I beg to move:

"That the following provisions shall have effect with respect to the Business of this day's Sitting:

A Bill to extend the powers which may be exercised by His Majesty under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939,may without notice be presented by a Minister of the Crown and forthwith considered and passed through all its stages on the same day, and the requirements of Standing Orders No. 64 and 68 and of the practice of the House relating to the imposition of charges upon the people shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of any provisions of the Bill or of any Amendments thereto moved by a Minister of the Crown which authorise expenditure or the imposition of any such charge.

Immediately after the Bill to which this Order applies has been read a Second time it shall be considered in Committee of the Whole House."—(King's Recommendation signified.)

I have to inform the House that the present situation is so critical that the Government are compelled to seek special powers from the House by a Bill to be passed through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament to-day. The situation is grave. Every hon. Member is fully aware of that; and also of the issues which are at stake. A great battle is now proceeding. Our men at sea, on land and in the air, are fighting with splendid courage, devotion and skill, in company with the freedom-loving people who areour Allies. The result of that battle we cannot know, but it must be clear to all that the next few weeks will be critical. Our ruthless enemy, who is restrained by no considerations of international law, of justice or humanity, is throwing everything into the scale to force a decision. We are resolved that he shall not succeed. The Government are convinced that now is the time when we must mobilise to the full the whole resources of this country. We must throw all our weight into the struggle. Every private interest must give way to the urgent needs of the community. We cannot know what the next few weeks or even days may bring forth, but whatever may come we shall meet it as the British people in the past have met dangers and overcome them.

But it is necessary that the Government should be given complete control over persons and property, not just some persons of some particular class of the community, but of all persons, rich and poor, employer and workman, man or woman, and all property. It is these powers for which I am asking the House this afternoon. I do not ask for them in any spirit of panic; there is no need for panic. I am asking that in this emergency we should be given the requisite powers that may be needed. In order to pass the Bill through all its stages, it is necessary to move this procedure Motion without notice, and I am asking the House to acquiesce in this procedure in view of the great peril in which the nation stands to-day. The Motion is in precisely the same form as that moved on 24th August last year when the original Emergency Powers (Defence) Bill was passed through all its stages. The Bill is available for hon. Members in the Vote Office now.

I thank the Lord Privy Seal for his explanation. We are setting a precedent, but this is not the time for a lengthy discussion. It is a time for action and for showing that the House of Commons can be a completely efficient instrument in the conduct of war. I have only to say that we shall give the Bill all facilities.

These are drastic powers for which the Government are asking, and the justification for them is that the country is in danger. I do not suppose in the history of our country, not even in 1914, 1915 and 1916, has the danger been more real. Nothing will give the country greater confidence than the knowledge that the Government are prepared to take action rapidly, and even against all constitutional practices and traditions. The Government must take responsibility, and I am glad they are prepared to do so. Parliament, of course, must be diligent in examining—the House has a great duty in that respect—the way in which these powers are used. When the occasion arises, Parliament must be vigilant to see that these powers are not unfairly used. [Hon. Members: "Agreed."] The House of Commons has its functions to perform. It does not help the Government if Members do not express their views. These are drastic powers. I reiterate that Members will have the responsibility of examining the use of those powers in practice and protecting individuals; but I am satisfied—

On a point of Order. Is not the business before the House a procedure Motion? The Second Reading of the Bill has not been moved.

A procedure Motion is before the House.

The seriousness of the situation justifies these great powers, but nevertheless, hon. Members still have their responsibilities, and when these powers are put into operation, those responsibilities will be vastly increased. As far as hon. Members on this bench are concerned, we will do everything we can to facilitate the progress of the Bill through all its stages.

I do not propose to oppose this Motion on procedure. I agree absolutely that the House ought to be able to function speedily in critical circumstances, but I reserve my right to speak adequately on the Bill, which has just been placed in our hands. At first glance I cannot see what there is in it that adds to the emergency powers already given to the Government, but, as I have said, I reserve my right to speak further on the Bill.

As regards procedure, I understand that it will be on the same lines as on the last occasion when we discussed such matters. At the moment we are not discussing the Second Reading of the Bill, but I hope the House will understand the importance of one statement that was made by the Lord Privy Seal. I understand the tragic situation of the people of this country, but in connection with this Bill it is essential that the power of the working class should remain unaffected. The hatred of the working class for Nazi-ism is deep-rooted.

The hon. Member must confine himself to the Motion before the House.

I shall want to raise some matters on the Second Reading of the Bill. The enmity of the other side is very recent and shallow and to those of us who are concerned about the welfare of the working classes, it is important that nothing be done to interfere with their liberty of organisation.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I believe that at this critical time the vast majority of the people of this country will willingly give their services to the country, and will do all that is asked of them. We introduce this Bill not because we have any doubt of the willingness of the people, but because in a difficult emergency like this there must be the necessary power in the Government. Let me explain shortly what the Bill does. The operative part of the Bill is an extension of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and in Clause 1 the powers conferred by that Act are to

"include power by Order-in-Council to make such Defence Regulations making provision for requiring persons to place themselves, their services, and their property at the disposal of His Majesty, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the Realm, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community."

Sub-section (2) gives power to amend the legislation passed since the beginning of the war. The third important point is the extension of the original Act for another year. The Act expires in August of this year. No one can tell quite what conditions may be in August of this year. Therefore, it is best to extend the Act now. This is an enabling Bill under which Regulations can be made. I want to give an indication as to the sort of Regulations and the kind of control that may have to be exercised. Let me say that I do not want anyone to jump to the conclusion that all of a sudden everybody is going to be ordered to do something different from what he is doing now. The essential thing in an emergency is that everybody should continue at his job until he is ordered to do otherwise; but what is proposed is that there should be control over persons and over property.

How much over property?

Perhaps the hon. Member will wait a moment. The Minister of Labour will be given power to direct any person to perform any services required of him. That does not necessarily mean services in munitions or factories. It does not apply only to workmen. It applies to everybody. No one can tell what these days may bring forth, or who may be required to dig defences or do anything else, but everybody alike must be under this control. The Minister will be able to prescribe the terms of remuneration, the hours of labour, and conditions of service. Remuneration will be on the basis of the remuneration for the job. If an engineer is asked to do engineering work, he will get engineer's pay. If somebody else is asked to do a particular job, he will get the pay of that job. If a professional man is asked to do his professional work, he will get his professional pay. If he is asked to do manual work he will get a manual worker's pay. The general principle will be that of remuneration for the job.

With regard to conditions and pay, it is proposed that we should carry out, wherever they exist, industrial agreements which have been arrived at and wherever such agreements have not been arrived at, observe the rates normally paid by good employers. If there are cases, in which people are asked to shift from one district to another, there should be payment to deal with things of that kind. There is power to inspect premises and to require employers to produce their books. The object is to mobilise the effective resources of the nation for whatever tasks may come upon us now. I said at the beginning that it was essential that this should be done but not because people are unwilling. I am convinced that the bulk of the work will be done with the good will of all and with the co-operation of organised labour.

Let me deal with a few points about control over property. Some establishments will be controlled altogether right away. Others may be controlled later. They will, in effect, be working on Government account. Wages and profits will be under Government control. The Excess Profits Tax will be at the rate of 100 per cent. There will be no profit out of the national emergency. Other establishments may be ordered to carry on and they may perhaps be ordered to carry on at a loss, but there must be power to carry on essential services and if people are put in a position where they are making a loss, they must have adequate remuneration in order to do their job effectively. The essential thing is that over a wide field—how wide one cannot say at the moment—industry will be carried on for the community in fact, and not for private profit. There may be cases in which firms will have to close down and there may be destruction of property here and there. One cannot tell that will happen. There will be difficult questions of compensation. There will have to be full reconsideration of compensation but in an emergency, these things cannot be worked out precisely and, meanwhile, there will have to be interim compensation.

I have spoken of businesses, but it is not only industrial businesses in the ordinary sense that will be, or may be, under control. It depends on what the Regulations will be. There will have to be control of the finance of the country and the banks. It may be done, centrally; it may be, if conditions require it, that it will have to be done through regional commissioners and financial advisers, but at the moment I cannot give more than an indication of the kind of action which may have to be taken. The point arises: Under whose orders are these things to be done? They are to be done under the orders of the Government. The order will be given by the competent authority and the competent authority in each case will be the Minister concerned with that particular national activity—the Minister of Labour, for instance, dealing with labour matters, and the Minister of Agriculture with agricultural matters. If conditions enforce it, control will have to be exercised through the regional commissioners, but, broadly speaking, we are taking control in a time of emergency, so that in the national interest we may utilise all our resources for the common weal.

Now let me take one part of the scheme which has already been worked out in detail. It is essential in this crisis that we should produce to the full all our essential munitions, and the Minister of Labour has been given the responsibility of supplying the labour required for the programmes of the various Departments. He proposes to set up at once a Production Council consisting of representatives of the chief Government Departments concerned with munition supplies—the Admiralty, the Ministry of Aircraft Production, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Mines. That Production Council will be presided over by the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). It is proposed to set up a Director of Labour Supply with full-time assistants, drawn from trade unions and employers. There will be local organisations based on area boards.

Will there be no Office of Works in it?

No, but there will be full control of building operations. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am afraid I have had to deal with this matter at very short notice. It is essential that all building operations should be properly controlled, brought together and co-ordinated. At all important centres, labour supply committees will be set up to organise local self-help for meeting difficulties in the labour supply. It is proposed that firms should be grouped to secure the best utilisation of labour and to prevent waste. In certain instances there will be compulsory notification through the Employment Exchanges of all men who are "stood off" or on short time. Those firms engaged in munitions will be brought under control and will become controlled establishments. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour proposes to set on foot a bold and comprehensive scheme of training. Training facilities are available under the Ministry of Labour and in the technical schools and so forth. It is proposed, too, where non-federated firms are standing out and not observing agreements, that they shall observe agreements.

The essential thing at this time is to see that there is no waste of the skilled labour which is available and that there is the utmost co-operation between all those who are working for the common end. My right hon. Friend intends to work in the closest co-operation with trade unions and employers' organisations. It may be that cases will arise in which, under this stress, agreements will be made to set aside, for the time being, customs in industry that have previously been agreed between employers and employés. It is essential that everybody who is engaged in this great effort should be satisfied that the rights which he has had shall remain alive and in being and it is proposed, therefore, that there should be an addition to the Fair Wages Clause whereby employers who do not at the end of this war restore any customs or conditions which have been set aside for the war, will be ineligible to come on the list of Government contractors. [Hon. Members: "Permanently?"] Certainly, until they comply, but I will deal with that point later. I cannot now give more than a broad outline. I have tried to give the House a picture of an immediate piece of work. To show how immediate it is, I may say that it is proposed that the Munitions Board should meet to-night to get on with the job.

I have only been able to indicate some lines on which action will be taken. What other action will be taken must depend on how events move, but I cannot end without again stressing what I am quite sure is in the mind of everybody. At this time everything for which we stand is in jeopardy—our political rights, our rights of conscience, our industrial rights—and everything will go if we do not defeat the enemy. I do not believe it is necessary to make a long appeal to the people of our country. I am quite certain that everybody knows what is at stake, and that while these powers are necessary the real force behind us to-day is the will and determination of a free people.

We have heard about labour, wages, trade union agreements and all the rest of it, but the most essential of all things, the thing which is in question and jeopardy, is the land, and that has not been mentioned. I want to know if we are taking powers for the entire control of the land of this country?

The hon. Member is, of course, right in stressing the importance of the land. I say "all property, real and personal," and land is an essential part of property.

The Lord Privy Seal referred to the fact that firms who did not restore what we may call agreements come to between employers and employés will be kept off the list after the war so far as Government work is concerned. May I ask if full cognisance has been taken of the fact that many firms who may be engaged on war work now may, after the war, be engaged on a different type of work and may not desire to be placed on the list?

I quite realise that such cases may happen, but perhaps my hon. Friend will have a talk with the Minister of Labour on particular points. I am giving a general principle. The general principle is that there should be a definite sanction imposed that they should not take advantage of a war situation to break down conditions established for many years, and this is one of the means of enforcing that.

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal a question?

rose—

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask something germane to the Question.

It is better that we should have speeches made than questions put on a point of Order.

I was not making a speech. I wanted to ask a question pertinent to the subject which we were discussing then.

I often find that speeches and questions run very much into one another.

On a point of Order. The Government have asked the House to make a big concession on the matter of procedure and the House has granted it, but one or two of us are anxious to ask a few questions to elucidate the statement which has been made. We do not want to make speeches, but would it not be more convenient if we could have one or two questions answered now rather than by having several long speeches?

That is a matter for the House.

Before making any observations upon the Bill I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether these numerous Regulations which are to be put into Orders will be laid and, if so, what the procedure will be? Perhaps we might have a reply to that before the end of the Debate, because if there are any questions of details to be raised they might be conveniently raised then.

Yes, they will be laid, and, of course, they can be annulled by a Prayer. It is, of course, as the hon. Member says, a fact that the whole meat of it comes in the particular Orders. This is merely an enabling Bill.

When will they be laid?

As soon as they are made.

It seems to me impossible for us to discuss this in detail now, and if any Member wishes to do so it seems to me that his opportunity will come when the Orders are laid. One cannot help recognising in the speech of the Lord Privy Seal that he has in mind certain contingencies of a character which has never yet faced this country, and broadly speaking he wishes to ensure that this country shall not be taken by surprise like some countries already have been. I would, therefore, say that, apart from the discussions upon the Orders, if hon. Members find that in the working of this Bill there are points which ought to be raised I am glad to know that the ordinary procedure of this House will protect us. We shall have Ministers in front of us from day to day with whom we can raise particular points. One of the great advantages of our procedure is that we can with confidence give Ministers powers, especially if we have confidence in them, and we should give these powers, because our procedure enables us to raise the issue of how they are being utilised any day when the House is sitting.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) that everything which matters will be in the Regulations and not in this Measure. This merely confers a very very wide power on the Government to make Regulations. I imagine that it does not add much to the emergency powers granted in last August, and I believe that all the things outlined by the Lord Privy Seal could have been done under that legislation. I notice that the Lord Privy Seal shakes his head, and I accept his greater knowledge on the subject. He only made a short general statement on which one can say nothing. I do not object to land being nationalised and banks being nationalised, and I do not object to property of all descriptions being taken over for the service of the State. I could have wished, however, that it could have been in rather calmer days and adopted more deliberately than to-day.

As I listened to the Lord Privy Seal I noted that he was very precise about what was to be done in the seizure of labour. He was very definite about that—how they were to be moved anywhere at any time—but he was very vague and general about what was going to be done to property. I am not going to take the responsibility of dividing this House on the matter. I divided the House on the last vote on emergency powers. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) smiling, but I do not wish to have a Division in which the Opposition is ludicrously small. My hostility to this Bill in principle is as strong as it was previously, but it is only when we see the regulations that we shall know just whether the inroads that are being made into established liberties are necessary, or whether the general circumstances of a time in which people tend to get nervy are being utilised to take away liberties which it is not necessary, even in these days, to take away. As I say, I will not oppose the Measure, but I will scrutinise the regulations very closely when they come before the House.

I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether this Bill is to apply to Northern Ireland?

I hope I never trespass unduly on the time and patience of the House, and what I feel moved to say now I can say in a sentence or two. I believe that the introduction of this Bill and the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal will be received with a feeling of great relief by vast multitudes of the people of this country, whose abiding anxiety in recent weeks has been as to how, through their property or their services, they could make their full contribution towards the conduct of the war. In a recent speech, the French Prime Minister said that if we wished to conquer the enemy, we must first learn to conquer ourselves, and I believe that this instrument will be one of the things that will enable us to do that. I will say nothing in regard to the details of the Bill, because on the Orders themselves we shall have an opportunity of doing that, but I am sure there is nobody in this House to-day who does not realise that if we are to preserve our liberties eventually and for the future, we must make a substantial surrender of them at the present time. That, I believe, is the temper in which this Bill will be received and the temper in which I believe it will be worked.

Can the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that if we pass this Bill and circumstances should arise in which it is impossible for Parliament to meet, the Government are satisfied that they will then have all the powers which they require to deal with any emergency that might then arise without being hampered by the absence of legislation? I think we ought to have that assurance before we pass this Bill.

I think there is complete unanimity that when the Government ask for further powers the House will cheerfully grant them, but we want to have some assurance that those powers will always be wisely exercised. The Deputy-Leader of the House stated that the competent authority would be a Minister. That does not mean that it will be the personal act of a Minister, but that a Minister will act through his servant. Therefore, the power to direct a workman to go from this factory to that factory will not be a personal order by a Minister, but it will be an order given by a servant of a Minister, and many of those orders may be unwise orders. The requisitioning power in regard to property, virtually speaking, already exists.

Four days ago a competent authority took 160 public service vehicles, which were used by the military with such indiscretion and so unnecessarily that at this moment 100of them are under repair in the garage of the public service undertaking, and it has been necessary to call upon mechanics belonging to the military to carry through the essential repairs. I mention that as a minor example of the necessity of making sure that those who in fact are the competent authority do not wildly do things which are unwise, merely on the justification that there is a war on. The fact that there is a war on is no reason for doing anything foolish, and there are many people at this moment who, without full thought, will sometimes take advantage of the great powers which are rightly conferred upon them to do things which, in fact, are contrary to the interests of the State. I think it is of the greatest importance that when the regulations are drawn the instructions to those who will exercise the practical duties of the competent authority are of such a character that mistakes of the kind with which I am familiar, and many other Members also to a great extent are familiar, shall be repeated to the smallest possible degree.

I want to take exception to this Bill. I do not see how it is possible to suggest that by taking away the liberties of the people of this country you are helping to forward any cause of liberty. The working class of this country has had no say whatever in the policy that has led to the critical and desperate situation in which we find ourselves. The ruling class of this country is responsible for what this country is facing and now seeks to save itself at the expense of the mass of the people. This Bill does not represent, as an hon. Member opposite said, "an effort to conquer ourselves"; it represents a deliberate effort on the part of the ruling class of this country to conquer the working class. I can remember when I and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and others met the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in the last war. We put proposals before him that would give the workers in the factories and the shop stewards and the trade unions a measure of control over conditions that operated in the factories. The right hon. Gentleman told us that anything of that character would represent a revolution and that you could not carry through a revolution in the midst of a war. What did he mean by that? He meant that if there was any attempt to cut into the power of the ruling class of this country, the ruling class would forget the war and would proceed to protect its own interests.

So we face a situation in which the ruling class is determined to hold on to its power and to bring the power of the independent organised working class to an end. Yet the one thing that is important in this country at the present time is a strong, virile, independent working-class movement. That is the one thing that is more essential than anything else for saving the people. When we talk about this country, it is the people of whom we are talking, and the masses of the people are those who are going to be fettered and imprisoned under this Bill. The country is not a geographical expression; it is the masses of the people. The working class will get absolutely nothing from this Bill. It is true that there may be interference here and there with the rights of property, and there may be certain control of organisations for the time being, but the Bill does not allow, and there will be no intention of allowing, for doing away with the rights of private property.

If there was anything serious of that kind in the minds of hon. Members opposite, there would be a complete requisitioning of all wealth and property, and everything would be taken over, but what do we find? What did you have yesterday in this House? The ex-Prime Minister, whose policy more than anything else has brought us to this terrible pass, came in, and all the profiteering Members opposite cheered him, deliberately demonstrating for the ex-Prime Minister, and when the new Prime Minister, who is supposed to be winning the war, came in, they were completely silent.

The hon. Member's argument has nothing to do with the Bill.

With all this talk going on about national unity and everything being wanted for the common good, it is clear that those on the other side who are interested in private property and finance have their eye on the ex-Prime Minister and those associated with him. It is finance that they are concerned with, more than anything else, as was demonstrated yesterday.

What view are you taking? Are you speaking for this country, or for whom are you speaking?

I am concerned about this country, deeply concerned about it, and always have been, but I am concerned for the masses of the people of this country, and I am against the small gang of the ruling class who have brought us face to face with this disaster. When I speak about the country I am concerned with the masses of the people, because there is no such thing as a country if you do not take the people into consideration. The masses of the people have had no say whatever in the policy that has led to this disaster, and it is the masses of the people who are now getting their liberties taken away by this Bill, while the property of the ruling class remains intact. The main principle of the rights of property on the part of a small group, whose profits are going up all the time as a consequence of the war, is adequately protected. You can see in the financial papers how their profits are going up, and at the same time the liberties of the many are to be sacrificed. Therefore, I am opposed to this Bill.

If ever there was an occasion when the nation should listen to the House of Commons, it is to-day. The liberties of the people can be enjoyed by the people only if there is unity in the country, but it is foreign to me to hear an alien voice raised in this House that has a country in every part of the world except the country in which he lives. I think that at this time we not only have to protect ourselves by the laws that we make, but that this Bill should enunciate views which are subservient to the voice of the people of the land. In the case of leprosy and other diseases, we are very careful to see that we have proper protection against them, but unlicensed speech in this House is doing great injury. Therefore, I think that for the common good it is about time that a voice like that of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) was silenced as regards the question of the emergency powers that we ought to exercise. I have listened for a long time to a quartette in this House that professes to speak on behalf of the people of the land in regard to laws that are being passed, and I have lived all my life among the poor and have seen my sons and those of my home having to go out and fight to protect the very people who claim the licence to say and do whatever they like in the British House of Commons.

If unity is to be brought about, and this nation is to be saved, that unity must come in common action, and it is because of that that I do not intend to be a cipher in the House of Commons. We are about to pass laws which, in my humble opinion, are absolutely essential—not only that Stalin might have views expressed but that we at a later date may be able to give expression to our views and bring about a better state in the affairs of our land. This is an honourable institution, and it can only be made more honourable by Members of the House recognising that this land fought for and won its liberties and defending them at all costs. We will give to any Government, provided it is a legitimate Government working in the interest of one and all, every power it can exercise for the common welfare of the people.

I always think that the extreme tolerance which this House invariably shows to the amazing statements and strictures made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) provides the best answer to the speeches he makes. I rise only to put a question to the Lord Privy Seal, which I do not ask him necessarily to answer now, in relation to the penalties that will be imposed on owners of property and on persons who may show some recalcitrance in carrying out directions. I share the view of every Member that this Bill will be welcomed in every quarter of the country. There will, however, be very small minorities who for various reasons may prove recalcitrant in carrying out directions, and I would like an assurance that the penalties will be proportionate to their profits and the magnitude of their offence. I understand that in certain other Defence Regulations there are standard penalties for a whole range of offences. The scale of requisition of persons and property which will take place under this Bill may not be adequately covered by the penalties which are already in force, and I hope that some attention will be given to them.

When the Lord Privy Seal was making his statement, I asked how much the Bill would affect private property. I waited patiently to see whether private property and the banking interests were to be affected to the same extent as the working class, and as far as I was able to gauge the situation there is a distinct difference. The working class, as I under stand the Lord Privy Seal, are to be tied hand and foot, and private property is not. I will defeat that distinction to the best of my ability. I do not happen to represent either Russia, or Rome, or Jerusalem—

Or reason.

I represent the working class of my country, and my countrymen will have something to say about this Bill if it works as I understood from the Lord Privy Seal that it will work. The landed interests and the big financial interests are not to be affected to the same extent as the working class. My class are to be conscripted; the Government are going to conscript the life of the worker. They will not do that as far as I can hinder it unless they conscript wealth also. That is supposed to be the programme of the Socialist movement as I have always understood it. I heard in the last war all that the Lord Privy Seal stated to-day. We had then the same promises about what would happen after the war. In the War Cabinet then were two of the most powerful men ever produced by our party in George N. Barnes and Arthur Henderson. They gave every promise, to engineers in particular, that all trade rights would be guaranteed, but in 1920 the wages of highly skilled engineers were less than those of scavengers in the streets of London. That is what happened to us, and that is what will happen again unless the Labour party prevent it. At that time there were not so many Socialists in the House of Commons as there are to-day. There were not so many men sent here by the workers. There were not so many representatives of the miners, whose conditions to-day are hellish. Every time an accident has occurred in the mines, I have asked in the House whether everything is being done that science and engineering can devise to prevent these tragedies, and I am not satisfied that all is being done that might be done.

Unless the workers are to be treated under this Bill on an equal footing with the great, the rich and the all-powerful, I shall do all I can to get my class to resist. Hon. Members should not run away with the idea that because certain Labour and trade union leaders have gone over to the Government side of the House the working-class movement is dead. You may do what you like, but that movement cannot be killed; however it is put down, it will rise again. Even the slaves who were taken from the wilds of Africa as savages and put into the cotton fields of Carolina revolted against their slavery. So will our people revolt. It is no use the Lord Privy Seal and his partners thinking that the working-class movement are just going to fall under the provisions of this Bill without protest, unless all interests are treated alike. The working class of this country have a country to defend, and they are capable of defending it. All that they have is in the country. They have not wealth invested across the seas. The whole of their lives, everything that they have, their wives and families, are all here. Everything for which they have a regard is here, and they will defend it. Down the ages we have had to defend every right that we have against the ruling class. Everything that we have has had to be fought for against the ruling class with which my colleagues and my leaders have now allied themselves. Now is their opportunity to state to the ruling class, "We will defend the country with everything that we have, we will put everything at the disposal of the country, provided the country is ours and all that is in it, instead of belonging to the ruling class as it has done in the past."

I will be brief because I do not think the House is in any mood for speech-making. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) had better concentrate his attention on how to fight Hitler rather than on how to fight the ruling class. The Lord Privy Seal stated the intention of the Government in respect to wage agreements and so forth. Does he mean that the existing wage rates, trade agreements and industrial agreements will be frozen as they are now, or that the existing machinery for regulating wage rates and so forth will continue? It seems to me that some Members took the Lord Privy Seal's remarks in the former sense and that we were being given a gentleman's agreement on the part of the Government to keep up existing wage rates or if there was any change to give something higher. If this Bill with its exceptional and dangerous powers, which we recognise as necessary, has to go on for some time, there may be such changes in the financial position of the country that a modification of industrial arrangements and scales both up and down may be necessary. Women are coming in as substitutes for men in the engineering trade. If vast numbers of women have to be employed and the Government pledge themselves to pay the rates recognised for men as the rate for the job, that may be right or wrong, but it is a big undertaking to which to commit ourselves without any discussion. May we therefore have a little more explanation of the industrial side of this Measure?

The Lord Privy Seal mentioned that each Minister would issue Orders as he felt them to be necessary. I take it, however, that they will be issued only on a decision by the Cabinet and that it will not be left to each Minister to take it upon himself to issue them. If it is necessary to nationalise the mines or take over the land for the welfare of the State and the prosecution of the war, I take it that there will be no hesitation in putting full powers into operation. We must be assured that the changes that are necessary to win the war will apply not only to the working- class. Equal sacrifice should be called for from all sections in the country, and if necessary wealthy people should be called upon to pay their share like everybody else.

Did I understand the Lord Privy Seal to say that the Minister of Labour, with his additional powers for increasing the mobilsisation of labour generally, will seek powers to restore a provision which was in operation before the war but which has been suspended since the outbreak of the war? We still have large numbers of unemployed, and some of them may be residing in places where there is no present or future hope of employment. It may be necessary to transfer them to places some distance from their present homes. Is the Minister of Labour going to restore the power to assist the workers and their families to move to the new place of employment, because that is a power which has been suspended since the outbreak of the war?

I have one or two suggestions to put to the Lord Privy Seal, entirely on my own behalf. I cannot speak as a representative of the working classes in the same way as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). Most of those who vote for him are workers, and I do not think one can claim to represent the workers in that sense unless one has been through the life of a working man, which I have not. I should like to make a suggestion on behalf of a small number of people who are in positions roughly corresponding to my own. I am rather looking forward to the day when something of this kind will happen: that the Lord Privy Seal or his representative will come to my house, or to houses of similar size, and say, "You have here some very attractive pictures by Joshua Reynolds"—or whoever it may be—"We are taking those pictures and are selling them in America to buy aeroplanes." When I ask what compensation is to be given for those pictures, I am looking forward to receiving the two answers "The means test and Keynes' Plan. Let us see how much you have to live upon after we have taken these pictures, and as to the rest let there be deferred compensation." I merely offer that suggestion to the Lord Privy Seal, because, I submit, when that kind of thing begins to happen in this country in relation to property, it will be very much easier to solve some of the difficulties which were forecast by my hon. Friends above the Gangway. That is the kind of thing, only on a very small scale, which I mean by conscription of wealth, and unless the Government are prepared to act in that way we shall run into trouble.

Of what value would porcelain or beautiful pictures be in a time like this?

They could be very valuable indeed, because if we sold them in America, we should have purchasing power with which to buy aeroplanes. We shall run out of American dollars if this is to be a prolonged struggle.

By leave of the House, I will reply to some of the questions which have been addressed to me. The answer to the hon. Member for Down (Dr. Little) is that this Measure does apply to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) asked whether under this Bill the Government would have all the powers they want if we are invaded. The answer is "Yes."

I meant if Parliament could not be called together.

We shall have the powers. With regard to the questions as to the control of property, I do not think the hon. Member who put them can really have listened to what I said. The power taken to control property is just as strenuous as that to control persons. I was asked whether the banks would be controlled, and I gave that as a specific instance—that the banks would be controlled and would operate under Government orders. They will be as much under orders as anybody working in a factory and in the same way as any other business. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) stressed, very rightly, the position of labour. Labour has declared its view that this war must be won, and I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Member himself will do his full part. He knows as well as I do that we can get the biggest effort from this country only if the trade unions play their full part and undertake their responsibilities, and that is exactly what is being done under the scheme of the Ministry of Labour, as I indicated.

I have a question to put on that point. This is a very serious matter. It may be that some hon. Members do not know just how serious it is, but I do. I want to be perfectly clear about this, because it will be put to me immediately by the engineers: Are we to understand, seeing that labour is to be conscripted—because that is how it appears to me—that wealth in this country is to be conscripted also? I want the Minister to give me a straight answer, such as I am in the habit of giving.

My short answer is that we are taking power to deal with all persons and all property.

But can I not get a straighter answer than that? I want a straight answer if the Minister can give it. Believe me, it is with the best intentions that I put this point. It is perfectly true that the leaders of the trade-union movement, and all that, are on the opposite benches, but I am dealing with the men, and it is the men we have to get. Am I in a position to say that if labour is conscripted, so will wealth be conscripted? Can the Minister say that, speaking for the Government?

I can give an answer to the hon. Member. I have received an intimation from my bank that certain property which I have in America has been taken by the Government and that certain payments will be made in due course. If that is not conscription of wealth—

They should take the whole lot and give you nothing.

I do not want another Member's reply.

I have said that we are taking power over all persons and all property. That does not mean to say that from to-morrow everybody will be given orders to do this or that work, but there is power to do it. In the same way, it does not mean to say that from to-morrow every form of wealth will be taken, but there is power to take property and to control persons, and that power will be exercised wherever it is necessary in the interests of the safety of the country. With regard to the point put by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), there is no suggestion of any "freezing" of industrial agreements. The whole industrial system is alive and going on all the time, and there is no suggestion that from this time on it will be suddenly frozen. There is a general principle with regard to agreements made in industry, that advantage should not be taken of the war to take away rights that ought to be restored at the end of the war. As to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), general policy must necessarily be co-ordinated, either by action between Ministers or through the Cabinet. The competent authority will be the Minister. Within the range of his activities, so far as they do not impinge on the activities of another Minister, he will be the person to give orders.

Suppose the Minister of Labour should decide to direct certain sections of labour in a particular direction. That might arouse controversy in the trade union ranks. It may not always be the present Minister of Labour; there may be a Minister not sympathetic to labour. Would his orders be subject to Cabinet review, or would he be responsible himself?

In any case where there was a difference it would necessarily be settled either by the Cabinet or through one of the Members of it, but no Minister would attempt to enforce powers that ran directly contrary to the functions of another Minister. It is essential that there should be co-operation in all these things. The hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) put a good point. I cannot say exactly what the previous practice was, but if in the national interest workers are required to go from one place to another, there must be adequate payment to compensate them for the cost of travelling and all that kind of thing. I could not say precisely what was done before.

Before the war, if an unemployed worker was being placed in a job 50 or 100 miles away from his home, he and his family were moved at the expense of the Ministry of Labour, but that system has been suspended since the outbreak of war. I think that, in all reasonableness, that condition ought to be restored, because otherwise an unemployed man would be under very great hardship.

I think I had better bring that point to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I was not considering the question of the unemployed. If there was a surplus of key-men in an industry in one place and it was desired to bring them to another centre, then, in all fairness, they should be compensated. As to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland), there is power to take his Joshua Reynolds, if we thought it in the national interest to do so. If he has one and wants that done, I am sure the Government will be glad of it.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the point about penalties?

It is true that there are to be penalties. It will be the endeavour to make the penalties apply proportionately to everybody—I could not say exactly how, but the idea is that there should be no distinction between people at this time. Whether they be rich or poor, or whatever they are, they should all be willing to perform service and to give up their property, and those who are recalcitrant come into the same category.

What means are you going to take now, in view of this Bill, to prevent the moneyed class and the propertied class from getting rid of their property now and buying securities in America?

It is plain to me what this Clause does. I understand it to mean that the services and the property of all persons can be taken when required. But from the discussion in the House this afternoon it is obvious that the Clause as it stands will be misunderstood by some people in the country. It is regrettable that it should have been worded in such a way that the word "all" could not have been used. I can imagine people going to the country and saying that the Bill will be utilised only in one direction, although it is intended to cover all classes. If anything can be done by means of an assurance from the Minister, I shall be very pleased indeed.

The Committee will see that "persons" means all persons, and it does give the power which the hon. Member desires. I should like to make it quite plain that "persons" means all persons.

The Committee should have more assurances from the Lord Privy Seal as to how the Bill will be administered. No one can point a finger at the trade union movement with regard to the part that it has played during the past eight months, in the engineering industry in particular, where the unions at the very beginning came to an agreement which was known as the Relaxation of Customs Agreement. Anybody in touch with the heavy and general engineering industries will understand that that in itself was a revolution in working-class conditions. Up till now, that spirit has not been reciprocated. If anyone doubts that statement, I can produce correspondence from executives of a number of trade unions as concrete evidence. Clause 1 gives powers for

"making provision for requiring persons to place themselves….at the disposal of His Majesty."

Our position is clear. If I were in the workshop, as I was in the last war, I should be called upon to play a representative part on behalf of the men. They are bound to be concerned when they know that this Bill is going through; we are speaking on their behalf. We are entitled to have assurances as to how the Bill will be administered. I was speaking in my division the other night, and it was clear that the whole of the audience supported the decision of the Bournemouth Conference and were in agreement with the line that we were taking. After the meeting, several men came up to me with questions. I do not intend to repeat all those questions, but I will give one example. A man who was going to work produced his pay packet, and on it was written "£2 7s."That man had worked overtime. He has seven children, and he desires a transfer to another job in order that he might have more wages. Nevertheless, because he was already in a job, and in spite of the fact that he has seven children, he has been prevented from going to another job. I want to ask whether the Clause will be interpreted in such a way as to prevent men of that kind from going to other jobs. To a great extent, these days, we must sink our individuality and our own individual interests. Our men and women have done so during the past eight months, but they find that that spirit is not evident in other directions. I should like to have an assurance that that kind of thing will not be encouraged, and that if men wish to be transferred to other jobs, provided they are serving the State in a better way as a result of the transfer, they shall be entitled to that transfer. As the matter is being administered, the employers' interests are considered, rather than the interests of the State as a whole.

The next point arises out of our experience in the last war. We know that skilled engineers are being discharged from aircraft factories. This week-end highly skilled engineers are being discharged from a certain factory, which I could name if anyone doubted my statement. This is an indication of the lack of organisation in the industry. While our men are giving of their best and have agreed to the relaxation of customs, such incidents are causing irritation inside the workshop. Men say: "What is the use of our agreeing to relax our customs, to dilution, to train dilutees and to put forward our maximum effort if the position is being undermined by lack of organisation, because certain monopoly interests are being considered rather than the interests of the State as a whole?" Therefore, we want assurances on that point.

Surely discharges of skilled men ought to cease. We are in a serious state. The only difference between me and some of my hon. Friends is that we realise that the war did not start eight months ago but seven years ago. Our movement can look the world in the eyes because of our attitude during the last seven years. In spite of that, men are being discharged and are, in some cases, being offered employment many miles away from their own areas. Our men are prepared to accept these transfers because they realise what is at stake, but we say that, if this thing is to be carried through, the men are entitled to some subsistence allowance if they are transferred at the instance of the State. I remember that the present Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Munitions, realised the danger in a matter of this kind, and agreed to a system of subsistence allowances in order that wives and children might be maintained in at least as good conditions as they were in prior to transfer. Speaking on behalf of the persons whom we represent, and who are giving the maximum amount of production by using the maximum of energy, in order that the nation's resources might be organised and the best possible result be obtained, we are entitled to receive the assurances for which we ask before we agree to the Clause.