. It is the intention to allow the Minister to obtain production from any field of supply which might reasonably be expected to be able to give the production desired; and electricity and gas are articles required for the public service, under Clause 18. As regards these statutory companies, the Bill is wide enough to cover gas and electricity; but there is no power to supply without an Order in Council. There is no intention that the Minister of Supply should enter these fields, except, perhaps, in regard to the generation of electricity or gas in a Government factory, for the use of that factory; although, even in a case of that sort, it is the current practice to use the available supply. I do not think it is necessary to do more than assure the hon. Member that it is not proposed to exercise the powers of Clause 11 in any of the ways he had indicated.

The Bill, which has now passed through the Committee and Report stages, will not be opposed in the Division Lobby to-day by my hon. Friends, but that is for these reasons. In the first place, at long last the Government have produced a small Measure of legislation on the principle for which we have so long contended, namely, the establishment of a Ministry of Supply to deal with the proper equipment of the forces needed for our National Defence. However inadequate we may feel the Bill to be, it would be exceedingly difficult at this stage, having already divided on a reasoned Amendment on Second Reading, to oppose its Third Reading, but that must not prevent us from expressing very briefly our views about the inadequacy of the Measure in the state in which it is leaving this House for another place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), in the course of a longer examination of the Bill on Second Reading, drew attention to the fact that, in the long run, it could not be argued that this very small Measure could really assist in the unification and control of the necessary supplies that the nation would need. The more one has examined the details of the Bill during its passage through the House the more that statement by my hon. Friend has come to be confirmed in our minds. It is true to say that the Bill, if it remains in its present state, is merely providing an expansion to some extent of the functions of the Secretary of State for War and his Department. I am a little disturbed at the moment, if the Minister will excuse my saying so, over my last communication from him. We had been inquiring into the question of supplying commodities to the Army, and when I wanted to know something about the matter, the right hon. Gentleman wrote back and said, "If you want to know about that, you had better write to the Secretary of State for War." I have begun to wonder what real powers, after all, the Minister for Supply has in this matter. I hope that at any rate when the Bill becomes an Act every Member of this House who is anxious on behalf of constituents to inquire into matters of supply, even though it may be confined to the War Office, will at least have the right to approach the Minister under the Act and be able to get a very firm and definite reply upon particular commodities. Apparently that is not the position at the moment, although perhaps he cannot yet be said to have been equipped with full statutory powers.

There is another point about the Bill as it leaves this House. While the House to-day was debating the powers of Clause 9, most of us felt extremely dissatisfied with the present state of affairs with regard to the control of production costs and the prevention of undue profits arising. My hon. Friends on this side of the House have been pressing constantly for the establishment of an adequate Ministry of Supply ever since 1934. That is five years ago, and I regret that the impression left upon my mind in the course of subsequent debates in this House, and in the examination of the profits of companies engaged in armament production, is that the failure between 1934 and 1939 to set up an adequate Ministry of Supply has already led to a very widespread exploitation of the public purse which might have been avoided if our advice had been taken earlier. It is now still a matter of great regret to us that, while the Government in this matter, as in so many other matters in the course of the last three years, have at long last given way to the overwhelming pressure of public opinion to some extent, they have not given way to the extent of entering fully, as they ought to enter fully, into the principles that we have adumbrated for a Ministry of Supply, which would provide a really effective check not only upon certain classes of services and commodities for the War Office Department alone, but upon all the requirements and necessities of the country in connection with the preparations for emergency.

It is not right on the Third Reading to advance detailed arguments of that kind because, in order to support that contention, we have already put them forward in Committee and upon the Report stage. It only remains for me to express regret that the Bill is still so inadequate in its provisions. I prophesy that, just as in the realm of foreign affairs the Government try, wholly inadequately, gradually to adopt piecemeal what has been Labour's foreign policy, and, as in the case of this Bill, they have at last been kicked by public opinion into making a small advance in the direction of really effective Government control of supplies, as we get nearer to a state of emergency they will be bound to accept finally the whole case which Labour has put in detail for the proper organisation of a Defence Ministry and Ministry of Supply which could do the work required for the nation in making adequate preparation for and maintenance of national Defence thoroughly, efficiently and economically.

I want to express the satisfaction of my hon. Friends that we have reached the Third Reading stage of a Bill for which, with hon. Members above the Gangway, we have been calling for many years. It would be ungrateful, now that we have obtained this very substantial contribution towards that for which we have asked, to be critical or to express regret. We had the satisfaction of voting for the Second Reading of the Bill, and we believe that, if vigour, energy and imagination are used in putting the Bill into operation, great service can be done towards ensuring national safety, and that the expedition and acceleration so long overdue can be achieved. I agree that the powers might have been greater. I regret some of the provisions in Clause 3. I would have liked to have seen a department more on the scale of the Ministry of Munitions taking under its umbrella the other two Service Departments. But everything depends upon the right hon. Gentleman. He has a colossal task before him if he likes to undertake it. The mere setting up of this Ministry in itself does not necessarily mean a large increase in output, but if the Minister uses his powers and obtains an adequate staff by securing the best men available to carry out these duties, we may see the arrears in supplies made up in a way that will give that security to the nation for which it has been calling so vigorously in all parts of the country.

May I make one suggestion? One of the greatest responsibilities of the Minister will be the manning of his Department. The great danger of all Government Departments is bureaucrasy, red-tape and officialism. I have the greatest respect for Civil servants. We have a national pride in their honesty and ability in the discharge of their own particular work, but this kind of work is not a job for the ordinary official mind, and I hope that the Minister will call into his service the best brains that are available in the country. We must have results, and secure the confidence of industry and trade on the one hand, and of labour on the other. That wants tact and leadership and, if he is prepared to give industry and the workers of the nation real leadership, we can get an output which will secure our Army, our Navy and our Air Force that equipment, both in clothing and in armaments, which will give us that safety that the serious international position so badly requires.

I only wish to say a very few words because I think the best service that any of us can do in this matter is to allow the right hon. Gentleman to get on with his job which is, after all, what the Bill is for. The few words that I want to say are rather in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). Like so many others, his criticisms have been really criticisms not of the Bill but of the White Paper. It seems to me, however, that the Government has been very wise in not trying to thrust too wide duties on this new Department in the beginning. We have heard the Bill described as an inadequate measure. I think those are inaccurate words. Many of us who are wholehearted in our desire to see the right hon. Gentleman receiving every possible support in getting on with his job, nevertheless feel a fundamental dislike to this type of legislation. I would suggest to him a little exercise which might be instructive. If he goes through the Bill and underlines with a blue pencil all those passages such as "to do all such things as appear to the Minister necessary or expedient," or "if in the opinion of the Minister," and so on, he will find that we have given him a very large number of blank cheques. In principle phrases of that kind are objectionable for they make the Minister sole judge, and there is practically no appeal. That is one test that I would suggest. Another is to visualise the powers that are created by the Bill in the hands of some individual in whom perhaps he may have less confidence than he has in himself. If we look at the thing in that way we may rather feel that the measure goes too far than not far enough, and I should have expected to hear sentiments of that kind put forward by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). Of course, if we get involved in a great emergency, all these powers will merge in wider and necessary measures of control. But if that contingency should be avoided, I hope the Government will consider, in the light of experience, whether it will not be possible to fill in some of these blank cheques and make more precise some of these wide discretionary powers that are given. Apart from that, it seems to me that the only thing worth saying is that the success of the Measure, and indeed the success of every kind of undertaking the necessity of which now lies on the country, depends on a full measure of co-operation between all the interests involved. I believe the Minister has done a very valuable thing for getting that co-operation in meeting the desire expressed as regards the provision for arbitration in the case of appeal. The business world will welcome the concession very heartily, and I should like to express my appreciation of what he has done. Beyond that, I only join in what I feel is the sentiment of the whole House in wishing the right hon. Gentleman God speed in his new efforts.

It is interesting to hear hon. Members opposite expressing their regret that the State has to endow a Minister of Supply with even these limited powers. It is just as well that they, as well as we, should face the actual position. No one with an intimate knowledge of what is taking place in the factories that are producing armaments can help regretting the lack of organisation that obtains. We are confronted with a set of circumstances where, should an emergency arise, nothing but organisation will enable us to achieve success in our objective. I regret, not that the Minister has taken such powers as he has, but that he has not taken greater powers because, should an emergency arise, within 24 hours we should be confronted with something in the nature of a stampede in our efforts to bring organisation in where chaos obtains at present. We should be taking a longsighted view of things and be giving the Department powers at this moment which will bring co-operation and organisation into our midst. Men working in the factories are painfully aware of the short- comings of to-day, more especially those who have experience during the last war. The same chaos obtained then and it was not until we established a Ministry of Munitions that we got organisation in place of chaos. It is for that reason that I sincerely regret that the Bill is not wider and that the Minister is not taking greater powers.

I hope that, even with his limited powers, he will appreciate that we are far short of organisation in the factories which are carrying out contracts for the Government. Limited as his powers are, none the less we are pleased to give the Bill the Third Reading, because it is a start. We can hope that the emergency that we fear will not arise, but, none the less, we should prefer that the Minister had been taking greater powers with the sincere intention of creating organisation which would have met a possible emergency with undoubted success, instead of being left in doubt as to whether these powers will enable us to do all that is required.

It will be discourteous, after what has been said and the large measure of collaboration there has been from all parts of the House, if I did not say a few words before the Bill passes from this place. There is still a good deal of misapprehension as to the width of the powers conferred by this Bill. I should not like anyone, from any words used by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), to draw the conclusion that the supplies and the organisation of this country are not fully ready for the emergency, should the emergency arise. Of course, there are immense powers granted by this Bill, but the problem of striking a balance between the industrial life of the country and its abnormal defence needs is a limitless one. The powers given by the Bill in the area over which I wield jurisdiction cover every stage from the raw material to the finished article of anything required for the public service—the whole field of imports, the whole field of industry, of manufactures, industries, basic, light and heavy transport and storage all come within the picture, and the irresistible conclusion from the practical point of view of business is that if these articles are required. the full and abundant powers given by this Bill are necessary for the Minister of Supply.

I hope he will use them.

The first task is to deal with War Office requirements and with the accumulation of general reserves of essential materials. The Ministry can begin by the exercise of its initial powers, and by the measure of its success in the handling of those powers it will be possible to decide whether, as a matter of business or as a matter of theory, it is desirable that those powers should be augmented. I express my gratitude to hon. Members in all parts of the House for making the passage of the Bill such an easy one. I value greatly the different contributions which have been made during the Debates; and in the exercise of the powers given to me after the Royal Assent has been given to the Act, I shall have regard to the various counsels offered to me from all parts of the House.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that he said he would say a word in regard to the suggestion, which I think met with approval on both sides of the House, in regard to the appointment of a deputy-chairman of the board of arbitration.

I have accepted that.