House of Commons
Wednesday, December 4, 1940
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
Private Business
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Shipley) Bill,
"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Urban District of Shipley"; presented by Mr. Malcolm MacDonald; read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 3.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Tangier
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position at Tangier; whether the area is now a Spanish Protectorate; and whether the Italian submarines are still in the harbour, and Italian sailors free to move about?
On 1st December a law was published in Madrid establishing a new juridical régime for the Tangier Zone under which the laws which apply to the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco will also have force in the Tangier Zone. One of the articles of this law provides that in consideration of the special circumstances obtaining in the Zone, such measures as may be considered indispensable together with special and suitable regulations will be framed with temporary or indefinite application to this Zone. The precise effect of the document is not yet clear. His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid has been informed by the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs that Spain will guarantee peace and will secure the economic rights of all foreigners in the Tangier Zone. In accordance with the instructions he had already received, His Majesty's Ambassador left the Spanish Government in no doubt regarding the attitude of His Majesty's Government to further unilateral Spanish action in the Zone, and fully reserved His Majesty's Government's position.
The two damaged Italian submarines are still in Tangier. On 29th November His Majesty's Ambassador renewed his inquiries of the Spanish Government as to the length of time they would be allowed for repairs. His Majesty's Government have been promised an immediate reply. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative.
In view of the guarantee of peace, can my right hon. Friend say anything about the attack on the British Legation which was reported by the B.B.C. last night?
I think that report is a great exaggeration. I regret to say that a party of Italians did attack the British post office, for the purpose of taking down certain publicity notices, but I can inform the House that His Majesty's Consul-General has already protested to the Governor of the Zone, who has promised to take every precaution against any recurrence of such an incident. These British premises are now being guarded by the Administration authorities, and the publicity notices in question have been replaced.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what precisely he means by "further unilateral action" against which His Majesty's Government would protest, and are steps being taken to insist that no permanent fortifications shall be erected?
The answer to the first part of that question is that we regard the law of 1st December as a further example of unilateral action. With regard to the latter part of the question, I have already informed the hon. Member that since the original Spanish occupation of the Zone there has been a reinforcement of the Spanish forces, and to that extent the position is not satisfactory. I cannot go further.
But will the right hon. Gentleman insist that there shall be no permanent work of fortifications?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British authorities in Tangier have endeavoured to make independent inquiries to ascertain to what extent these submarines are damaged, and how long they ought to be allowed to stay?
Yes, Sir, we have done our best to procure the information, which I know the House would desire to have. I am satisfied that the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs is fully aware of the importance which we attach to this matter, and I hope that he will shortly give us a favourable reply about these two submarines.
Shall we make it plain to the Spanish Government that if these submarines are kept beyond the legitimate time, we shall cut them out?
We have made our disapproval of the time they are being kept perfectly plain.
Will the right hon. Gentleman state that he will insist upon the Italian culprits being properly punished, as well as further protection being given to our property for the future?
Have British vessels been debarred from entering the habour?
I should want notice of the question of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). In reply to the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg), the incident caused by the Italians has been taken up with the Governor of the Zone, and he has given us satisfaction. I understand that he regards the incident with as much disapproval as we do.
Lena Goldfields Agreement
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the reason why the Soviet Government have refused to remit to London for the first time the amount of £92,500 due under the Lena Goldfields Agreement?
His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow has been instructed to take this question up with the Soviet Government.
Can my right hon. Friend say what is the reason for this?
It is in order to find out the reason that we have taken the matter up with the Soviet Government.
Would it not be better to have a general settlement of all outstanding questions between the two countries?
General settlements are always very desirable.
Spain (Dr. Negrin)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been received from the Spanish Government with reference to the presence of Dr. Negrin in this country; and what reply has been sent?
My Noble Friend is not prepared to state the nature of diplomatic exchanges which have taken place on this subject, however informal they may have been.
Can my right hon. Friend say why it was made clear to Dr. Negrin that if he cared to go to the United States, or cared to go on a lecture tour to New Zealand, His Majesty's Government would not regard such a proceeding with any marked disapproval?
I can only say, what has been already stated in public, that His Majesty's Government have taken no steps to oblige Dr. Negrin to leave this country against his will, nor is any such action in contemplation.
Can we have an assurance from the Government that they will not tolerate any representations from the Spanish Government which interfere with the right of asylum in this country?
The right of asylum in this country is well known, and has been referred to by various members of the Government, including my Noble Friend, and the hon. Member may rest assured that the British reputation for hospitality will not be impaired.
Far East (Situation)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information about the transference of Japanese troops from Central China to French Indo-China, the creation of further air and naval bases in the latter country and peace overtures by Japanese agents to General Chiang-kai-Shek; and whether, in view of a threatened Japanese drive into South-East Asia, he will consult with the United States of America Government on measures of defence in this part of the world?
Certain information has been received by my Noble Friend on the matters mentioned in the first part of the Question. As regards the latter part, His Majesty's Government are keeping in touch with the United States Government on all questions of mutual interest in the Far East.
Does that include naval and similar matters regarding mutual defence in the Far East?
I think the hon. Member can be assured that all these important considerations are in mind.
Will the Government consider making a loan to China similar to that made by the United States? Would not such a loan have an admirable effect in both China and the United States?
The Pacific
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the conversations which have taken place between His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, the Australian Minister at Washington and Mr. Cordell Hull on the question of security in the Pacific?
No, Sir, not at present.
Great Britain, United States and Russia
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the progress of the efforts by the Government of the United States of America to improve the relations between the United States of America, Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
My Noble Friend is not prepared to make a statement on the subject of the relations between the United States and Soviet Governments. But, as has often been stated in this House, His Majesty's Government are glad to welcome any developments likely to maintain and improve their own relations with the U.S.S.R.
Will His Majesty's Government use the present opportunity to do something to meet the Russian objections to their original proposals?
We are always looking for means to get round difficulties.
Is there a possibility of the representatives of this country and of America and of the Soviet Republic meeting together?
I should like notice of that Question.
Royal Air Force
Billeting Accommodation and Allowances
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that excessive charges are being made to pilots and other officers of the Royal Air Force who have to seek accommodation near their place of duty; that frequent complaints have been made recently by such officers and their wives whose resources are being strained, and who are thus subjected to unwarranted inconvenience and hardship; and whether, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, he will seek to impose penalties on such persons as are thus hampering our national effort?
I have received no complaints of the kind referred to. Officers themselves are either accommodated in quarters on their station or in requisitioned accommodation or are provided with billets. Married quarters are not provided at public expense in wartime, and any question of excessive charges for married accommodation secured by private arrangement raises a point of general policy in regard to accommodation in public demand. If my hon. Friend has knowledge of any instances of excessive charges, I shall be glad to bring these to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
Has my hon. and gallant Friend followed the correspondence which has appeared in the Press recently, in which categorical state- ments have been made by officers, or at any rate officers' wives, about the prohibitive charges for billets near encampments of the Royal Air Force, and will he not protect those officers and their families from exhorbitant charges?
Indeed I have read the correspondence in the Press. Married quarters are not provided at the public expense, and while I fully agree that excessive charges in an area where there is a great demand for accommodation and a limited supply should be put down, that is a general question which is within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and if I can find any cases, I am only too glad to bring them to his attention.
13.
asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether, as the cost of living has risen by 12 points since 1st May, he will cause suitable inquiries to be made with a view to increasing the billeting allowance for airmen; and, in particular, whether he will consider a sliding scale varying with the cost of living;
(2) whether, as billeting allowances which may be reasonable in the case of a private house are unprofitable in the case of a boarding-house, he will pay a wage to the landlady in order to enable her to earn a living?
I have received no general representations for an increase of billeting allowances, which, in all the circumstances, are considered to be adequate for the different classes of billetors. The rates were raised to their present level some six months ago, and are kept under constant review.
Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that there has been a very steep rise in the price of certain essential foodstuffs and that, at the present time, landladies are nevertheless expected to give the same amount of food for the price?
I will certainly bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend. We are keeping this matter under constant review.
Would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the reason why he has not received repre- sentations is that these women are not well organised?
asked the Secretary of State for Air, whether, in view of the fact that when boarding-houses have been requisitioned for the use of airmen, other visitors cannot be taken in, he will pay a retaining fee when beds are unoccupied?
The billeting regulations already provide for payments to be made in respect of accommodation temporarily unoccupied. Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me particulars of the type of case he has in mind.
Questions
Ministry of Aircraft Production (Liaison Officers)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production the number of people engaged under him as liaison officers?
There are several kinds of liaison officer in this Department, and if my hon. Friend will let me know the category he has in mind, I shall, subject to the public interest, be glad to furnish the information he requires.
Royal Navy (H.M.S. "Glorious")
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will publish the names and addresses of the known survivors of His Majesty's Ship "Glorious," His Majesty's ship "Acastra," and His Majesty's ship "Ardente," so that those whose friends and relatives were lost in that disaster or are missing may be able to communicate with them?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 12th November, to which I have nothing to add.
Will the hon. Gentleman given an undertaking that, if relatives of people who are killed or maimed apply to the Admiralty for the name of a survivor, that name will be given, so that they can communicate?
I do not think that I can give that undertaking. Survivors have already been communicated with and exhaustively questioned, and any information about missing men that they have been able to supply has been passed on to the relatives of the missing men. To do what the hon. Gentleman asks would impose a very painful task upon the survivors and would have the effect only of disappointing the relatives.
Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that relatives of missing people want to be able to do what I suggest?
I am sure that if we allowed them to do it, no useful purpose would be achieved.
Are not two out of three of the ships wrongly described in the Question, and may we not, at least, have their names properly spelt?
Yes, Sir, that is a fact.
Jamaica (Economic Conditions)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give the House respecting present political and economic conditions in Jamaica?
As in this country, wartime restrictions on trade have affected all classes in the island. Until very recently there has been no difficulty in marketing the Colony's principal products. The decision just taken by His Majesty's Government to suspend the importation of bananas for a period of two months particularly affects Jamaica, but, as I am explaining in a reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) to-day, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend, measures have already been taken to safeguard the position of growers, and the position generally is under examination. As regards political conditions in the island, there is nothing at present to report.
Is my hon. Friend satisfied that all necessary and possible measures are being taken to cope with the undoubted distress in the island at the present time?
Yes, Sir, I am satisfied of that.
In view of the fact that a sum of money now becomes available for banana growing, may I ask whether any of it is likely to be distributed among the workers concerned with the plantations?
I understand that the major portion of the banana growers in Jamaica are of the small peasant class and that the amount of money which the Government are paying for bananas will go almost entirely to that class.
Trinidad
Women Teachers (Dismissal)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that two women teachers were dismissed from a Trinidad training college because they had addressed a trade union meeting; and whether, as the college receives a grant-in-aid from the Government, he will make inquiries with a view to their reinstatement?
This matter has already been brought to the notice of my Noble Friend, and he is now awaiting the result of inquiries on the subject which he has made of the Governor of Trinidad. When these are received I shall communicate with my hon. Friend.
Trade Union Meetings
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the difficulty of trade union meetings in Trinidad owing to the number of persons permitted to congregate in the open air being limited to 20; whether, in view of the difficulty of meeting in halls he will consider advising a modification of the present restrictions; and whether he is aware of protests by trade unions against the present restrictions?
Outdoor meetings have not been limited to gatherings of not more than 20 persons, but permission must first be obtained for more than 20 persons to hold meetings in public places. No complaints in this connection have been received from the larger trade unions, but one of the smaller trade unions has protested against the present restrictions. I understand that in no case has any application for a trade union meeting been refused, nor is it the intention in any way to use this control to obstruct trade union development.
Am I to take it from the answer of my hon. Friend that the protest from this alleged minor trade union is without foundation?
Yes, Sir; according to the information received from the Governor, it is.
Questions
Mauritius (Municipal Election)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the municipal elections in Mauritius have again been postponed; and, if so, for what reason?
The municipal council of Port Louis, which is the only municipality in Mauritius, has passed a resolution in favour of postponing the municipal election for a further year. It is doubtful, however, whether the election can lawfully be postponed again, and the Governor has decided that it should proceed. It will be held, I understand, on 9th December.
East Africa (Military Labour Service)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the recent regulations for recruiting a native labour unit in Kenya?
Yes, Sir. In response to a request from the military authorities in East Africa, the Secretary of State approved last August the formation of an East Africa Military Labour Service unit. The force will be employed on the construction of military roads and camps, and other duties with the troops such as cooking. It will be under the control of the general officer commanding, East Africa, and its members will receive Army scales of remuneration, rations and clothes, at the rate prescribed by law for the East Africa Military Labour Service, and also medical attention. Provision can be made by regulations under the Kenya Military Units Ordinance for the payment of pensions and gratuities to members of the Military Labour Service unit. I understand that the creation of the labour service has been favourably received by the Africans and that applications for enrolment far exceed the number of men required.
While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to give an assurance, in view of the tremendous number of deaths and diseases in the last campaign of the last war, that the most ample steps will be taken to safeguard health conditions and to prevent disease, and that adequate arrangements will be made in respect of separation allowances and for dependants in the event of death?
I have, by correspondence, assured my hon. Friend that every precaution is taken on the lines he suggests, and if he will read very carefully the letter which I sent him a few days ago, he will see that those assurances are given.
In the case of polygamous African labourers, how many wives will receive separation allowance?
I must have notice of that Question.
Do I gather from my hon. Friend's answer whether any of these troops are to be used as carriers?
No, Sir. Great care has been taken to impress the Africans that the East African Labour Service unit will be on very different lines from the Carrier Corps in the last war, regarding which there was very much discontent.
Do we understand that recruiting for this service is to be by the voluntary system?
I said that the creation of this service has been favourably received and that applications for enrolment far exceed the number of men required. That is the position to-day.
Colonies (War Effort)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the importance of training and using all our man-power, what actual steps have yet been taken in any Colony to commence manufacture by assembly of capital and engineering instructors and acquisition of land?
It has not been possible to promote any substantial developments of manufacturing industry for war purposes in the Colonial Dependencies, mainly because of the non-availability of plant for such factories, the supply of which is not within the control of Colonial administrations. The whole matter has, however, been under review at the Delhi Conference, the report of which is now awaited. Small developments are already taking place in individual Dependencies. Facilities for technical instruction already exist in the principal centres. No difficulty need be expected in securing the land necessary for such works as my right hon. Friend refers to in the Question.
Palestine
Illegal Jewish Immigrants
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what has become of the 1,771 illegal Jewish immigrants who recently arrived at Haifa; and why they were not admitted like the other non-Jewish refugees from Rumania?
The persons in question, who all came from enemy or enemy-occupied territory, were intercepted in an attempt to enter Palestine against what is well known to be the law of the country. His Majesty's Government, while not lacking in sympathy for refugees from territories under German control, can only regard the revival of attempts at illegal immigration at the present juncture as likely to affect the local situation most adversely and to prove a serious menace to British interests in the Middle East. They accordingly decided that these persons, and any further parties who may succeed in reaching Palestine with a view to illegal entry, should be sent to a British Colony for detention for the duration of the war.
As the right hon. Member will be aware, the steamship "Patria," on which the first contingent of illegal immigrants had already been embarked, sank in Haifa Harbour on 25th November as the re sult of an explosion. The causes of this disaster are still under investigation but it has been decided by His Majesty's Government, as an exceptional act of mercy, after taking all circumstances into consideration and in particular the harassing experience undergone by survivors, not to proceed with the proposal to send these particular persons overseas. They will accordingly be allowed to stay in Palestine subject to existing regulations, and their number will be deducted from the next immigration quota.
The position remains unchanged as regards all other illegal immigrants who have arrived recently off the coast of Palestine or may arrive hereafter. They will be sent overseas as soon as the necessary shipping arrangements can be made. The case of these illegal immigrants is entirely different from that of other refugees admitted into Palestine on a purely temporary basis after careful investigation of their bona fides.
May I ask when this deplorable occurrence took place and why the public were not informed of it? Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister of Shipping how it came about that one of our ships so badly needed at the present time was sacrificed in this way. Thirdly—
The right hon. Member must confine himself to one question.
I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.
War Effort
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can, without disclosing details likely to be of use to the enemy, state what use is being made of the industrial resources of Palestine to provide munitions and supplies for our war effort?
The potentialities of Palestine as a supplier of certain war materials, both for this country and for the use of military forces on the spot, have not been overlooked. The High Commissioner has appointed an Industrial Production Advisory Board, and delegates from Palestine have participated in the recent Eastern Group Conference at Delhi. As my Noble Friend infers, however, it would not be in the public interest to give details of actual supplies.
When the hon. Gentleman refers to potentialities, are we to infer that there has been no actual development? If so, can he say why, in view of the desperate need of supplies of the Empire at the present time, 14 months have elapsed before this matter has been developed?
It is not suggested that no developments have taken place. My Noble Friend will see in a reply which I gave on 16th October that some development has taken place.
But is it true that that development has not been helped in any way by the Government?
Transport
Damaged Houses (Furniture Removal)
asked the Minister of Transport, whether he is aware that gross profiteering is still taking place over the removal of furniture belonging to the homeless or evacuated; and whether he will take steps to control price and the use of removal lorries, and take other necessary steps to deal with the problem?
No, Sir, I have no evidence to the effect indicated in the Question. As I have already stated in this House, I am investigating all cases of alleged profiteering brought to my notice and have so far found only a few cases of overcharge. In these I have secured adjustments, either by refund or by reduction in estimates. The situation will continue to be watched ad the possibility of controlling removal charges borne in mind.
Will there be a possibility of regulating the prices to be charged per mile according to space required in a van?
I have looked into that matter. There are many difficulties, among them that of getting furniture out of damaged houses in the blackout.
Evacuees (Visitors)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make arrangements to secure that persons desiring to visit members of their family who are evacuated may do so at the cheap rates provided for travelling and returning by any train?
I recognise that the conditions under which visits may now be made to evacuees at reduced fares involve certain difficulties and anomalies, which I am now looking into. I hope to make a statement on the position at a very early date.
May I put a question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman next week?
Certainly, Sir.
Will there be issued to intending travellers at Christmas time any warning of the danger not only of their being disappointed at not seeing their relatives, but of not arriving at their destinations at all, in view of the great congestion which may arise on the railways accompanied by fog or snow or enemy action?
The hon. Member knows very well that I am trying to discourage as much as possible all transport by rail at Christmas. Perhaps this exchange of courtesies between the hon. Member and myself might be given publicity.
While the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is attempting to discourage excessive traffic at Christmas time, is he aware that the Postmaster-General is boasting about normal facilities provided that postage is done earlier? Could not there be given by wireless a warning that if persons are admitted in large numbers to railway stations, there is a considerable danger they will not be able to find places in the trains?
The first part of that Question is, of course, the concern of the Postmaster-General. I would say, however, that parcels do not object to overcrowding so much as do persons. The other point is, of course, quite understood. If there will not be extra trains, the encouragement to travel at Christmas will not exist.
Workers (Travel Facilities)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will at once have an investigation made into the transport services available for workpeople in the North Staffordshire area, and the City of Stoke-on-Trent in particular, and take into consultation the city council, the North Staffordshire Trades Council and the Chamber of Commerce, and see that immediate action is taken to improve the services?
Following representations from the Stoke-on-Trent City Council, the Regional Transport Commissioner has investigated the passenger transport position. The organisations mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question will be consulted about the measures proposed in order to improve the local services.
I cannot state in public why attention should be given to this matter, but if I send a statement to the Minister, will he give early attention to it?
Yes, Sir.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the travelling facilities for workpeople in industrial areas and, if not, what steps are being taken to improve the services, as many people have to stand from 10 to 30 minutes, often in rain, which does not tend to maintain production or preserve the health of those concerned; and will he give instructions that the services should be so organised that workpeople's services will cater for all within a reasonable time?
I am always prepared to investigate any specific complaint of inadequacy of travelling facilities for workpeople in industrial areas, and if my hon. Friend has in mind any particular service and will give me particulars, I will make inquiries. He will, however, realise that it is quite impossible in present circumstances to ensure that in no case will passengers have to wait for transport.
Loud-Speakers (Railway Stations)
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the confusion and bewilderment existing among passengers on the railways owing to trains running behind scheduled times; and whether he will get in communication with railway officials to draw their attention to it and arrange for them to use loud-speakers on all stations to let passengers know what is happening and to try to give an approximate time when they may expect their train and the platform from which it will start or arrive?
Loudspeakers are installed at many stations where it is considered that useful assistance can be given to passengers by this means, and are used for the purpose suggested by my hon. Friend. I do not think that there is need for installation of loud-speakers at all stations.
Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman allow one of his officials to take a journey some evening and go through the same experience as I did last week? I could not find any indications, and numbers of soldiers were in a similar plight. Those are matters which require attention.
I wish the hon. Member would give me the name of the station so that the matter could be investigated. A number of these cases have been brought to my notice, and we are getting on with the problem; I think we have already made some improvement.
Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that one of the real difficulties is that of lighting? It is almost impossible to find one's way about a big station.
That is a new one on me.
Coal, Bristol (Railways Facilities)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the shortage of coal in Bristol due to inadequate railway facilities; and what steps is he taking to remedy this position?
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a shortage of coal in Bristol is attributed to an inadequate supply of railway wagons at the collieries; and what steps he is taking to meet the increasing requirements of this industrial city and seaport?
I have received representations from Bristol, and the position is under investigation. Meanwhile, in collaboration with my hon. Friend, the Secretary for Mines, I have offered to meet a deputation.
Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that since Spring, owing to transport difficulties, it has been impossible to build up adequate reserves and that, as there is now insufficient coal coming to Bristol to meet current consumption, these small reserves will be rapidly depleted, and will he treat this question as a matter of great urgency and danger?
I am aware of what my hon. Friend has said, but there are other places also in great danger of a shortage of fuel. Bristol is much nearer to supplies of coal than many other places.
In order to avoid congestion on the railways, will my right hon. and gallant Friend investigate the possibilities of transport by water, in view of the shortness of the distance across the Bristol Channel?
Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the population of Bristol has increased by 20,000 or 30,000?
All populations on the Great Western Railway have, I know, increased.
Canals
asked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to work the internal waterways to full capacity as a means of transport; and for what reason was the Kennet and Avon Canal, which carried a considerable volume of traffic from 1914 to 1918, thrown out of commission?
On the general point of canal transport, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 26th November to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Broxtowe Division (Mr. Cocks). The history of the Kennet and Avon Canal cannot be told within the compass of a Parliamentary answer, and I am sending my hon. Friend a note on the subject.
Will my right hon. and gallant Friend be good enough to give us figures which show the importance of the traffic carried by that canal, certainly as far as Devizes, during the last war; and will he also tell us what useful national purpose is served by keeping a large body of men to maintain the canal, which has been deliberately rendered derelict by officers of his own or some other Department?
I think my hon. Friend will see most of the figures in the note I have sent to him. I cannot help telling him, in the words once addressed to an hon. Member for Birmingham many years ago, that most of the canal schemes put up to us do not hold water.
Road Accidents
asked the Minister of Transport how many fatal accidents on the roads were recorded for the last month for which information is available; and in how many of those accidents were members of His Majesty's Forces involved?
The number of persons reported to have died during the month of October as a result of road accidents in Great Britain was 1,012. The information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.
Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling among the public that there is great negligence on the part of drivers of motor vehicles, who are great contributors to the number of accidents, and can he make any statement by representation through the Department to see that greater care is exercised?
I am aware that that feeling exists—I rather feel it myself—but I have no evidence to prove it. On the other hand, I will try to get separate figures as between civilians and the Army.
If the Minister is successful in getting these figures from the War Office, will he let me have them, because I have tried to get them from the War Office and they have not got them.
Oh no, they have not tried to get them.
Road Services, (Gloucester—Forest of Dean
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that long delays and inconvenience are caused to travellers by road returning in the evening from Gloucester to the Forest of Dean through insufficient service; that a considerable number of industrial workers as well as shoppers and general passengers use this route; and whether he will take steps to see that this service is improved?
No recent complaints of deficiency in the road transport services between Gloucester and the Forest of Dean have reached me. I have, however, asked the Regional Transport Commissioner to investigate the position, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
Traffic Priority
asked the Minister of Transport whether the priority categories established by the Ministry of Supply as regards production are recognised by him for transport purposes; and, if so, what system is adopted for securing priority to traffic included in these categories?
The priority categories for production do not necessarily coincide with the categories to which priority of transit is accorded, since different considerations apply. The goods to be accorded general priority of transit are determined by the Transport Priority Committee of the Production Council, on which are representatives of the Government Departments concerned in the transport of goods.
Motor Omnibuses, Scotland (Transfer to London)
asked the Minister of Transport how many motor omnibuses have been withdrawn from Scotland for service in London; and what steps he proposes to take to supplement the numbers of motor omnibuses where they are urgently required in industrial areas in Scotland?
Seventy-six motor omnibuses were transferred from Scotland for service in London, the transfer being on the under- standing that essential services in Scotland would not be unduly depleted.
Can my right hon. and gallant Friend personally see that where there is an acute shortage of motor transport in industrial areas owing to shortage of petrol, additional supplies of fuel will be made available, so as to permit of greater use of the motor vehicles already there?
I do not think my hon. and learned Friend can bring an example of the shortage of transport caused by shortage of petrol supplies. That would be very difficult for him to do. At present we are putting every form of motor vehicle on the road which it is possible to run, and my hon. Friend the Secretary for Petroleum is always prepared to give fuel for them.
May I give particulars of a case to my right hon. and gallant Friend?
Certainly, Sir.
Public-Service Vehicles (Window Protection)
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of recent experience, he will consider issuing an order that the windows of tramcars and omnibuses in London and elsewhere shall be treated with certain adhesive material or replaced by cellulose fabric as a protection against flying glass?
I recently circulated to the associations which represent public passenger transport operators suggestions for reducing the risk of injury by flying glass, and I expressed the hope that operators in vulnerable areas would adopt one or other of the methods of treatment suggested. I am making inquiries now to see how far these suggestions have been given effect.
Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the use of these forms of protection is desired by passengers, conductors and drivers in order to add to their safety, and is it his suggestion that the safety devices are to be fitted at the expense of the operators or owners of the vehicles?
I consider the fitting of these devices extremely desirable. The only question is regarding the areas to start with. On the second point, that of the charge, I will look into it.
Will my right hon. Friend communicate with the Minister of National Security with regard to the use of Hessian canvas, into which he is inquiring in pursuance of a Question which I put to him yesterday?
Questions
British Territories (Sovereignty)
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that the Government will not barter the sovereignty of any British territory in return for war supplies from foreign countries?
Yes, Sir.
Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in this connection the British people conceive themselves as fighting for the unity of the British Empire and for the liberty under the British flag of every part of it, and that therefore these suggestions, which emanate from foreign and possibly enemy sources, are very sinister in flavour?
That is a reason for not giving it further publicity.
Silicosis (Investigation)
asked the Lord President of the Council what progress is being made with the investigation into the problem of silicosis among anthracite and other coalminers; and when the report of the investigation will be issued?
The final stage of this extensive investigation has made good progress, notwithstanding some slight delay due to present conditions. The preparation of a first report, including a full account of the medical aspects of the work, is well advanced, and it is hoped to complete the draft of this report next month. Publication will follow as soon as possible.
Ministry of Supply
Wool, Northern Ireland
asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that, in an important town in Northern Ireland, hundreds normally engaged in the hosiery industry are unemployed because the required yarn cannot be obtained by the factories, while, in the country around, farmers have large quantities of wool deteriorating through lack of a market for it; and whether he will make inquiries and see that this wool is made available to relieve unemployment and for national needs?
Under present conditions it is necessary to ration the available supplies of woollen yarn among all users, and an equitable allocation is made to firms in the hosiery trade. If the factories referred to have difficulty in obtaining their ration, I shall be pleased to make inquiries on receiving particulars. All wool in the hands of Northern Ireland farmers is being taken over by the Ministry of Supply as rapidly as possible.
Can my right hon. Friend say how many days per week the present ration keeps the hosiery factories going?
Will my right hon. Friend take over the wool from Northern Ireland as quickly as possible? It is deteriorating rapidly.
That is what I said. It is being taken over as quickly as possible.
Munition Factory, Northern Ireland
asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the difficulty of obtaining travel permits to visit their families by men from Northern Ireland engaged in Britain on work of national importance, he will consider the urgency of having additional war factories established, at the earliest possible moment in Northern Ireland where these men can be employed as well as many others at present unemployed?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers to previous Questions on this subject. The question of setting up a munitions factory in Northern Ireland is again receiving close consideration.
Will my right hon. Friend promise that this will be proceeded with at the earliest possible moment? We have been waiting for a year and have received only promise after promise.
The decision which was taken on a previous occasion on the matter is now being reconsidered from a different angle.
Liaison Officers
asked the Minister of Supply the number of people engaged under him as liaison officers?
It is a normal part of Departmental duties to maintain liaison with other Departments. If my hon. Friend will let me know what kind of liaison work he has in mind, I shall endeavour to give him the information he desires.
Has my right hon. Friend any objection to giving the total number of men engaged under him as liaison officers, or would it be too great a shock? Is he aware that both within and outside his Department there is a feeling that far too many people are employed who have far too little to do?
I have tried to make myself as fully acquainted as possible with the feeling within the Department. I am not conscious of any feeling outside or inside that there are too many liaison officers. Liaison officers for the most part have other duties to perform, but they must keep the channel of communication with other Departments going.
Unused Tinplate Works, West Wales
asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that there exist in West Wales a number of unused tinplate works and unused factories which could be rapidly, and at little cost, converted into workshops for war production; and whether he will cause a survey to be made of these establishments?
Unused tinplate and other works in West Wales have been considered already for use on war production. Some are being held as alternative places of production in case damage is sustained elsewhere, but many of these tinplate works have been long disused, and would require much expenditure and extensive alterations before being in a condition for production for other purposes than tin-plate works. An investigation into the question of the best means of using the accommodation which they afford is now being conducted by a committee of the area board for Wales, as part of a general survey, and I should be glad of any detailed information or suggestions.
Timber Stocks
asked the Minister of Supply whether he will consider taking steps to distribute the timber stocks in the country in small quantities throughout the provinces to obviate possible loss in air raids, and see that transport is provided for this purpose?
As the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) was informed on 8th October, steps have already been taken to reduce the stocks of timber in vulnerable areas by removal of existing stocks and by diversion of fresh supplies, but it is essential to keep certain amounts of timber in these areas ready for urgent current work. Dispersal of stocks of timber is proceeding as rapidly as possible.
Property (Acquisition)
asked the Minister of Supply whether his attention has been called to the action of his Department in taking over a large property in May, 1940, and removing all plant and machinery therefrom without any agreement being concluded or payment made to date; and whether he will expedite completion of this purchase?
Yes, Sir; and, on representations already made to me, I have instructed that the representatives of the Ministry of Supply should, for their part, do all they can to expedite a satisfactory conclusion of the negotiations.
While appreciating what my right hon. Friend has said, might I ask whether the owners of the property can look forward to completion within a day or two?
I cannot say that it will be within a day or two; because, obviously, the completion depends as much upon the owners as upon the Ministry of Supply.
Does my right hon. Friend realise that the factory was taken over in May?
I do, but I also realise that since the factory was taken over the owners have changed their minds about the terms upon which the occupancy was decided upon.
Food Supplies
Imported Feeding-Stuffs, Northern Ireland
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in accordance with the promise made by the then Minister of Food on 25th January, 1940, he will see that Northern Ireland, as a part of the United Kingdom, continues to receive the same percentage of imported feeding-stuffs as Great Britain?
Yes, Sir.
Fish Prices
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in the public interest, it is intended to control the prices of fish?
My Noble Friend has the question of controlling the prices of fish under active consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.
Is the Minister aware that, in the North of England at least, the wholesale merchants, the retail dealers and the general public are strongly in favour of this course?
I am aware of that, and the matter is under consideration now; but this is not an easy commodity to control without considerable investigation.
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that any controlled price which tends to reduce the remuneration of the man who catches the fish, at immense risk, or of the owner of the boats, whose fleet has been greatly reduced by requisitioning, may still further reduce the supply of fish? Will he not consider whether control of prices accompanied by a subsidy would not be a better method of assisting the market?
I will consider that.
Rationed Foods (Restaurants, Ports)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will take steps to ensure that adequate quantities of rationed foods, and of other comestibles are made available for restaurants at certain ports where naval ratings and other ranks from time to time call in such numbers as to exhaust quickly the normal supplies in the restaurants?
Arrangements are already in force whereby registered catering establishments can obtain supplementary permits at the local food offices for additional supplies of rationed foods to meet abnormal requirements.
Onions and Tinned Tomatoes
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what are the names of the brokers who attempted to corner the market in onions by offering Mr. Arthur Dutton, of Covent Garden, £70 a ton, and also the names of the brokers who, on the Liverpool Exchange, attempted to corner the market in tinned tomatoes?
In reply to the first part of his Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given in this House on 6th November to a Question by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan). With regard to the second part of the Question, I am informed that there is no exchange in Liverpool for dealings in canned tomatoes, and consequently no attempts can have been made to corner supplies on that exchange. If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend will give me any information he may have on the subject, I will arrange for an inquiry to be made.
Christmas Fare
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what grounds there are for the allegations recently made by the North Midland Food Price Investigation Committee that an attempt is being made to corner the market in turkeys and other Christmas fare; and what are the names of the brokers concerned?
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has yet considered the representations of the North Midland Food Investigation Committee on the shortage of turkeys and poultry, which are not controlled in price; and whether, in order to prevent unwarranted price rises, he will take steps to purchase by bulk these articles of foodstuffs, to regulate the distribution thereof, and to control prices?
My Noble Friend has considered the representations of the North Midland Food Investigation Committee on the subject of turkeys and poultry, but he is not aware that the committee have suggested that any attempt is being made to corner the market by any particular brokers. Turkeys and poultry are not commodities in general consumption and in my Noble Friend's view the necessity for price control is on a different footing from that of staple foodstuffs used in every household. He has, however, issued particulars of the retail prices of the various grades of turkeys which he regards as reasonable at the peak of the Christmas trade, and he has suggested that control should be effected by consumers refraining from paying higher prices.
Is not the Minister aware that the Secretary of the North Midlands Food Price Investigation Committee, in a report issued only a short time ago, anticipated the exploitation of the public in connection with the price of turkeys, and said that he considered it possible that these prices would rise to prohibitive figures?
It is overloading the machine to control generally the prices of what are not staple foodstuffs. It is entirely in the hands of the consumer not to pay the price asked, and that is the best way of keeping prices down.
Does my hon. and gallant Friend not know that the Food Controller himself has said that in view of the rise in poultry prices he is considering control? Would it not be better to do so now, in view of the fact that prices are soaring and that the commodity is going off the market altogether? Is not the consumer quite powerless?
It is in the hands of the consumer. This kind of thing happened before the war, and was defeated by the consumer not paying the price asked.
Has the Minister's attention been called to the statement of the Controller that he was considering this; and does he not consider that a large number of poor families which club together for a turkey should be protected by the Ministry?
It is within the power of the Ministry, if prices soar beyond the figures suggested, to put an end to the rise.
When is my hon. and gallant Friend going to do so?
After Christmas.
If my hon. and learned Friend will wait, I will finish my reply. At the present time, maximum prices have been suggested. If there is a very serious rise over those prices, action will be taken.
Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest an alternative to the turkey?
Haggis.
The greatest part of the supply of turkeys come from abroad—for example, from Hungary.
Eggs
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why there is no restriction on the price or the quantity of eggs which may be purchased by hotels or restaurants; and whether he has taken any steps to prevent this being abused to permit of profiteering in eggs on the one hand and, on the other, a depletion of the supplies available for food in the homes of the people?
The maximum prices at which eggs may be purchased by all classes of consumers, including hotels and restaurants, are laid down in the Home Produced Eggs (Maximum Prices) Order, and if such prices are exceeded the Ministry does not hesitate to take appropriate action, provided that sufficient evidence is forthcoming. No Order has been made restricting the quantity of eggs that may be bought by any type of purchaser. Under the scheme for the distribution of home produced eggs, my Noble Friend has the power to direct that supplies be diverted from pack- ing stations to any area which appears to be suffering from an undue shortage.
Would the Minister bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend complaints that there is a scarcity of eggs because of the abnormal quantities being absorbed by restaurants, hotels and canteens, allegations, in Scotland at least, that abnormal prices are being paid for these eggs in order to divert them in that way?
If the hon. Member will let me have particulars, I will be glad to consider them. The real cause of the scarcity is the shortage of imported eggs.
Is the Minister taking any action to deal with farmers who are retaining these eggs because they can get better prices at the farms from people who are able to travel by motor car and purchase these eggs, to the exclusion of the general public?
If the hon. Member can bring any such cases to my notice, I will look into them.
Bread, Scotland (Price)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, when the price of bread was recently raised in Scotland at the instance of the Scottish master bakers, any steps were taken to sound opinion among operative bakers, through their organisation, and the consumers?
There has been no increase in the price of bread in Scotland since the outbreak of war. When increases in the prices of essential foodstuffs are in contemplation, my Noble Friend usually arranges for the Trades Union Congress Advisory Committee to be consulted. Such consultation has taken place in connection with the proposals now under consideration with respect to the price of bread.
Has there not been a proposal by the master bakers, and is that not being considered in connection with the rise in prices; and is it not the case that there have been no consultations so far with the Advisory Committee?
So far as I am aware, there has been no rise in the price of bread in Scotland since the war started.
Milk in School Scheme
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether supplies of milk for schoolchildren have been stopped and whether normal supplies of milk are being maintained to ordinary households?
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps are being taken, or are in prospect, to secure the promised priority for schoolchildren's milk supplies; and whether he is aware that in some districts distributors of milk have stated that they cannot continue to supply milk to schools?
Dairymen are required to supply in full the milk required for children under the milk-in-schools scheme and for certain other classes of consumers, and to distribute the remaining supplies among other customers on the basis of 90 per cent. of their requirements. This figure is subject to frequent review in the light of the current milk supply situation. My Noble Friend is aware that in some areas milk distributors are finding difficulty in supplying milk to schools and for this reason he is examining the milk-in-schools scheme, in consultation with the Government Departments concerned, with a view to adapting its conditions to the special circumstances of war-time.
If I send my hon. and gallant Friend particulars of an area where the supply of milk to schoolchildren has been stopped, will he kindly cause inquiries to be made?
Most certainly. There are certain areas where the supply has suffered, and the matter is being-looked into at the moment.
Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether there is any possibility of being able to obtain dried milk at the present time?
Mobile Canteens
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the great necessity for mobile canteens; what steps have been taken to meet the demand; and how many are available in the North-Eastern region?
Yes, Sir, I am aware of the necessity. Mobile canteens have been and are being constructed for the Ministry of Food, and are being operated by various voluntary bodies. They have already fully met the requirements in cities which have been subject to heavy bombing. Some 35 mobile canteens are at present stationed in the North-Eastern region, and others are available for work in that area should the need arise.
Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is great dissatisfaction in this matter in the North-Eastern region, and that if there are not sufficient mobile canteens provided in certain events, there will be a great responsibility placed upon his Department.
I appreciate that fact, but in all the emergencies that have occurred so far our mobile canteens have met fully the requirements of those districts. There are 35 mobile canteens in the North-Eastern division and others are on order, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the matter is not being lost sight of.
Will the Minister send me particulars of the 35 mobile canteens, especially of those affecting my own city?
indicated assent.
Ministry of Information
Polish Newspapers
asked the Minister of Information whether he will consider making arrangements that Polish newspapers be made available for reading in hairdressers' shops in areas where Polish troops are quartered, and similar arrangements to meet the convenience of members of other Allied Forces?
I am advised that Polish newspapers do reach Polish troops in the districts where they are quartered. I do not consider that it is part of the duty of the Ministry of Information to arrange for their delivery at hairdressers' shops.
While the Ministry cannot arrange for delivery, would it not be convenient that hairdressers should know where to get these papers, as Polish troops sit about in the shops and are not able to speak to other people?
Hairdressers can quite easily find out where delivery can be obtained, and no doubt editors will see that Polish newspapers are made available where there is a demand for them.
Censorship (Letters, United States)
asked the Minister of Information whether there is a censorship exercised in the case of letters sent to the United States of America and in the case of letters received from that country?
Yes, Sir.
Am I right in assuming that the exercise of the censorship is still necessary in all cases?
Yes, Sir.
Air-Raid Damage, Coventry
asked the Minister of Information whether any special indication was given to the Press to stress the recent air-raid damage to Coventry?
No, Sir.
Does the Minister assure me that no indication was given to newspapers as to the importance they should attach to the events in question?
No, Sir; the newspapers were quite capable of forming their own estimate of the importance of the occasion.
Can the Minister say why on certain occasions there is no hesitation in announcing which town has been attacked, and on other occasions it is prohibited to mention the fact?
The general principle followed by the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Home Security is not to withhold information where it is obvious that the enemy must possess that information.
Is the right hon. Gentleman using the full resources of the Ministry to make known to all the indiscriminate and murderous character of the attacks of the enemy on this country?
Yes, Sir, I am doing my best to make these facts known.
What is the good of trying to hoodwink the enemy when they know where they have dropped the bombs?
Will my right hon. Friend consider some scheme whereby Members of Parliament can be notified at once if their constituency has been bombed?
A scheme has been adopted for that purpose.
Cannot a private message be sent when the Ministry has the information?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some areas the county authorities have issued instructions to area A.R.P. organisers that they are to give no information to M.P.s whatever, and that such information can only come from headquarters, with which, after a bad raid, it is impossible to contact?
I am not aware of that.
Will my right hon. Friend consult the Minister of Home Security and see whether the plan that the Home Office think they have put into operation for informing Members of Parliament is working satisfactorily.
Bill Presented
Naval and Marine Forces (Temporary Relief from Service) Bill,
"to provide for the release and recall of men serving in the Royal Navy or the Royal Marine Forces," presented by Sir Victor Warrender; supported by Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Assheton; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day and to be printed. [Bill 4.]
Business of the House
Ordered,
"That no Notices of Amendments on going into Committee of Supply be given until the second Sitting day in February."—[ Mr. Attlee. ]
Orders of the Day
King's Speech
Debate on the Address
[SIXTH DAY.]
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [21
"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.
I do not think that the Debate which took place on Wednesday last on our war effort should be left where it remained after that Debate. After all, this is a question of the greatest importance that we can possibly discuss in this House. It is a subject, too, upon which many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House are entitled to speak with knowledge and experience. We had, in fact, from my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Mr. Hore-Belisha) speeches which put forward concrete proposals, and, without making any undue criticism upon the two distinguished members of the Government who replied to the Debate, it is true to say that those speeches were not sifted, analysed and replied to as they ought to have been, and that to some extent the prestige of the Government suffered thereby.
In wartime, either you must abolish Parliamentary discussion altogether by having no Sittings in the House, or else the Government, when there is a discussion, must accept or reject proposals made in Debate and answer points and counter-points. There is no midway course. In regard to the first alternative, I think there will be general agreement in this House that you cannot have had a more striking example of the value of Parliamentary institutions than what is taking place in Italy to-day. It is obvious that people with whom we are at war, and whom, I think, most of us look upon as a civilised, friendly people when they do not allow themselves to be led by the gangsters at present in control of their affairs, would have had some explanation of the terrific failure of the Italian High Command in Albania if there had been any form of Parliamentary representation in that country. If you cannot do this in public Session and cannot have open discussions on delicate questions, then you should have a Secret Session. That is really the answer to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who, when I asked him the other day a question which had been answered in a most friendly way by my right, hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, replied:
I do not wish to attack the administration or privilege of the Minister of Labour. In fact, I would recall, although it is not a particularly important matter, that I myself, in a speech which I made on the occasion which eventually led to the resignation of the Government, pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman and Sir Walter Citrine were two people who I thought should be in the National Government. Although some of us do not agree with the political views of the right hon. Gentleman, we have the greatest admiration for his career, which has been one of long years of tremendous and laborious achievement. I would go further and say that it is a tremendous asset to the House and the whole country at the present time to have at the Ministry of Labour a man whose constituency is the whole trade union movement of Great Britain, and one might say, almost the whole world. No one denies that my right hon. Friend had a perfect right to complain of the general mistakes of the past. It has been said before, and I do not apologise for repeating it to-day, that every leader of every party, except the Prime Minister, and all the followers of the different leaders, with few exceptions, must share grievous responsibility for the handicap which is dragging on this country and which has been brought about by their actions before the war.
As an ex-Cabinet Minister, I am prepared to shoulder my full share of the responsibility, and I am sure that Members of other parties will do the same. However, the only question is: What steps are we taking to remove that handicap? We have been at war for 14 months, and the present Government have been in power for nearly seven months. We see in many quarters of the Press, and sometimes in this House, a demand put forward for taking an offensive in the military sense. I do not wish to discuss that matter to-day or to say whether I agree or disagree with the specific proposals for taking the offensive in the Mediterranean, for example, but I do say that before we take the offensive in a general sense we must have aeroplanes, munitions, trained men, destroyers and merchant ships in much greater quantities than we have to-day. It has been pointed out in a series of excellent leading articles in the "Daily Express," among other newspapers, that the real offensive must take place in the shipyards and workshops of Britain, those of other nations associated with us over- seas and those of our great friend, the United States of America.
I consider that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour lost a golden opportunity when he spoke in the Debate last week. He has an immense reserve of credit and personal good will to draw upon, not only in this House but outside, and he is news value. He can get his ideas across because of his news value when those of us who may comment upon them cannot. Why could not he have said to his followers and admirers outside, "My lads, you have had great and successful fights for your rights in the past against employers, but now we have our biggest fight—to make time our ally and not the German's ally. We have not won yet; we have had, in fact, some serious setbacks. You submitted cheerfully to compulsion and regulations to win your past battles. You should now accept compulsion where it is needed because this is the greatest fight of all; and it means your survival with that of the rest of the country"? Had my right hon. Friend made that appeal, he would have met with universal support. But he made a very different speech. He said we could not order civilians about like soldiers. That may be true, but it is a very dangerous argument to use. Fortunately, soldiers are not politicians. If they were, some of them might say, "It is just like the old war. There has been no change. They say to us, 'You are soldiers. You should fight and die when you are told to do so, but civilians must not have their sacred right of saying "No" abolished."'
Some of us in the Conservative party frequently hear speeches here to which we have always listened with the greatest respect, especially when some of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House have been discussing questions of unemployment or social conditions. They have said, "You of the Tory party have never known what it was to stand wet through in a queue trying to get work when your wife was ill at home, not knowing when she would be able to buy any more food." As I have said, I have always listened to this sort of speech with the greatest respect, but when any civilian or civilian Minister says that we cannot compare the position of civilians and soldiers, I feel inclined to say, "You have never been rotten with dysentery in a filthy trench at Gallipoli, with bullets and shells coming over while you are awaiting removal to a hospital, where you know you will still be under fire. You have never known what it was to keep on working without having your clothes off or have more than five minutes' sleep at the side of the road, choked with dust by night and nearly dazzled by the sun by day."
Therefore, it is a very dangerous comparison to use to suggest that there is no possible community of hardship between civilians and soldiers. After all, is the argument of the Minister true? We have had evidence again and again of the splendid record of the trade unions in this war. Surely his argument is not that the limit of the willing sacrifices which they are prepared to make has been reached, provided only—and it is a most important qualification—that they are assured, which is not wholly the case to-day, that the whole of the civilian population, rich and poor, are showing equality of sacrifice. In a sense they are; the angel of death at the present time knocks impartially at every door, by night or day, whether it be mansion or slum house. But only few are killed and many are living, and it seems to me that the duty of statesmen is to make the spread of constriction and restriction of every activity not beneficial to our war effort, an even one and to combine and fashion what is left for the purposes of that war effort. That, in fact, is the policy of the Government in the powers which were taken with, if I may say so, such a flourish of trumpets in the Emergency Powers Act of last May. But, to use a sporting simile, if they are afraid of the Becher's Brook of compulsion when it is necessary, they ought never to have brought that particular horse saddled into the paddock.
That was the burden of the clear-cut and well-phrased appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham on Wednesday last. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Labour did my hon. Friend some injustice. My hon. Friend never asked for what is, sometimes, inaccurately termed industrial conscription. What he did ask for was that universal organisation which, in some cases, such as that of the question of trainees, involves compulsion. I was glad to hear him make that speech. It was, if I may say so, a courageous speech for him to make because this historic strong-point of free discussion, the House of Commons, one of the few left in the world to-day, should not be used in wartime as a place from which to fire the old muzzle-loader of party or class. What this most gallant but somewhat unthinking nation of ours wants from its representatives in this House to-day, is the rapid fire of new ideas, schemes and plans for helping to win the war, however iconoclastic they may be, and however much they may offend one's normal associates and supporters. It would be intolerable if, today, any of us, Tory or Socialist, were to fail to state our views according to the best of ability, merely because we thought we were likely to offend our own political supporters.
I should like to give a few of the points which I have in mind. Some concern big issues, some concern small matters, some suggestions are constructive and some restrictive, but they all, in my judgment, fit into the tessellated pavement of our war effort. The first question is one which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) and I and another hon. Friend of ours have pressed both by question and in Debate but in regard to which, up to now, we have received little support either in this House or outside. That is the all-important question of the development of our resources in the Colonial Empire and in India. I do not wish to make a rehash of the speech which I delivered the other day but after 14 months of war it is depressing to be told as we were told by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to-day that there is, as yet, no plan for building up a munitions industry in Africa.
I can only deal with this matter in two or three sentences but I want to point out these facts. We have two great strategic armies one in Africa and one in India. We would require to keep those armies, even if there was no fighting in the Mediterranean. Anybody who looks at the recent losses of ships and who knows anything about the supply position in this country must realise that it will become increasingly important for those two great armies, which are growing every day, to be provisioned and supplied with munitions from Africa and India. The sooner some Minister or some committee in the Government breaks through all ordinary departmental limits and deals with this question of providing materials and building factories, the better it will be for our war effort.
Another question concerns agriculture and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture for being present to-day. Again I refer to an issue in raising which I have been almost alone, except for the very valuable support and co-operation of one who is perhaps the initiator of the idea, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). That is the question, to which not nearly sufficient attention has been directed in this House, of the huge area of land in this country which is cultivable but is not at present cultivated. I prefer to use the words "cultivable" and "cultivated" rather than the term "derelict" because a lot of the land to which I refer is not derelict in the true sense. It is just not being cultivated at the present time. What is the position, put in a nutshell? Every acre of the land which I have in mind is land which bore corn or produced stock at some period of our existence, mainly during the Napoleonic Wars. I ask anybody in this House whether it is not the fact that our position to-day is, at least, as grave as it was at the time of the Napoleonic Wars?
What is the difficulty? I do not want to discuss the whole agricultural policy of the Government. They have done a great deal as regards increasing the productivity of land already farmed. But I have pressed my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and shall continue to press him, to have some ad hoc body to deal with the question of land which has gone out of cultivation. If the owners are unable, for economic reasons, as they are in many cases, to cultivate such land, it should be taken over from the owners by the State, put into cultivation, and not returned until after the war unless they are prepared to pay for the increase in its value. The answer which I have received, publicly and privately, from my right hon. Friend on the subject, is that in many cases the cost of bringing this land into cultivation would exceed its value in the open market. I cannot see that that has any bearing on the point. If it costs £30 an acre to bring a certain farm into cultivation and if the farm would fetch only £10 an acre in the open market, surely if the land bears crops that is the only thing that matters? Do the public realise the extreme urgency of this matter? Have they read to-day the list of the latest sinkings of our ships?
There are two other matters in that connection, to which I wish to refer. There are thousands of acres of common land in the South of England, once used for grazing cattle, sheep, geese and other things of that kind—all of which are urgently needed in time of war—now overgrown with gorse and thorns. This land should be cleared and brought into proper use. Secondly, why is it that no appeal has been made, or no compulsory powers applied, to the owners of deer-parks in England? [An HON. MEMBER: "And Scotland."] The position in Scotland is entirely different, for the reason that there is no comparison between the goodness of the land there and in England. I say that thousands of acres could be taken from the deer-parks, without necessarily abolishing them, and could be cultivated. We have not really begun to tackle this question.
I want now to raise a matter on which I had a Question on the Order Paper to-day, but which, unfortunately, was not reached. There are grave injustices and anomalies about the present system .of billeting. As far as I can gather, there is no proper liaison between the Ministry of Health and the War Office. The result is that we get this situation—for which again I can vouch, as one who has observed it—that small towns or villages are absolutely overcrowded with civilian evacuees and billeted soldiers, with the greatest competition going on between the two organisations to obtain accommodation. In other places there are houses, some small and some large, with plenty of room. I know of instances of country houses occupied by a family of four or five, with a staff of seven or eight, where anything from eight to ten rooms are vacant and have not yet been taken over by the authorities. Has any list or survey been made of the available accommodation? We are told constantly that the Ministry of Health are at their wit's end to know what to do with evacuated people, and from replies to questions we know that some soldiers cannot yet be accommodated properly. A survey should be made at once, and there should be some Minister responsible for seeing that the whole matter is co-ordinated.
I wish to refer briefly to a matter which I think is of some importance, although it may seem to be of comparatively small importance; it is the practice in restaurants with regard to food. I claim that in restaurants, both large and small, there is at the present time far too little restriction upon the supplies of food given to the people who use the restaurants. Let me given an example of what I believe is a lack of proper instruction, or a failure to carry out properly the instructions given. In every restaurant, large and small, whether the charge for a meal be 10s. or 3s., there is a notice put up, at the request or by the orders of the Ministry of Food, to the effect that people may have meat or fish, but not both. How is that order or request evaded? In every restaurant, large and small, one can have an enormous helping of every sort of hors d'oeuvre, nearly all the ingredients of which are brought from overseas, and which contain tinned fish of all sorts; and if necessary, a person could have a meal from this. Is it not a really astonishing situation at this time, with the sinkings of British ships that are taking place, that there should be no sort of proper restriction, either by compulsion or voluntarily, in restaurants? I think it is an extremely dangerous situation. I do not wish to criticise the Ministry of Food, but I find it a little difficult to follow all the ramifications of the speeches made by the Minister.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one can buy all the articles without restriction, and enjoy the same hors d'oeuvre in one's own home?
I am glad the hon. Member has drawn my attention to that point. What I have been saying applies equally to the home. I think there should be a serious investigation, and that a statement should be made as to the results of that investigation, into whether or not it is desirable to impose much greater rationing restrictions than exist at the present time.
Another question to which I want to refer is the use of men in the motor trade. There are thousands of small garages throughout the country, the owners or occupiers of which find it extremely difficult to carry on their business owing to petrol restrictions and similar things. I know of at least one case of this sort. The owner of the business was in the Army in the last war, and is a skilled mechanic, very anxious to get work in a munitions factory. At present there seems to be no proper method by which work can be found for such people. In this connection—I do not want to make a sort of inverted class point—is it really desirable that we should see driving about London and other great towns, and country roads, so many cars with a single occupant driven by a chauffeur? I should have thought that, in view of the need for mechanics—and surely a man who can afford to buy a high-priced car does not employ as a chauffeur a man unskilled in mechanical matters—the people who use these cars could equally well travel on public service vehicles or in taxis, for there is no difficulty in getting taxis in London at the present time. Yet, after 14 months of war, when we are told that there will be a desperate need for manpower in the next few months, we see outside hotels and other places—even outside this House—chauffeurs waiting in that way. Could not an appeal be made in this matter, or, if necessary, some compulsion applied? What is the justification for keeping skilled mechanics waiting about for two or three hours doing nothing?
With regard to the question of training, we had a most unsatisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. I believe that the point made by some of my hon. Friends is absolutely true—that nothing like enough people are being trained at the present time. When the armaments industry really does expand, and there are the calls-up in the spring, there will be a shortage of skilled men. I admit that I speak on this subject with no knowledge; I am a complete ignoramus with regard to it; but I must say that, on the basis of all the facts presented, using such judgment as one possesses to come to an opinion on the evidence presented, there is an overwhelming case for some system of compulsion in the matter of training being imposed both on employers and employed. Employers should be compelled to train labour, and persons who will not allow themselves to be trained, and who are otherwise suitable, should not be given Unemployment Insurance benefits. There are some terrible examples—some of which I hope will be given by some of my hon. Friends in the course of the Debate—of lack of training facilities.
Finally, I want to deal with a matter raised in a series of articles in the "Daily Express." I do not know whether or not the statements of the journalist who wrote the articles were accurate, but they bore the appearance of being accurate, and if they were not, they ought to have been answered at once by the Ministry of Information, because the charge made was a most serious one. The writer of the article said that in certain ports, owing to the past history of internecine struggles in the industry and of ill-feeling between employers and employed, owing to a sort of agonistic bad blood between employers and employed, both dock labourers and shipowners were not doing their best to see that ships were unloaded and turned about as quickly as possible. If that statement is true, it is a terrible indictment, because people, whether employers or employed, who are capable of that conduct could be well described as potential murderers of babies, in view of the situation with regard to our food supplies and shipping. Whether the articles were correct or not, they should have been answered, but no notice has been taken of them by the Ministry of Information or by the Ministry of Shipping.
No one wants to paint too dark a picture. We started this war better prepared than last time; we have a better Government organisation. The Minister of Labour has very generously paid a tribute to his predecessor. The people are more united, and we have a great urge to victory in industrial matters owing to the support of the whole trade union movement. I say again that those of us who have had little to do with the trade union movement would like to pay our humble tribute to the patriotic part which has been played by its leaders and followers. Lastly, there has been a great improvement as a result of the change in Government. Why then is there such a log jam on the home front, such lack of co-ordination between Departments, unused and untrained labour, and undeveloped resources? The answer is, I think, that there is a lack of a master hand, such as that of the Prime Minister, in military matters, using the term in its widest sense. History will surely record that the Prime Minister saved this country from invasion between May and September, but history will also record another fact, which the House has perhaps been too ready to forget in recent years, and that is that if there was a statesman in Europe who contributed a major part to the victory of the Allies in the last war, it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in his organisation of the home front. This time we have a curious contrast. If I may say so, with great respect, as one who was formerly a junior Member of the Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was less happy in strategical matters and in foreign policy than he was in his organisation of the home front. To-day the position is reversed; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been amazingly successful in knitting together the growing fabric of our military war effort, using the term in its widest sense, but he, or his colleagues, have been less happy in doing the same thing on the home front. Somewhere in the Government, or outside, there will have to be found a right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to do, in this war, what he did in the last. When the national will of this country and its associated nations is, as in this war, directed to a single aim, it forms a broad, deep, and noble river of common effort. It seems to me that it is for us, in this House to see that the natural flow is not impeded by foolish inhibitions or fatal hesitations.
The Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has made, as he usually does, a very interesting, valuable and powerful speech, especially so in respect of the labour side of munition production and the organisation of the nation for war. The first part of his speech was marred, however, by one thing; perhaps he did not really mean to convey what he said. He said that he always listened sympathetically when people drew pictures of working men standing in the rain outside Employment Exchanges, but he reflected that they had not experienced the horror of the trenches. I do not think he meant to convey that there were two distinct kinds of people in this country.
Perhaps I put it rather clumsily. Of course, I did not intend to convey that. What I meant was that it was dangerous to draw a comparison between civilians and soldiers.
The Noble Lord did convey that impression to me, but he knows as well as I do that many workers have had experience in the trenches, and that the name of Gallipoli is unfortunately well known to many who are on the dole. Regarding the rest of his speech, I agree with what he has said. He stressed, and so do I and all of us, that on the home front this nation must be stripped for victory, or else it will be stripped in defeat.
I now wish to turn for a moment to certain aspects in Europe, beginning with a few words about our neighbours across the Channel. The position in France is still very difficult and very delicate, and our hearts go out to the French people in the awful calamity which has befallen them. No words of ours should reproach them in their present misery. Nothing was more admirable than the speech the Prime Minister made in his message to the French people on 21st October. On that speech a French professor has written to me as follows: of war—one to every 200,000. The third concession is that Marshal Pétain is to be allowed to return to Versailles, where, perhaps, he will meditate on the fate of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. As a matter of fact, not a single French prisoner of war has been released, 80,000 inhabitants of Lorraine, one of the most patriotic parts of France, have been expelled permanently as far as the present regime is concerned, the University of Paris has been closed down, and students have been imprisoned and shot. The tricolour to carry France to victory has been forbidden in occupied France. Alsace Lorraine has been incorporated in the Reich, and statements have been made that no Frenchman will be allowed to live there again. In unoccupied France, swollen with its refugees, they are not allowed to draw provisions or raw materials from the occupied part of the country, and workers in occupied France have to work for their conquerors and endure the humiliation of seeing their brilliant capital befouled by the monsters of Nazidom. Recently negotiations have taken place between the Vichy Government and Hitler, the exact nature of which has not yet been disclosed.
Marshal Pétain has stated, however, in general terms that he agrees to a policy of collaboration with Germany in the framework of a new European order. Apparently he has refrained for the moment from making any Colonial concessions to the Axis because he was afraid that it would lead to revolt in Northern Africa. He has also refrained for the moment, although pressed to do so, to hand over what remains of the French Fleet and the naval and air bases in the Mediterranean for the use of Germany for fear that war with Britain would result. It appears, however, as far as I can see, that rifts are appearing already in the Vichy lute. The unspeakable Laval would surrender completely to Hitler and engage in war with Britain. Marshal Pétain is reluctant to go as far as that. General Weygand in Africa, it is reported, has said that he will oppose any concession in North Africa to the Axis by military force. Meantime the feeling among the French people has changed. The anti-British feeling which existed at one time, and which was fostered by German propaganda, is rapidly disappearing. More and more, I am told, the French people are hoping for a British victory, although they get very little news from any direction. In spite of that, we want to remember, when we are inclined to think too optimistically of the change in French feeling, that nearly every family in France has either a husband, a father, or a son a prisoner of war in Germany. In those circumstances I do not see that we can hope at present for any actual revolt of the French people against the domination of Nazi Germany. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Churchill), whose maiden speech a few days ago, in a famous phrase, must have been dear and refreshing to a father's heart, said—and I think he was perfectly right in saying—we must not expect any people to rise in any effective way until victory begins to emerge above the horizon. In the meantime the Free French Forces under the leadership of General de Gaulle are gathering strength. Already French Equatorial Africa, the Cameroons, Gabon, the Chad territory, New Caledonia, Tahiti, the New Hebrides and other territories have repudiated the Vichy Government. I saw a statement yesterday that 35,000 troops, 1,000 airmen as well as a number of warships under Admiral Musilier are now arrayed under the banner of Free France. In Syria apparently support for General de Gaulle and the Free French movement is increasing. This will be stimulated very greatly, it is expected, by the influence in the near East of General Catroux. As the war continues more and more Frenchmen will come to our assistance in order to share our victory in the future, as they have shared our victories in the past. But there is one point to which I should like the Government to pay special attention. I feel certain that Hitler is determined in one way or another, if he can, to secure the use of French warships and naval and air bases in the Mediterranean and West Africa. It is very important that the Government should keep the closest watch on the operations of the French Fleet in the Mediterranean and upon Bizerta, Dakar and also Tangier, and that they should be prepared, if necessary, to take the strongest action possible to prevent those places or ships falling into the hands of the enemy. I think that is a very important consideration.
The victories of Greece which have taken place have certainly stirred all our hearts. In a special way they have stirred mine representing, as I do, the constituency of Lord Byron, who died for Greek independence, and, as the Prime Minister said, they recall classic times. Shelley, too, must have seen the advent of Mussolini when he wrote.
Now that we have the use of Greek air bases I see no reason why we should not plaster the Italian peninsula with bombs. We all know the limitations of our military, naval and air activity but it must be admitted, taking all that into consideration, that there is a curious feeling abroad about our attitude towards Italy. The tenderness with which we have treated her has aroused many uneasy comments. It is said that the view of the Foreign Office appears to be that, if we handle Italy with velvet gloves, we may induce her to make a separate peace in the spring. I believe the surest and swiftest way of getting Italy out of the war is to knock her out with repeated blows. The only victory that Mussolini has ever won is a victory over our Foreign Office, and it is time to rub out that victory by rubbing it into the Duce. I hope the Government will now strike at the heart of Italy and, if they do that, it will go a long way to solving the problem of the Mediterranean, and the effect upon the world situation will be immeasurable. I think I am voicing the views of practically all of us when we call upon the Government, as far as is in their power, for a swift, ruthless and consistent attack upon that country.
The great danger in the Balkans, and everywhere else, is, of course, Germany. There are at present tens of thousands of German troops in Rumania and they are being reinforced every day, and there is a great danger that pressure will be put upon Bulgaria by Germany which that country may be unable to resist. At present any action by Germany in the direction of invading Bulgaria is probably handicapped by the fact of the very strong Turkish forces in Thrace, and also by the fact that Russia has made it perfectly clear that she has a strong objection to any further penetration by Germany in the Balkans, and this is giving Germany pause. But also Turkey, though a true friend of ours, attaches very great importance to the continuation of friendly relations with Russia.
On the Russian situation I should like to say a word or two. The Russian position is perfectly simple. The Russian Government has no natural love for the British Government but she has a positive fear of the German Government. I believe that when Germany and Russia made their pact before the war they made it with two different conceptions in their minds. Russia thought that there would be a long war which would end in the destruction of the German armies by Britain and France. Germany had the conception of a short war, after which she could turn upon Russia and destroy her. Neither of those conceptions has been borne out by actual facts. Germany is now faced with a long war, and, although she has a lot on her hands, she is still far too strong for Russia in a military sense, though she will be weakened later on. Stalin knows perfectly well that an Allied victory would be no menace to Russia. He knows that a German victory might mean the destruction of Russia. Therefore, I am of opinion that Russia secretly desires a German defeat but does not dare openly to say so, and insists upon her neutrality.
I would remind the House, because it is not generally known, that on many occasions in the past year the Russian Government have shown their great distrust of the German Government and have opposed German policy in various directions. The Russian action in the Baltic, I believe, was in order to prevent the Germans gaining a foothold in those States. The Russian occupation of Bukovina was purely strategic. There was no other reason for it at all. She has during the past year flooded the Balkans with pan-Slav propaganda, and on several occasions Russia has denied reports issued from Berlin on certain subjects. I will give some instances. From Berlin there came a report that Russia had issued an ultimatum to Turkey to keep out of the war, and it was promptly denied from Moscow in the most public way. Berlin stated that she had informed Russia that she was going to send troops into Rumania. Next day the Tass Agency of Moscow denied that, and said that Russia had never been informed. The third case occurred when Hungary joined the Axis and Germany said that it was done with Russian approval. Russia denied that.
Other points that I might mention on the same line are these: Russia warned Bulgaria some time ago not to attack Greece and stab her in the back, and she encouraged King Boris not to accept the invitation to go to Berlin and join the Axis. Up to the present he has not gone. Russia has broadcast in every possible way news of our victory at Taranto and the achievements of the Royal Air Force, as no other country in Europe has done. It has certainly not been done in other neutral countries like Spain. She has obtained a promise from Germany, which may may not be broken, not to attack Turkey and not to march into Bulgaria. How long that promise will be kept one does not know. Recently M. Molotoff visited Berlin, and one understands that Germany got very little satisfaction from the visit and that no response was made to the tempting offers made to M. Molotoff.
In view of these facts, I hope that the Foreign Office will cease uselessly annoying and irritating the Russian Government by repeating such fatuous actions as their protest about the Danube, their seizure of Baltic shipping and Baltic gold or by drawing fine distinctions between de facto and de jure. I seriously ask the Foreign Office, as I asked the Under-Secretary in the House to-day, to go a little further in the present negotiations with Russia in order to meet the Russian objections to the British proposals and to try and bring about a satisfactory agreement. The Foreign Office, I know, is the last stronghold of the Metternichs of the day. Although the Foreign Secretary is a very high-minded man and a great authority .on matters celestial, about which subjects no one has any very exact information, on matters terrestrial I feel that he is a rather uncertain guide. Many people inside the House and outside think that the time has come when the Prime Minis- ter ought seriously to consider whether he ought not to change the present control of the Foreign Office and whether such a change is not desirable in the interests of victory.
The subject of war aims will be discussed later, but I would like to say .one word about it. It is all to the good that people should discuss war aims and the future of the world after the war. A great conception such as we had of the League of Nations did not spring fully armed, like Minerva, out of the head of President Wilson. Years before he brought that idea into international importance it was discussed and hammered out by committees, groups, societies and political parties. I hope that similar groups, committees, societies and political parties will continue to examine their ideas about war aims and the future of the world, because only by such constant discussion and by handling the matter in debate and conversations and in contributions to the Press can a great workable and novel conception be born. But I greatly doubt whether His Majesty's Government at the present time can go much further than they have already done in setting out war aims in detail. Before victory comes many peoples who are now dumb will have to contribute their views. Before victory comes we shall, of course, have to make a declaration appealing to the democratic instincts of the downtrodden masses, who will then be ready to rise against Nazi oppression. Even when that time comes, when victory appears on the horizon, and we can make a great declaration to the peoples and cause them to rise up against Nazi oppression, we ought to beware of humbug and refrain from committing ourselves to sweeping pledges which we cannot with certainty fulfil. I feel that the practicability of certain great conceptions will be determined to a great extent by the course of the war itself.
Might not the course of the war be determined by certain great conceptions?
Yes, that may be so.
The point has been made over and over again that a very important part of our national armament is the ideas which we are pouring into those nations which we want to revolt.
I agree that that is an important part of our propaganda, and that as much as possible should be done in that direction. The Government have already stated their aims in general terms, and what I doubted was whether they could be worked out in fuller detail at the moment, and how far they could go, and I do not think they could go very far. I conclude by saying that I feel that the design and the architecture of the temple of peace will depend very largely upon the nature of the materials then available and the extent of the ground which is cleared for its erection. An hon. Friend sitting below me said in the Debate the other day that he was sorry that no reply had been given to Herr Hitler's speech in the Reichstag on 17th July. Speaking on that occasion, Hitler said:
"I prophesy that a great Empire will be destroyed, an Empire which it was never my intention to destroy or even to harm."
We read in Herodotus that Croesus, King of Lydia, was contemplating war against the Persian Empire and sent to the Oracle of Delphi to ask what would occur, and the reply he got from the Oracle was that if he attacked the Persians he would destroy a mighty Empire.
He crossed the river Halys to be more exact.
I thank the hon. Member for that interruption, but I would say that I have looked it up in my translation of Herodotus, and those are the words which are given there.
:
Anyhow, my words would suffice. He was told that if he attacked the Persians, he would destroy a mighty Empire. He made war. He was defeated and made captive. The Empire which he destroyed was his own. So shall it be with Hitler and Germany.
I should like to say, first, that I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) and that I agree with much of what he said, particularly with his final remarks. The reason for my intervention in this Debate is a remark made by the Minister of Labour in the Debate last Wednesday, a remark which was apparently made quite casually but which is, in my opinion, one of the most important statements made in the House in recent times. He said, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in a paragraph beginning "I wish to say a word about women," and almost as an obiter dicta,
Our problem is conditioned by the fact that we have a very much smaller manpower than Germany. How are we going to use that power? There is no question of greater importance, and yet the Minister of Labour, at the end of his speech, quite casually, makes the statement that there is to be an enormous call-up between now and June. What I should like to know is, Who is responsible for considering the number of men who are to be made available for the Army? Who is responsible for deciding the priorities among the different services and industry? Has this question been considered by the War Cabinet? Is there a Minister responsible for it? We are familiar in this House with the care which is taken over the expenditure of the money of the nation. We know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer cuts down here and cuts down there and divides the available money among the various Departments. Who is the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the man-power of the nation? Who decides the priorities between the various Departments? It is a question of the most enormous importance, and one hopes that it has been carefully considered in all its aspects by the War Cabinet. Have the claims of shipbuilding, of aircraft production, of the Admiralty, of our export drive all been taken into account, or has a decision been reached without adequate consideration? It is a point which requires to be answered. It has caused me personally very great anxiety.
I hope that before this Debate ends we shall have some reassurance that this decision was not made in any haphazard manner, but only after very careful consideration of all the facts; and there are a great many facts to be taken into consideration before we call up additional millions of men, because to speak of an enormous call-up must mean millions of men. The result must be that production will be affected. Day after day in the House we are told that we want more ships, more aeroplanes, more munitions of war. If we call up another million or two million men we must inevitably affect the productive capacity of the country. Can we afford to do so? I am sure that nothing would give hon. Members greater pleasure than to see us with the largest army in the world, but we cannot have it. We must cut our coat according to our cloth. No doubt Hitler would like to have had a navy comparable with the British Navy, but wisely he decided to concentrate on a huge army. With our man-power we have to consider how we are going to use our smaller numbers. We cannot hope to match man against man in the German army. We should attempt to build up the greatest Air Force in the world, in addition to having the largest Navy. Is it proposed to have an offensive next year? The Prime Minister spoke of an offensive in 1942 or 1943. Surely we do not want to call up 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 additional men and have them rusting in billets while our productive capacity is reduced by the loss of these men. It is an enormous problem, and I hope that it has received or will receive the most careful attention from the War Cabinet.
I would appeal to the War Cabinet to consider this problem most carefully, to consider whether they can afford at this stage to take "an enormous number"— to quote the Minister's words—of men out of industry, probably to remain in stagnant conditions in the country, whether with our limited man-power we can take men out of industry unless an absolute need for them for the Army can be shown. We want every man we can get in industry. To my mind, our priorities should be aeroplanes and more aeroplanes, ships and more ships, munitions and more munitions, and only after that should the spare men be given to the army. But I speak without authority, and I should like some assurance before the Debate ends that the whole question has been considered in all its aspects, including the method, the long-term method, by which we intend to win the war.
I rise to speak in this Debate with more hesitation than I have ever experienced before. We are debating the Address in reply to the King's Speech, and in normal times we should express our regret not merely for what is in the King's Speech but also for what is not in it. I welcome the mention in the King's Speech of the Government's intention regarding what is popularly called the means test and also the fact that there is to be legislation on the question of insurance against air raids. I should have thought, in these days, when so many millions of people are in the Armed Forces in one form or another, that the Government would have spared some little time to consider the terrible injustices frequently inflicted upon the dependants of our Armed Forces. One matter that clamours for attention is the treatment of the mothers of soldiers, sailors and airmen who have been killed in the service of their country. The test applied to the mothers of deceased soldiers is one of the most shocking things that are practised. I should have expected some mention by the Government of humane consideration for those folks.
In these days I do not take the popular view about the war. I almost welcome the Debate, but from my own point of view, it should take place in private, when I should much better be able to say the things I believe than I can say them in public. To state these views in public would make one open almost to the charge, possibly rightly, of fouling one's nest and of helping people whom one did not want to help. Consequently, I feel under a disability. Anyhow, one has to be honest. I came back to the Labour party, dropping all my past and trying to feel how much I could work in harmony with them and not in disunity. Nobody regretted more than I did the coming of the war because it drove me back to some feelings not in unity with them. When I listened to the Debate the other day I realised that, from the start of this war, I had not been an optimist. The Debate the other day depressed me more than any other Debate I remember. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) is honest in these matters; I would ask him to carry his honesty a little step further. He has made a speech to-day attacking the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and calling for his resignation. I do not deny that my hon. Friend has a case. I often wish I could get enthusiastic about this war and enter into the spirit of it, because I think I could have taken part in many Debates to show how far the Government were wrong. Their handling in regard to some things has been, in popular language daft and silly, and has aroused antagonism without achieving any useful object.
I have never had any deep reverence for the Foreign Secretary. I remember when he was a Member of this House and when he stood at that Box, 16 years ago, as Edward Wood. He was President of the Board of Education and he has held other offices. I thought he was nothing above the average and I never had any opinion about him. I never have great regard for people who, when carrying on a war, begin to appeal to the Deity to help them. I have no regard for Cabinet Ministers who do so. There is only one way that you can get help in war and that is by helping yourself. No doubt the Foreign Secretary tries to do what he thinks is his job. Last Wednesday, listening to the Debate, could anybody feel happy about Cabinet Ministers? If my hon. Friend is honest he must look calmly around and say honest things about all of them, and not pick out merely one or two.
Some things make me very critical about the war, although if anybody is pro-British, it is myself. I do not much believe in foreign travel. In the old days, when Mr. Ramsay MacDonald led us, he was always talking about Geneva and other places. Possibly my world started at Gorbals and ended there. I have never had time for foreign travel or for visiting this or that country. I have always thought that our home problems should be faced first. You can call this attitude pro-British or narrow nationalism, but I have a great love for this country. It has treated me kindly and that is why I think I ought to say a word on the subject. I shall be unable to be present to-morrow, owing to a commitment into which I have entered, but I seriously take the view that military victory is impossible and that the sooner someone enters into negotiation the better it will be for all. It may be said that that is not a proper position to take up. Nevertheless, I would like to prophesy. When I prophesy I am not always right, but I have not always been wrong. In some of the things I said during my old unemployment Debates, when I was with my old colleagues, I think I was much nearer right than most of them.
I make this prophecy: Before this great catastrophe that is now facing us is ended, one Prime Minister, and I should not be surprised if it were the present one, will march to that Box and advocate entering into negotiation. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brox-towe was delivered with great capacity. I would ask him not to forget that possibly the most anti-Russian person that ever was in this country was the present Prime Minister. He financed a war against the Russians and carried it out in its early stages, when the Russians were attempting to build up a civilisation. He fought then with greater bitterness than possibly any other man in this country. He has changed. I make no criticism of him for changing. A man who does not change is worth nothing at all, probably. I do not say that he is dishonest; possibly the change is evidence of his honesty, but, just as he has changed from one position to another, so he may change again. His predecessor used to think it dishonest to change, but the present Prime Minister has that advantage over his predecessor.
If I were here to-morrow, my sympathies would be with the Amendment. I say that the sooner some Government, or some force, starts to take us out of this terrible morass and to save as much of Britain as possible, the better. Military victory to either side is humanly impos- sible, and even if it were to come, it would be a phantom and a shadow. Taking those views into consideration, I regret my absence to-morrow. I would vote for any Motion that would lead to what I, although possibly not others, would regard as a sane solution. I do not know if I speak for my division in these matters, but, as we all know, in public life one must take such risks. I have been worried for a long time as to whether I should say this. I think the occasion has now come. I think we should open up negotiations and make a negotiated peace. The sooner it comes, the happier I shall be, because it will save misery and terrible sacrifices to countless millions of decent folk.
If I do not entirely agree with what the last speaker has said, I would like to express my profound respect for the bravery with which he has put forward those views. A quarter of a century ago I was appointed Professor of Church History at Oberlin College, and I succeeded Mr. Raymond Gram Swing, since very famous but at that time entirely unknown. It seems to me that the most important sentence in the Gracious Speech which we-are discussing is that which relates to the United States. It makes more difference than anything else in the dark and difficult years ahead as to whether we can keep in step with that great nation. We have to realise that America is a country in one respect entirely different from any other that the world has ever seen. Having expanded, in very much the same way as any other nation, over a large part of the North American Continent and far out into the islands of the seas, undefeated in war, not in any way affected by a great catastrophe, she has suddenly turned round and not only refuses to expand her territory but she is, or at least many Americans are, anxious to get rid of territory which they already hold and to withdraw from the Philippine Islands.
I feel that in this war we should refuse entirely to add to our Empire, even although I do give a little to my honoured colleague, the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who seems to be rather enthusiastic for something of the kind. It is a common American remark, "I guess those British must be meek because they inherit the earth." Again, I have heard in America, "Britain enters every war waving the Ten Commandments and comes out with more territory." I would say that "waving" has only one "i." We have a very great deal in common, and I feel that by rightly understanding the United States we may produce a far happier future than anything we have known in the past. I do not for a moment say that we can be indifferent to what goes on in Europe, but it is not necessary to discuss that at the present time. I do not think it is the smallest use trying to negotiate a treaty with the United States or to define our relations with that country by means of any written document. One does not make a treaty with one's brother. The two nations can come together far better in other respects. They are already closely intertwined. Our late Prime Minister, of honoured memory, narrowly escaped having an American mother. Our present Prime Minister did not escape that honour, and I think that we may see in his tremendous enthusiasm and energy something of the vigour that typifies the great City of New York. America is more British than we are in one respect, for it must be remembered that American universities saw the cultural value of Chaucer and Shakespeare at a time when Oxford and Cambridge could see no culture outside Latin and Greek. Rhodes began with the great idea of sending a large number of American students to Oxford University, and I believe that we can extend that idea enormously. Let every college and school in this country try to adopt an opposite number in the United States, to exchange students and teachers in every way they can, and to bring the two nations together in a way that would ensure the most perfect mutual understanding that we could possibly have. All that, however, is for the future, and I do not want to detain this House with matters that are not relevant to what we all have so very strongly at heart.
We should approach the United States with absolute candour and tell her in the plainest English language exactly what we want. First, we want financial help, such as Britain has given to her Allies on many occasions in the past. We all know that he who pays the piper is privi- leged to call the tune, but I never heard that the person who sold the pipes on the "cash and carry" principle had the same right. We want the Americans at the council table when the time for negotiating peace arrives. We want them to be there of right, not merely by permission, and if they will help financially, they will have the definite right. I do not see how this nation can bear the tremendous burden of carrying on a great war which, after all, is just as much for the benefit of America as for our own Empire. We are all rather seriously worried about the sinking of our merchant ships, and I feel that we should appeal to America directly to help us patrol the trade routes of the Atlantic. There is a precedent for that. In the second China War the American Commodore Tatnall, although nominally a neutral, rendered important help to the British Navy. He was not censured by the Navy Department at Washington. In reference to that, some poet composed a ditty which I think at one time was fairly common to the British Navy. I remember hearing one verse on the China coast. It went like this: Ireland, Palestine and the West Indies. America can help us in solving the difficult problem of Ireland. Although Ireland cannot perhaps altogether look after herself, she does to a very large extent rule America. Those who have lived in the country will realise what I mean; the local governments, all over the United States, are very largely Irish. To use the words of Canning long ago, we need, in a new connection altogether, to call in the New World to redress the balance of the Old. We need to go to America cap in hand and ask for her help on this Irish problem and about the difficulties between this country and Ireland at the present time. I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I do plead, with all the earnestness of which I am capable, that Britain and America should march together in future years, not as Allies, but as brothers.
Just because I agree so strongly with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I am glad to be called upon at the present time, because I want to talk mainly about this question of our propaganda in general and about our propaganda to the United States in particular. Like the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I had put my name down for an Amendment on war aims. I think the discussion of war aims is vitally important. But above all to-day I want to take a little of the time of the House to talk about the method by which we can put our war aims across to the United States and to the European Continent. I would also like to take just one moment in which to reply to the very able maiden speech made the other day by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. R. Churchill), who seemed to show some contempt for those of us who believe that we shall not win this war unless we make it very clear what our war aims are. I speak with some hesitation, because he comes from a family which in so many ways has shown the very greatest interest and ability in questions of military strategy, but it seems to me to be one of the elementary facts of military strategy that, in order to defeat your enemy, you must by all the means in your power destroy his will to resist.
I do not think there has ever been a war in history between two great Powers—probably never a war, not excluding the Crusades—in which the moral factors have been so much on one side and the material factors—the belief that might is right—so much on the other side. It is, therefore, vitally important that we should lose no opportunity of discussing and putting forward by every means we can our war aims, in order to destroy our enemy's resistance. They ought not to be treated as if they were just an affair for a few cranks. After all, there are far too many peoples in Europe who, at the present time, are ready to believe the Nazi claim that they are the progressives while we are just a bunch of amiable, well-meaning but decadent reactionaries. That is not true. That Nazi doctrine is the most reactionary doctrine you could possibly have, but if you have, all the way through Europe, nations which are not allowed to listen to anything except the Nazi creed, it is inevitable that a lot of people should come to accept that creed as gospel, and it is inevitable, if we are going to win the war, that we should use every possible channel and the greatest possible energy to counteract that tendency.
I do not normally go to the German Press for the gospel truth, but the other day, in the "Frankfurter Zeitung," I came across an article dated 25th October of which I would venture to quote one sentence. It said: place. In the absence of the newspaper service, in the absence of the leaflet campaign—which was better than a lot of Members believed—because the R.A.F. is too busy to drop leaflets, we are more and more brought back to the importance of broadcasting.
I am in a certain difficulty in regard to criticising the broadcasting system of this country, because for over six months two or three times a week between two and three in the morning I have broadcast to the Empire and to the United States, and I do not want to sound disloyal. It was only because I remembered that we have a great many serving soldiers who are allowed to stand up and criticise their particular Department in the interests of the national welfare that I have ventured to speak to-day, because I believe that broadcasting at the present time is one of the most important things in this country. After all, it has so happened that, except to a limited extent in Egypt, the Army is for the moment out of the war. The only means by which we can hit the enemy now are the Royal Air Force, the Navy, the Ministry of Economic Warfare and the B.B.C. What I want to do to-day is not so much to criticise the B.B.C.'s failure to understand the importance of propaganda as to criticise the Government's failure to understand the importance of the B.B.C.
It is a lamentable fact that at present less time is devoted to broadcasts in foreign languages than was the case a year ago, yet you have all these European countries which have come under Nazi domination and which can only be reached by the spoken word. You cannot reach them by newspapers or in any other way except by the spoken word. There is also the fact that in almost every one of these countries there are statistics to show that the number of wireless sets bought has increased very much indeed. I do not believe that in France, for example, people are buying wireless when they have never had wireless before, merely to hear the decrees of the Vichy Government. Their object is to hear the very excellent broadcasts by Free Frenchmen in this country. Also, we have had to cut the talks to the Empire and to the United States. That, as the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) pointed out, is very serious. We must do all we can to develop these broadcasts. Take the key countries of Europe to-day. One of them, very small but very important, is Bulgaria. I believe that British broadcasts to Bulgaria are limited to five minutes a day. For Hungary, a country which for months has not been reached by letters or newspapers, because it is-surrounded by hostile States, the period is 15 minutes a day. Ten minutes a day is devoted to Serb-Croatian talks—and Yugoslavia is very important. Thirty minutes a day is devoted to Turkey; 25 minutes to the Greeks; 15 minutes to the Swedes, and so on. We have, against that, a very great number of Nazi stations. The B.B.C. could not be blamed if they were not fully prepared against the possibility of other countries coming under Nazi control, but it is a fact that a great many countries have come under Nazi control. I do not know how many minutes a day is devoted to broadcasting Nazi propaganda to the Bulgarians, but it is a much greater period than that devoted by the B.B.C. to the Bulgarians.
I agree that the situation is improving. I believe that we shall have more transmitters in a short time. I am glad to say that it is not sufficient just to take the number of Nazi stations and to compare them with the number of British stations, because, although Goebbels and Goering, in their conceit, told the German people time after time that no British aeroplanes would in any circumstances fly over German territory, night after night a number of German stations have to go off the air when the British machines come over; so that I believe 28 German stations regularly go off the air at about 7.15 every evening, while ours carry on. There is a possibility, however, that if a large time bomb falls outside the B.B.C. or if the building receives a serious hit, even this present limited number of talks in foreign languages and to the United States and the Empire will have to be much further cut down.
Far too many officials of the B.B.C. are being sent out of the country. There has been entirely inadequate preparation for the bombardment of London, although a department had been considering the question for, I think, a couple of years. I would like to say that since the war began I have not met in any Government Department so many young men who were both keen and capable as I have met in the B.B.C. I have the greatest respect for the staff of the B.B.C. Many of them are sick at heart because whereas they are supposed to broadcast from the front line, they are dumped out into the country because the arrangement has been inadequate. There are chaotic conditions in the B.B.C. at present, and the reasons are important to this House. For one thing, the status of the B.B.C. is far too uncertain. People there are frightened to take adequate alternative accommodation in London, because they are told that if they do so that accommodation may be commandeered by the Office of Works or some other Government Department. That may be incorrect, but it seems to me a devastating condemnation of the Government that such an idea should be possible; that broadcasting, which is one of the four potent arms with which we fight the enemy at present, should be looked upon as so unimportant that at any time the Office of Works or some other Government Department might take it over.
The officials of the B.B.C. are bombarded by guidances and directives from all Government Departments, and they do not feel in a position to reject those guidances. Why has every large organisation for years employed publicity experts? I do not speak with conceit because I happen to deal in the presentation of news, but there is a considerable art in the presentation of news. The B.B.C is receiving directives from people in Government Departments who in their whole lives have never written an article, who could not sell an article to a parish magazine. I will not talk of my own personal experience, because I do not want it to be thought that I am embittered—I am not embittered; and as long as I can be useful, I hope to go on broadcasting. But it is absurd that people who have specialised in the presentation of news for years should be expected to write a stimulating article with whitewash. We boast that we are fighting for the right of expression, and the more you can get people to express divergent views the better it will be, provided always that those views are directed to the all-important purpose of winning the war. I see in the House at present an hon. Member who has done very great broadcasting service, who finds himself hampered—as I do with much less worthiness—by these silly directives from Government Departments.
This arises from the fact that the B.B.C. does not know where it stands. It has two versions of its duty. One is that it is the handmaiden of every Government Department and must follow Departmental guidances, irrespective .of the bad influence that that may have on public opinion. A few days ago a talk was given by the chief diplomatic adviser to His Majesty's Government which was in entire conflict with everything that I have been told that we are fighting for in this war, and with everything which I believe has been behind broadcasting policy here since the war began. I have great difficulty in resisting the temptation to tell the House of a ludicrous example, as I think, of Departmental intervention only a few days ago. I resist the temptation because I do not think it would be in the national interest to reveal it, and I apologise for having succumbed to the temptation so far. The other version of the B.B.C.'s duty is that that the B.B.C. is still autonomous, that, in so far as is possible in war-time, and always maintaining the dominating consideration of national interest, the B.B.C.'s job is to speak for Britain rather than for the British Government or for British civil servants. We must somehow free the B.B.C. if we are to do a real job. There are only two ways in which the B.B.C. can be freed. One way would be for it to come much more under the control of the Ministry of Information, in which case the Department of the right hon. Gentleman, whom I am glad to see on the bench opposite, should surely be the only Department through which guidances can reach the B.B.C.
I assure the House that there are unlimited cases of very well meaning civil servants in one Government Department or another interfering unwisely with our propaganda. In the Foreign Office you may get a telegram coming from His Britannic Majesty's Minister in Ruritania saying that it is inadvisable that we should refer to Ruritania. It might be vitally important that we should refer to Ruritania, and if the B.B.C. is to come more under the control of the Ministry of Information, the Minister should sort out all these guidances and should decide those which are important and follow them and should tear up the others and put them into the waste paper basket. That has been done for years by the News Department of the Foreign Office, in its dealings with newspapers and it should be done in this instance. If the B.B.C. is to come more under the Ministry of Information, it is essential that no other Government Department should have the right to tell the B.B.C. what to do but the Minister of Information. The B.B.C. has to fight Hitler by the spoken word. The publicist does not go and tell the War Office what it must do from the point of view of military strategy, and I do not see why the War Office or any other Service department should tell the publicists at the B.B.C. how they must fight Hitler with the spoken word.
The alternative is that the B.B.C. should retain its present autonomy, but I think it is too weak to do so in the present circumstances. If it is to retain its autonomy and go on speaking for England and not for any particular Government or Government Department, it is essential that there should be some Minister to speak for the B.B.C. in this House. I do not want to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Information does not do his job well. I do not happen to be one of the people who feel that way, but if the B.B.C. is to go on as at present, not quite knowing from where its direction is coming, it should have a Minister sitting on the Government Front Bench to defend it and who is strong enough to resist the pressure from different Government Departments, which cannot possibly see the whole picture of propaganda. I suggest that the Government should, as soon as possible, consider this question of preventing the B.B.C. falling between two stools.
Finally, with apologies for taking up so much time, I should like to add a word or two on the wider question. There is still too little co-ordination of our information from the enemy countries and our propaganda to the enemy countries. I find, for example, that the B.B.C. has a very extensive monitorial service and makes extremely interesting reports on all enemy broadcast propaganda. Members of the House know that it has been fairly difficult at times to get hold of that stuff. Chatham House is also active in some other field. There is another department which reads German newspapers, but there is far too much information which ought to be available to anybody who is interested, either through the Press or through broadcasts or through public speaking, in this business of defeating Germany but which goes around in a very limited circle in envelopes marked "strictly confidential." We should do something to clear up that difficulty. We shall need the co-ordination of all our intellectual efforts if we are to defeat Germany rapidly.
Lastly, no propaganda machine is much good unless the driving force behind it is good as well. We have had too many examples of indecision at the top. We do not really know the views of the Government on winning the war and on the Europe we are to build after the war. We need not only a co-ordinating committee of the different propaganda services in this country—a committee which brings all these things under one roof—but also an Allied council. Each Government which has taken refuge here is valuable from the point of view of winning the war—very valuable indeed. But that is soon forgotten. It is so easy for the Nazis to put across, say, in Belgium or wherever it may be the version that the Government which has taken refuge here is merely a Government of a few disgruntled politicians who could not do anything in their own country anyway. These Governments could be invaluable in keeping alive the spirit of resistance inside those countries. I believe that it would be a great step forward if we had an Allied council on propaganda. There have been cases recently where the Poles or some Polish newspapers have been putting forward claims which go far beyond anything that this country would want to accept. We ought to have an Allied propaganda council to decide, as far as possible, how far one should go in this direction, and I look forward to the idea of going much further still by having sitting in London an international Parliament—not necessarily an Allied Parliament but if possible bringing in neutrals as well. If a Prime Minister of one of these exiled Governments makes a speech in the provinces it is useful from the point of view of broadcasts to his particular country, but how much more useful it would be if such a Prime Minister made his speech in an Allied Parliament. We have to do everything we can to convince the world that Hitler is not the only man who can integrate Europe and break down all the barriers between the little nations. We have to go further and convince the people in those countries under Hitler's domination that we are the only people who are preparing the way to see that not only the little man in our own country, but the little nation in Europe has a better life. All these people hate the idea of Hitler domination; they know that they are merely becoming slave States. It is vitally important that we should use every possible method we can of encouraging them. It is not at all too early to put into action those grand words which the Prime Minister used at the end of his magnificent broadcast to the French people a few weeks ago. We should be giving already encouragement to all these people to join in the march towards a better world.
I wish to take this opportunity of raising one particular aspect of the war at sea, because I believe that at the present time it is of paramount importance and also that its importance is not sufficiently realised. It may be that the Government are fully alive to it, but I am not satisfied myself that they are taking all the steps that ought to be taken. We shall have failed in our duties as Members of this House if we do not offer constructive criticism to the Government when we think that the conduct of the war is not all that it ought to be. Indeed this House does not deserve to sit for another day if Members of it do not offer their views to the Government provided they try to be constructive, on the conduct of the war when they think that the national interest so demands. We are rightfully proud of the magnificent work which is being done by the Royal Air Force day by day and night by night. Our hearts are thrilled by the wonderful exploits of the fighter pilots. The spectacular work carried out by the crews of the bombers merits almost greater approbation than the work carried out by the fighter pilots. Indeed I sometimes think that it does not get all the praise it deserves because the work of the fighter machine is so much more spectacular. The threat of invasion is something which has been very close in our minds for some time. It is still a very real one, but we have now had time to reorganise our defences, and we should be in a position now to meet any attack which may be made against these shores. The work of the Navy in the Mediterranean has been an inspiration to us all; in the Eastern end of the Mediterranean the Navy, Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm and the magnificent exploits of the Greek army have thrilled us and have served as a timely reminder that wars are not won by sitting still. In order to win a war, you must find the enemy's weak spot and continue hammering at it until you have achieved victory. In this case the enemy's weak spot is undoubtedly Italy, and I am not at all sure that we are hammering Italy as hard or as continuously as we should be doing.
It is quite true that the best way to disorganise your enemy's military machine is to hammer his military objectives, and that we do night after night in Germany. All these things are true, but in my opinion they have blinded us to the realisation of where our own really vulnerable spot lies. It is no good taking precautions to secure the front door and the ground floor windows if you leave the back door unguarded, and I would remind the House that it is through the back door that the tradesman delivers the goods upon which the household depends for existence. Our vital spot now, as in the past, lies in the Western approaches to these Islands. We have always in the past made every effort by maintaining sea supremacy to guard the Western approaches. We may beat Germany on the Continent, we may overthrow Italy in the Eastern Mediterranean, thereby securing free passage for troops and materials to the East and guarding our Eastern Empire, but unless we continue to secure and to secure completely the Western approaches leading to these Islands we are undone. Those who control the German war machine may be blackguards, although I am not sure that that is a fair criticism of the German Army, whatever we may think of the German Navy and Air Force. In many respects the rulers of Germany to-day may be fools, but nobody has ever suggested that the German general staff are fools. Their work is a model of what staff work ought to be. Do not let us delude ourselves into thinking that Germany does not realise where is the vital vulnerable spot of this country.
In the past our sea power, used relentlessly, has always served to bring us victory; we have dominated the sea and the Western approaches leading to these Islands. Was there ever a moment when it was more vital that we should have an uninterrupted flow of food, raw material and war material into this country? We are now fighting for our lives, and it is no time to rake over the past and discuss the crazy folly which led us after the last war to abandon the supremacy at sea and in the air which was ours when the last war finished. During the last war we came nearly to defeat because of the pressure Germany was able to exert on our seaborne trade by reason of her submarine attack. The attack was pressed most heavily where it would have the most effect—that is to say on the Western approaches to the British Isles. By superhuman efforts in the last war we met and mastered that attack. It is true that to-day our task is infinitely more difficult because we have not the advanced bases in Ireland which we had in the last war, but the real difference, the dangerous difference, the overwhelming difference between the last war and to-day lies in this fact, that to-day the aerial weapon has been so developed that either by itself or used in conjunction with surface or submarine craft it presents the most formidable weapon with which our seaborne trade can be attacked.
Germany dominates the Continent today largely by reason of the introduction of new land warfare technique. By using dive bombers in conjunction with mechanised land forces she achieved spectacular military victory. Of course, there is an answer, and if it is properly applied, the answer to that form of technique will be efficacious. We are, perhaps, blind to the fact that Germany has now introduced a new technique into naval warfare, corresponding with the new technique she introduced into land warfare. The disguised raider, the submarine and the large surface cruisers operating on the trade routes, all these belong to the technique of the last war, but to-day Germany is using the long distance bomber in conjunction with the submarine in order to prey upon our seaborne trade, and I doubt very much whether the threat applied by this new technique is realised by Members of this House or the public outside. The fact is that that threat exists and is very real and that its application at the present time puts this country in very considerable jeopardy.
How is Germany doing it? The collapse of France gave her ports along the Atlantic seaboard from which she can send out long-distance aircraft and submarines in order to prey on our trade. Cherbourg in particular—which is perhaps why it has been bombed so much—is the foremost jumping-off ground for those exceedingly efficient machines, the Wolff Kondor aircraft, that have been attacking vessels on the high seas. They fly out from their base and attack merchant vessels in conjunction with submarines. In fact, the submarine and the long-distance bomber drive the game one for the other. Gradually they are beginning to dominate the trade routes. If you take the sinkings as they are to-day, they are going up. Over 90,000 tons of shipping was lost last week, and that makes no reference to the very vital value of the cargoes in those ships. These sinkings are rising because of this new technique put into operation by Germany. Surface vessels can deal with submarines, but it is almost impossible for hunting flotillas to operate so far out, and therefore you have to find some other means of counteracting this particular menace.
The new technique can be dealt with only by the operation on our part of long-distance aircraft. A golden axiom in all warfare is that a new weapon is best answered by a similar new weapon on the other side. There is no real and efficient answer to the new menace against our seaborne trade if we rely solely on the operations of surface craft. The answer must come from the use of aircraft, and if that be admitted, as I think it must be, then we are bound to ask ourselves what are the conditions obtaining to-day as regards the use of aircraft by His Majesty's Navy. I have no desire to rake over the embers of the past, but of all the stupid, muddle-headed crimes ever perpetrated against the defence of this country the taking away from the Navy of the control and operation of its own aircraft was the stupidest. Almost too late and most grudgingly the Royal Navy was given back its own aircraft, but from whatever cause—stupidity, jealousy or sheer mismanagement—the Navy has been prevented from having enough machines of the type needed or exercising proper control over the operations of machines flying on purely Naval operational work.
In Nelson's days the crying need was for frigates and more frigates. In the last war the crying need was for more destroyers and more cruisers. Through the crazy lunacy of those who put disarmament before the security of the British Empire and the preservation of world peace, we have never had enough destroyers and cruisers in the British Navy. Since the last war, the new aerial arm has been developed, and now the eyes of the Fleet are not so much the destroyers and cruisers, but the aircraft with which the Fleet should be supplied. I do not suppose any Admiral at the present time has one-tenth of the aircraft which he needs for the proper carrying out of his work. I imagine that the First Lord of the Admiralty has been pressed, and pressed again, by his Naval staff for the provision of more aircraft. I want to know what he is doing about it.
This matter brooks of absolutely no delay. It is vital to our country at the present time. It is not machines operating from aircraft carriers that matter, although one can see from their operational work at Taranto how important their work is. It is not the function of the aircraft-carrier-borne machine to compete with these long-distance raids on the trade routes by bomber aircraft in conjunction with submarines. One has to use machines operated from and based on land. The new attack is coming from machines based on shore, German machines with a tremendous range and with great reliability, and it is only possible to meet that attack if we can operate machines of our own from suitable bases in the British Isles. If that be so, it is common sense to suggest that the control over the operation of those machines should be in the hands of the Admiralty and not in the hands of the Royal Air Force. I do not care what jealousies have existed in the past. If they exist to-day they should be swept out of the way. Before it is too late we must organise methods, from the air in conjunction with the sea, which will put an end to this menace to our sea-borne trade. I beg the Government to take steps at once to provide the Navy with suitable bases on shore under the control of the Naval high command, with suitable machines which can be used for the purpose. We can get machines from the United States of America, which can provide us with exactly the type of aircraft that is needed.
What does Germany care what happens in the Mediterranean, the Far East, the Ruhr or anywhere in the world, provided that she can strike the one blow which she knows will win the war—that is, the strangling of British outgoing and incoming trade. What I am saying is of no help to the enemy, and indeed, the enemy would far sooner that the people of this country did not know the jeopardy in which they stand to-day. Germany knows very well what is our vulnerable spot, and she is hammering at it day by day. The tale of sinkings is going up. I do not believe the people of this country have the slightest idea of the effect these sinkings are having upon our war effort. Germany does not need any words from me to tell her what is our vulnerable spot. I am concerned, the Government are concerned, and no doubt the people of this country would be most deeply concerned if they realised how the toll of sinkings is rising.
Let me say this in passing, that I do not believe we are replacing this lost tonnage either as quickly or as efficiently as we could. I hear tales of men leaving the shipyards and going into other better paid work. If ever there was a time in the history of the British Empire when every shipyard should be working its hardest to make new construction, that time is now. The Government that neglects to see that our merchant shipping tonnage, as well as our naval tonnage, is constantly renewed, is playing with the destinies of the British Empire. I wish that the Prime Minister was in his seat in the Chamber now. I should like to have a categorical assurance from him that no stone is being left unturned to provide more and more merchant shipping to replace the tonnage that is being lost. What are the Government doing about it? I cannot believe that the danger that exists to-day is properly realised. We can get the machines from America, so I am informed. Are we getting them? Are any steps being taken to get the right type of machines? Are any steps being taken to give to the Navy the machines and the air bases that will enable them, in conjunction with surface craft, to work out a scheme which will put an end to this drain on our merchant tonnage?
Our sea-borne trade is our life blood, and a nation, like an individual, will bleed to death if it loses enough blood. Already we see the increased menace from the German submarines. People ask why they are so much more efficient now than they were at the beginning of the war. The reason is that this new technique of using submarines in conjunction with long-distance aircraft has made them twice as dangerous to our shipping as they were. Their sole object is the destruction of British merchant tonnage. I do not believe they are so much concerned with our surface war craft. They are concentrating all the time upon the Western approaches to this country. Germany lost the last war because she did not realise until too late that she could never beat this country unless she beat it at sea. To-day, there are those in this country who are crying out for land expeditions here, for bombing attacks there, and for further war efforts in some other direction—all exceedingly valuable, all exceedingly desirable) but all of no weight at all in comparison with the protection of the Western approaches to the British Isles. When will we get it into our heads that we shall only win this war by sea supremacy? And sea supremacy means sea-air supremacy—the new technique, the two weapons working together. That is what Germany is doing, and we shall need to get that fact into our heads before it is too late, for otherwise we cannot survive.
In the past, Germany has always thought in terms of land armies. The new regime in Germany has been quick to recognise the potentialities of the air. In the past, Germany has been blind to the fact that to defeat the British Empire she had to get control of the sea by one means or another. I believe that to-day Germany realises that as far as the land is concerned her bolt is shot. That is why the clever men there—and they are clever men who are controlling the destinies of Germany at the present time, however much we may dislike them, nobody has ever denied their cleverness—are now alive to the fact that then-only chance of defeating this country lies in a successful attack upon our Western approaches. Gone for nothing are the victories of the River Plate, in the air, at Taranto, in Africa, everywhere and anywhere, every victory of our Armies, every deed of heroism of our airmen, every deed of self-sacrifice and heroism by the great Civil Defence services, the sweat and sacrifice of the workers in the factories—gone for nothing is the whole effort this country is making to win the war if we fail to guard the Western approaches to the British Isles. The menace exists to-day and it grows from day to day. The sinking of the "Empress of Britain" should have called our attention to the danger. The sinking of that ship was occasioned by the work of aircraft in conjunction with the submarine, and that sinking should have been the writing on the wall for all to read. The very name should have given us the key to where our danger lies.
That is the menace. We still have time to meet it, but only just time. It is no good shilly-shallying. We cannot have this divided control, one operation conducted from the air and another operation conducted from the sea; we cannot have that when it comes to guarding the Western approaches to the British Isles. There must be one authority. As it is a Naval matter, I plead with the House to say that it should be a Naval officer who is in control. He cannot do it unless he has sufficient aircraft of the right character and sufficient bases from which they can operate. However pleased we may be with the exploits that are being carried out day after day by our pilots—in Greece and everywhere else—nothing matters if the vulnerable backdoor to this country, our Western approaches, is left unsecured. I beg the House, and the public outside whom my words may perhaps reach, to keep these two words in front of them. Write them on the hoardings, publish them in letters of gold, shout them from the housetops, proclaim them from the platforms, teach them in the schools, preach them from the pulpits—"the Western approaches, the Western approaches" —the one place where the British Empire can be brought down and beaten, the one place which to-day, I believe, is insufficiently guarded.
We are told that this is a war of international ideas, and that this is a terrific struggle for Christian democracy. Let us examine this theme briefly. There are many sides or facets to present German racial philosophy. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) has just stressed the need for good propaganda in enemy countries with a view to breaking down the power of Germanic philosophical ideas. With the permission of the House I should like to stress the question of certain racial ideas which have been prominent in the writings of some pseudo-scientific writers in this country, which are dangerous and pagan, and which have not up to the present been publicly repudiated. It is the custom in democracies for every subject, good or evil, to be discussed, and that ideas, however unorthodox, whether Christian, amoral or revolting, should be considered. There are certain men to-day to whom the Government appeal for medical advice, like the Chinese Abacus, on almost every subject. Film star worship has its sociological counterpart. When, therefore, certain popular individuals are being asked to give advice on health and scientific problems it is well that this House should have regard to their outlook, and should know what is being sponsored and advocated outside. The stud-farm German philosophy with regard to breeding gets us nowhere in Christianity. Yet in this House even National Labour Members, like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) have been heard in venal veneration advocating a certain choice as Health Commisioner for London with compulsory powers. In my student days in Glasgow, Kilmarnock was a constituency of Christian electors and Godfearing Presbyterian Scottish folk.
They are so now. I was born there.
Kilmarnock is, then, safely Christian. But what would such an electorate think if certain eugenic views I shall mention immediately were broadcasted and their influential sponsorship circulated? Incidentally, in Poland to-day Germany is giving expression to her racial ideas by sterilising compulsorily adult Poles. Even in Russian Poland they have not stooped to this revolting and sadistic and sordid barbarity. I want to stress specially one typical and particular instance—that of an eminent ennobled physician, very good in clinical work, a very popular personality, who is very frequently called in by the Government to give advice as a universal health authority. The House may not be aware that in a book entitled "After Us," published in 1936, this ennobled physician with influential ramifications, with the ear of the Court, the ear of Cabinet Ministers, and afforded microphone facilities, sponsored certain eugenic views. What are they? I propose to read one or two extracts from this book, because in my view the racial and breeding ideas suggested are the obverse of Hitler's faked philosophic coin, based on perverted science. The scientific Tenth Column have been planting this opinion quietly on the public, and the House and public men have not been taking any notice of the dire effect they are having on Christian households and disillusioned minds in Great Britain.
On page 52 of this sponsored book—with an eminent imprimatur—and here I wish to say that I have nothing to state against his medical knowledge—he has treated me personally with great consideration and I am only expressing my personal views and not those of any organisation or of any of my employers—base views are promulgated on which I feel deeply. I think that these pseudo-scientific, bastard racial philosophies should be met and rebuffed as soon as possible. On page 52 it states:
We have that now.
The hon. Member is, of course, speaking for himself as usual. Or is the aim the creation of a slave bovine Plebs ridden by a gangster tyranny? This is carrying us back to worse than the Romulus and Remus stage, as they had not animal blood circulating in their developing nerve cells. What kind of mermaid animal or human monstrosity do these pseudo-scientists and their sponsors think will result from these amoral barbarities. And why stop at the heavy cow? Why not the brutal bear or the tiger or the panther, and so to the re-descent of man, Christian man with his divine inspiration and now the fall from the divine to the bovine, or ursine or feline or leonine state—a variegated Plebs, different in different countries and bred not for peace and Christendom but for war and greed. Is not the present jungle civilisation of warring nations enough? Why not leave such sordid propaganda to the Nazi regime? Why dwell on these filthy ideas now?
If we are to build a new world, a new international world order of personal democratic freedom and representative institutions with high spiritual issues held aloft, must not the strings of this sordid ballooning, with its basic human maiming be cut at its source? Why not face this sordid materialism of the Tenth Column of perverted science which a struggling plebian Democracy has tolerated in its midst? Is not the fact of the Totalitarian racial poison which, like a cancer, has been eating into the mental outlook of the world, worming relentlessly its way into influential circles and public discussion? Is not this Nazi infiltration of racial stud farm tactics—defeat on opposing nations first by the dissemination of rotten disintegrating ideas in great subtlety and trickery—and then on to the military clash of arms?
I went into my constituency and read some of these quotations to a working—class mother. I said, "What do you think of this? "She replied, "Is this a book written not by doctors for doctors but by a doctor under high sponsorship for reading for the public? "I said, "Yes. "She said," All I can say is that it is a disgusting, nauseating, revolting doctrine, and I could not have them standing on my doorstep." The House may ask, as an hon. Member whispered, sotto voce, "What has this to do with the subject under discussion? "It is, in my view, of tremendous importance if we are fighting for certain spiritual values and to prevent science being perverted against the working—classes. If Christians are maintaining a struggle for the things that matter, these spiritual issues are worth fighting for. And all this scientific blossoming is not even accepted. Here is another quotation on Eugenics from a book, "Out of the Night," by H. J. Muller, 1935—(pages 10 and 11, Preface): told that this was part of the ultimate philosophy of the Nazi gang with its tremendous effect on family life and personal mating and choice, it would have greater effect than some of the broadcasts to those countries now. I quote these lines from the American poet, Markham, who also wrote the "Man with the Hoe":
The Debate has ranged over a very wide field. I do not think the hon. Member who spoke last should have found it necessary to apologise for the introduction of a subject which, although few of us understand it as he does, is undoubtedly of very great importance. But I know he will forgive me if I do not follow him into those scientific fields about which I know so little, and ask the House to direct its attention once again to the question of the provision of labour for the immense effort in munitions which will be necessary if we are to win the war. The very able and eloquent speech from my hon. Friend behind me regarding the danger which we are facing in the Western approaches to this Island is undoubtedly related to the problem of the provision of more merchant ships, and therefore is a part of the munitions problem as a whole. No one here will question that this is a war of machines much more than of men. I have no doubt that in the end the character and the morale of our Fighting Forces will bring us victory, and it may well be that victory will actually be won in the end by the man with the bayonet, as has been the case in the past. The Minister of Labour the other day said that in the next few months there would be an enormous call-up of men for the Fighting Services. Far be it from me to touch on any questions of strategy or to say that those men will not be necessary. No doubt they may be necessary, but we shall do well to realise that, even with the white man-power of the Empire, the total population from which we can draw is limited. I wonder very much whether we shall be able to bear the strain of this abnormal increase in the Armed Forces at the same time as the strain which will be necessary to produce all the munitions of war.
The Prime Minister has inspired the whole country and put new life into the Fighting Services, and there have been carried out changes in the high command which many people have thought showed a new view of the necessities of modern war. Some of us, perhaps, wonder whether all the necessary changes have even yet been made; this is a war so different from any in the past. But, however that may be, believing that it is a machine war, it is in the direction of the production effort that I find cause for uneasiness. It is difficult to feel any confidence that we have really solved the problem of putting all our people to work. It is impossible to believe it with anything like 800,000 on the unemployment register, however artificial that figure may be in the sense that men are changing occupations and others are temporarily stood off. Whatever the figure may be, even allowing that the one I have quoted is too large, it is at any rate a figure which does not justify us in thinking that the Government has hilly appreciated the results of the war upon peace-time industry or made sufficient provision to absorb those rendered unemployed by the war.
The problem, however, goes really far beyond merely employing people who are registered as out of work. It is a problem of getting into work all those men and women who can contribute to the production which is essential to keep these increased masses of fighting men in the front line, and quite irrespective of whether the new recruits to industry have worked in these occupations in the past, or even have worked at all. That is the problem with which we are faced. It is our full industrial strength that must be used. There is little indication so far that we are making full use of it. I do not want to go into detail in these matters, because there will no doubt be other opportunities when the Minister of Labour is present to deal more fully with them. It is plain, however, that this problem means a great increase in training, and our efforts in this direction, so far as reported to this House, do not hold out any security that the Government are carrying out that bold and courageous scheme of which we read and heard with so much satisfaction a few months ago. It means, in addition to training in the ordinary sense of the word, a large-scale transference from nonessential to essential industries. I realise, as well as the Government do, the difficulties of training. I know that the best training can only be in the workshops and that it is difficulty to make a decision as to what amount of machinery it is essential to use for production and how much can be spared for training, and whether a long or short view should be taken. What worries us in this House is that we are not certain that this problem is being tackled. Is anybody making these vital decisions? Is anybody deciding as to what extent the long view should be taken? If, as most of us think, we are in for a long struggle, and if we can deal with the immediate problem about which my hon. Friend spoke a few moments ago with regard to the position on the Western sea board, then a long view must be taken. That means, both in workshops and in training schools, training on a very large scale such as is not in operation at the present time.
That brings me to my next point, which I want to put to the Government plainly. Do the Government really believe that this tremendous change-over in the lives and occupations of the people of this country can be carried through on a voluntary basis? There is everything to be said for a voluntary basis. I hate compulsion in every form, and I appreciate the arguments put forward by the Minister of Labour the other day in favour of the voluntary system. If we can get results on that basis, well and good, but we are not getting them now. We are not fully using our industrial strength, and we must use it if we are to win the war. I believe that the Minister of Labour is probably better fitted than any other man in the House or out of it to secure what we want by a voluntary system, but the test for him, I fear, as it is in the case of most of us in other things, is whether he is successful. That is the only real test, and if the country is not satisfied that he is successful he will fall, and what would be much worse and much to be regretted, the Government might fall with him. The question of how we are to get the production which is necessary to win the war is a most serious one. If it means a complete change-over in the whole habits and customs of the country it will have to be faced.
The Prime Minister carries with him the good will, assent, encouragement and support of every Member of the House, but I do not think the House has quite the same confidence in the whole of his Cabinet. It is common sense that we do not expect everybody to be in the front rank, but is the Cabinet working as a Cabinet with every member of it pulling his full weight? Is it working together to get immediate results? That is worrying a great many of us who have to deal directly or indirectly with these problems of production outside this House. In the last war such matters as I have been dealing with would, no doubt, have been dealt with by members of the Cabinet of that day. At a later stage we had a wider Cabinet containing men bearing great names from the Dominions. I have not seen any sign of anything of the sort being suggested now, but surely in a war in which we are so much dependent on the overseas Empire, the time has come when there ought to be some form of Imperial War Cabinet. I throw that out in passing because it is not the point with which I want to deal now.
In public Session it is not possible to go into detail and ask a number of questions which I would like to ask, because I do not want to say anything harmful to our cause. I would like to ask, however, what has happened to the Tank Board. The Board was set up by the Ministry of Supply with a great flourish of trumpets a few months ago. Shortly afterwards the distinguished chairman had to go to India to do other valuable work for the Government. What has happened to that Board? Does it exist any longer? What has been set up in its place? When are we to get a new statement in regard to the production of tanks? Who is to-day responsible for one of the most important arms with which this great and growing Army is concerned?
Another point dealing with production concerns not only our ability to produce arms, but the cost of them. How are we to deal with that? I read some time ago in newspapers views expressed by Mr. Keynes to the effect that up to the time when he was speaking there seemed little sign of inflation in this country. I wish I could be as happy as he is on this subject. Many hon. Members in all quarters of the House expressed their fears and doubts about the financial situation at the time of the last Budget. Excluding the Post Office accounts, which are self-balancing, the total expenditure for this year was estimated last July to be in the neighbourhood of £3,500,000,000. Against this there was an estimated revenue of £1,360,000,000, leaving the enormous deficit of over 2,000,000,000 to be covered. I do not apologise for dealing with these figures, because there are few opportunities when the House can be led to realise the financial situation except at the time of a Budget. The intervals between one Budget and another, even if we had two a year, are too long in time of war to enable us properly to consider what is, after all, one of the most vital aspects of our war effort.
To-day the deficit is even more serious. With our increased expenditure it may be between £2,000,000,000 and £3,000,000,000 before the end of the financial year. We spent over £1,500,000,000 in the 26 weeks from April to September. Let me give a figure to show how this expenditure is increasing. In the four weeks of last April our expenditure was £184,000,000; in the same period in September it was £291,000,000. Already the Budget deficit of last July has been underestimated by about £300,000,000. The volume of credit and currency is a steadily growing factor. Since the beginning of the war we have increased the National Debt by £1,800,000,000, and there has been a steady rise in wholesale prices, which are now about 40 per cent. over a year ago. I do not say that the situation is yet dangerous, but it is clear that so long as the bulk of our expenditure is not met by taxation further currency ex- pansion is almost inevitable. The examination of this question must be harnessed to the question of production because the scramble for labour, and especially for skilled labour, which will increase in intensity, will naturally raise its value.
The rise in prices, and therefore in the cost of living, is, of course, another factor making for increased wage rates. This aspect of the matter vitally affects the decisions which the Government will have to take on the questions of production and labour supply, but we have had no indication, so far as I am aware, that this vital aspect of the matter is being even seriously considered by the Government. I have no doubt the Minister of Labour would say with some reason that the financial aspect is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Chancellor in turn might well say that the payment of the labour required to produce the munitions is primarily a matter for the Minister of Labour. That is the difficulty we always appear to be in. The Government is working far too much in water-tight compartments. Actually this is one problem, not two, it is the same problem—how are you going to get munitions and how are you to pay for them? Both things must be considered together.
In the latter part of my remarks I wish to address myself to the question of how we are to raise the money. I am not going to make a Budget speech, but I wish to show the House that those two things hang together. We have an Excess Profits Tax on joint stock companies. I said some time ago in this House that I thought it was a great mistake to make the duty zoo per cent. We should have got more money if we had left it at 80 per cent., and we certainly should not have destroyed initiative, as we have done. But whether the tax be 80 or 100 per cent., the effect is the same, and that is that the bulk of the earnings of joint stock companies from the war will go into the coffers of the State, and so far that is satisfactory. The enormous increase in Government expenditure is—taking E.P.T. off—mainly going into an expansion of private incomes. I have the greatest admiration for what Sir Robert Kindersley and his associates have done in connection with war savings, but neither taxation nor borrowing is covering this growing accumulation.
Even if he could borrow on a still much larger scale, I ask hon. Members to consider what will be the position in this country after the war—after we have won this war, as we shall. What is to be the position as between the rentier and the producer who is still dependent, as many will no doubt be, upon his weekly wages? It will be a very difficult situation for the Government of that day to meet. The situation of the country unless we greatly increase taxation will be dangerous indeed, and the other danger, that of inflation, is perhaps even nearer. The Limitation of Supplies Act and the natural contraction, due to the war, in the quantities of goods available, means an increasing amount of money available for consumers, and the result is a further rise in prices and thus the spiral begins and inflation follows. One of the first things the Government should do is to consider an extension of the E.P.T. scheme to all private incomes within the Income Tax limit, so that no individual really benefits as a result of the war. But whatever action the Government may take it must be such as will increase the proportion of the war expenditure which comes out of the pockets of the people.
We cannot long continue in this very precarious position, and I ask what attention is being given by the Government to these vital matters? Incidentally, Members will no doubt have noticed in recent publications that the total deposits of the joint stock banks have increased by £280,000,000 since the outbreak of the war. Some of this represents money entirely created by the banks themselves, with which they supply the State with funds. It has enabled the banks to increase their investments in Government loans by £100,000,000, to deposit another £100,000,000 with the Treasury and to add largely to their balance of Treasury bills; and all this since the beginning of the war. Every penny of this money has been raised by a process which costs the banks little or nothing, and is receiving interest from the Government. Whatever advantage this system may have had in the past, and however reasonable it may have been that banks should receive interest upon their ordinary deposits loaned to the Government, surely the time has come when, in war-time, the system should receive some reconsideration. Perhaps its worst feature is that, to some extent, it conceals inflation.
My next point is in connection with our financial position vis-à-vis the United States. This question has been brought very prominently into the foreground by the speech of our Ambassador, Lord Lothian, when he arrived in America the other day. I should have been very diffident about raising the matter in the House at all if it had not been for that speech, but I am glad that the question has been ventilated. I do not ask the Government to give us an accurate figure of the amount that has been expended in the United States. I do not think it is reasonable to ask them for it, and figures of that kind should not be made public; but we all know that immense sums have been spent there, and that the Treasury has had to realise the bulk of the American securities previously held by British nationals. I have no doubt that the matter is being discussed in the United States, but some day it will be necessary for the House of Commons to be advised of the arrangement which can be come to with the United States, with the good will of that Government. We all know for how much their good will counts now. They are very anxious to help us in every way they can.
I ask, firstly, that the fullest possible supplies be made available from the United States of America to this country and, secondly, what means we have to pay for them. What is to be the final basis of the settlement after the war? I do not ask for answers about these matters now, but this is one of the few occasions for raising matters which are worrying people in this country. The time will surely come when the House of Commons will desire to know some thing of the arrangements that are to be made with the United States in the future about these matters. I do not suggest that we can now finally settle these problems of after-war debt. It is impossible to do so, but we want to avoid, if we can, the development of a situation resembling the that at which we arrived after the last war. Those of us who visit the United States from time to time are well aware of the feeling which existed and was expressed there, as a result of our default.
On the question of enlisting into this war every human being in the country capable of-making an active contribution, and the necessity of planning now to meet the financial situation that will face us at home, I ask the very earnest attention of the Government. The people of this country are facing very great dangers and very considerable hardships. The country has the greatest confidence in the spirit and character of the Fighting Forces, but, in spite of what has been said here to-day, and without in any way suggesting that comparison should be made between the soldier and the civilian, I say that at the moment the civilian population are, as it were, in the front line. They are facing a situation of which they have no training, and they are facing a situation of which they have no experience and for which they have no hardships with steadfastness and confidence. They are likely to be tried a great deal harder yet before the war is over.
at the moment the civilian population are, as it were, in the front line. They are facing a situation of which they have no training, and they are facing a situation of which they have no experience and for which they have no hardships with steadfastness and confidence. They are likely to be tried a great deal harder yet before the war is over.
Let the Government make no mistake. The people are facing these difficulties in the determination to see this peril of war brought to an end once and for all. That, to my mind, is quite definite. The people want it made clear that this kind of menace to the peace of the world shall never occur again; their hardships would not be worth bearing if they did not think that such a result were possible. It is no use saying that this is not a war against the German people. Of course it is. It is also against the Italian people. We are told that a country gets the Government it deserves. Perhaps that could be applied to this country. One hon. Member spoke of the Government's responsibilities for the past. My Noble Friend spoke of his responsibilities as a Minister, and took an extra share. Speaking for myself, very regretfully I take responsibility for the mistakes that we have made, but after all, we, who are out of the Government of the day, had to believe what we were told. That is my complaint now; we are still believing what we are told. Are we right in believing it? We have been let down once. I suggest seriously that the situation is so critical that the Government must keep the House of Commons fully informed and must satisfy them that they are really tackling these problems. It is no use saying that there are difficulties. Of course there are difficulties. I could easily point out how difficult it is to get trainees and to recruit people to munition works. I know it is difficult, but it is because it is difficult that the Government are there, and we want to see the Government get over those difficulties.
There is not yet a complete feeling of confidence in this House or in the country that the Government are working as one team in these matters. The people of this country must be assured that they are. They are not going to face these hardships in a complete feeling of confidence unless they can be assured that we are going to win the war. In order to win it we must get these arms and munitions, and to get these munitions every man and woman who can work must work, irrespective of who they are. It is on those points that we want assurance. If the people can get it the Government will have behind them in their home effort, as they have in their war effort led by the Prime Minister, the whole-hearted support of the House and the country. The country wants to see this war at an end. It wants to see us win definitely, so that Germany and Italy will understand this time that we have won, whether it be by marching through Berlin or Rome or whatever may be necessary to show it. It is only because the people believe that they will get that that they are prepared to stand up to the hardships of to-day, and it is for that reason and in that hope alone that they will support this or any other Government.
I welcome this opportunity of taking part in a general Debate in which any particular question may be raised. I indicated to the Secretary of State for Scotland that I would raise some matters particularly affecting Scotland. The Secretary of State has a document issued by the Scottish Temperance Alliance and backed by the churches, in which there are extracts of drink-associated crimes, offences and incidents, taken from the Scottish newspapers in the month of August last. An appeal is made to the Scottish Members of Parliament, and that is why I intervene to-day.
I do not wish to appear to be exaggerating or making any general accusation, but if the Secretary of State were present he would be the first to agree that in some respects the situation is very serious, that the Government cannot ignore it, and that we must have an answer from the Secretary of State in due course. I know that he has already given a reply saying that until any of these excesses affect supply and efficiency he will not feel called on to take action. I would like to quote three statements, one by the Sheriff of Glasgow, and the other two by leading Counsel. The Sheriff of Glasgow, in imposing a fine of £10 on 5th August last, remarked that offences of this type, which hindered essential production, must be stopped. The other two cases which I give are these: In one instance, which led to fines of £8 and £9 being imposed on 10th August last, the Depute Fiscal said that men were taking whisky into the premises and drinking it, and this was impairing their efficiency. In a further case, the Fiscal said that a great deal of delay was caused in work of an important nature of this kind by men leaving their employment to get refreshments.
I turn from these general statements to the question of road accidents in Scotland. In 1938, the latest year for which I have figures, the number of road accidents in Scotland was no less than 17,074; and in these 655 persons were killed, and 19,76o were injured. Convictions for driving under the influence of drink—and these, of course, are much less numerous than the cases because that offence, though present, may not appear in the indictment or the judgment—numbered 371 in 1932. The last three years show a steady increase: 1936, 539; 1937, 603; and 1938, 706. The Chief Constable of Glasgow in commenting on these convictions, and the convictions so far as they relate to Glasgow, which had increased from 82 in 1934 to 172 in 1937, said it was "alarming," and used these words:
Before leaving this subject, I should like to quote from the words of the present Minister of Transport himself when giving evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Road Accidents, which was appointed on 10th November. 1938. He said: bona-fide residents." No such thing as a "temporary bona-fide resident" is known to the law. A bona-fide traveller is one who is passing some distance from place to place. He cannot be a person who is either temporarily or permanently residing in the area. There must be a seven-day licence to enable a resident to be served. For 86 years Sunday opening in Scotland has been prohibited on every public house certificate, except where there is a seven-day licence. No licensing court has any power whatsoever to set aside this provision. We regard the Forbes-McKenzie Act as one of the great social advances of the last century.
I have here testimonies and statistics published three years after the Act had come into operation, showing on the testimony of every chief constable in Scotland the great effects that it had produced. A Royal Commission in 1860 confirmed these reports. I have never heard any candidate for Parliament, or for any other public office in Scotland, say that he would repeal this Act. We are speaking of the creation of a new social order in this country. As I see it—and I see it with all the intensity of a lifelong service to this cause—if you allow this dark river of death to run through the land it will undermine the best social system you can ever set up; it will poison your new communal life at its roots; it will besmirch your noblest ideals; it will turn your rising sun into darkness, and it will eclipse your new milleniumal dawn.
It is well known that under an ordinance coming into operation on 1st January, 1930, the quantity of liquor imported into the Gold Coast was to be reduced year by year by roughly 10 per cent., until it was to be completely eliminated last year. Instead of that being done, a new ordinance has been introduced, which allows for the first year no less than 150,000 imperial gallons to be imported. I know that that ordinance has not yet been passed. I hope that the Government will consider seriously before it is passed. I will not enter into its merits now; but I hope that, if it is to be passed, some opportunity will be given for its discussion here. A remarkable letter was written by Robert Burns to Mrs. Dunlop on 10th April, 179o, in which he said:
The Debate to-day has ranged, as was to be expected, over a very wide field, and I cannot hope, and I do not think that I should be expected, to do more than deal with as many as possible of the main points that have been put by various speakers on either side of the House. I would first like to deal with some of the points made by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) in the course of a very eloquent, comprehensive and practical speech. The Noble Lord began by saying something to this effect, that the Government have to make up their minds either to suppress the Parliamentary institution altogether, or, when debate takes place, to consider carefully what has been said and make a genuine attempt to answer the points raised.
I do not quarrel with that as a general statement, though my Noble Friend might perhaps have qualified his remark by the consideration that in time of war a certain degree of restraint should be expected on both sides in regard to the disclosure of matters which would be of assistance to the enemy. Indeed, my Noble Friend himself recognised that point when he went on at a late stage to qualify what he had previously said by remarking that, if necessary, the answer sought should be given in Secret Session. I do not think that any hon. Member in any quarter of the House would be prepared to say that the Government have shown any marked unwillingness to meet hon. Members in Secret Session where there has been a clearly expressed wish for debate under those conditions. My Noble Friend, however, made that remark, I think, with reference to something which fell from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in the Debate last week, when a wish was expressed for the figure showing the percentage increase of output necessary for war purposes. My right hon. Friend, in somewhat jocular vein, said that no doubt the figure would be of great interest to Members but would also be of great interest to Hitler. Nobody in any quarter of the House would for a moment desire that information should be given which would be of real value to the enemy, but I suggest that that figure, even if it were given, would be of very doubtful value, because the measure of the effectiveness of our war effort is not in any immediate increase that we may achieve in actual production. Our war effort must be directed in the main to the development of productive capacity, and productive capacity may well be developed to the great advantage of our war effort at the expense of immediate production. I myself, although claiming no special knowledge of these matters, would be very reluctant to produce as a guide to the success or effectiveness of our war effort figures showing how the curve of production has moved.
My Noble Friend opposite passed on to criticise the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour towards compulsion. Well, my right hon. Friend is very well able to look after himself but I do not think it would be fair to the House if I did not say a word on that subject. My Noble Friend compared the position of a civilian with that of a member of the Fighting Services. I confess that I thought the comparison a little unfortunate in relation to this particular question of compulsion. He spoke almost as if he thought that the reason for applying compulsion in the case of civilian labour could be found in some comparison of the degree to which civilians on the one hand, and members of the Fighting Services on the other hand, are exposed to hardship and danger in the course of the war. Personally, I think that that is a wholly misleading comparison. To begin with, it is not a true comparison. Members of the A.R.P. services, fire brigades, police, casualty services and Mercantile Marine are always in the firing line. On the other hand, in the Fighting Services there are very many who, from the point of view of actual risk and danger, are for long periods in an enviable position of security. That involves no reflection on them, but I suggest that the comparison is rather meaningless and also irrelevant, because it cannot, surely, be suggested as a valid reason for applying compulsion that it is necessary in order to create a sense of equality.
The test to be applied in deciding whether to use compulsion or not is whether it will give you results. In that connection, I suggest that there is a material difference, which is very relevant, between the condition of men in the Fighting Services and civilians. When a man joins the Fighting Services he gives up his whole life to the Government; he puts himself, his interests, his time and everything entirely at their disposal, and the Government accept a corresponding obligation and liability. They accept the obligation to provide everything in reason that the soldier requires. In the case of the civilian the position is entirely different. Ordinarily, when the Government decide whether or not they are going to apply compulsion to force a civilian to go into a particular job or to remain in a particular job, they do not contemplate making themselves responsible, in the same way as they do for the soldier, for all the consequences. That is not to say that compulsion is not to be applied in the case of civilian labour where it is the best and most appropriate method. I do not think my Noble Friend was justified in saying that the Government had no right to bring forward the Bill some months ago if they did not intend to make use of it. The Government have done nothing to suggest that they are not prepared to make use of it.
They have also done nothing to suggest that they are.
Let me give the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) one illustration—the case of members of the Civil Defence services. They are civilians they are not subject to military discipline. Compulsion has been applied to them to keep them in their jobs. The same principle has been applied in the case of agriculture, and it may be extended, and it should be extended so far as the circumstances justify the exercise of those powers. We may well have to apply compulsion in tackling the vitally important and most urgent task of reconstruction in the industrial centres that have been subjected to very heavy aerial attack. We may well have to apply the principle of compulsion there, but it should only be applied after full consideration of all the circumstances. I am here simply concerned to say that the principle has been applied already and that it will be applied, as far as may be necessary, in the future. In any case, the fact that the powers exist is in itself of value.
While still dealing with the question of our organisation for securing a greater and more effective productive effort, may I now pass from the immediate question of the application of compulsion to civilian labour to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), who also found something to criticise, from a somewhat different point of view, in regard to the organisation of our war effort. He said that the problem of putting all the people to work had not been solved. He was right there. He also said he was doubtful whether the problem was really being tackled. He was not right there. Let me pause for a moment to look at that problem. Do not let any of us speak as if it were a case where one had only to concentrate sufficient thought and sufficient effort on this comparatively narrow problem of securing the maximum employment of the available labour and that then we could get results. That is not the position. The factors of production are all interlocked. To get effective results you must ensure that everything moves in step. For the effective employment of labour in war production you must have your factories, you must have the equipment for your factories, you must have the necessary managerial, technical skill, as well as, in the right proportions, the necessary fully-skilled labour, semi-skilled labour, and unskilled labour. All these things have to be dealt with; they have all to be kept in proper relationship with one another. It is not a simple problem of dealing with what is called unemployment. I believe it to be the case that so far all the demands of the Supply Departments for particular kinds of labour have, for practical purposes, been met. The point I want to make is that the organisation of the Government for dealing with these matters is one which has been set up for dealing with all of them together, preserving the balance, as it must be preserved, between one factor and another.
The question of training to which the Noble Lord and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) referred, is vitally important. Some disappointment was, I think, expressed with the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour gave last week on the subject, but hon. Members will know that the time available to him was, through some mischance, somewhat curtailed. I know he could have given a very complete picture of what is being done towards training in the Ministry of Labour's training centres, in the technical colleges, and above all in the factories where the greater part of that work must necessarily be done. There again, training of labour is not the simple thing one might think at first blush. Training has to be given with due regard to the nature of the job, how the work is broken up in the factory, the kind of machinery which is available and how far human skill is incorporated in the machine, because on these considerations depend the degree to which you must carry the training, and the proportion of fully skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labour required. All these things have constantly to be kept under review and carefully thought out in order that the Government may find a properly balanced programme of development.
Proceeding along the lines which the right hon. Gentleman has just developed, may I ask how long it is to be before we have sufficient trainees in the factories, and how long it will be before we have produced skilled operatives out of these training schemes?
I think that that question ought really to be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
Are we to understand that because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour was precluded, by time, from stating the full case, and the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President does not think it expedient to state the position, that we are not to have a proper answer?
It is not because I do not think it is expedient. Hon. Members will appreciate that I am not as familiar with the actual details of the matter, and I would rather not therefore give an immediate answer at this moment. The matter is being attacked by the Government with vigour and with foresight, and with success, and we may reasonably expect to see rapid progress.
rose
I really do not think I ought to give way, because I have a very wide field to cover and a very little time in which to do it. The Noble Lord went on to make reference to the question of the development of our resources in the Colonial Empire and in India. I can only say on that that the Commission presided over by Sir Alexander Roger has been actively at work in India for some weeks past. We have recently had a conference for which I think there was no precedent in the last war, at Delhi, designed to suggest methods for using to the greatest advantage the resources not only of India but of the Colonial Empire. The results of that conference are just becoming. available to the Government, who will come to decisions on the recommendations with the least possible delay. The Noble Lord went on to deal with the question of the use of the land, and what he called, not derelict land, but "uncultivated cultivable land." That is a very important question. There again it is necessary for the Government to consider very carefully how the effort is best to be applied to the solution of the problem of developing home production of foodstuffs, how far it should be applied in improving the fertility and productivty of land already under cultivation, and how far in bringing into cultivation land which at present is not cultivated., The County Agricultural Committees have at present all necessary powers in the matter, and my right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to set up a special ad hoc body for that purpose. Following remarks which were made quite recently by my Noble Friend on this subject, further action has been taken to deal with the problem to which he has referred of land capable of being rendered more productive but at so great an expense as to make it doubtful whether the farmers, unaided, could reasonably be expected to undertake it.
The whole point is that the County Agricultural Committees at present have no machinery, no skilled men and no unskilled men to deal with the matter and that it should be done by a special ad hoc body this winter.
For this purpose the Ministry of Agriculture is an ad hoc body. Meanwhile the difficulties are great in regard to labour and machinery, because, in the matter of drainage, they have to be passed on from one holding to another, but I am assured that all that is having the attention that it deserves at the hands of the Minister of Agriculture.
In regard to billeting, my Noble Friend asked whether there were not great confusion and lack of co-ordination in the arrangements made for using the accommodation available up and down the country. He suggested that there were many houses where there was a great deal of vacant accommodation of which no use was being made. From the very early days, when we had to consider the problems of evacuation, the billeting of troops and the movement of Government Departments and businesses, every effort was made to secure the most effective co- ordination possible, but many unforeseen demands had to be met. In many cases, on the other hand, arrangements had to be made in advance to earmark accommodation which will eventually be required but which has not yet been brought into use. That is often the explanation of the fact that you will find accommodation still unused in buildings which have been provisionally earmarked, but the provision for co-ordination has been carefully thought out and is, I believe, effective.
I will not now deal with some of the minor points which were raised in regard to the effectiveness of the restrictions enforced in restaurants and the use made of resources in man-power in garages. I have not the time at my disposal, but I may remind the House that an appeal was issued by the Minister of Aircraft Production in the latter connection and a very considerable response was received, and some of the man-power available in aircraft factories was obtained in that very way. With regard to machine tools, a very great effort is being made to make the most effective use of them and to increase the number available by every means possible, by production at home and by imports from overseas.
A point was raised by the hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Mr. Craik Henderson) about the very large call-up for the Army during the coming months and the balance of man-power required for industry.
I regret that I was not here when my hon. Friend spoke. In the course of that speech, I understand, he inquired as to the provisions for ensuring an effective review of manpower requirements. Under the Council of Production, of which details have been given in the House, there is a proper organisation for keeping under review the problem of man-power in all its aspects. As a result of that machinery, I have no doubt that we shall secure as time goes on a proper balance between the demands of the Fighting Services and the demands of industry.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) made a most interesting speech which provoked something which is unusual in this House—a quotation from ancient Greek. We may perhaps before we have done have occasion to listen to a quotation from modern Greek. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman in what he said in the earlier part of his speech when he discussed foreign affairs, but no doubt what he said will receive attention in the proper quarter. He drew a distinction between the discussion of war aims, which he thought entirely salutary, and the demand which one hears in certain quarters that the Government should themselves set about defining war aims. I should not like to say that I entirely agree with what the hon. Member said.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) made certain observations on a subject which was not dealt with by any other hon. Member and in regard to which I feel it is essential that I should say something. He spoke of the menace to our overseas communications and transport which has been developing during the last few months, and particularly in the last few weeks, on our Western approaches. I would not attempt to give the House, even if time were available, anything in the nature of a complete answer to the question that he raised. I do want to assure the House, however, that the vital importance of this matter has not been under-estimated by His Majesty's Government. These and connected problems are among the main preoccupations of the Defence Committee over which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presides. I know that the Prime Minister himself, with his unrivalled experience in these matters, is giving constant consideration to the question of enemy attack from underseas and from the air upon our ships in convoy. I would, however, just say this. I was closely connected with shipping during the last wear. I was Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping from the beginning until after the war, and I could see then how the losses ebbed and flowed. We had our very anxious times then, but we never doubted that an answer, and a complete answer would be found to the varying methods of attack adopted by a resourceful enemy. The same confidence can justly sustain us now, provided we are assured, as we can be assured, that the members of His Majesty's Government who are directly concerned, and their technical naval advisers are leaving nothing undone to find an early and effective solution of that grave problem.
My time is coming to an end. Several points have been put with which I cannot deal in any detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) raised the question of an Imperial War Cabinet. I think, perhaps what he had in mind was the War Cabinet during the last war, which included a very distinguished statesman from one of the Dominions. That was not an Imperial War Cabinet. There are constitutional difficulties of a very formidable character which stand in the way of any attempt which might be made to constitute an Imperial War Cabinet in the fullest sense of the term. I was asked a question about the Tank Board. The chairman of the Tank Board was Sir Alexander Roger. I should like to say, in reply to my hon. Friend, that the importance of making provision for the functions discharged by Sir Alexander Roger in relation to the Tank Board have not been overlooked and the necessary action has been taken.
Has a new chairman been appointed?
I should prefer that question to be put to the Minister responsible, the Minister of Supply.
On the question of finance, my hon. Friend had a good deal to say. The subject is a very wide one. So far, I think we can congratulate ourselves on having been able to meet what seemed at the outside very grave problems of finance with very considerable success, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided himself, in ample measure, with the most competent expert advice and assistance, and these, I am certain, will not fail him when he comes to develop his financial policy as the war goes on.
I hope that hon. Members whose points I have not dealt with will not think me guilty of any discourtesy if I pass on to say a few concluding words about this Debate. It seems to me that one of the advantages of a general Debate on the Address is to bring to the notice of the Government matters which may be exercising the minds of hon. Members or the public that would otherwise escape attention, and so fill gaps in the picture that we put before us and seek to survey. Everything that has been said will be considered by the appropriate Depart- ments. I should like to say that running through a great many of the speeches, which have dealt with many differing subjects, there has been a general undercurrent, not, perhaps, of doubt but of questioning, in regard to the adequacy of the organisation of the Government for dealing with the problems that confront us. My Noble Friend made some reference to the tremendous contribution which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made in the last war. I was in a position which enabled me to see that contribution developing as time went on, and I would say, this. In the last war it was some very considerable time before the adaptation of the Government organisation to war conditions reached an advanced stage. The problems of this war are vastly more complicated than the problems of the last war and time is a vital factor in all these matters. We cannot eliminate time. There are certain processes which can only be carried out effectively if the necessary time for them is allowed. As far as the development of the organisation of government on the civil, as distinct from the military side—using the word " military " in its widest significance—is concerned, the problems of that organisation are constantly under examination. The importance of this problem is in no danger of being underestimated. Having had a certain opportunity of considering these matters in the light of a fairly long experience of administration, and having had the opportunity of considering them from a wider standpoint than that of a Departmental Minister, I do believe that the organisation has been developed on thoroughly sound lines, and that it will be proved equal to all the demands which may be made upon it.
Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[ Mr. Boulton. ]:
Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.
Expiring Laws Continuance Bill
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[ Mr. Boulton. ]
Expiring Laws Continuance [Money]
Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed.
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorize— (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, and the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934. until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-one, and of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-two, being expenses which, under any of the three last mentioned Acts, are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and (b) the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, and the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the said thirty-first day of December and the said thirty-first day of March respectively, being receipts which, under either of the last mentioned Acts, are to be paid into the Exchequer."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Captain Crookshanh.]
May I say that we propose allowing this business to proceed through the present stage, in view of the fact that we shall later on have an opportunity of discussing it and the financial consequences of this proposal?
Question put, and agreed too.
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received upon the next Sitting Day.
Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939
Resolved,
"That the Papermaking Material (Charges) (No. g) Order, 194o, made by the Treasury under Section two of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 26th November, be approved."—[ Mr. Harold Macmillan. ]
Palestine (Illegal Jewish Immigrants)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [ Mr. Boulton. ]
I want to raise a question which I brought up at Question time to-day, not with a view to getting a reply, but in order to tell the Government of the dangers of the course that is being pursued in Palestine in regard to refugees. Two ships arrived at Haifa loaded with refugees from Hitler's Germany and Rumania. After incredible hardships these people had reached Palestine, where their friends and relations were living. They were not allowed to land, although, before the war, immigrants equally without authorisation had been allowed to land and their numbers had been deducted from future quotas of legal immigrants. They were not allowed to land. Instead of that, the Palestine administration got permission from the British Government to secure a ship, the "Patria," on to which 2,000 of these refugees were packed to be sent away to Mauritius, where they were to be put into a concentration camp and kept for the rest of the war.
It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Boulton. ]
Anyone who knows the feelings of these people who arrived in Palestine where their friends are, from the most terrific persecution, and then appreciates that these people suddenly discovered that they were to be sent away for years into a concentration camp, from which they had escaped in Germany, would understand immediately what happened. They were not going to be sent to a concentration camp. If I had been one of them I should have done as they did. By some means or other they managed to blow a hole in the ship and to sink it. It went down in Haifa Harbour and 300 are missing. The rest have been re-arrested and are now in a camp. The reason for this is that the pre-war policy of the Palestine Government must be continued during the war.
I would ask the Government to realise what has been the result. At this time, when we can least spare a single ship, particularly in the Mediterranean, when every ship is wanted for carrying munitions or men to Greece, when our shipping situation has never been so bad as at the present time, one of these ships is thrown away in this manner to carry out a policy which, whatever we may think of it politically, must appear to the whole world to be inhumane. We have pleased Hitler. We have disgusted liberal sentiment throughout the world, particularly in America, and the policy which is being carried out is diametrically opposed to an energetic prosecution of the war. Just at a time when Hitler is collecting slaves from every one of his conquered lands to work in his workshops and his fields, we refuse the offer of 2,000 people, 1,000 of whom would be qualified either to join the Army or to work in the workshops or the fields of Palestine. We have refused them permission to work, and we sent them off, at immense cost to the British taxpayer, who really is meeting a large enough bill already, to an island in the Pacific where they are kept at a cost of at least £1 00,000 a year for the rest of the war. Instead of using these people's arms and brains we have allowed them to be idle. Here we are constantly keeping people idle and out of work, for no earthly reason except to preserve the consistency of the Palestine administration in protecting the Arabs, just as the Germans are protected in Germany, from contact with this "inferior" race. The argument which has been used to me is equally futile at the present time.
It has been said, "But the economic position in Palestine is so bad that if we allow these people in it will increase unemployment." If it is anyone's right to keep people out of a country because it will increase unemployment, it is the right of the workers in that country to make that complaint. The workers in Palestine not only did not make that complaint but nearly went on strike in order that these people might land. Why is the economic position in Palestine so bad at the present time? There is a large Army there; a large amount of money is being spent in the country, and the prosperity which has come in full measure to Egypt by keeping out of the war and having us fight for her should also be found in Palestine. But the tragedy is that the oranges and other fruit produced in Palestine can no longer he imported into this or any other country because ships are not available. I am very sorry for the People who cannot sell their oranges. I am very sorry for the people who cannot eat those oranges. But that is part of the tragedy of the war which happens in any case. But here there were 2,000 people which could have been kept alive for quite a long time on the oranges that would otherwise have been exported, and to say that the economic position in Palestine is bad when there are large surpluses of foodstuffs in that country seems to me rather ridiculous.
The point I want to make is twofold: It is against squandering our man-power by putting them in concentration camps and thereby preventing the production of those war materials and foodstuffs which we have been debating to-day, and, on the other hand, the criminal folly of throwing away our ships on that sort of work when they are wanted in other ways. I hope we shall be told whether the throwing away of the "Patria" was necessary or not, that such a thing will never be repeated during this war.
Before my right hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him whether he, has any evidence for the extremely serious statement which he made that the illegal immigrants on the "Patria" deliberately blew it up? It is something so serious that it ought not to be said, unless there is evidence for it, that it was a mass suicide combined with an effort to destroy the ship and its crew.
I have no evidence of it except my knowledge of the Jewish people and my knowledge that certain of them had previously jumped overboard from ships in Haifa harbour.
It is one thing to jump overboard and another to destroy a ship, including the crew.
I dare say not all of them were responsible, but some one of those 2,000 people must have been responsible, for blowing up the ship, and, as we know, bombs are made in Palestine.
I hope my right hon. Friend will not think it a discourtesy on my part of I do not attempt to answer the question he has raised. Owing to some misunderstanding, although at Question Time my right hon. Friend stated that he intended to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I do not think my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Office was informed that it was intended to raise it this afternoon. It was understood that it was rather intended to raise it after due notice at some other convenient time.
I spoke about it to my right hon. Friend yesterday and said I would raise the matter on the Adjournment. I said it again at Question Time to-day, and I thought he understood that I meant to-day.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.