House of Commons
Wednesday, November 27, 1940
Private Business
Selection
Sir Irving Albery, Mr. Charlton, Sir George Davies, Colonel Gretton, Sir Arnold Gridley, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Lambert, Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Parkinson and Sir Lambert Ward nominated Members of the Committee of Selection.—[ Mr. Munro. ]
Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936
Address for:
"Return of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, which in the Session of 1939–40 have been reported on by Commisssioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings of each group;. the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved.
And also a Statement showing how all Draft Provisional Orders of the Session of 1939–40 have been dealt with."—[ Mr. Ernest Brown. ]
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Russia and Germany
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow concerning the nature and the results of the Russian-German conversations at Berlin; and whether he can make a statement on the subject?
Yes, Sir, but my Noble Friend is not prepared to make an official statement on this subject.
Do I take it that that means we cannot have a report now?
Yes, Sir.
Tangier
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have received any reply to the representations they have made to the Spanish Government that Tangier should remain neutral and unfortified?
Yes, Sir. An interchange of views has taken place between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs. His Majesty's Government are watching the situation very carefully with the purpose of safeguarding their rights and interests under the international treaties in force. They will take up with the Spanish Government all questions which may threaten these rights. His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has recently received further instructions in this sense.
Will the right hon. Gentleman remind General Franco of the pledge given last June, that the neutrality of Tangier will be respected, and has he any information whether the zone has been fortified?
In answer to the first part of the Question, importance of the neutrality of Tangier have been brought recently to the attention of the Spanish Government. Regarding the latter part of the Question, Spanish troops, which the hon. Member will remember have occupied the zone, have, according to our information, been reinforced since that time.
Are the undamaged Italian submarines still in the port of Tangier?
Yes, Sir.
Do the Government propose to take some action to deal with that situation, and, if necessary, to turn them out?
Yes, Sir, His Majesty's Government have already taken action. The usual practice of international law has been followed, and we are watching to see that it is in fact followed.
Do the Government intend to restrict themselves to protests, or will they maintain their rights if necessary by force?
Is it not a fact that according to international law undamaged warships can stay only 24 hours in a port?
Yes, Sir, but these warships are damaged. The practice of international law is being followed. We understand that they are being made seaworthy as quickly as possible at the present time.
Great Britain and Russia
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have received any reply to the proposals they have made to the Government of Soviet Russia?
Not yet, Sir.
Faroe Islands
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position in the Farôe Islands, and whether the ties with Denmark have been severed, and the islands established as an independent Government under British protection?
The Farôe Islands are occupied by His Majesty's Forces. All communications with Denmark have been terminated, but the islands still remain part of Denmark and continue to be administered by the Danish Governor in conjunction with the Lagting, the local Parliament.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement that the Farôe Islands have been set up as an independent State under British protection?
I may have seen the statement, but I have given the hon. Member his answer.
Is not our honour closely bound up with the maintenance of Danish control of these islands?
Oil Exports to Japan
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been informed of the terms of the contract between Japan and Dutch East Indies oil interests; the quantities involved; and the duration and to what extent Japan is still able to purchase the bulk of her requirements from the United States of America, in view of the fact that the embargo only applied to high octane spirit?
According to my Noble Friend's information, an agreement has been signed between the oil companies operating in the Netherland East Indies (including Netherland, United States and British interests) and Japanese oil importers, under which Japan will be able to obtain over the next six to twelve months about 900,000 tons of oil, in addition to the quantities which the companies import to meet their quota of the trade in Japan. The greater part of these contracts are, I understand, for a period of six months. Except as regards the grades covered by the embargo, there is, so far as my Noble Friend is aware, no legal obstacle in the way of Japan's obtaining from the United States those quantities of oil for which she is able to place contracts.
Is it not the case that Japan can now obtain all the spirit she requires from America, providing she refines it here?
That is so, subject to the terms of the embargo in regard to the highest grades.
What proportion of this oil will be supplied by British companies or companies under British control?
I understand that the interests of British companies amount to roughly one-third of the total.
Does that include the company which is under the control of His Majesty's Government?
That includes the company domiciled in the East Indies which is connected with the Royal Dutch Company.
Does not that make embargo completely ineffective?
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Residence)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accordance with the arrangements made some time ago, the Secretary of State has yet taken up his residence at the Foreign Office; and, if not, how soon is he proposing to leave his present address?
Owing to changed circumstances since the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to live in the Foreign Office, it is not practicable for my Noble Friend to take up his residence at present in the flat at the top of the building. The rooms set aside for the Foreign Secretary are accordingly still being used as offices. The bathrooms have been made available for use by those on night duty.
While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, is he aware that there is a very strong opinion held in well-informed circles that the Foreign Secretary should leave his present address without delay? Will he represent that to his Noble Friend?
No, certainly not. I will leave my Noble Friend to live where he likes.
Censorship (Diplomatic Immunity)
7 and 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will indicate the persons to whom diplomatic immunity from censorship is restricted; and what steps are taken to pee the privilege is not abused;
(2) whether any of the representatives in this country of the Governments of Germany, Italy, Japan, France., Rumania and Hungary continue to enjoy diplomatic immunity in regard to communications, and, if so, which; and whether he is satisfied that a continuance of this practice is desirable in present conditions?
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the facility given for diplomats in this country to send messages to their respective Governments in code or cipher without censorship, he is satisfied that no leakage of information of value to the enemy occurs; and whether similar facilities are granted to foreign diplomats in countries with which Great Britain is at war?
As a long and comprehensive statement is involved, I will, with permission, circulate the answer in the Official Report.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say precisely whether Rumania, Hungary and Japan enjoy complete diplomatic immunity and can send messages without any form of censorship?
They enjoy that diplomatic immunity, but the circumstances in which they send messages have been described in answer to a Question on 19th November and also in answer to the questions to-day. If the hon. Member refers to the statement, he will see the circumstances set out.
Following is the statement:
As regards telegraphic communication in code or cypher, I would refer to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge) on 19th November. As regards immunity from postal censorship, this courtesy is extended to the diplomatic representatives in the United Kingdom of those countries with which His Majesty is hot at war and with which diplomatic relations are maintained. Since the diplomatic missions of Germany and Italy left the country on the outbreak with war with these two States, the question as regards these representatives does not arise. All communications emanating from a foreign diplomatic mission require to be accompanied by a certificate from the Head of the Mission to the effect that the postal packet only contains official correspondence on the business of the mission or private correspondence of the Head of the Mission.
His Majesty's Government are satisfied that a continuance of this practice of diplomatic immunity from censorship is desirable so long as the countries concerned extend reciprocal treatment to His Majesty's Representatives, and subject always to the proviso that His Majesty's Government reserve to themselves the right to withdraw such privileges in the event of any concrete evidence becoming available that they are being abused. My Noble Friend has no information regarding facilities granted to foreign diplomats in countries with which Great Britain is at war.
Unoccupied France (British Subjects)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, how many British subjects are know to be stranded in unoccupied France; and is financial aid granted only to those who can prove ability to repay grants on their return to England, and can prove present destitution?
There are believed to be about 4,000 British subjects in unoccupied France. Relief up to £10 a month is advanced by the United States Consuls to all British subjects who apply for it, provided they can show that they are without means. While such persons are asked to give an undertaking to repay on return to this country, they are not required to prove ability to do so, and would, in fact, not be pressed to do so if it were not within their means.
Did they know that they would be pressed to do so?
They know now.
Royal Air Force
Dependants' Allowances
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in connection with Regular airmen, who enlisted prior to the outbreak of hostilities, he will take steps to amend the regulations to enable their dependants to obtain some benefit under the Dependants' Allowance Scheme in such cases where the War Service Grants Advisory Committee are unable to make an award of a special allowance?
Regular airmen are already eligible for dependants' allowances equally with airmen who have enlisted during the war.
Does it not seem rather hard in certain cases that there should be discrimination against Regular airmen who joined up before the outbreak of hostilities? Will my hon. and gallant Friend give particular attention to a case I lodged with him about a week ago, in which there was a very great case of hardship? Will he deal with it without any further delay?
Regular airmen serving before the war are not normally eligible for the issue of grants by the War Service Grants Advisory Committee, because it cannot usually be held that their ability to meet financial obligations has been affected by the war. With regard to the particular instance mentioned by my hon. Friend, I can assure him that I am going into that case myself.
Italian Aircraft Losses (Greece and Albania)
asked the Secretary of State for Air, how many Italian aircraft have so far been brought down over Greece and Albania by the Royal Air Force?
Since 19th November, when eight Italian aircraft were shot down by Royal Air Force fighters without loss to themselves, few Italian aircraft have been encountered on the Greek front. Reports so far available show that the Royal Air Force have to date shot down a total of 20 Italian aircraft on the Greek front.
Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether Count Ciano and Signor Bruno Mussolini have been back to bomb Salonica since the Hurricanes arrived?
Decorations
asked the Secretary of State for Air in what manner did the courage and efficiency of a sergeant-pilot, who has been responsible for the destruction of 19 enemy aircraft and has recently been awarded a bar to his Distinguished Flying Medal, differ from that of the flight-lieutenant responsible for the de-destruction of eight enemy aircraft; and why was the latter given a higher decoration?
The answer to the first part of the Question is that the Distinguished Flying Cross and Distinguished Flying Medal and bars thereto are awarded for services of equal risk and bravery performed under similar conditions; it follows, in reply to the second part, that the two decorations are of equal merit.
Then why give two decorations?
I would refer the hon. Member to the many answers which have been given to him and to the Debate which took place on the Motion for the Adjournment on this particular subject on 16th October.
Did not that Debate simply indicate that the Government are upholding a very snobbish distinction?
No, Sir. I trust that to the few Members who were present my reply conveyed quite a different meaning.
Air Marshal Boyd
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has taken steps to investigate the leakage of information responsible for the interception and capture of Air Marshal Boyd by Italian planes?
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement on the circumstances of the capture by the Italians of Air Marshal Boyd and other officers on 20th November?
Air Marshal Boyd left England by air on 19th November to take up his duties as Deputy to the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Middle East. The aircraft in which he travelled was fully armed, and had more than adequate petrol for the journey. It is understood from enemy broadcasts that the aircaft forced-landed in Sicily, and that it was destroyed before it fell into enemy hands. There is no reason to believe that the enemy had any prior information in regard to this journey.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether in view of the importance of the Middle-East Command, it is proposed to appoint a deputy to the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief immediately to succeed Air Marshal Boyd recently captured while en route there; if so, can he name the officer?
Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be able to announce an appointment.
Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention been called to the report from Italy that fighters met the plane in the air and forced it to land, and is he satisfied that there was no leakage which gave the Italians foreknowledge of Air Marshal Boyd's journey?
To the best of my knowledge there was no leakage at all. I do not place full credence in the reports that I read from Italy.
Is my hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that all precautions were taken to protect the plane?
I am fully satisfied on that matter.
Questions
Officers' Outfit Allowance
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the Purchase Tax and increased cost of uniforms, it is proposed to increase the outfit allowance granted to officers on being commissioned?
The question of increasing officers' outfit allowance is under consideration.
Buildings (Camouflage)
asked the Secretary of State for Air at what stage in the construction of new erection for his Department it is customary to camouflage the structure; with whom lies the responsibility for the decision in such a matter; and who is responsible for carrying out the necessary work?
The camouflage of new works is carried out at the earliest practicable stage in accordance with Air Staff policy by the Air Ministry Directorate of Works.
In view of the importance of the matter, does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that camouflage should be put into operation on new works at the earliest possible date, and will he take active steps to see that it is put into operation in a particular case that has caused anxiety in a certain area?
I stated in my reply that camouflage is put into operation at the earliest possible time practicable in the construction of works. I have not personal knowledge of the case that my hon. and learned Friend quotes but, if he will give me particulars afterwards, I will certainly look into it.
Aircraft Production
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he will consider the need for closer liaison between the manufacturers and the squadrons which are using their aircraft; that a technical representative from the firm be present with the squadron when new types are being first used; and that a few leading men like inspectors should have experience with the squadrons when new types are being used so that the experience gained can be used in future production?
The closest liaison already exists between manufacturers of aircraft and the Royal Air Force during the manufacture of machines and in particular when new types are introduced personnel from the producing factory or factories are sent to the squadrons which are using those machines for the first time.
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to see that this policy is applied universally?
I think it is applied universally. There is an Air Force overseer, a flying officer, at each of the main producing works who watches the progress of the machine throughout its manufacture and can give advice to the producing factories. When the machines are going through their tests, or new machines are going to squadrons, we see that representatives of the firm, and mechanics of the firm, go to squadrons which are having the machines for the first time.
Royal Navy
Dockyard Discipline (Regulations)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that it is the current practice in Naval dockyards to punish acts of insubordination by the loss of two days' wages already worked for, he will take steps to amend Appendix 14 of the Home Dockyards Regulations, which lays down this punishment, with a view to bringing disciplinary control in the dockyards more in line with civilian practice and accepted trade union principles?
The Admiralty Industrial Council are discussing this question, and I am, therefore, not in a position to make a statement at present.
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this practice was carried on for a long time and was everywhere condemned by the trade union movement? Will he see that the practice of sweating shops is not continued in any of the Admiralty dockyards?
I should say it is principally a matter for the trade unions, which are in touch with the men concerned. It is being dealt with by the Whitley Councils. The practice is not far removed from the discipline carried out by the trade unions themselves.
Will my right hon. Friend cause inquiries to be made whether this is not a violation of the Truck Acts?
Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when the Industrial Council are likely to come to a decision on the matter?
As early as possible.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very long delay and that this is a matter of some importance?
Certainly, but my hon. Friend will know how to trust the trade union representatives in dealing with the matter.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is desirable to assist trade union representatives by ventilating these matters in public?
Retired Officers (Appointments)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to institute refresher courses for naval officers who have been called up from the retired list for war service?
The majority of retired naval officers are given appointments for which special instruction should not be required. Officers appointed for certain special duties do, however, take training courses where this is necessary, and before the war large numbers of retired officers were given voluntary short courses of instruction.
Destroyers (Construction)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many destroyers were built and launched during each financial year from 1924 to 1931, inclusive?
As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the total number during the period
Twenty-seven.
The information is as follows :
Destroyers launched and completed in Financial Years 1924–1931 inclusive. Financial Year. Launched. Completed. 1924 — 4 1925 2 1 1926 — — 1927 — 2 1928 — — 1929 9 5 1930 11 8 1931 5 7 Totals 27 27
Transport
Travel Concessions (Armed Forces, Wives)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to make widely known to all members of His Majesty's Forces that concession travelling vouchers can be obtained for wives visiting their husbands in camps and other establishments, as large numbers of men and their wives are at present unaware of this concession, and consequently pay full fare when it would have been unnecessary for them to do so?
I did not know that there was any doubt about the existence of the concession, but, in view of the hon. Member's Question, I will issue a notice to the Press.
Road Signposts
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the replacing of some of the major signposts on our roads with a view to putting a stop to the serious loss of hours of time by those engaged in the nation's business who have to constantly stop to inquire their way; and will he consider making the necessary approaches to instruct the Home Guard in every parish, or some other authority, to be responsible for taking down all signposts in the event of imminent danger of invasion?
While on purely traffic grounds the restoration of road direction signs would be desirable, the over-riding consideration at the present time must be that of military security. I am keeping this matter under constant review with the military authorities.
Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the very considerable amount of time that is being lost, not only by the civil population but also by Army transports which find themselves on the wrong road and have to return? Will he give serious consideration to the matter? Would it not be possible to make arrangements for the Home Guard, or some local authority, to take down signposts in case of emergency?
I do not want to be convinced about the matter. I am certain it is less convenient to the invader, who would have a map, than to the Englishman who gets lost. I have tried to put this with all the force I can, but so far my eloquence has been unavailing.
Is not the present policy of the Department being defeated by the putting-up of notices giving a direction to traffic to the South-West, South-East and so on?
I was not aware of that.
Motor Car Insurance (Pilot Officers)
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that pilot officers in the Royal Air Force are unable to execute motor-car insurance policies owing to the refusal of insurance companies to accept the risk; and whether, in view of the great hardship to officers in the Royal Air Force which this involves at a time when transport facilities are considerably curtailed, and in view of the great services of Royal Air Force officers to the country, he will take such steps as will enable them to take out motor-car and motor-bicycle insurance policies in the same way as officers in the other fighting services?
I am not aware that insurance companies have refused to accept proposals by pilot officers in the R.A.F. for third-party motor insurance, although I know that insurances sometimes require special premiums to be paid or special conditions accepted. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any specific cases in mind, and will let me have the particulars, I will gladly look into them.
Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that the tariff offices deliberately refuse to offer any insurance to any pilot in the Air Force, whether officer or man? I will certainly bring a case to his notice. Will he see that the practice is altered so that men in the Air Force shall be treated like any other of His Majesty's subjects?
My hon. and gallant Friend is not quite correct. Insurers do not refuse R.A.F. pilots, although they may require special premiums and conditions. After all, the insurance business is a competitive one, and there may be cases where they ask for a higher premium, but a really skilled flying man is like an old racing driver— far and away the best driver on the road, and the most careful. There is very little justification for this increased premium. I will look into the matter and try to persuade the insurance companies to take more of these young men.
Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the excuse given by the insurance companies is the heavy claims that they have had to meet in the past? Is not that part of their business?
Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the companies get together behind the scenes? These airmen are fighting for their country, and they are entitled to a square deal. Why should they not have it?
London Omnibuses
asked the Minister of Transport the number of omnibuses running and the number of service miles run in the area covered by the London Pas- senger Transport Board for the month of October, 1939, and October, 1940?
The average daily number of omnibuses operated by the London Passenger Transport Board in October, 1940, was 4,749 and in October, 1939, 3,856. The number of service miles run during the four weeks ended 26th October, 1940, was 14,100,000 as against 14,700,000 in the four weeks ended 28th October, 1939. The decrease in miles run is accounted for by the fact that the augmented peak-hour services are more than offset by the decrease in traffic after dark.
How many of the buses now running in London have come from Scotland?
Jute Wagon Sheeting
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the statement sent to him on 8th November, 1940, by the Association of Jute Spinners and Manufacturers referring to the use of jute wagon covers for sheeting; and has he any statement to make?
Yes, Sir, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the reply which has been sent to them. On further inquiry I find that a special method of proofing jute canvas has now been developed and that limited quantities of this canvas are being used for wagon sheeting as a temporary expedient. Other more suitable substitutes for flax sheeting, such as cotton duck, are, however, becoming increasingly available.
Is the Minister aware that this innovation will save foodstuffs that are very necessary to the country; and will the statement that he has received prevent any inexperienced Minister from making statements which experts in any association can refute very easily?
I do not accept those remarks at all, because this jute sheeting is only an expedient to carry us over a difficult time. Although the new proofing is making it possible to use it, no one pretends that it is as good as the sheeting which was made before.
Is not the Minister aware that many of our war-time efforts depend on expedients and that anything that can save foodstuffs is necessary and should have been accepted at the very beginning without any delay?
I have already said I have accepted it as an expedient; my point is that the particular sheets advocated by my hon. Friend are not superior to the others.
Long-Distance Trains (Meal Packets)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to give details of the arrangements being made to supply meal packets at reasonable prices to men and women of the Services travelling on long-distance trains?
Apart from the Admiralty, who consider that the present arrangements for feeding men on railway journeys are generally satisfactory, the Service Departments have not yet indicated to me their views on this subject. I am in consultation with these Departments, and will communicate to my hon. Friend the result of my inquiries as soon as I am in a position to do so.
Is the Minister aware that some weeks ago he gave me a promise that the railway companies were considering this matter—not the Service Departments—and is he aware that hundreds of men are travelling on the long-distance trains from 10 to 15 hours at a time and are not able to get to the canteen at wayside stations, so that it is urgently necessary that some cheap meal packet should be provided for them?
I am very unhappy and dissatisfied with the feeding arrangements on the railways. The British public, patient as they are, will not tolerate the bad train service existing at present on an empty stomach. They will put up with a lot so long as you can give them food. If the railway companies or I cannot arrange very early a betterment of present conditions, I am going to call in Lord Woolton to review the situation.
Ministry of Information
Pamphlets (Italian Objectives)
asked the Minister of Information whether he will consider reproducing, in pamphlet form, a photograph of the damage done to the Italian navy at Taranto, complete with caption of appropriate extracts from Mussolini's recent speech, and take steps to see that such pamphlets are dropped on Italian objectives at the same time as bombs?
I can assure the hon. Member that all possible uses of these striking photographs are being considered.
Awards of Bravery (Names, Broadcasting)
asked the Minister of Information whether he will arrange for the names of all those who have been awarded decorations for bravery in the war to be given in the British Broadcasting Corporation's news bulletins?
While I should like all awards for bravery to be made widely known, I do not think that broadcasting is a suitable way of giving lists of names to the public. Moreover, lists of awards are often so long that they would overload the news bulletins.
Bombed Objectives, Germany (Publication)
asked the Minister of Information whether he will issue to the public, through the Press, a list of war objectives in Germany that have been bombed; and, further, whether he will give this information in the British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts in German?
A list such as the hon. Member has in mind was recently issued to the Press by the Ministry of Information, accompanied by a map showing the location of the various objectives. The list and map was complete as to 27th September, and it is intended to produce further editions from time to time bringing the facts up to date. As regards the second part of the Question, the B.B.C. broadcasts in German have regularly brought this information to the knowledge of the German people.
Is this information being fully supplied to the United States of America?
Yes, Sir, as fully as possible.
"London's Awake."
asked the Minister of Information whether he will discontinue the publication "London's Awake" as a needless expenditure of public money; and whether he will state the average number of copies printed weekly in recent weeks?
With regard to the last part of the Question, the number of copies issued weekly has recently had to be increased from 5,000 to 15,000 in order to meet demands. In these circumstances the expenditure, which is very small, would not appear to be needless, and the answer to the first part of the Question is therefore in the negative.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he reads this publication and whether the reminiscences of his regional officer about a cholera epidemic in Turkey in 1913 were either relevant or helpful to civil morale in London just now? If he will not discontinue this publication, will he at least see that it is not issued weekly but only when there is genuine information to disseminate?
I do not regularly but I do occasionally, read the publication in question. It does disseminate information which is needed weekly. It gives all the information from the various Departments of State concerned with the welfare of London and with shelters. There is fresh information to be given out every week on that subject. Undoubtedly, owing to the demand for it, it is serving a useful purpose, and if it occasionally contains other articles, and not uninteresting articles, from a very distinguished information officer, Sir Wyndham Deedes, who is doing very useful work in London which compares with his previous work in Constantinople, I do not think there is anything very amusing or ludicrous about it.
Can the Minister please say whether the title "London's Awake," printed against a background of the night sky and searchlights, is intended as a statement of fact or as an encouragement to the enemy?
It is a statement of fact and, I hope, a discouragement to the enemy.
Publications (Export Prohibition)
asked the Minister of Information whether he can give an up-to-date list of the papers published in this country the export of which is not permitted?
I am circulating the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Who decides which newspapers and technical journals are to be permitted to be exported?
It is decided in consultation with other Government Departments concerned.
But who does decide?
The order is given by the Ministry of Information, but naturally we consult the Ministry of Home Security and the Foreign Office.
Following is the list of papers at present being published in this country, the export of which is prohibited:
"Daily Worker."
"The Week."
"Russia To-day."
"Russia To-day Newsletter."
"Challenge."
"Inside the Empire."
"The New Propellor."
"Labour Monthly."
"Kypriaka Nea."
Advertising, Latin America
asked the Minister of Information whether the contract with a firm of advertising agents for operation in Latin America has been discontinued; whether those responsible for arranging the contract are still in the Ministry; and why the official responsible for its discontinuance is no longer there?
A contract with a firm of advertising agents for operation in Latin America was entered into for an experimental period of six months and it has now terminated. I cannot accept the suggestion that any individual officer or officers were responsible either for initiating or terminating the experiment. Both were considered decisions of the Ministry for which I am responsible.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that no injustice has been done? Is he also satisfied that the news service to Latin America is being efficiently run?
That is a different question, but I am perfectly satisfied with the present news service to Latin America, and it is, I hope, satisfactory.
Questions
Questions to Ministers
asked the Prime Minister to what Minister Questions should be addressed on the subject of the creation of opportunities for further employment, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour has stated that the matter does not rest with him?
Questions regarding the increase of production for war purposes should be addressed to the Ministers for the production Departments. Steps have been taken by the Production Council to co-ordinate the activities of the production Departments with those of the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade, and Questions in regard to this co-ordination should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio in his capacity as Chairman of the Council.
May I ask whether that reply indicates a change of policy, having regard to the frequency with which in old days the Labour party used to move a Vote of Censure on the Minister of Labour because he did not provide employment?
Is not the real block at the Treasury, and could not some change be made there?
Food Supplies
Pigs
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will now consider reviewing the policy whereby the pig population of this country is to be reduced, bearing in mind the increasing requirements of the country for lard and fats which are obtainable from pigs and also the fact that pigs multiply more speedily than bullocks and by these means a great quantity of lard and fats will be available for the general public.
No, Sir. There are other considerations equally as cogent as those mentioned by my hon. Friend. The policy in question was based on the fact that having regard to the requirements of farm livestock generally, the prospective supply of concentrated feeding-stuffs was not adequate to maintain the pig population at its former level. That position has not changed.
In view of the fact that the cost of production is higher than the selling price, will my hon. and gallant Friend confer with the Minister of Food?
I shall be pleased to do so at any time .
Flour
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the Government's announcement that, at an early date, they are taking steps to introduce vitamin Bi into the flour for the manufacture of bread, he will consider, alternatively, taking steps to ensure that vitamin B I, which is normally present in the flour, should not be extracted prior to the manufacture of bread, having regard to the fact that any deficiency of vitamin B 1, which might be occasioned owing to delay through the winter months, might be detrimental to the public health?
For the reasons fully given in the announcement made on behalf of the Government in this House on 18th July last, my Noble Friend is not prepared to take the course suggested by my hon. Friend. The type of flour and of bread which appears to be favoured by my hon. Friend may be readily obtained throughout the country at the same price as ordinary white flour and white bread respectively.
Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is a time for speech and a time for silence, and that on this occasion I should very much like to hear a Supplementary Question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Sir M. Robertson)?
Onions
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why there is the present shortage of onions; what he intends to do in order to free the supplies of this vegetable; and whether he intends to punish the holders of these stocks who are preventing the public of the right of purchase at controlled prices?
The main reason for the present shortage of onions is that given in my reply to my hon. Friend the member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) on 6th November. Any attempts to evade the provisions of the Maximum Prices Order which are brought to the attention of my Noble Friend's Department will be dealt with appropriately.
Has the hon. and gallant Member's attention been called to the statement, made publicly by the Food Minister and reported in the newspapers, that he knew where these stocks had been hidden by wholesale traders and he was keeping a close eye upon them? Is it not his duty to the country to see that these stocks are forthcoming, and that the offenders are severely punished for keeping them off the market in the hope of obtaining higher prices?
In regard to the last part of that Supplementary Question, when prices are controlled it is not much use keeping produce for a better market. As a matter of fact, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for South Croydon some time ago, there are very few onions in this country. There are no large stocks of onions in the country; we must remember that only a very small proportion of the total quantity of onions consumed in this country are produced here.
But the hon. and gallant Member is not answering the question as to the statement of the Food Minister that he knew where the stocks are being held. I ask whether it is not his duty to see that these stocks are seized by order of the Government and made available for the population?
I have not seen that particular statement, but I maintain that where there are very small stocks indeed, and they are held by many, many hundreds of growers, it is an extremely difficult task to find out every one who is holding them. It is not necessarily against the national interest to hold stocks —not to hold-up stocks.
Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that he will have to find these things out if we are to win the war and that the sooner he starts the better?
Prices
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the tremendous increase in the prices of fruit, vegetables, fish and many of the essential articles of food, and of the impossibility of widows, old age pensioners and persons with large families and small incomes purchasing such foodstuffs, whether he is proposing to take steps to reduce the prices prevailing and stop the present exploitation of food; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation with a view to imposing severe punishment on persons and combines responsible?
My Noble Friend is aware that prices of fish and of certain fruit and vegetables have increased as a result of scarcity and increased costs due to war conditions. It has been possible in a number of these cases to control retail prices by Maximum Price Orders, so as to keep them at a level accessible to all classes of the public, and the question of extending this control to other commodities of this kind is being considered. With regard to the latter part of the Question, my Noble Friend cannot agree that there is any widespread exploitation or that drastic legislation on the lines suggested is necessary.
Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that as far back as April the Ministry were urged to take over stocks of onions that were then 6s. 3d. per bag, and peas 1d. a lb.—now 8d. and 10d. a lb.—and that many communications have been sent by people interested in food production and no action and no reply has ever followed? Is he aware of the discontent prevailing among old age pensioners and people with low incomes who cannot afford to purchase these things, and that there is a feeling in the country that there is general exploitation and that those concerned should be dealt with very severely?
The Minister cannot answer a long speech like that now.
I was asking if the Minister was aware of the prices that are prevailing to-day, and aware that the Ministry were asked to take action as far back as April. I say that this Ministry is completely asleep. There are a few who need to be shot.
Charitable Functions (Tea and Sugar)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider making an allowance of tea and sugar for use at duly proved charitable functions?
My Noble Friend already has the suggestion of my hon. Friend under close consideration.
Tea
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether an addition to the tea ration is still under consideration; and whether, in view of the strain on shipping and the perils to which the officers and men of the mercantile marine are exposed, he will consider maintaining the adequate standard ration for the general community and applying any surplus to extra allowances to workers whose needs are greater?
No general change in the existing arrangements for tea rationing can be contemplated at present in view of the desirability of conserving our stocks. As regards the second part of the Question, my Noble Friend is unable to accept the proposal to introduce supplementary rations for certain sections of the community, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the arrangement whereby tea may be obtained on a collective basis for consumption by industrial business and office workers during their working hours in those cases where canteen facilities are not available.
Frozen Rabbits
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that butchers and other shopkeepers are charging the same price for imported rabbits as for English; and what action he intends taking about the matter?
I assume my hon. Friend is referring to frozen rabbits imported from Australia and New Zealand. The price at which such rabbits are sold to the retailer is governed by an understanding between the Ministry and the importers. These prices enable frozen rabbits to be sold to the public at a figure less than for English rabbits. My information is that generally they are so sold. If my hon. Friend is aware of any specific cases of the full maximum prices being charged for frozen rabbits, and will let me have details, I will have investigations made.
Unfortunately I have thrown the newspaper cutting away, so I cannot give the information.
Herrings
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the acute shortage of kippered and other herrings, and whether, in view of the value and utility of this article of foodstuff for general consumption, he will take steps to ensure its reasonable availability by a system of bulk purchases and controlled distribution?
I am aware that there has been a shortage of kippered and other herrings in certain parts of the country, and an investigation is being made with a view to ascertaining what steps can usefully be taken to ensure a better distribution of available supplies.
Will my hon. and gallant Friend represent to the Food Controller that in view of the series of mistakes which have occurred in the past, he should now take steps to acquire the supply himself and then control its distribution to see that it is equitably handed out throughout the country?
That question is being investigated.
While investigation is taking place the supply gets worse, and in view of the unfortunate series of mistakes in the Ministry in the past, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman look into the matter now?
I cannot accept the view that the situation is due to a series of mistakes by the Ministry. There is another important factor, and that is that the seas in which herrings are caught are not as free as they were, and that a good many of those who normally catch them are now doing other important work.
Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the supply of herrings is short because the boats of the Clyde fishermen have been requisitioned by the Government?
Questions
Ministry of Supply (Controllers)
asked the Minister of Supply whether he is satisfied that each of the 11 Controllers of Raw Materials not paid by his Department do not receive remuneration from the trades with which they are connected?
I am not in a position to say from what sources the unpaid Controllers of Raw Materials derive their incomes. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend of the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 12th November, in which it was stated that, on appointment, a controller must cease from active participation in the management of those businesses which are concerned with the commodity under his control.
Does the phrase "cease from active participation" mean that the Controllers receive no direct emoluments from the businesses with which they are connected?
That is a matter entirely for the businesses and not for me.
Will the Minister take steps to see that they have severed their connection with the industry? They cannot be said to have severed their connection if they are still being paid.
On public grounds does the Minister not recognise that it is not a question of their participation in the businesses which they are concerned with, but of the drawing of some remuneration from those businesses; and would it not be far better that these Controllers should be openly paid by the Government than that they should receive—I do not say surreptitiously, but at any rate without the public knowing—remuneration from the trades which they are controlling?
These Controllers, like a large number of other persons in other capacities, are performing services which are quite invaluable to the country today. They are required to cease all active participation in their businesses, but no attempt is made to inquire whether the business which gives them leave of absence does so by cutting off their remuneration or not, and it would be impossible, on any standards of public remuneration, to acquire the services of these people.
Would it not be more satisfactory if the Ministry of Supply would consider paying these people direct and requiring them to cease to receive all emoluments from their businesses?
In view of the obviously unsatisfactory nature of the present arrangement, will the Minister take steps to make other arrangements? Is it not intolerable that Controllers should receive remuneration from the trades which they are controlling?
I will consult with those who are most intimately concerned with this matter on the general questions involved.
If it be a fact that these people are susceptible to corrupt influences—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]— would the position not be just as difficult were the State to pay these men? If they were corrupt in spirit, would they not still be serving their own interests?
There is no doubt that the people who are giving their services are men of great probity, beyond all possibility of that kind of influence, but, at the same time, I will have the point discussed again.
Armed Forces (Telephone Call Boxes)
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the short notice given to troops proceeding on leave and the difficulty of prompt communication, either by letter or telegram, to their families, he will make arrangements for public call boxes to be placed at convenient points adjacent to units and military schools?
It is already the normal practice to provide public call boxes wherever there are likely to be sufficient calls to justify them. The very heavy demands on the Post Office engineering staff, however, necessarily restrict the extent to which this type of service can be developed under existing conditions. If, however, my hon. Friend has some particular case in mind, I shall be glad to have it examined.
War Damage (Post-War Planning)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he will consider putting into preparation a scheme for the post-war planning of London and other urban areas damaged by enemy action, and appointing immediately an advisory committee to confer with the authorities concerned, to submit recommendations as to the lines upon which post-war planning should be carried out, and any amendment of the law which might be necessary to secure a simplified and more direct procedure for the re-planning, where necessary, of damaged areas?
I would refer the hon. Member to the last paragraph of the statement which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made on 24th October, in regard to the functions of the Ministry of Works and Buildings, when he stated that it was clear that the reconstruction of town and country after the war raised great problems and gave a great opportunity; the Minister of Works and Buildings had, therefore, been charged by the Government with the responsibility of consulting the Departments and organisations concerned with a view to reporting to the Cabinet the appropriate methods and machinery for dealing with the issues involved, and he feels that any steps of the kind suggested had better await the report which he hopes to complete in the near future.
Are we not in danger of giving the world a very exaggerated idea of the war damage sustained?
Civil Defence
Homeless Persons (Billeting Allowances)
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a considerable proportion of people bombed out of their homes do not know that they are entitled to a billeting allowance and are in consequence living in discomfort and running into debt; whether he will take immediate steps to ensure a greatly superior dissemination of information to that now existing; and whether he will at once announce a decision that back payments will be given?
I have no evidence that those who are entitled to billeting allowances are, in general, unaware of the fact. People made homeless by enemy action should, if they are in need, apply for assistance to the nearest area office of the Assistance Board. With regard to the dissemination of information, I would refer the hon. Member to the full reply which was given on 19th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland). I cannot accept the suggestion in the last part of the Question.
Is the Minister not aware that there is a great deal of ignorance on the part of those who have been bombed out of their homes, and could not some further step be taken to disseminate information?
I think the methods of dissemination are proving satisfactory, on the whole. The one point should be borne in mind that if these people are in need, they should apply to the Assistance Board area officer, where they can be given all the information about the various services, if they have not already applied to the air-raid warden.
In the event of people being bombed out of their homes leaving the district where they have been residing, will they be entitled to go to some other area?
Yes, Sir. If they leave their district, they can apply, before doing so, for a travelling voucher.
Can this information not be disseminated in various ways, and not only through the Official Report?
It has been disseminated through the information centres in the country, as well as by posters by the Assistance Board and by various leaflets and posters that are being given out by local authorities.
Does not my hon. Friend think it would be to some advantage if this information were given by broadcast?
It has been given frequently on the broadcast, but one of the difficulties is that information given on the broadcast may, in many cases, not reach the people for whom it is intended, because they may be homeless or sheltering.
Do the regulations as to billeting allowances, for people bombed out of their homes, apply to Scotland?
Evacuation
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of serious disquiet at the ineffectiveness of his system of circularising local authorities on matters arising out of enemy air action, without any further steps being taken to see that the circulars are acted upon; and whether he will take steps to ensure that responsible authorities concerned are charged with the duty of reporting to him when a reception area is full, or how full it is, to avoid serious overcrowding or discouraging further necessary evacuation from dangerous areas?
No, Sir. I can assure the hon. Member that active steps are taken to ensure the carrying out of necessary action. My right hon. Friend's regional officers have the duty of maintaining close contact with local authorities in the execution of their difficult tasks and he has recently strengthened the regional organisations by placing at their disposal additional experienced officers, who will assist the local authorities in securing the most equitable possible distribution of persons arriving in reception areas. His regional officers keep him closely in touch with the position in the reception areas.
Are these additional officers already appointed, because there is certainly overcrowding in the reception areas to-day?
Yes, they are appointed.
Is the Minister aware that there is a difference between the requests of the Ministry of Health and the putting into practice of them by local authorities? There is no similarity at all.
It is an exaggeration to say that there is no similarity. Action advised in a circular may on occasion not be fully carried out, and reference has already been made in this House to certain local authorities in that respect, but most local authorities are carrying out these requests. There are regional inspectors throughout the country to see that it is being done. I have been to a great many areas myself and found that this work is being carried out.
Damaged Houses
asked the Minister of Health whether he will endeavour to arrange that, whenever concentrated damage is done to a large number of houses in a set of streets far from the town hall, a temporary information office is immediately opened in the near neighbourhood, so that householders and others can obtain information, advice and necessary forms from there at once, instead of having all to make long journeys to the town hall or other central offices?
Many people who have been made homeless go in the first place to an emergency rest centre, where information and advice can be obtained. The larger boroughs have been asked, where necessary, to establish more than one permanent information centre and several of them have these available to anyone who has suffered damage from enemy action. Mobile information units are also in use by some local authorities.
Have all boroughs now one central information office?
All the Metropolitan boroughs. The bigger boroughs have a second or even a third.
In view of the fact that casualties are not necessarily proportionate to the damage done, could not my hon. Friend see her way to publishing these casualties in the Press?
I am afraid that this matter has nothing to do with my Department.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will ascertain in each London borough the average period which elapses between the time when a householder notifies the local authority that urgent repairs to his roof are needed, and the time when the authority puts the work in hand; and whether he will take special measures to help to reduce the interval in any area where this inquiry shows it to be unduly long?
The period varies widely according to the magnitude of the problem with which a particular local authority is faced and the resources at their disposal. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 24th October to a Question by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on this subject. I am sure that the arrangement announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, under which 3,000 building operatives are to be released from the Army, will speed up the work in those areas where the delay has been longest.
British Army
Life Insurance Policies (Premiums)
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that life insurance policy-holders who have volunteered for air-raid precautions services, joined the Home Guard or been called up for compulsory service in His Majesty's Forces are being asked to pay an extra premium to guarantee payments of claims which may arise under the policy; and whether he will assume the responsibility of safeguarding the position of such insured persons?
The position of air-raid precautions volunteers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As regards the Home Guard, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) on 12th November, of which I am sending him a copy. Negotiations are still proceeding. Men called up for compulsory service are in a somewhat different category, but I will see that their case is considered.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this action on the part of insurance companies is causing much concern and anxiety, and that men who have volunteered for service are being forced to resign because they cannot pay the extra premium? Since the Government have broken the contract, it should be the Government who assume responsibility for any extra payment that is demanded.
With regard to conscripted men, I said I would look into the question. With regard to the Home Guard, we are determined to see that their interests are looked after, but there is a difficult problem in connection with insurance companies which does not affect the War Office alone. We are going on as fast as we can.
Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects the negotiations to end?
They are taking place all the time, and we are going on as fast as we can.
Is the Minister aware that during the last war insurance companies made no extra charge on premiums paid by members of His Majesty's Forces?
Lorries (Supervision)
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any facts regarding the recent robbery of ammunition from a lorry in a street; and what steps are taken to secure adequate supervision of lorries under these circumstances?
I am making inquiries about this incident, and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend in due course. Appropriate instructions are in force regarding responsibility for vehicles and their loads.
Questions
Silk Stockings
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will now clarify the position as to price regulation and general availability respectively, of silk stockings, on and after 1st December, 1940?
The use of raw silk is now prohibited, except under licence, by an Order made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, and under a Board of Trade Order the supply of silk stockings by manufacturers and wholesalers to retailers will be prohibited, except under licence, as from the 1st December. The President of the Board of Trade is discussing with the trade the disposal of stocks left in the hands of manufacturers and wholesalers, with a view to making the best. possible use of them in export trade. There is no restriction on the amount of silk stockings that retailers may sell out of stocks that remain in their hands. Silk stockings are, and will for the present remain, price-regulated goods under the Prices of Goods Act and may not be sold at prices higher than those permitted under the Act.
Are we to understand that it is permissible for a retailer after 1st December to sell anything which he then has in stock?
Anything that he has in stock or anything that he may acquire under the quota which expires on 30th November.
Unrestricted?
Unrestricted.
The whole time?
So long as he bought them before.
Subject to price control?
Certainly.
Foreign Doctors
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why American doctors, graduating in Scotland, are not allowed to work in this country instead of priority arrangements being made for them to return to the United States of America?
It would not be in the interests of the British medical profession that all persons of foreign nationality who come to the United Kingdom for a course of study or for the purpose of obtaining a British medical qualification should be free to establish themselves as medical practitioners in this country, and the practice has been to admit such foreign visitors on the understanding that they will leave when they have completed their course of study. It has, however, recently been decided that, in existing circumstances, Americans and nationals of other friendly countries who have obtained a British degree may remain here temporarily and be allowed to take certain appointments such as that of house surgeon or physician in a hospital or the position of assistant or locum tenens to a British medical practitioner.
Why should there be any restriction on the services of these qualified, trained, professional people who are willing to come to our assistance in these times of shortage of medical staff throughout the country?
There is an embargo on their services in view of a recent change in policy, and I trust that no American doctor has been subjected to any disadvantage in England on account of the fact that he has graduated in Scotland.
In order to utilise fully the services of those doctors, would the Minister consider setting up a separate war-time register?
That proposal would have to be very carefully considered.
Is it not true that American doctors have very varied qualifications, many of which are quite inappropriate and unsuitable? Others are very good, and they ought to be used. Therefore, there should be some distinction.
Bill Presented
Expiring Laws Continuance Bill,
"to continue certain expiring laws," presented by Captain Crookshank; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 2.]
Orders of the Day
King's Speech
Debate on the Address
[Third Day.]
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question. [
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[ Squadron-Leader Grant-Ferris. ]
Question again proposed.
War Production
There will be general agreement among hon. Members that this subject of Debate is of far-reaching importance; in fact, it is the basis of the nation's war effort. Unless we can with speed and with the utmost efficiency reorganise our resources of men, money and material, victory may be beyond our grasp. Our productive capacity and its full utilisation, reorganisation of man-power, the limitation of civilian consumption and the effective distribution of our resources, the efficient organisation of shipping and transport and, above all, the means of raising finance for war expenditure, are all vital elements in our war effort. All these matters may be expected to emerge in the course of this Debate.
I beg Ministers not to be over-sensitive, no matter how critical hon. Members may be. They should recall the speeches of the Prime Minister before he became a member of the Government; indeed, they might recall their own speeches between the outbreak of the war and the birth of the present Government. However, I shall not embarrass my colleagues and the Government by submitting any quotations. After all, more is to be gained by being receptive than by obstinacy, more from resilience than by rigidity, more by being adaptive than by assuming that once a decision is reached it must be regarded as the last word. It is certainly a fatal blunder to assume that all the wisdom resides in the Government. There is outside Government circles a vast reservoir of knowledge which remains untouched. There is at the command of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio considerable ability which is neither fully used nor consulted. It is not at all unlikely that here and there are ideas which, at the very least, are worth consideration. Generally speaking, Ministers are far too prone to regard criticism as opposition, when its sole purpose is to stimulate. I beg of them, at least for the duration of the war, to be tolerant and responsive, and to open their minds to the reception of fresh ideas. I yield to none in my desire to see the war prosecuted with the utmost vigour, and to witness an early and conclusive victory, and if in my opinion it is necessary to point to defects in Government policy, however unpopular that may be, I shall continue to do so, whatever the consequences to myself.
Moreover, it is essential that members of the Government should speak with one voice. There is far too much variation in Ministerial declarations. It is bewildering, and causes confusion. One day they speak of the enemy's economic collapse, another day of the enemy's struggle to obtain oil supplies or of his difficulties in obtaining raw materials, only to discover that the enemy is capable of inflicting heavy losses on our shipping and serious injury to our large industrial centres. If the enemy's plight was as grave as some Ministers have declared, the war would be over. I venture the opinion that there are far too many variations in Government temperature. A close examination of Ministerial speeches would disclose the fact that some Ministers are as mercurial as prima donnas. Much of this is no doubt due to wishful thinking, but it denotes a complete inability to understand the public mind. The people of this country have no desire to be fobbed off with an exaggerated optimism which has no foundation in fact. Better to bring them sharply up against the realities of our position. They will not fail because they know the worst, but there is a danger of complacency when Ministers indulge in fairy tales.
Take, for example, the lack of cohesion in Government declarations on our productive power. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is reported as saying that six months of intensive preparation and production would give us parity in the air. Unfortunately, all the facts are against him; at any rate, that is not the opinion of the Prime Minister, who recently spoke of making a more satisfactory report on our aircraft position 12 months from now. Whom are we to believe? Moreover, the Minister without Portfolio, in his speech at Colchester, declared that we had inflicted 50 times more damage on the enemy than we had suffered.
I said "industrial damage."
The Minister without Portfolio declared that we had inflicted 50 times more industrial damage on the enemy than we had suffered. Is this really accurate, or is it only intended to keep our spirits up? Is it the view of the Royal Air Force, and, if so, why not produce the evidence of this remarkable success? If it is true, we should make a fuss about it, and not throw it casually across the table at a public function. A little more unity in expression would seem to be advisable; the Government should perform like a symphony orchestra and not like a jazz band.
Let us consider the relative positions of both sides in this gigantic conflict. Consider' the enemy's extensive preparations over a period of five or six years, their vast territory, the loot they gained at Dunkirk and elsewhere, their productive capacity, their organisation, their efficient methods, their control and, more particularly, their readiness to resort to compulsion. On the other hand, consider us, with our limited territory—true, with vast Empire resources, but hardly in full swing and unlikely to be formidable for a considerable time—the tardy flow of American munitions, our peace-time methods, the absence of effective controls, and our ineffective voluntary system. The dice are heavily loaded against us. Again, consider our objectives. We aim to place 4,000,000 men in the field, highly efficient and equipped with the most modern form of mechanised war weapons. We set ourselves a colossal task. In the last war, one man on munitions could supply two men in the field. Now, two men on munitions can hardly supply one man. But before we can train and equip such a force, we must have ships to carry munitions and materials from overseas. The flow of essential imports must be assured, and we require planes in large numbers to withstand the intensive assaults of the enemy in the air.
Then let us consider the shipping position. The figures of our shipping losses have been disclosed, and are therefore no secret any longer. They are ominous. In 14 months of war we have lost more than 2,500,000 tons of British and Allied shipping. This takes no account of losses due to marine casualties, nor does it include the losses of Belgian and Dutch tonnage, which would bring the total figure actually beyond 3,000,000 tons. Even these grave figures are misleading, because our losses have been severe among the vessels of the 5,000 and 6,000 ton class, which constitutes the mainstay of the British Mercantile Marine. Nor can we overlook the loss of valuable cargoes nor the fact that with our present tonnage we cannot win the war. We shall have excessive demands for the conveyance of troops and war materials when the time is ripe for taking the offensive. Nor is our available shipping effectively used. The convoy system is unsatisfactory, leads to delays, and exposes vessels and their crews to unnecessary dangers. More particularly, since the beginning of July the rate of shipping losses has actually reached 4,000,000 tons yearly. This matter will be raised at a more opportune moment, it may be in a Debate, and I hope before the Recess. What is being done to deal with this grave situation? We were told that the Admiralty now charged with the task of merchant shipbuilding, aimed at an output of 1,250,000 tons in the first year of war. There is reason to believe —the House will not ask me to divulge figures—that we have not yet reached our objective. More than that need not be said, but the position is undoubtedly alarming.
We are told that there exists a shortage of skilled labour, but I am informed by people in authority, whose words cannot be questioned, that shipyard workers can leave their employment and obtain work in aircraft production. They are attracted by higher wages and the persuasive wiles of Lord Beaverbrook. I understand that the age of reservation varies as between the two industries. Surely that is invidious. Where is the co-ordination here? Who determines whether men shall be allowed to transfer in this way? Are ships not as important as aircraft? In my opinion they may be regarded—I do not use extravagant language—as of equal importance. We may require to obtain more goods from oversea, particularly if our industries are affected by heavy air bombardment. There has been considerable propaganda for aircraft production and the Royal Air Force and it is all well-deserved, but we require some propaganda for shipbuilding also. I doubt whether it is wise to leave the matter exclusively in the hands of the Admiralty. They are, naturally, pre-occupied with naval affairs.
I do not deny that much has been accomplished since June and since the change in Government, but so much remains to be done, and, contrary to some opinions, time is not on our side. We must act promptly and effectively. Let us consider some of the facts. Production over the whole field of industry is not increasing. Strange as it may appear, men are taken into the Forces in increasing numbers and their places are not always filled. Air bombardment has tended to diminish output. There is still far too much unemployment. On the other hand, there appears to be no serious decline in consumption. What is the effect? If general production, that is to say production over the whole field of Industry declines, while consumption remains about the same, prices will rise and wage demands are bound to follow and thus we have a repetition of the vicious circle. Equally, in the absence of rationing, distribution is inequitable, and this causes discontent among the poorer sections of the community. Hence the morale of the people is weakened. It is doubtful whether our munitions production is expanding as rapidly as the situation demands. May we not be taking into the Army, too many men who are endowed with technical skill. I agree that the Army may need them, but shipyards and aircraft factories need them now. There is no use speaking of a land offensive on a large scale with 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 men engaged, before we have corrected our shipping position and created a large Air Force.
I deplore it, but I must direct attention to what I regard as an amazing weakness in Government policy. The Government, in short, are reluctant to use their powers. There are too many appeals, too many polite requests. The owners of machine-tools are asked in the most carefully chosen language, to hand those tools over to the Government. Lord Beaverbrook appeals to owners of high-powered cars to hand over those cars. An explanation was given by the Parliamentary Secretary the other day when he said there was no use in adding to our expenditure by the purchase of high-powered cars, if we could obtain them easily from patriotic owners. What a feeble and lame pretext, in face of our needs and in face of our heavy expenditure all over the field. Similarly with railway wagons, which, we understand, are at the core of the coal problem. The owners of railway wagons and those who use them are asked to empty them as rapidly as they can, but there is no question of acquisition—just a repetition of feeble appeals. It may be argued that the Government do not require machine tools in abundance but, if this is true, there must be something seriously wrong. We have adopted the principle of compulsion in relation to the man in the Forces and it is generally acceptable to the people of this country and to hon. Members. If compulsion is wise in relation to man-power for the Forces, then the principle of compulsion ought to be used in relation to the needs of the State in this critical situation.
Some of the Government's decisions are difficult to follow. Take, for example, the Limitation of Supplies Order. This is, undoubtedly, right in principle. I applaud the effort to limit supplies for civilian consumption in the present situation. But what is the objective? It is not merely to limit supplies but to free labour and resources engaged in civilian production and divert them to essential production. How can we divert labour to assist the war effort, unless a plan is ready and vast training schemes are in operation? We have heard much about training from the Minister of Labour but it is still far from effective. What is the difficulty? Is it that too few persons are ready to undertake training? Can it be that employers will not offer factory facilities for training, or may it be that householders will not offer billeting accommodation? Or, can it be that there is an insufficient number of instructors? It may be a combination of all those impediments.
Surely, if the voluntary system in connection with training has failed, it ought to be replaced by a measure of compulsion, treating men, employers and householders fairly and even generously. It is true that the rate for trainees has been increased, but it remains almost on a level with unemployment benefit. That is insufficient. Men who are prepared to undertake training—and there are thousands who would be ready to do so—must be properly remunerated. Training should not be accompanied by hardship, as it undoubtedly does when men are asked, with their families, to live on what is equal to a subsistence allowance. I am not asking that trainees should be paid the rates applicable to the industries in which they hope to enlist, but more reasonable rates of remuneration should be provided. Similarly with employers who provide training facilities in their factories, if costs are entailed, if there is interruption of production, which leads to increased overheads, the employers ought to be compensated. In that way it would be possible to increase our training facilities. In August of this year we had 19 training centres in operation, and the output was estimated at about 50,000 a year. But the output of even those few centres could be increased by 105,000 a year if they were put on the three-shift system. If there were instructors available and the men were put on a three-shift system, and if 40 centres were open, we could have an output of 200,000 a year. Germany has made a great effort in this direction; we must make a still greater effort.
Arising from the limitation of supplies, there emerges a still stronger case for more comprehensive rationing. If supplies are limited, people with money can obtain an advantage. Ministers have said that their stocks are heavy, but we shall need those stocks. We should conserve as much as possible, particularly of non-perishable goods. I am not asking for complete rationing, but only for rationing where excessive consumption interferes with the war effort. Where there is limitation of supplies rationing is the only means of securing equity among all sections. There bas been far too much bought by those who can afford to spend money. That was particularly the case immediately before the operation of the Purchase Tax. Rationing is the weapon that the Government must use in order to ensure equity.
This subject is so vast that I almost despair of painting the complete picture, but, to enable the Government to appreciate the case that I am now presenting, I shall summarise the main principles of a war-time economic policy. First, we must determine our essential needs in relation to our war strategy. We must get the objective clearly in view. Once that is decided, we should concentrate on the most efficient units of production. Where factories and mines cannot be employed to their full capacity, they should be absorbed into others. Short-time should be abolished, and the last ounce squeezed out of the operation units. Smaller establishments should be utilised wherever possible, but only where they conform to the high standard of efficiency laid down by the Government. Retailers and traders who suffer from air bombardment should be compensated, and their skill diverted to more production. We should not wait until air attack has brought ruin to those people; but, having guaranteed a minimum standard of living available to all, and having determined our civilian needs, we should close all redundant establishments and divert the remaining labour and resources to essential production. This is the core of the whole problem. Rationing should be speeded, and it should be equitable. No long period should elapse between the Government's decision to ration and the execution of the scheme. We must use compulsory powers for training. To place an army of 4,000,000 men in the field requires another 2,000,000 at work.
We must train women in the factories. Hitherto, they have been trained only in the centres; and there have been far too few of them. Cannot we recall the declaration of the Prime Minister about 1,000,000 women being required for war work? Since that declaration was made members of the Government have referred to the need for using the services of women workers. Factories are not available even for training purposes. We must use compulsory powers to acquire machine tools and all the resources required for the war effort. We cannot run the war by a succession of flag days. Let us assume effective control over the railways and over all sources of power supply. This is essential in order to avoid increases in the rates for freights and other charges, which not only add to the national burden but stimulate the vicious circle of rising wages and prices. I do not pretend that the picture is completely filled in; but, as it appears to me, this provides the basis of a sound economic policy on which victory can be assured. In this war democracy is on its trial. Should we, through the medium of our declarations, our representative institutions and our Cabinet system, fail to invoke the utmost efficiency, all the grandiloquent and praiseworthy utterances of our orators will be futile. It is because I have faith in the prestige, power and influence of Parliament, in its resolution and its determination to impress the Government, to spur them on in the colossal task which faces the nation, that I believe that democracy will survive.
The House will have listened with very great interest to the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend. I would, however, ask him to exercise, himself, on occasions some of that tolerance which he expects from us. There was at times, I felt, just a tinge of intellectual arrogance about the speech—which perhaps is to be forgiven from my hon. Friend. It is well perhaps that everyone who has a mind and a voice to speak should make his contribution to the solution of our war problems. So far as I know, there is no reluctance on the part of any member of the Government to reject proposals out of hand; from whatever quarter they may come. It is not possible to spend the whole of one's time reading all the new methods of winning a war, at next to no cost and at next to no effort, but reasonable proposals, which have behind them the weight of knowledge and experience, I am certain the Government will be only too willing to consider, and, if they are good—and the Government must be the judges of that—to adopt, and make part of our plans. With a good deal of what my hon. Friend has said and his analysis of some of our difficulties I am, of course, in full agreement. After all, I have as close a knowledge of the difficulties and problems as most people in this House, and I do not wish in any way to minimise them. On the other hand, it is fair to put things in their proper perspective, and, as regards production, I do not think the picture which my hon. Friend has painted is quite as gloomy, though the situation is not one which we relish. The Prime Minister said recently that we were not fully armed, and that indeed, we were far from being fully armed. That is true, and as long as it remains true, there will be increasing calls for further organisation and further effort.
We have been at war now for 15 months. In that time the war effort, as I shall show, has enormously increased, but I recognise, as we all must recognise, that this war is swifter in its march and makes greater demands upon our powers than the last great war. Within two years in this war we have aimed to be in the position which we had achieved after four years in the last war, when we were really on the top with regard to industrial war output. It is this problem of war production about which all of us are vitally concerned. The pre-war preparations which were made were slow in coming to fruition. On many occasions from the Box opposite I added my efforts to the weight of criticism from all quarters of the House as to the strength of the pre-war effort that was being made. But some preparation was made, and although it is impossible, because of changes in types of war weapons and so on, to compare our efforts in this war with those of the last war, it is safe to say that we started this war with a far greater scale of output than we did in 1914, and that production has proceeded in these last 15 months at a far quicker rate than it did in the first 15 months of the last great war. In spite of the greater variety and complexity of our defensive and offensive weapons and of the new obstructions to the war effort which were not experienced in the last great war, one can say that since the outbreak of the war 15 months ago our output of war equipment has been more than trebled and our output of some of our fighting material has been multiplied by four. I am not pretending that that is enough, because it is not enough, but I am making the point that it is undeniable that very substantial progress has been made by increasing the output of war materials of all kinds.
It is true that in some branches of production there has been no increase in output, especially during the last six months. Indeed, if it had been so, it would have shown that our deliberate policy of restricting the output of nonessential goods would have failed, but, as my hon. Friend realises, there has been a very considerable limitation of output of goods of less essential kinds, and we are also taking steps to diminish output of that kind even further in the coming months. As my hon. Friend says, our war effort cannot be fully developed and cannot be effectively used as long as we have raw material, machinery and manpower being dissipated on the manufacture of goods which form no part of the war effort and are not necessary for the maintenance of a reasonable standard of life. We have therefore taken the step of actually limiting the number of goods in the shops. We have done that over a pretty wide range of commodities. My hon. Friend said, and quite rightly, that one of the major objectives in the limitation of supplies was to release people for other work.
The estimate which has been given to me of the new limitation which is to be put into force by the Board of Trade is that these new restrictions will make a contribution to munitions or to the Armed Forces, if that were desirable or necessary, of between 75,000 and 100,000 workers before the end of next May, in addition to what the previous limitations do in that direction. When that policy was first developed, we must admit, there was some time-lag in the absorption of people into war work, and we realise that that gap must be bridged. The Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour are co-operating for that purpose very actively, and I think that the steps that have been taken will do a great deal to ensure that there is no wastage of labour, time and effort when this transition takes place. It may be true—though it would be very difficult to check —as my hon. Friend said, that production as a whole in the country has gone down. I cannot myself say whether that is actually so or not, but I do not imagine that it has gone down a very great deal. But notwithstanding the large numbers who have been taken out of industry and have gone into the armed forces, and that production is down in some respects, it is undoubtedly true that in the field of war production that production has been very substantially increased.
Can my right hon. Friend give the House some information on that subject without disclosing facts to the enemy as to the rate of the increased production compared with three months ago?
I will come to that in a moment; in fact, I am just about to deal with that point. Since May we have had some very substantial increases in output. For example, the output of shipbuilding has increased by over 50 per cent, in that time. That is an exceptional scale, and the progress has not proceeded uniformly for some reasons which I will try to make clear in a moment. But I suggest that the progress that has been made is no mean achievement, and, while it has to be reinforced it is the base on which we can build further expansion. The problem which confronted us six months ago when we took Office was the dissolution of Western Europe and its temporary absorption into the German Reich, which brought to light problems in its train. The defection of France which my hon. Friend pointed out created an entirely new situation. We sustained severe losses, both of men and material, and priceless reserves of arms and equipment had to be destroyed. Faced with the imminent prospect of invasion, we had to hurl all our industrial power into the task of replacing these losses and prepare to meet the enemy at the gate. We then made what I would call a three months' spurt, during which we brought into use everything we had in the bag. Had we not done that then, the tale of the Battle of Britain would have been an entirely different story. We had to take unscientific and untidy steps at that time because of the urgency of the situation, and I am bound to say that I felt that we were even taking risks for the future. But those risks had to be taken. While we were living through that very anxious period we were bound to keep in our minds our long-distance programme and prepare for larger measures and for the prospect of attack, on our part, abroad. We have, since May, driven upward the curve of war production, and we have had to face two serious problems—aerial bombardment and the attacks on our shipping, the importance, urgency and danger of which my hon. Friend explained to the House a little earlier.
As regards the Blitzkrieg, during recent weeks, it is folly to deny that damage has been done to production, but if the German boast of the weight of bombs dropped by them over this country be nearly even accurate, then I would say that the results on production have been surprisingly small. I say that as having taken every opportunity I could at week-ends to assess the damage done. Every interference with production is regrettable, and somehow or other it must be made good, either from abroad or from production at home. One of the difficulties in the early days of concentrated aerial bombardment was the suspension of production during the sometimes very lengthy period between the sounding of the sirens and the "Raiders Passed" signal. That did very seriously disturb production for a time, but I am glad to say now that in every week that goes by the amount of time lost by standing idle during air raids substantially decreases. Even if people do stand to their work until the danger is really imminent, we are still left, of course, with the problem of damage to, or destruction of, premises and plant. When that occurs, production is retarded, and if our figures of production this month do not prove to be as high as those for last month, it will be very largely for that reason—retardation of production because of actual damage.
I spent last week-end—and I can mention the name of another town now, because it has been in the morning newspapers—in Coventry and Birmingham, places which have felt the full force of Hitler's aerial attack on our industrial power. I will say nothing about the magnificent spirit of the people in those cities or the deeds of heroism by workers, of which I have personal knowledge, but I will refer to one instance because it indicates the way in which we are coping with the bombardment. When at one factory on Sunday "Jim Crow" had reported a German plane overhead, factory workers, storekeepers, clerks, executive officers and the directors of the firm were all actively engaged rummaging about for salvage purposes, carrying out debris and so on, and that, I thought, typified the spirit of the cities which I visited last week-end. It has pulled out the maximum amount of co-operation; I think the cities of Coventry and Birmingham would pay a tribute to the help they have received from surrounding local authorities, from the various Government Departments concerned, with the cooperation of the Regional Commissioner, and the active help they have received in the process of reconstruction and restoration from leaders of industry, both employers and workers. It was heartening to feel that while smoke was still rising as a result of an air raid, steps were being taken for the removal of debris, the repair of damage or salvage of plant and machinery so that production can be restarted on a considerable scale. I could not have believed that in so short a time industrial recovery could have been so successful, and it is a great tribute to those who are helping to undo the damage done by German bombs.
Let us admit, therefore, that recent enemy air attacks have retarded our expanding programme. But beyond that I do not go. With close knowledge of the industrial damage we have suffered—and I think my knowledge is as close as that of any Member in this House—I say unhesitatingly that it has not eaten to any serious extent into our productive capacity. It has embarrassed us and will continue to embarrass us, and we shall have more difficulties of this kind to face, but at least it is good to know that the structure stands virtually intact, although temporarily dislocated. I am satisfied that the organisation we have built up, representative of all the interests in those areas, for reconstruction purposes, which we are improving on the basis of the experience of Coventry, will be swift in' action in order to restore normal life and production.
My hon. Friend who opened the Debate referred to the attacks on our shipping, but before saying a few words on that point I would like to say something about production from overseas, on which, of course, we must rely to a considerable extent. I do so as being charged specially with overlooking our war purchases from America and the ' work of the North American Supply Committee. We are already receiving very valuable aid from both Canada and the United States of America. My hon. Friend called it a trickle, or something of that kind.
As regards the flow of American munitions, I said it was a tardy flow.
That I would be prepared to admit, but the flow is coming. First, as regards Canada, the flow is coming from there; it is valuable in quality and valuable in quantity, and it will continue to increase as the new units of production that have been constructed and the new capacity come into operation. That work, I can say with some knowledge of it, has been carried through with very great energy and speed, and will lead to a progressive increase in war supplies from the Dominion. As the House will readily realise, it is impossible to give any particulars of amounts or details of the kinds of munitions we have received, but one can say this, that Canada helped in the last war and Canada's contribution to this war will far outweigh anything she did then, because we have taken the bold step of trying to convert her into an industrial country.
With regard to the United States, a good deal of progress has been made. The House knows of the timely help we received from America in the critical months of the summer and the early autumn, and which we welcomed to supplement our own production. In addition to the destroyers, we have been obtaining from the United States other kinds of naval craft, merchant ships, aeroplanes, rifles, munitions and equipment of all kinds, and the flow is increasing. It is tardy, but as my hon. Friend said—
Is it not possible, without disclosing information to the enemy, to give the House the percentage of increase without giving the basic figure? There is apprehension in the country that this increase is not going ahead as much as some Departments of the Government would lead one to suppose.
It is very difficult to give the increase quite in that form, because a percentage increase in one thing may be rather more valuable than a similar percentage increase in another, but I will look into the matter and I will acquaint the House with the particulars as far as I am able to give them. As regards the United States, which is already industrialised, and where we have to seek support from a neutral Power, the problem is rather different, and has exercised our minds for the last five or six months. We are now in the position with the United States of co-operating in order that our joint needs shall be met with the least possible delay, and in order to ensure that we shall get that priority which undoubtedly we need. We have sent out from time to time some of our best experts who are familiar with the problem over here, and they have put before the United States industrialists and trade unionists the problems that we have had to face here. We have given them a complete picture of our difficulties in order that they could profit from our experience, and that I think they are doing. Sir Walter Lay ton, who spent several weeks in the United States, has, I am sure, given a first-hand picture to the United States administration of our requirements and of our experiences in the field of the rearmament programme. I think that before long, if the cordial relations between this country and the United States continue—and I imagine they will become increasingly cordial in a very short time—North America will be a second arsenal from which we can obtain increasing supplies to supplement our own and to make good any of our deficiencies. Mr. Purvis, who is chairman of the British Purchasing Commission in America and to whom the progress that has been made is very largely due—as it is due also to Mr. Howe of the Canadian Department of the Ministry of Supply—Mr. Purvis is in this country on a short visit, and his presence here is welcomed, because it enables the Ministers concerned to consult with him with a view to making the co-operation and the production of munitions better than it was.
I will deal now with the shipping position, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham referred at some length. It is true that we have suffered very heavily; it is true that this is a position much like that of April, 1917; but the position, though far worse than it should be, is not as bad as it might have been but for an actual increase in the merchant tonnage built here. My hon. Friend said that we have not quite lived up to the shipbuilding programme. That is true, but we are not very far from it, and this building has made an enormous difference. The shipping that we have captured, the shipping that has been transferred to us, has all gone into the pool, and although now our tonnage of shipping is slightly below what it was when we started the war—and I am bound to admit that it ought to have been larger than it was when we started the war—the net loss is not considerable. But of course, as my hon. Friend said quite rightly, we cannot regard this position with equanimity.
I am anxious that my right hon. Friend should not disclose details which would afford any comfort to the enemy, but will he not agree with me that the real difficulty in the shipping problem is the loss of effective shipping? When we speak of shipping, we speak in terms of coastal vessels and vessels of the 12,000, 15,000 and 20,000 tons class. I am speaking of effective shipping. Is it not true to say that we have suffered very severe losses in respect of this category?
I do not want to make a debating point. I am prepared to accept what my hon. Friend says, Undoubtedly, it is true. But we have had some compensation in the new ships. We shall do all that we can to increase home production, and I am looking to accretions of strength from the United States, from whom we have already purchased a number of boats, and with whom we have recently placed more orders.
I would point out to my right hon. Friend that we would have had more shipping had it not been for National Shipbuilding Securities.
That may well be, but that is hardly my problem. We have to face the shipping problem not merely from the point of view of getting hold of more ships, but from the point of view of getting increased security for the ships and the cargoes on them. We have to face the fact that Germany is at a greater advantage in the matter of submarine attacks upon shipping than she was in the Great War. She now has bases on the French coast, which she had not in the last war, the U-boats have a longer range than in the last war, the torpedoes are more powerful, and our shipping is subject to aerial attack now on a scale which it never had to face in the last war. We do not believe that it is beyond our powers to combat this menace, and the best minds in the Admiralty and in the other Services are working to find ways and means of countering the U-boat and the aerial torpedo menace. It is a heavy responsibility which lies upon the Admiralty to see that we can have some reasonable measure of security for our shipping, because if we have not that security, as my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham quite rightly said, our plight will become very serious indeed? One moral to be drawn from the shipping situation is that we must use our cargo space to the best advantage in the interests of the war effort. That is one reason for the Limitation of Supplies Order, limiting the importation into this country of goods which take up space which can be used for more valuable imports. I should just point out that, although we have, as my hon. Friend for Seaham says, lost valuable cargoes and very valuable ships, it is gratifying to know that, in spite of these unfortunate sinkings, the loss of war material in transit to this country has been negligible until within the last week or two, and that is not sufficient to cause alarm. I hope that that may continue to be the case.
Before my right hon. Friend leaves the shipping position, might I ask him—and I only touched upon this in my speech—whether he will make representations to the proper quarter—I do not know whether the matter is primarily under the right hon. Gentleman's control or not—to bring about a recasting of the convoy system? Large convoys are too good a target for the enemy. There are too many ships in the convoys. At the same time will he make representations to ensure that slow vessels are not linked up with fast vessels, because many convoys are regulated by the speed of the slowest ship, which is sometimes about six or seven knots?
I think that efforts are already being made to separate the swift from the slow. I do not want to enter into a discussion on the convoy system, because that depends on available destroyers and so on. I certainly will make representations to the First Lord of the Admiralty on the matter.
I was about to say that the situation which has been created by the submarine campaign and by aerial attack on shipping has led to some difficulties of internal transport with which, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham is familiar. That, I think, is being dealt with now. It is true that there have been shortages, but let me add that if we want railway wagons, we shall take them. A heavy strain has been cast on the transport system of the country because of the concentration of shipping in certain ports, and that has raised entirely new problems which, as I say, we now have in hand. I hope it will ease the internal transport situation. Taking both home production and overseas supplies, it can be said, without any shadow of doubt, that we are growing stronger, and substantially stronger, as, of course, the nation has a right to expect. Further efforts are called for, and further efforts are being made, and, while it would not exonerate us for any sins of commission or omission, we are entitled to ask the House to remember that the enemy also has his troubles. The picture which my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham paints of Hitler's Greater Germany being a happy land where everything is going swiftly and smoothly—[ Interruption. ]—Well, that is the impression I got from the speech—that of a foe whose power was so great that nothing we could do would avail against him.
I am very sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I do hope that I did not paint any such picture. What I did draw attention to was the fact, well known to every hon. Member, that Germany had five years of extensive preparation which we did not have. Only too well the right hon. Gentleman knows that to be quite true.
I still contend that the hon. Member painted a far gloomier picture of the state of affairs in this country than he did of the state of affairs in Germany. We know that the Royal Air Force and the silent, inexorable grip of the blockade are undermining Hitler's striking powers in spite of years of preparation and in spite of resources, a large amount of which may still be left, which must as the blockade tightens become eaten into, and that his powers of recuperation will become less and less. The Royal Air Force will continue and intensify its attacks on Germany's industrial power, supplies, shipping, communications and so on, and the blockade will be maintained to the full. Those oversea territories which suffer in consequence will be aided with all the strength in our power, in collaboration, we hope, with other free countries and particularly, of course, with the collaboration of the United States. The Minister of Economic-Warfare and I have given special study to this problem, and Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, a very distinguished civil servant has been appointed to organise this work so that when the time comes food and raw material will be available for a Europe free from Nazi domination.
I have not covered the whole enormous area of the industrial war effort, but I have tried honestly to give an objective account of achievement and a fair statement of our difficulties. I do not believe that we are at the end of our difficulties. I think those difficulties will increase; some perhaps will be of a new kind, we shall have to grapple with them as best we can. What we can say, I think, with certainty is that Britain's resources and capacity, and the growing help of North America, outmatch the industrial resources and capacity of the enemy. At the risk of being accused of wishful thinking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham says, and at the risk of again being charged with belittling Hitler's resources, I still assert that our increasing productive power, both in quality and weight of output, will finally crush the might of the dictators.
I do not think I shall be alone in my opinion if I say, in regard to the speech to which we have just listened, that this is not one of the Minister's best days. He has said that he has endeavoured to give us a picture of the work that has been done and of our resources. I would like to know who in this House is any wiser now than he was before the Minister got up. I would also like to know what is going to be the defence to the very powerful speech, which the right hon. Gentleman admitted had been made, by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). Let me remind the House what that speech contained. The hon. Member asked for a number of things, and they can really be summed up in one phrase—the mobilisation of personnel and property in this country for the effective winning of the war. He asked that compulsory powers should be used without any question at all about anybody's interest, without giving way to any power on one side or the other, and without having all the time to resort to appeals. He says, "Use compulsory powers so that we can mobilise all our resources against the enemy."
What is the defence that has been put up by the Minister without Portfolio? So far as I can make out, there were three. One was that the picture is not so gloomy as that drawn by the hon. Member for Seaham. The hon. Member did not draw a gloomy picture of the resources of the country. What he was drawing a gloomy picture of was the ineffectiveness, the lack of initiative and drive in using those powers. He did not draw an optimistic picture of Germany. What he called attention to, rightly, was the fact that Germany for six years had been making tremendous preparations, that in the course of making those preparations they had their factories, their buildings and machine tools, and, when the war came about, they were now actually engaged upon production. The second defence of the right hon. Gentleman was a comparison with the last war. I thought we had been told time and time again that that was entirely irrelevant. He might as well compare with the efforts made in the Crimean War, or the effort made to defend the country against the Conqueror in 1066. What is the relevance of it to-day? We are not facing the enemy, as we were in 1914, with two enormous Allies, one on either side of Germany. We are facing a situation where we stand alone, with France collapsed and with all the little nations in Europe having gone except one, of which we are tremendously proud. The third defence is that we have made very great improvements. Of course, we have. They should have been made. It would have been criminal if they had not been. The country expected the Government to make them. The country put them there in order that they should make them.
In spite of the question put by the Noble Lord—I thought it a very pertinent question—to give us in percentages, in multiples, the extent of the improvement, we are told, "No, you cannot have it in percentages. You cannot even have it in multiples." But there are one or two figures which we can find out for ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman called it a spurt of three months. I thought it was a sort of 100 yards sprint. I also want to know what is the preparation made for the long-distance race, and not merely the sprint. We all realise the tremendous danger of those two months which followed the advent of this Government, when a vast amount of preparation had to be made in one, direction, namely, aircraft production. That did not stop other Ministers thinking what should be the problems in front of them during the coming winter. I can give the House one figure. In April Sir John Simon, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave us the figure of the war effort that he contemplated of an expenditure of £2,000,000,000, and that would really cover the whole extent of the year in front of him. We have had a figure from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are expending at the rate of £9,100,000 per day. That is a tremendous increase on what was contemplated in April. I should have thought the Minister without Portfolio could have made use of that, at any rate, that we have increased our war effort since this Government came into power from £2,000,000,000 to £3,300,000,000, and they deserve every credit for that expansion, but our complaint is that it is not enough, in view of what is happening, and it was not enough in the mind of the Government when, on that morning of 22nd May, the Lord Privy Seal introduced a Bill which the Minister without Portfolio rightly described as "Socialism in no time." Then we had it that these very compulsory powers that the hon. Member is asking for were required, and it is interesting to turn to the speech made by the Lord Privy Seal. In asking leave to introduce a Bill, he said:
May I give the House a few instances to show what is in our minds and why we are so worried? We know that Germany, during the six years preceding the war, spent something like £6,000,000,000 on preparations for war. Our comparable figure was about £1,200,000,000. In June, 1939, she was spending at the rate of £2,000,000,000; in December, 1939, £3,000,000,000; and in July, 1940, £4,000,000,000. The total Axis effort today is £5,000,000,000. That takes no account of the tremendous loot from us at Dunkirk, from France, Belgium, Holland and all the devastated countries. It does not even take into account the tribute Germany is forcing from them. What is our war effort? The figure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day was at the rate of roughly £3.300,000,000. What we are afraid of is that the Prime Minister's brilliant strategic genius will be starved unless the men and material are given him. If the Fighting Forces are to have a chance, there must be a tremendous extension of our effort of to-day. That can only come from a total mobilisation. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that those of us who criticise thought that all was well in Germany and that their potential resources would overtop ours. If Germany conquered the whole of Europe and took the whole of the resources, they would be as nought compared with our potential resources. We want to see those potential resources used, and used now.
We can see even to-day on the one side appeals, and on the other side negative orders. I cannot give a better instance than one which has just occurred. The other day the President of the Board of Trade issued an order that the materials for the manufacture of unessentials were now to be cut down from the 75 per cent, of normal, which was the figure that had been given in July, to 30 per cent, or 25 per cent. The effect of that, of course, is purely negative. The employers will not get the material, and the employés will be thrown out of work. Where is the positive action on the other side to use the management of these employers and to use the work of the employés? That ought to have come before the cutting down. The Government are putting the cart before the horse in throwing men out of work first and then saying, "Now we will think of what possible use we can make of their services later on." Unemployment remains at a disturbingly high level. When are those 800,000—we are not even now allowed to know the actual figure—to be absorbed? We have had 15 months of war and six months of this Government, and still the figures of unemployment grow. Under the very legislation which the President of the Board of Trade has passed they are bound to get worse.
Then the Government call America into aid. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the help we are getting from America, but has he forgotten that last Saturday a warning note was given by President Roosevelt? Their own army is unequipped. They have practically no aeroplanes of their own. They have given all that they had to us, and the President warned this country that they were reaching the peak of what they could themselves send over here. I should have thought that that was the moment when Ministers would turn round on the Treasury Bench and say, "Now we must exercise to the full every bit of compulsory power that we took six months ago," but still the Government go on making appeals and asking for charity. Our imports are at a very low level. I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little puzzled when he said, "We know that the production of this country has gone down, but that is the production of goods which are not essential; the production of essential goods has gone up a great deal." So it has, and it should have gone up, but what has happened with regard to the goods which are not so essential? We have been living on stocks, and we have absorbed about £600,000,000 worth of stocks, when at the present moment we should be building up stocks against the possibility .of the bombing of warehouses and factories. That cannot go on indefinitely.
Then there are the inequalities. I have already pointed out to the House on other occasions the inequality which is allowed to exist between the people who are thrown out from the compulsorily evacuated areas and the people who are allowed to continue in their work in areas which are more fortunate. When is the scheme coming forward for helping and protecting those people who were thrown out of evacuated areas? The Govern- ment must have guessed long before the war started that there would b evacuated areas. Where is the plan, even after 18 months of war, of how these people are to be compensated and dealt with? Take another instance which followed upon the Order that was made by the President of the Board of Trade. Of course, men will be thrown out of work and trade will be ruined, and they promptly start to complain and squeal. Instances which appeared in the morning papers yesterday concerned the cosmetics trade and the corset trade. The cosmetics trade said, "We anticipated this some months ago and went to the Government and offered to stop making cosmetics, and turning our works on to medical supplies, bandages and things of that kind, and our offer was rejected."
What did the Government say?
I do not know what the Government said, only that the offer was rejected. The result is that those workpeople will go to swell the ranks of the unemployed. A plan for absorbing them into something else has not yet come into existence. The Government are still thinking. We have got to extend our production. We must extend our food production. Yesterday a new declaration was made by the Minister of Agriculture. When are agriculture and food production to be put on a proper basis? When will it be realised that the Minister of Food is the man who is mainly responsible for the whole position, and that the Minister of Agriculture ought to be his factory manager? When is the Minister of Food going to call for a pro forma quota of what this country can produce in the way of wheat, barley, oats, potatoes, and all other foods, and say to the Minister of Agriculture, "I am adding 50, 80 or 100 per cent, on to that and you, as the factory manager, will be responsible for producing it"? All that the Government content themselves with doing is to guarantee prices and to ask the farmers to plough up good, bad and indifferent land, hoping for the best and hoping that the weather will favour us.
We shall not increase production here unless we utilise the whole of our manpower which is available. We have to re-employ the army of unemployed. We have to recruit more women and to employ those now engaged upon unessential upon the production of essentials. Then we must increase the efficiency of the factories. When is somebody to be appointed who will go round from factory to factory and say in factory A "Your methods are a little out of date. You could improve by altering here or altering there. I have been to factory B and I found their production was very much greater because they had done this or that, and therefore I suggest to you, Factory A, that you might make improvements"? Is even that much in the way of offering merely voluntary advice going to be done? I would make it compulsory advice, if the men who were tendering it were competent advisers.
When are we going to curtail consumption? We shall not do it by a mere cutting-down of 25 per cent, in the supply of certain raw materials. What we have to do is to cut consumption down to the level necessary to maintain the health and the morale of the people, but at the same time we must guarantee that those members of the community who are not at present getting their proper standards of supply get enough. We must also safeguard the continuity of supplies. That one can only do by assembling stocks for the rainy day or the bombing. When shall we start preparing reserve factories? We hear that a factory here and there has been hit. Are reserve factories being built ready to take in some of the salvaged machinery? When are we going to reshape our export policy so that only those goods are sent out which will help in the direct prosecution of the war? The goods which are sent out to the Colonies to-day should be confined to those which are essential to a Colony and will help it to give better help to the mother country.
These are the matters which are really worrying us. When are these compulsory powers going to be used? It is no good throwing out the cheap retort "You would have a totalitarian State here, would you? That is Hitlerism." I am in favour of a temporary dictatorship so as to abolish the permanent dictatorship which otherwise will be thrown upon us. We have introduced compulsion for military service. Why should there be a distinction between the youth who has to give his all without question and the rest of us who are appealed to on charitable grounds? I also believe that organised democracy will always, and should always, beat organised autocracy. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind about that.
I look forward with trepidation to this winter as I did, indeed, to last winter. I am afraid that I was more or less a lone voice protesting in the same way last winter. A remarkable speech was made by Hitler on 30th January this year. Very rightly, at that time he regarded not the then Prime Minister but the present Prime Minister as his chief enemy, and the main brunt of that speech was directed against the present Prime Minister. Hitler said he knew what efforts we were making and what efforts France was making, but he also said, "But Herr Churchill assumes that we are asleep." Germany was working with a more furious energy during last winter than she had worked during the previous six winters, and what was the result? In May that energy which had been conserved and turned into munitions and tanks burst forth and swept Holland, Belgium and France out of existence as separate free States. She is working now at the rate of £5,000,000,000 a year. She is utilising Poland and Czecho-Slovakia, putting her factories as far away from our gallant lads as she can put them, though our boys are still able to find them. She is using Hungary. What for? The Ides of March were a dread day 2,000 years ago. I wonder, are the Ides of March going to be a dread day again? Are we going to call for every effort that man, woman, child and industry can give in order to defeat whatever may be preparing for us across the water when it does come? We are calling upon the Government, "Stop appealing, act—or give way to those who will."
We all realise that the question of production and man power is not a simple one. There are so many Ministers concerned in it. The Board of Trade is concerned with exports and imports, the Ministry of Supply concerned with the commodities required by industry, the Ministry of Shipping with the vital problem of the carrying of cargoes, as was emphasised so eloquently by the Minister of Shipping on the wireless last night. The Minister of Agriculture is responsible for seeing that we produce as much food at home as we can. We have the Ministry of Labour, mainly concerned with man-power to get essential production. Lastly, and not least, we have the Treasury, which has to observe the financial side of this urgent question and has to preserve the delicate balance relative to purchases overseas. We have often heard in this House and in the country that blessed word "co-ordination," which some people think they have only to say, that results shall follow. It is imperative that that word shall be put into practice so that production shall not be impeded. Co-ordination should make the adjustments which are necessary in order that we might reap the full harvest of maximum power in this country. That full harvest is essential to our victory in the war.
I believe that no imports should be brought into this country in war time of articles that can be produced at home. This practice would leave more shipping space for vitally necessary imports which cannot be produced here and would relieve the financial position in this country, lessening the realisation of securities and the release of gold to pay for foreign goods. It would ensure more employment at home, and so improve the already high morale which exists in this country. The high morale exists not only among the workers but among the Fighting Forces. Of that high morale we cannot speak too highly. In the Fighting Forces are the sons of men who are unemployed, and they cannot evince as much spirit in their fighting as they would if they knew that their fathers at home were not out of work. New hope at home would come with new opportunities to work. The feeling of frustration which so many unemployed have at the present time would disappear, and the physical standard of the men would be heightened. In these days of rising prices, the physical condition of the unemployed and the underemployed must suffer. If we could provide them with work and wages to produce more of this country's goods, we should raise that bodily welfare and bring a resultant contentment.
At the present time, our imports show that this country is providing employment for thousands of people overseas. In these fateful days it is a reproach to this country that it fails to find work for thousands of its own loyal citizens at home. I know that there are difficulties, but surely democracy is not only a fair-weather form of government. Surely it is a form of government which can show its effectiveness in rough waters as well as in smooth. It is for this democratic House of Commons to show that, in days of war and difficulty, the employment of all our man and woman power is not beyond us.
I wish to refer to two points in connection with production and man-power. The first is connected with the manufacture of calcium carbide. Some hon. Members may say that this is a mere detail; it is, but it is a very essential detail. About four years ago, on 25th November, 1936, I asked a question about the manufacture of calcium carbide in this country. I have been asking questions about it almost ever since. It is essential that we should manufacture this material at home, if only for one of the reasons which I have already mentioned, to prevent us from having to import it. We have the raw material here, and the men. The danger of being cut off from our supply is very real. I pointed out the position to the Minister of Supply over a year ago, and asked what was to happen if we could not get our supply of that commodity from Norway. I begged the Minister of Supply to set up factories in this country.
Since then, the Norwegian supply has been cut off. I am glad to know that the Government have made a start—I say "start" advisedly—but I find that they are likely to make the same mistake again, by having their supply all in one place. Worse than that, it will be only a partial supply. I am informed from the Ministry of Supply that the bulk of the supply will come from the factory, when it is started, and the balance will come from elsewhere. That balance will be brought from a country six times as far away as Norway. In face of the shipping difficulties and the intensification of U-boat activity, it seems a shortsighted policy to bring even the balance of the commodity from so far away. What will happen if the sole source of supply in this country is put out of action? What will happen if the source of supply 3,000 miles away is cut off by enemy action? To bring calcium carbide into this country is like carrying coals to Newcastle. We have the stuff and the men here and there is no earthly reason why it should not be made here. Surely it is a sound plan to have further factories, so that if anything happens to the first of them our source of supply will still remain. In my county of Durham we have about 30,000 coal miners out of work. Many miners are working two or three shifts a week. Coal is one of the materials needed for calcium carbide. In Durham we are rich in limestone and in calcium carbonate, which is next door to calcium carbide. All we need is the will. This House has given the Government the power to institute factories, but the Government seem very reluctant to put the power into practice.
My second point is in regard to agriculture, and I claim it is a relevant point. We know that much depends upon soil, situation and weather. When all these factors are propitious, the main factor in agriculture, as in industry of all kinds, is man-power. Man's exertions upon natural resources are the essential factor, for industry or agriculture. Man-power can overcome some of the difficulties of poor soil, unfavourable situation and even inclemency of weather. The history of agriculture in this country before the war, and almost to the present moment, is that it has been the Cinderella among the industries. We have grown up to be a nation of shopkeepers; I see that the Food Minister has been saying that it would have been better for us if we had been more a nation of cow-keepers, because the milk supply of this country is in a precarious condition. Too much of our time and energy has been given to the manufacturing side, while we have left aside the vital problems of agriculture. So utterly has this primary industry been ignored that we hear the sorry tale that we heard yesterday in this House and last night over the wireless from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture about ploughing, draining and ditching being behindhand. That means that there is a reduction in agricultural output which we in this country and at this time especially cannot ignore.
I know that the demand for cheap food has been called the curse of agriculture. We on this side of the House have often been accused of demanding cheap food, but we were not the only ones who demanded cheap food. Governments have demanded cheap food; they have always fed their Forces upon imported meats because those imported meats have been cheaper. Vested interests have also discouraged home agriculture and have preferred to invest their money in agriculture abroad, thus enabling foreign agricultural commodities to compete with the home industry. Last night the Minister of Shipping emphasised the fact that the shipping of this country is in a precarious condition. He begged the people of this country to do all they could to make it efficient. In effect, his words mean that if we more effectively plough the land, the ships that are sailing the seas will more effectively in the nation's interests plough the waves.
The real solution towards obtaining a sufficient supply in agriculture, as in other industries, is man-power, and to obtain that you have to give better conditions to agricultural workers and to farmers. Recently, we have increased the minimum wage to 48s. per week. The hours worked are 49 and 50 in my own county of Durham; that is, less than 1s. an hour. It is not unskilled work. I have said in this House time and time again—and I shall not go into it to-day—that an agricultural worker is as skilled as any other worker. From the farmers' point of view, look at the fluctuations in prices, at the insecurity of the past few years. It is only three years ago that one could buy a real, fully-grown lamb, seven or eight months old, for 5s. That was the sort of price which farmers were getting for lambs—less than one would pay for a woolly lamb for a Christmas present. Farmers have had to fight against that sort of thing. Yesterday in this House it was announced that we are now beginning to realise that we must stabilise the industry by fixing prices and guaranteeing markets. But those prices must be fixed first of all on the basis of good wages, and then all the other costs must be taken into consideration as well. Wages must approach somewhere near, if not as much as, the wages paid in the best industries in the land.
This war is showing that the production of food at home is of vital importance to safeguard us against famine. If this war lasts for a long time, it is a real danger. In these days of intensive U-boat activities and of losses of shipping the great danger is that if we do not wake up to the importance of agriculture and the production of food at home, there may be famine for the people in the country. We must save cargo space and save ships as well—we have few enough of them, and we cannot afford to lose them—but it is more important to save the loss of life of our gallant Mercantile Marine. We heard yesterday that 7,000 miles of drainage want doing. Every mile of drainage that is done, every ditch that is opened out, every acre that is ploughed, sown and harvested saves ships and lives. There seems to be very little relationship between a steamer and a spade, but if spades are effectively used, more steamers may be useful in the national interest. This country has not over-run free peoples and compelled them to work on the land.
This country has allowed its own free people to remain idle with this necessary and vital work to be done. Cannot the Ministries concerned—the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Labour, and the Treasury—get together and solve this very urgent problem? It is not a new problem. I do not blame the present Ministers for it. I blame the policy of this Government and of other Governments in the past which have neglected this very vital national industry. However, I do say that in this fateful hour the Ministers concerned will be tremendously blameworthy if they do not tackle this problem in a proper manner. The main elements are land, labour and finance; the Ministries concerned are the Ministries of Agriculture and Labour and the Treasury. Surely it is not impossible for them to start at once—not to consider it, for it has been considered too long—and get something done towards the improvement of agriculture and the increase of production at home. The Ministries have the powers. This free Parliament gave them the powers. Will they not proceed to put into effect those powers, so that "Too late" will not be history's verdict?
On the question of factories, we now see factories being erected up and down the country. I sometimes wonder whether the older factories which are not doing work of national importance could be converted into doing such work far more quickly than it takes to build new ones. The "Ministry ought to take that point into consideration—the conversion rather than the construction of factories. In the early part of this summer we saw a tremendous increase in output. It was brought about by the spur of Dunkirk. We cannot keep that up all the time. You cannot keep using the spur, because reaction sets in. To overcome the difficulty we must put into effect all those powers which have been given to the Ministries, no matter who are the people who stand in the way. Whether they be vested interests or whatever they are, they must be moved out of the way in order to increase production at home.
It is just six months ago that I had the honour to be elected to this House. The date of my entry, the date on which I listened with interest, excitement and thrill to the first speech I heard in the House of Commons, happened to coincide with the speech of the Lord Privy Seal in presenting one of the shortest Bills ever presented to this House. It has been referred to by nearly every speaker to-day, that famous, epoch-making Compulsory Powers Bill. You can imagine what a thrill it gave to a new Member, just elected on the basis of a more vigorous and energetic prosecution of the war, to listen to his very first speech and realise that at last total war was in the offing, that at last we had made up our minds to go full speed ahead, that at last all sections of this House and of the country were sufficiently united to give, completely and absolutely willingly on behalf of the people, their treasured liberties and freedom into the hands of the Government, to endorse in one day the handing-over to the Government of powers for compulsion.
What has happened since? Every week when I have come to the House I have been waiting, watching and hoping, as it is obvious from their speeches that many other Members have too, for some measure of exercise of those compulsory powers which were so gladly given to the Government. We have waited, to a very large extent although not entirely, in vain. What has happened in the interval? We have seen large accretions of officials, controllers, supervisors and co-ordinators appointed by the principal Government Departments concerned. Industry has gladly given up its private enterprise and initiative into the hands of these officials, trade unionism has made heavy sacrifices of its past principles, there has been a complete readiness to do what we have been told to do. As a result we have merely had very large accretions of officials, but I wonder whether we have had the results that we might have expected in increased efficiency and above all in increased economy. Private enterprise has its drawbacks and is not popular in certain sections of this House. But, at least generally speaking, it could not be accused of lacking in initiative, in enterprise and in concentrating upon the value of economy. Every industry in the country, every managing director, is now just the servant of a Government Department., They are not protesting, they are making no objections, but I do feel that we should have had greater results in efficiency and economy from the large accretion of officials and controls which we have seen in the last six months.
With regard to the labour elements, all Members of this House were most anxious to see a greater measure of compulsion exercised. There is no question but that the unemployment figures are far too high, especially among men; we are all agreed upon that. If there had been a greater measure of compulsion, I believe there would have been far less unemployment to-day. The Ministry of Labour, with the best intentions in the world, has relied far too much upon the voluntary spirit, which is magnificent in this country and of which we are all proud. Indeed, in almost every aspect of our national life we have exploited the voluntary system almost to the dregs, and it is time that those who have not had to make sacrifices up to date were compelled to make them. Far too much is being taken from the willing and the patriotic, and a great many people are escaping. When we passed this Bill giving the Government compulsory powers we believed that in so doing we were compelling a greater equality of sacrifices. There is still nothing like enough equality of sacrifice in the country.
Much has been said by other speakers on the question of compulsion which I am delighted from this side of the House to endorse completely. On the question of efficiency, however, I feel that the Government would be well advised to consider the question of greater decentralisation of their control and officialdom into the Provinces. There is far too much control from London; my postbag, which is probably not larger than that of many other hon. Members, keeps emphasising that week after week. There is too much London control and too much control from Government Departments. Too many things have to be referred to London. I know there is already some measure of decentralisation, and I know that Government Departments are very ready to consider the question of introducing more, but when it comes down to brass tacks there is always an objection, there is always some difficulty. I am sure we should give much greater satisfaction to industry and to workpeople everywhere in connection with our war production if measures could be considered for more practical decentralisation of Departmental control of our industrial effort in every possible direction.
I would like now to say a word or two about a matter of which my postbag has been very full recently, namely, the matter of the Central Register. Many of my correspondents have had their names on the Central Register for months, but nothing has ever happened. They have given up hope of being able to get a job as the result. In recent months, as a result of the exigencies of war and of the decline in and the difficulties facing the export trade, as the result of the Limitation of Supplies Order and of many other things, there has arisen an entirely new class of unemployed who have never been unemployed before. Very little, it seems, is being done for them. We have been trying very hard to absorb the hard core of unemployed, and to some extent we have been successful. Many who have been unemployed for years are now in work, although nothing like so many as would have been in work had we used the compulsory powers. But now we have this new class of unemployed who did not seem to be the concern of anybody in particular.
The Central Register still contains a very large number of names, but its achievement in finding jobs seems to be very small. I have letters from correspondents of the highest possible attainments, qualifications, experience and testimonials who seem to find it quite impossible to get anything at all. They have been living on their savings for months, and soon these savings will be gone; in some cases they have already gone. They are not in any insurance scheme, and they will shortly become penniless. Is it possible to conceive that in this great war, when bur whole, maximum effort should be concentrated on utilising the talents and capacities of everyone, men of that type and calibre cannot find anything to do in the war effort? Some of them have even offered to do it for nothing because they can afford to do so, but they receive nothing more than a kindly reply saying that their name has been put down on the list. This is something which needs to be very seriously tackled. I know it is not a fair accusation to make, and I do not make it on my own behalf, but some of my correspondents in their despair and irritation suggest that people in the Ministry of Labour are not interested in finding employment for that particular class and are only trying to find employment for more technically qualified people in the factories. I know that is not fair, but when you get people thinking like that, it shows that there is a considerable amount of discontent and unrest about.
I want to refer to man-power in relation to the Army. I have a feeling that there are far too many square pegs in round holes in the Army to-day. A large number of men in the Army are unhappy because they joined with the finest spirit of patriotism, expecting to be used to some extent with regard to their talents, and they find that they are being employed as cooks, batmen and in other capacities, of a most worthy kind, but for which they do not think they have any special qualifications, and in which certainly they did not expect to be engaged when they joined. I wished that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would issue instructions to command officers to be more considerate with regard to the detailing of men under their command to various types of jobs. They should do their best to avoid causing unhappiness and distress to men in the Armed Forces of the Crown by ordering them to accept jobs for which the men consider themselves unfitted. We have, doing such jobs, men who are highly qualified technically; and they could be released, if only temporarily, in order to improve production in our war factories.
There is one other point which I wish to make. I refer to it with some hesita- tion, because I do not want to be provocative. It is not only Hitler's bombs which are affecting our war production. There are undesirable elements, constituting, I know, only a tiny minority, who are leaving no stone unturned to upset our war effort by subversive propaganda in the factories. Their activities are having some small effect. They want watching. In my part of the country there are certain people, holding fairly responsible positions as shop stewards, who have influence in important factories, and who are trying to undermine the war effort by putting unworthy ideas into the heads of the workers. Thank God, the vast majority of the working-people of this country have far too much sense to listen to such people. But they are as much a part of Hitler's Fifth Column as any other section. It is perhaps not realised that there has existed in Glasgow for many months an organisation which calls itself the Anarchists' Federation. One does not feel that to allow such an organisation, with its activities quite unfettered in the factories, is the best way of getting our war production organised to its fullest extent, and of maintaining the morale of our people.
Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman name to the House any member of a trade union, acting as a shop steward on behalf of his fellow-workers, who is a member of this federation?
I did not intend to suggest that there was any. If I did so, I entirely withdraw the suggestion. I merely gave, as an instance, the fact that this organisation existed in Glasgow, which was not doing any good to our war production; and that certain individuals, who are not necessarily members of any trade union, but who hold the position of shop stewards, are also not doing any good to our war production. I think it is well known to all of us that there is a tiny minority which is not helping our war production. A certain element is doing its utmost in my part of the country to persuade the workers not to continue working after the siren. That is not the attitude of trade unionism: it is not the attitude of the workers or their organisers; but it is the attitude of an element which is trying to exercise an undue influence at present. I mention that because, on the information I have in my possession, I think it would be worth while for Government Departments to keep a close eye on these undesirable elements, which are just as strongly disapproved of by trade unionists and other working people as they are by any other section.
My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) put before hon. Members, as has been said already, a forceful and constructive case to be answered. I regret to say that up to the present we have not had from the Government a full, clear and informative answer to that speech. I want to refer to one or two cases in which I have participated with Ministers in order to remedy their failure to use our man-power fully and effectively for production. May I say to the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) that in Glasgow we know very little of the Anarchists' Federation, and that the Anarchists' Federation, wherever it may be, has practically no influence with the workers of Scotland. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will admit that during the short time he has been at the Scottish Office he has seen no proof that such an organisation affects the working-class people in this war. I do not think it is fair to bring forward such a trivial matter in this House when we are discussing man-power and production.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio said that although our war production had not been seriously affected by air raids, the raids had embarrassed the Government and had affected our war production. Quite frankly, I say that" the attitude of Ministers to representations which have been made to them, have affected our war production more materially than any raids have done up to now. Let me give one or two instances, which would be amusing if they were not so tragic. I am very pleased to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production in his place. I want to refer to the delay which took place in the placing of a vitally necessary aircraft contract in a certain area in Scotland. I cannot speak too freely, but I can give sufficient facts to enable hon. Members to understand the case. It was decided to establish an extension of certain works for the production of aircraft in Scotland. Our Scottish firms, on the spot, able to do this job, thoroughly experienced in this kind of work, with their tools, plant, machinery and organisation available, and only five miles from the site, had no word at all with regard to this undertaking. Two firms heard about it in a roundabout way. They heard that a representative of the Ministry would be at the Central Station Hotel, Glasgow, on a certain night. Two of my friends went to interview this representative who had come from the firm of Murex. It appeared that he had travelled from London to Glasgow in order to place a part of the contract, and when the representatives of these Scottish firms approached him he said, "I can give you nothing definite. I do not know exactly how things are, but I am doing 40 furnaces. That is the part of the contract with which I am dealing, but another man from my firm is coming to the Central Station Hotel to-morrow to place the other part of the contract." The representatives of this Scottish firm discussed the matter and they were almost verbally promised the job, because the firm was on the spot with machinery, plant and labour available and could start it immediately.
On the next day these representatives saw the other man—a colonel—who had to place the greater part of the contract. My friends tried to show him how one part of the job was dovetailed into the other part of the contract. This is a story, which, I hope, will get to the ears of the Minister, because I would like him thoroughly to investigate the matter. The colonel told them that the contract had already been placed with a South of England firm which had no previous experience of this type of work. I do not stand here as a Scottish nationalist, saying that everything that comes to Scotland should be done by a Scottish firm, but I do say that if there are three or four Scottish organisations on the spot, with the plant and machinery able to start the job immediately, they ought to be allowed to quote for the contract and take their part instead of being superseded by a South of England organisation which had no previous experience of this job of work, having previously been engaged upon railway building. They had never done that kind of job in their lives, but the colonel said that the contract had been handed over to that firm. They took seven days to gather together an organisation with which to start that job in Scotland, when these other firms could have got on with the job immediately.
The firm that was given that contract had had experience in that kind of work. It was not their general work, but they were experienced in it. I went into the matter myself. The firm about which the hon. Member is speaking were offered a sub-contract by this experienced firm, but, unfortunately, the rates that they were to charge for that sub-contract were greater than other offers that were made for it, so they did not get it. Quite apart from that, the work was done, I believe, by another Scottish firm, but not the one the hon. Member has in mind. It is true that the main work was given to a British firm because the job was a special one and they had done similar work before.
The facts that I have, do not agree with the statement that has just been made, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not improved the situation by his explanation. These two people from the firm of Murex who came to place the contract travelled to Glasgow on separate nights. This was an important contract in respect of aircraft, which was something that the nation really needed. They then decided that the contract should be given to the particular firm and that part of it should be made subject to subcontract.
No, Sir. The part of the work which could be much better done by a local firm was offered to some of the Scottish firms as a sub-contract. That is very often done. Such firms have their organisation and their men on the spot, and that was the right thing to do. The main work of lay-out was given to a firm which had done similar work before. The Scottish firm which the hon. Member has in mind is a first class firm, and there is nothing against it at all, except that it had not actually done that kind of work, while, as far as my recollection goes, the people who were given the contract had done similar work before.
Now we come to the fact that a part of this job, which should have been done by these Scottish firms—who had not been asked to tender for the whole job—was handed to a particular firm, and that part of it could then be sub-contracted to a Scottish firm. But that Scottish firm could have started the whole job immediately. That is one of the reasons for delay in production. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has only made the position much worse by indicating that that kind of thing can be done by Government Departments, and that a job can be handed over to a firm with permission to sub-contract part of it to a Scottish firm, when, as I say, the Scottish firm could have done the whole job. This sort of thing is ridiculous, nonsensical, and no business man would try to run private enterprise on those lines. We see that sort of thing in various Departments.
We had a Ministry of Supply job. It was a question of the supply of ventilators, which are very necessary to workers in war production factories. There is a ventilator on the market in Glasgow which has been passed by the British Research Council of Hygiene as being the best ventilator on the market. It gives better ventilation and is cheaper than anything that the Government use, and yet this Glasgow firm have been unable to get into a single Government Department. They have offered their services and have given the Department a complete list of the capabilities of their production. Yet a firm at Wolverhampton builds the ventilators for every job, whether in Scotland, England or Wales. The production of this ventilator, as I have said, is cheaper, and its performance is more efficient. These are the things that should count with the Government in their war effort. We have had instance after instance of this sort of thing taking place with regard to the placing of contracts, and I would ask that the system of issuing out these contracts should be thoroughly examined, that some co-ordination should take place and that there should be taken into consideration the effect of any delay on the war production of the country and the unemployment in any particular area.
There are one or two points connected with the Ministry of Labour which I wish to raise and to which I expect to have an answer in the very near future. I would like to ask the Minister on what principle his Department acts in transferring trade unionists, who have been engaged on one particular job, to another part of the country where there is available labour and considerable unemployment. I can assure him that men have been sent to Scotland to do ordinary labouring work. Can he say whether by these transfers men are being utilised immediately and whether they are displacing local labour and aggravating local unemployment? I am not putting this forward in any sense of destructive criticism at all, but merely as a result of the statements which have been made to me by trade union organisers and workers. Can we be assured that no such thing is taking place and that men are not going to districts where there is available labour?
I have refrained from any criticism that could be injurious to the national effort; indeed, all I have tried to do is to state the specific cases with as much clarity as I can command, and I would like to appeal to Members in all parts of the House not to look upon the questions which Scottish Members raise as being connected with Scottish nationalism. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and men and women in industry in Scotland are playing a considerable part in this war and all we ask is that these questions shall be looked at in the light of the national effort. We have, perhaps, facilities that do not exist in the Midlands or in the London area; we have scope for many features of Government development. I have felt for a long time, when speaking with civil servants and officials of various Departments, that they seemed to be feeling that Scotland was far away in the frozen North, but they might pay a visit there now and again.
Scotland and her resources can be utilised much more extensively in this war effort, particularly through her shipping and railway junctions, and I would ask that the Ministers of the various Departments should see that our great materials, labour and facilities are used to their utmost. If factories are bombed elsewhere and production is embarrassed, the difficulty can be overcome in some areas of Scotland which German bombers will find it much more difficult to reach. We are all in this war, the Scots, the Welsh, the English and the Irish—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Yorkshire"]—and we all desire to take our full part. As a Scottish representative, all that I desire is that the House should recognise the possibilities and facilities that exist in Scotland, where we, as well as others, wish to help forward the war effort with the utmost of our capabilities.
I also would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) on his very forcible speech. He pointed out the importance of production, and we know it. I am having in factories some experience to-day which is of a rather different character from that of many other hon. Members. I am sure that production has not been increasing. I have not got this information from figures; I have obtained it by actual experience in factories, but I will refer in detail later to the various means by which lack of production is coming about. We must not depend upon the United States; they are very generous towards us. But it is our war; we have to fight it, and it is ourselves we have to depend upon. The Minister without Portfolio referred to production being quicker than it was during the first 15 months of the last war. Well, it would be a disgrace if it was not. Our methods of production during the last 20 years have improved enormously. When the Minister compares production, I would like to know how he does it. It is generally done by pounds, shillings and pence, but I do not consider that that is a satisfactory comparison. It is weight, measurement and capacity which count rather than the amount of money spent. It is impossible to make comparisons with the various currencies as we have known them during the last 20 years.
I would like to refer to the long delays in getting replies from Ministers. I wrote to various Ministers four or five weeks ago and have had no reply. It is, I know, impossible for a Minister to do everything; but surely he can delegate minor replies to capable individuals, so that we do not have to wait indefinitely. We go to the people whom we represent in this House, and they think we are not doing our job because we cannot get replies from Departments. There is no reason why that work should not be done.
I am pleased to see the Minister of Labour present, and I want to refer briefly to the training of labour. There are two methods—Government training, and training by factory managers and in the factories. The Government training is not satisfactory. I know that a great deal of this sort of work is being done in Germany, and it was stated in the "Economist" this week that there are 16,000 instructors in 200 establishments in Germany. I doubt whether we have 25 per cent, of that number. The point I want to make is that if a person is trained in a Government factory and then turned into the shops, he has not had practical training. A person can be trained more satisfactorily in the factory in which he is going to work. When we talk of skill, we use a very comparative term. We know what different surroundings mean and how they affect us. We know that if we do not use the same pen and ink in the same position, we cannot write down our facts in the same manner. It is the same with the workers. If a man's surroundings are altered, if the machine-tool that he has to operate is a different one, he does not use his skill to full advantage. When these men are trained in Government establishments they do not work altogether on productive lines, and there is not the competitive element which there is in ordinary commercial industry. When the men are trained, they are moved into another shop or another factory. A man may be able to operate a screw cutting lathe, but he may be wanted on a turret lathe, and it takes half as long again to learn to use the lathe which he has to work as it did to learn to use the lathe on which he was trained.
I come now to the question of the movement of labour. An Act was passed by which labour could not be engaged or re-engaged in another factory, but there is nothing to prevent a man leaving his job. It is the problem of leaving one job and going to another that is to an extent handicapping production, and it is a problem about which something must be done. With circumstances as they are to-day, I consider that an order should be made that a man cannot leave a job without the consent of the Employment Exchange.
Would the hon. Member extend that order to an employer who had been severely hit as a result of the war, and not allow such a man to undertake any other business?
I hope the hon. Gentleman has not forgotten the experience of leaving certificates during the last war.
I quite appreciate the difficulties. In reply to the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), who asked whether I would wish such an order to extend to an employer in regard to the disposal of his labour when his business had been bombed—
My question was whether the hon. Member would extend the order to refuse an employer the right —as he wants to refuse the employé the right—to transfer his powers of production?
Certainly, I would agree to that. We have to go on manufacturing the same goods and to be consistent. If a man manufactures one particular commodity, he should continue to do so and become a specialist on it, just as an employé ought not to be transferred. If a man is transferred from one machine to another, he loses his skill, and that is to a very great extent reducing production at the present time. I had an experience the other day of a man who was working on a machine and was turning out 1,000 parts; he left, and it was necessary to put another man on to the machine; and it was six weeks before we could get 300 parts off the same machine. That sort of thing is going on regularly. It is not machine tools, it is operators, that we want.
With regard to transport, Birmingham is in an exceptional position in that the city has no river. Certainly, a river does not supply a city with all its transport requirements, but it is a very great advantage when there is an alternative system of transport through any city. We have no waterways in Birmingham, which is the largest city in the world without a river—
The hon. Member cannot blame us for that.
I am not doing so, but I am blaming the Government for not giving us concessions with regard to other forms of transport. We are handicapped both with regard to goods and passenger traffic. The difficulty is the lack of new vehicles, which may be unavoidable; but why are so many drivers being taken into the Army to drive lorries that are marked at half their carrying capacity? For instance, a two-ton lorry is marked as fully loaded at one ton for the reason that if it has to go on rough roads it will not get damaged. But the majority of those lorries are being used on smooth roads, and that being so, they ought to be allowed to carry a full load. It is just as important to get the workers to their work and the goods to and from the factories as it is to move soldiers from one place to another. It has been said that all wars are ultimately won by the infantry; it may also be said that this is the first war of this magnitude to be fought in the air. Therefore, conditions are different and we must adapt ourselves to the altered circumstances, for otherwise we shall find that, because of lack of equipment, the war is lost in the air.
We are told to stagger hours. How is it possible to do that with the period of light that we have at the present time? It is impossible. People want to get home just before it is dark, and the period of work is eight or nine hours. We have to get people to and from work during that short period, and therefore, I say that the Government should give us more assistance in the vital problem of transport. A person is not permitted to carry passengers and make a charge; surely, the Government ought to make a slight concession, and to issue an order to the effect tat people driving cars are permitted to charge at least the public transport fare. Recently I addressed a letter to the Minister of Transport concerning the carrying of passengers at the owner's risk. Any person who gives lifts has to put a notice in his car that passengers are carried at their own risk. This is one of the small irritating things I have had mentioned to me on several occasions. All that is needed is an order by the Minister saying that it is unnecessary to exhibit that notice. The attitude of the Minister on these little things would make such a great difference to the smooth running of transport and the carrying of passengers. To obtain extra petrol, private motorists have to apply in person. Are we always to go on in this way? Are we to get no concession or assistance?
I now wish to refer to a matter which the Minister of Labour dealt with at a conference in Birmingham—the question of working during the "Alert." The "Alert" signals have caused industry very considerable inconvenience, but I am pleased to say that work is now being carried on to a far greater extent. I had a discussion the other day with several people who did not want to work during the "Alert." Their argument was that to take shelter and save one or two lives over a period of weeks was worth while. I agreed with them to a certain extent, but put the other side. I pointed out that five or six hours' work per week might be lost during the time they were in the shelter. I pointed out what the loss of production might mean in the case of a factory supplying equipment so badly needed by the Royal Air Force. There is another side to the problem than that of saving our own skin, but I am pleased to say that the majority of workers realise that. Every time a shelter is used, even if it is for only five minutes, half an hour's work is lost.
The Minister also stated that he was issuing an order in regard to covering all roof glass. Since he made that statement I have endeavoured to ascertain what was the mesh of the material to be used. I have been unable to do so, and I have not heard that the order has been issued. I want to warn the Minister that if he specifies a wire mesh of half inch, or three quarters of an inch, roof glass will not be protected before the war is over. It is far better to have a larger mesh so that we can have the majority of roofs covered within a short period, and I hope the Minister will take note of my suggestion. We expected to have inconvenience from bombing when the war first broke out. By now we have had 12 or 15 months to prepare against the calamities which have occurred. Production in Birmingham has been affected, but I am pleased to inform the House that if we are having some interference we are, at least, optimistic and confident that in the end we shall win through.
If I intervene in this Debate, it is only because I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will deal more constructively with the urgent problems which beset us than did my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio created in the House an atmosphere, to use a Miltonic phrase, of inspissated gloom and did not point the way out of the darkness. What he said was not only depressing to the House of Commons, but will also be depressing to the whole community, particularly so because it comes upon a series of other Ministerial statements. It was only yesterday morning that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture confessed that our food production was quite inadequate, and felt himself called upon to offer a further series of inducements to the agricultural community to furnish us with the wherewithal of life. That was yesterday morning. Last night the Minister of Shipping told us that the outlook for our commerce was extremely discouraging, and he offered us no hope except from an accession of tonnage from the United States. The United States are not a mercantile shipbuilding nation, and they have many preoccupations with their own naval defence, both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific. It might have been expected that they would have felt it urgent for their own safety to divert their capacity from ordinary commercial to naval shipbuilding. In the year before the war they produced only 300,000 tons of mercantile tonnage.
What are the facts as they affect this country? The Minister of Shipping told us last night that we had been losing for some time past tonnage averaging 60,000 weekly. But that is only our own shipping. The figure of tonnage that we have been losing is greater than that, because, if you include in it the tonnage that we have acquired from our Allies, the average is 90,000 tons a week. That means that we are losing at the rate of 4,680,000 tons a year. At that rate within two years all the windfalls that we have received from our Allies—from the Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians and now, most significantly, the Greeks—would be dissipated. Eight million tons is the total of what we have received. Within two years all that will be lost. I must put it to my hon. Friend's credit that he always speaks with the greatest candour. To-day he has underlined these sorrowful facts by informing us that our own tonnage is below what it was at the beginning of the war and that we have not lived up to our programme of reconstruction. What was that programme? It was to produce 1,350,000 tons a year. At the present rate of sinkings, even if that programme were fulfilled it would not see us through more than 15 weeks of this war. That is a very grave prospect, and we are all concerned in seeing this unfortunate outlook improved.
What is the real remedy? It is to knock Italy out of the war. The Greeks have opened the way. By a swift series of successes they have disclosed the weaknesses of the Italian morale. Now, surely, is the propitious time to sustain and supplement these successes on every field and in every element. If we can do that we shall be able to withdraw from the Mediterranean that large proportion of our Fleet which is compelled now to keep its surveillance over the Italians and concentrate it for the protection of our shipping. This is our great opportunity, if not to build ships, at any rate to save those which are now upon the seas. The whole House rejoiced at the good tidings of Taranto, but has it equally appreciated that the day after the photographs, which yesterday gave us such pleasure, were taken, three Italian battleships, eight cruisers, and nine destroyers came out of Taranto, and are now presumably seeking refuge in some safer port? I would like the Government to explain how that has been allowed to occur. Are we determined to fight the war offensively against Italy or not? Until we have eliminated Italy we will not get rid of our present distractions and be able to concentrate on the real enemy, which is Germany.
The broad setting of the picture is this: Before the war Greater Germany had population twice the size of our own and could, therefore, presumably dispose of a labour force twice the size of our own. That is exclusive of all the countries that they have subsequently conquered. There is the measure of our task. What did my right hon. Friend tell us to-day? That the production situation here. which, in any event, will presumably be worse than that of Germany, is not one which he regards with relish. But he offered us no remedy. There was not a constructive suggestion in my right hon. Friend's speech. I do think that in the middle of a war that is deplorable. I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend does not regard the situation with relish, because unemployment, at the most critical moment of our whole history, appears to be increasing. The total of the unemployed in this country was 880,882 when my right hon. Friend took office. To-day the published figure is 839,800, including all categories, but my right hon. Friend has eliminated from the total figures some categories which previously appeared. He has excluded all the trainees, whom we may put at 45,000; he has excluded women who are drawing old age pensions at a younger age; and he has excluded casual labourers out of work. If we are to get the index of our production, those items should be included.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend why he has modified the unemployment figures in this way. When his predecessor was in office there was a rumour that the unemployment figures would no longer be given publicity in their full form. My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio came down to the House and in a most indignant mood attacked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and said it would be unfair to the House of Commons and to the people as a whole to suppress facts upon which it was requisite for us to form a judgment. I am sure it is only necessary to appeal to my right hon. Friend for him to re-institute the practice of publishing the unemployment figures in their fullest form. But even with the modified figures we have, we can see that there has been an actual increase in unemployment since he took office, although some hundreds of thousands of men have been called up to the Fighting Services and into Civil Defence. I think that requires some explanation from my right hon. Friend.
Then there was the appeal to women. We were told that women had a particular contribution to make in this war, and so they have. When my right hon. Friend took office there were 292,225 women and girls unemployed. The figure to-day is 356,300, an increase of 64,000. This is not winning the war. We already suffer proportionately vis-a-vis Germany by the smaller number of our own population, and if we are not going to use our people, that is a serious matter, and it makes it all the more difficult to understand how my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour can envisage Germany crumbling within six months. I think he might amplify to the House this afternoon how it is to come about that we shall, within six months, and with this greater unemployment, be exceeding the production of Germany in aeroplanes, tanks and other munitions.
We could rectify this worsening situation only if our imports were increasing, if we were obtaining from the United States and from Canada and elsewhere more manufactures and more raw materials. But on the last import figures that were published, if the price adjustments are made, it is found that our imports of raw materials and of manufactures have decreased considerably. It is true that the last figures to be published only take us to August, but one would like some re-assurance upon the point. It does seem, however, that we are not importing more materials and more manufactures, particularly of armaments. The last figure to be published of imports of armaments from the United States was only 8,000,000 dollars in a month, that is, only £2,000,000 worth of armaments from the "United States. No doubt that great republic will do all it can to assist us, and the figure will have increased, but the fact is that it is not upon a war basis. Only one-seventh of its production is devoted to munitions at this time, whereas, in the last war, the proportion was one-third. I do not think that we should base our hopes entirely on what we can get from that country. We should rely upon ourselves.
The Government know the solution of our problems. Can anyone forget the exhilaration with which the statement of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal was received on 22nd May last? There, for the first time, was in office a Government composed of all parties. It had far greater opportunities and far greater advantages than any previous Government had had. It could abrogate all the trade-union regulations, if it so desired. It could institute any practice that it thought desirable. We imagined that it would profit by those greater opportunities and greater advantages. My right hon. Friend came to the House with the Emergency Powers Bill, and said:
Land as well.
The hon. Gentleman is supplementing what I said. We had, we were told, to throw all our weight into the struggle. My right hon. Friend said:
In Germany, what procedure has been followed? They have determined the quantity of goods needed for the whole community. They have concentrated their production in a few factories—-in the minimum number of factories—and they have diverted the labour and the plant of the rest to essential munitions production. What is the policy that we have followed in this country? [ Interruption. ] I should like to have been able to devote more time to this subject, but I see that the Minister of Labour, who, after all, can continue after Four o'clock—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on"]. In spite of the encouragement of the House, I feel that I had better fulfil my bargain. I regret that I have spoken for five minutes over my time. In conclusion, I say that the Emergency Powers Act envisaged the total mobilisation of the nation. We had compulsory military service introduced in this House, and we had it in circumstances in which it was opposed. National Service to-day is not opposed. Until the whole resources of this country—men, women and property—are mobilised for the prosecution of the war, we cannot hope by our own conscious efforts to defeat Germany.
I do not think that any one could complain of the attitude that has been adopted towards the Government in this Debate to-day. The problems of the mobilisation and the organisation of a nation like this will be accepted by all hon. Members as no easy task. One thing I have noticed in the Debate, however, is a complete absence of any reference to the psychological character of the British people that have to be mobilised. When I took office and these powers were granted—I did not expect them when I took office—I had to consider immediately how and in what way should the Department be handled in dealing with man-power. Whatever may be my other weaknesses, I think I can claim that I understand the working-classes of this country. I had to determine whether I would be a leader or a dictator. I preferred, and still prefer, to be a leader, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham Harbour (Mr. Shinwell) had taken office, having regard to the speech he made this morning, I assume that he would have taken the other road, that of being a dictator. That is a test which we must apply as to which is likely to produce the best results.
I suggest that there is no comparison between service in the Army and service in industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will tell you why. In the Army you have a personnel trained as officers. In industry you have never built up or established anything comparable in the nature of management or control. Is it suggested that the officers, of industry should be taken willy-nilly from the directors' boards? I suggest that the very incompetence which has been described to-day is more attributable to the traditional policy of directorates than to anything else. Therefore, if you had to improvise an Army as you had to improvise the mobilisation of man-power in industry, with men of the same calibre in control without training, I suggest you would have a most unfortunate Army. The Army, the Navy and the Air Force have not only had a long tradition in building up and training specialists in officers and in man-power, but they have a technique—they also have a character in relation to their men—which is very difficult to produce by a stroke of the pen when you have to apply it suddenly to the great man-power of industry.
May I ask one question? In making that statement, does my right hon. Friend take into account the enormous increase which has had to take place in the Army and in the Services generally as compared with industry?
I have taken all that into account, and to the credit of the Forces they have established a basis, laid down over a period of years, to meet an expansion of this character. Had we proceeded to apply conscription of labour in the manner indicated, I suggest we should have made direct for defeat. Let me then try to visualise the position as I found it when I took office. There was chaos throughout the whole industrial field. Employers were advertising for skilled labour everywhere. In a limited market, trade union agreements were being demoralised. Over a wide field of industry, although men were members of their employers' associations and parties to the agreements, they totally ignored their word of honour to keep those agreements and the whole trade union influence and executive control over their members were undermined. In addition, the practice had grown up of agents visiting men's houses with money in their pockets to bribe men to leave one firm and go to another. That was the situation when I took office. How was I to stop it?
Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland? Why is he not here?
The Secretary of State for Scotland had left for me, in preparation, a draft Order to try to remedy this position by means of prohibiting advertising. He himself would have agreed that that would not have been sufficient.
On a point of Order. In the circumstances, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, would it not be convenient that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be present to hear the criticism that the right hon. Gentleman has just made of his predecessor? He has just described conditions when he took office as chaotic.
That is not a matter which rests with me.
May we not in the circumstances appeal to whoever is leading the House at the present moment that the Secretary of State for Scotland should if possible be asked to attend?
I have not said a word in criticism of my predecessor. I know that when this problem of labour is to be faced, and faced fairly, I probably create resentment in the minds of certain Members, but I am going to state the facts whatever the interruptions may be. The powers that deal with this problem about which I am now going to speak had not then been given by this House. I am referring to the chaos that had been created in industry and in no word I have said have I offered a criticism of the administration of his Department by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I was referring to the conditions that existed outside in industry, and I made that perfectly clear.
The next problem that had to be faced was how the abuses going on between employés and employers could be checked. The Restriction on Engagement Order was applied. I then proceeded to establish labour supply committees and a labour inspectorate. The duty of this inspectorate was to inspect the works of the country with a view to rationing the skilled labour. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) asks how many workers have been moved. I cannot say, because the movement is going on all the time, according to the changing orders from the Supply Departments; but I will give the figure for one aircraft works, which shall be nameless. When I introduced this inspectorate, during the first few weeks that I was in office, the amount of skilled labour—using the term in its ordinary sense, as meaning apprenticed labour— in that works was 28 per cent. I then proceeded with training, and brought trainees from my training centres to fill up that works, taking skilled men from that works to open other works for the expanding aircraft industry, so that we could get a spread, or a rationing, of tool-makers and other people. That works to-day has 9 per cent. of skilled workers, as against 28 per cent. when I took office seven months ago; and it has increased its production enormously by the use of new methods. That instance can be multiplied all over the country.
It is said that Germany does this so much better. I have here a circular issued by the German Labour Ministry to their staff in Germany. I will summarise it. In the first place, it says that pressure on the labour market is admitted, that special measures are necessary to increase still more supplies of semi-skilled workers and trainees. It admits that the need for economy in skilled workers is not fully recognised by industry—this sounds something like my own speeches—and that the expansion of training schemes for semi-skilled workers is urgent. It admits that the result of closing down undertakings was not up to requirements, that the stringency of the employment situation makes necessary the withdrawal of labour from other undertakings, that short time is being winked at in industry in order to hold on to men, and that this requires immediate attention. One of the most striking things that is said is that they must appeal to women to enter industry, and that they must make new provisions for training. [ Interruption. ] This was in May.
In May?
At the same time as I took office. Last month Germany proceeded to compel people to work long hours and to hand over to the State two hours' pay every day—I believe, speaking from memory, that it was two hours—as a contribution to the war effort. The resistance of workers, even in Germany, was such, and production fell to such a point, that during the last month the German Government have had to agree to pay the men that two hours' overtime. That leads me to the belief that working men are very much alike all over the world, and that if you apply compulsion, you do not get good results. I am certain that this idea of ordering working people to do work for which they have never been trained would not be successful. One of the big contributions to the French disaster was the industrial decrees, instituted at the outbreak of war, which failed to get enthusiasm in the workshops behind the productive effort.
My hon. Friend told me that I was not doing enough in training. Let us try to get the picture as clearly as I can. When we took office, as the Minister without Portfolio stated, the Dunkirk business immediately followed. The equipment of nine divisions went, and we had to go into production immediately the best way we could. We could not plan anything. We had to rely upon the enthusiasm of the people, and well did they respond. You cannot train without machine-tools. Training was delayed in the workshops and in the training centres because every machine-tool which was then available and of which we could get hold had to be used for production, and in addition every skilled man available had to be used. We had to strike a very careful balance in regard to training in the workshop. Much depends on what you are training for. If you are merely training for repetition work, the matter is simple, but if you are training for the higher branches it must be remembered that you have to take a man off production to train another man, and even if you "double-bank" in the workshop you have to slow down the production of the man who is "double-banking" in order to train the other. Therefore, a balance had to be struck with very great care, and there was a delay of three or four months until we could begin training both in the factory and outside.
One of the most baffling questions in this respect is the problem of women. Women were drawn into industry in the last war largely on repetition work, but so far, in this war there has not been the capacity work, the drain on man-power or the removals to the same extent as there was in 1917–18. Therefore the turnover in regard to giving opportunities to women has not been anything like what it was at the end of the last war. But, as I shall show later, if I have time, that the demand is now developing, due to the increase of man-power for the Services and for the production programme.
Let us see what we have done. First of all, we succeeded in settling a problem in industry that had baffled everybody for generations—how to get the skilled man in the right place, away from repetition work to where you want him. I felt rather pleased that within 48 hours I was able to get the trades together and obtain a voluntary agreement. I want to emphasise that fact. I am glad that they did it by voluntary agreement, because it is that which has made it work, and if I had come down as Minister of Labour and put it into an Order it might never have worked. But, of their own volition, they solved the problem for us and it has brought the skilled man back into the position in which he ought to be, and I hope that that position will be permanent. I think that skill has never been evaluated properly in this country. We are criticised sometimes for not getting on as fast as we might. I do not mind such criticism from a good many people, but as one who was not then in the House and who went on deputations to Ministries day in and day out as a trade union official, asking them to put work in hand so as to preserve our skilled labour— which they would not do—it seems to me a little bit galling that we should be blamed—
Members of the late Cabinet?
I am not attacking any persons, but I was for a long time trying to preserve a skill which is more valuable to us than that of many of us in this House.
There were no armament orders.
I hope that there will be sufficient intelligence in this country to preserve our skill, even in a disarmed country, at the end of this war. The other point with regard to training which I would ask the House to bear in mind is very vital. The Amalgamated Engineering Union and other unions of skilled workers have entered into agreement with the employers and with us to train people in workshops at Government training rates if those persons are not to be employed by their employers. I think that is a very great concession on the part of the Amalgamated Union and other skilled trades. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said that if men were trained in a workshop they ought not to be paid workshop rates. All I can say is that the principle we have followed is this: we have tried to preserve trade union traditions by which if a person is trained by an employer in a workshop, and is going on to work for that employer, who will profit by the training as well as the man, there should be a recognised rate for that trainee. I hope that principle will be maintained. There is a graduated rate in accordance with the industrial agreement with the unions. If a person is being trained in a workshop in order to go to another workshop, or is taken away by the Ministry of Labour, then we pay the training allowances to the man during the training. The employer's contribution is machine tools, space and so on, and we pay the cost of the instruction.
It was suggested that training allowances are not adequate. Well, it might have been better to pay a straight rate, but what we are doing is this: If a man is at home he is paid 26s. a week for himself, 15s. for his wife, 4s. for each of the first two dependent children and 3s. or each other child. That brings a man to a higher standard rate than is being paid in many cases for the lowest grade of labour, if he is a family man. If the man is away from home, he is paid the cost of board and lodging, 8s. for pocket money and 30s. a week for his wife, with allowances for dependent children as I have quoted. I think that on the whole is not a bad arrangement by which to train a man for a trade. I have moved it away from the basis of unemployment benefit altogether. I want now to deal with unemployment figures lest it should be suggested that the time has gone and the matter was not dealt with.
Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with that matter, will he tell us why, in spite of all his splendid achievements with regard to labour, production has not increased?
I entirely dispute that. I ask hon. Members to look at the earnings figure in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. I suppose when I say that, questions will be put to me as to whether too much money is being paid. I say that because of the questions that were put to me in the House some time ago. The only accurate test I can make is the bonus earnings. There is no other real test. When I was in the Midlands and examined the three works to which the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) referred, I tested three graphs in those large works, where they are working strictly according to the hours I suggested, that is to say, 56 hours, with a ten minutes break, and so forth. The bonus earnings had gone up from 25 per cent, to 77 per cent. That is the test. I ask hon. Members, before making these statements, to ask employers in the great engineering industries whether the bonus earnings have gone up, and if they have gone up, that is the great test of output.
Is it not possible to get some clarity in these figures? In this Debate hon. Members have asked the right hon. Gentleman again and again whether it is not possible for him to give the percentage increase in production necessary for war purposes within the last few months.
I have no doubt that the Noble Lord—and Hitler—would like that answer. I am not going to give the percentage. The tests that have been made show that, in spite of bombing and everything else, we are making a very great increase, and that increase is being maintained. I have been asked some questions about the unemployment figures, and the suggestion is that I have altered the presentation of those figures—if I understood correctly the implications of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport—in order to cloud the figures. I felt that the time had come to get a real analysis of unemployment. However long I am Minister of Labour, I will not take the responsibility—and I hope that no other Minister of Labour will do so—for the number of unemployed. I must take my share of responsibility as a member of the Government, but not as Minister of Labour. My duty as Minister of Labour is to supply men. The responsibility and duty with regard to unemployment must be with the Supply Departments and private industry, for it is a question of whether they are using up the labour I am supplying. I always tookthis view a long time before I came to the House.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that he is Minister of Labour and National Service.
I will not deal with that point now. I have made it quite clear that as Minister of Labour I supply labour. The National Service Act referred primarily to the military situation when that title was placed upon the Department. There are four categories with which the Ministry have to deal. There is the hard core of unemployment, which has been the bugbear of the Department for a long time. The local employment committees have examined nearly every case, and I thank them publicly for the work they have done. Their patience has been marvellous.
Time will not permit me to go into further details. [ Interruption. ] I am told I must finish, and that is why every time I am interrupted I cannot give the information that is wanted. I find, as a result of this inquiry, that out of the unemployed figure we have roughly 80,000 to 85,000 cases in which it is doubtful that we can put them back into employment. I am asking the committees to perform another inquiry to see how many of these people can be used in lighter employment, so that some of those who have been crippled in industry and so on can release others to undertake work of a heavier character. I am now asking the committees to go into the problem of women, who are in a different category. Of the 93,000 men temporarily stopped, I find at this moment that 60 per cent, are largely in the mining industry or associated with it. No Minister of Labour or anyone else can help it, because it is the result of the collapse of the Continental market. I have been discussing and examining the problem with the Secretary for Mines, and we are establishing tribunals to see how many men can be spared from the mining industry for the Army, so that we can transfer the unemployed to take their place in the industry.
I have been told that I cannot draw a general line at which to fix the age of reservation because of the skilled work in the different occupations; therefore the question will have to be dealt with on its merits. When we take account of the hardcore in the figure of 309,000 wholly unemployed men we find that perhaps 200,000 represents the available wholly unemployed reserve. There is a turnover in industry, and one of the things I have been striving at has been to reduce it. The turnover is one of the most costly things in industry. Employers and managements, having had so many unemployed for so long, have never really studied it, until they have now come up against it. In some industries, before I was a Member of this House, I got employers to discuss the turnover as a practical proposition, and in the great chemical industry over a period of 10 years we reduced the turnover from 40 per cent, to 3 per cent., with great gain to that industry. The turnover of labour accounts for a considerable part of the unemployment total. This unemployment figure of 600,000 to 700,000 has therefore to be analysed with great care, not in order to minimise its importance, but to understand its consequences and its implications, so that we can grapple with the problem. That is what we are doing every day of our lives.
Now I wish to say a word about, women. The wholly unemployed in October, 1939, were 358,000, as against the present figure of 257,000. But in this case we have two problems thrown up. One is that the figure has been accentuated by evacuation, particularly during the present bombing attacks. To get over that trouble I have now issued an order that every woman available for work who has been evacuated must register at the nearest exchange in order that we can get in touch with her. If you assumed that I had at the disposal of industry thousands of unemployed, and you based your calculation on their productive capacity, you would be entirely misled. What we have to do to meet the programme is to proceed, as we are doing, to a complete survey of the remaining man-power of the country and then proceed to achieve two objects. Between now and next June there will be another enormous call-up for the Services. The flow of the tide of materials will be changed, and new factories which were not built, and have had to be built, are now coming into use. That is beginning to make a very large demand on a contracted labour market, and steps are now being taken to expand the call for personnel out of people who have never been in industry before. In the second category, we have the people who will be affected by the restriction orders of the Board of Trade. With regard to those restriction orders, hon. Members will not ask me to name places, but the scheme that has been worked out is this: There is close liaison between the Board of Trade supply departments and ourselves, and we are hoping that in each case where new factories are going on they can be so arranged that the workers will not be more than five miles from the place where the manufacture takes place. That is very vital, because it wipes out billeting troubles, transfer troubles and the rest of it.
May I say a word about transport? I have during the past few weeks, with the help of the Minister of Transport, established in several places in the country joint committees of industry, transport concerns and Government Departments in order that transport may be regarded as a part of our production efforts. I want to see such staggering of hours—it does not mean more than about half or three-quarters of an hour each way to do it— that in the majority of cases we get a person from his home to his work in half-an-hour. That is the objective that I have urged, and experience has shown that where you can get a person from his home to the factory in half to three-quarters of an hour, as against the hour or two hours that it is taking now in many cases, you increase production by, 9 or 10 per cent. In addition to increasing production by bringing in more personnel, we have been studying methods to increase the production of the existing personnel. To do that, I have established welfare orders, canteen orders, and all kind> of things. I am urging that more attention shall be paid to feeding, welfare, amenities and transport. If you can increase the production of the existing personnel, it is far more valuable to the State than having to bring in thousands of others.
It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting day.
National Expenditure
Ordered,
"That Sir Charles MacAndrew be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure and that Mr. Pickthorn be added to the Committee."—[ Mr. Boulton. ]
Privileges
Ordered,
"That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Ten Members."
Committee accordingly nominated of: Mr. Attlee, the Attorney-General, Mr. Clynes, Sir George Courthope, Mr. Denman, Colonel Gretton, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Lambert, Sir Hugh O'Neill and Earl Winterton.
Ordered,
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."
Ordered,
"That Five be the quorum."—[ Mr. Boulton. ]
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
Adjournment
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Boulton. ]