Lords Sitting of 15 November 1944

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª. (Lord Templemore.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I think that perhaps it is only due to your Lordships that I should say a word of explanation to the House before we proceed to the further consideration of what is the principal legislative business for to-day's sitting, that is, to take the Ministry of National Insurance Bill through all its stages. I regret very much that the Bill does not appear upon the Order Paper today, as the Message of its passage through another place was delayed last night until after your Lordships had risen. We had expected to receive the Bill in ample time before we rose; indeed, the main question as respects the relations between the two Houses yesterday appeared to be whether we should find the House of Commons still sitting at the time that we terminated our own discussions on the Town and Country Planning Bill, in order that they might receive the Amendments which your Lordships had made to that Bill. However, as so frequently happens in Parliamentary business, the unexpected occurred, and moreover, as a result of the deliberations in another place yesterday which prevented our receiving the Bill earlier, the Title of the Bill, your Lordships will have noticed, has been changed so that it now appears in your Lordships' House under the name of the Ministry of National Insurance Bill and not of Social Insurance, the name under which it
  1178
  first came to be known to both Houses of Parliament.
  I should like to assure your Lordships, however—and I am quite certain that my noble friend who is taking the Bill will explain this later in detail—that this change in the name does not involve any material change in the substance. It is still substantially and in all important respects the same Bill as it was before, so that the violation of the rules and customs of your Lordships' House is not so serious as might at first appear. I might of course have suggested the postponement of the discussion of this Bill until to-morrow. That would have been a possible course, but I believe it will be more convenient to most of your Lordships to take the debate this afternoon, as originally arranged, than to ask your Lordships to sit specially to-morrow for a discussion which I understand will be concerned with machinery upon which I hope and believe that it will be found there is general agreement in all quarters of the House. I hope very much the House will share that view. The discussion of the Government's insurance proposals has been arranged to take place early next Session and it is in no way anticipated by the present Bill. I hope therefore that your Lordships will have no objection to our proceeding to take this Bill through all its stages this afternoon. As I have already said, the Bill is in fact by no means new to your Lordships as it was circulated to you nearly a fortnight ago on presentation to the House of Commons. For the convenience of the House the Clerk of the Parliaments has arranged for the circulation of a separate sheet to accompany the prints of the Bill on the Table to-day, showing the changes made yesterday in another place.
  2.6 p.m.
  LORD NATHAN: My Lords, it had been my intention to make some comment here on the fact that this Bill comes before your Lordships so late and that there is no mention of it on the Order Paper. The fact of its not being mentioned on the Order Paper arises of course out of the suspension of certain Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. Frankly I think it is inconvenient to members of your Lordships' House in every quarter that the Bill

  1179
  should be brought before it so late in the Session and at such short notice, though in certain circumstances that may well be unavoidable as regards measures of great urgency relating to the prosecution of the war, and your Lordships would always be willing to facilitate the Government's business in matters of that kind. I am sorry that we have not had a longer notice of this Bill, and indeed we have not even the Bill before us at the present moment in the form in which it left another place, for we have to relate the script of Amendments to the text of the Bill which was circulated some time ago. The Leader of the House however, sensing the feeling of the House, has fully explained the position, and I am sure we shall all of us most readily accept his explanation, which he has put in such agreeable terms that any further comment that I had it in mind to make I will refrain from making.
  2.8 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, in the closing days of the Session this House is often faced by difficult contingencies and as a rule it is very ready to accede to any proposal of the Leader of the House to offer special facilities, and I think that in this case also we must agree to do so. Of course if this had been a Bill of the first rank, a Bill dealing with Social Security or National Insurance in general, it would have been impossible for the House to accede, and I am quite certain that the Leader of the House would not have suggested it; but since it is a comparatively very small measure for the establishment of a new Ministry, which from this quarter of the House we have already very strongly urged on a previous occasion and would therefore certainly not demur to now, I think the noble Lords on these Benches would concur with the Labour Party, the Official Opposition, in acceding to the request of the Leader of the House.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords and I share their regret that they have not had longer notice, but it was unfortunately on this particular occasion unavoidable. It will be my business to see that it does not occur again, if it can be avoided.
  On Question, Bill read 1a.
  2.10 p.m.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, in pursuance of the Resolution of yesterday:
  THE MINISTER or RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I move that this Bill be now read a second time. I do not propose to take up any undue amount of your Lordships' time in commending the Bill to you. The discussion on the First Reading has been very helpful from that point of view. Clearly, this is purely a machinery Bill and nothing else, designed as it is to implement the Government's proposals in the White Paper, which in another place they have discussed in some detail and which, unfortunately I think, we have not had an opportunity of discussing in this House. In that White Paper we did indicate that it was the intention of the Government at the earliest possible moment to set up a Ministry and to transfer to that Ministry responsibility foe the existing national insurance schemes.
  There is one point which I think is of some public importance that I want to take the opportunity of speaking about here, if I may. I have heard from several sources that some people who are not well informed on these subjects have wondered whether, as there is going to be a new Bill and a new Ministry, they are going to lose the rights that they have under existing measures. Perhaps your Lordships will therefore allow me to take this opportunity of reassuring them and of explaining that the existing schemes will be continued unaltered, except that the Ministers responsible will now be the Minister of National Insurance, instead of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland in so far as health benefits and contributory pensions are concerned and the Minister of Labour and National Service in so far as unemployment benefit is concerned. The insured population will continue to get their present benefits as heretofore—sickness benefits from the approved societies, unemployment benefits from the employment exchanges.
  One of the reasons why the Government think it important to proceed with this Bill is that we have come to the conclusion that the appointment of one Minister, and the transfer to him of the existing staffs experienced in the organization and administration of national insur-

  1181
  ance, is the quickest way of putting in hand the really very considerable task of translating into legislative form the proposals in the Government's White Paper, and that that is also the best method of preparing the new organization that will be needed before this scheme can operate. Therefore, in this Bill, your Lordships are not concerned with the merits of the proposals of the Government's White Paper, which you will have an ample opportunity of discussing when that legislation is prepared. We are merely concerned in this Bill with the machinery for the setting up of a new Ministry. Since members in another place decided somewhat late last night to rechristen this Bill, I commend to you the same child under another name. Had I spoken yesterday I should have strongly recommended you to adopt a social insurance measure. I am not going to say anything about a National Insurance Bill except that perhaps it does not really matter what you call it, and there is this merit about a National Insurance Bill that it does bring out the comprehensive nature of the scheme and the fact that we are all in it. It is also perhaps a somewhat fitting tribute to the original work done by that very brilliant Government which did so much for social reform and which was responsible for Mr. Lloyd George's Act of 1911.
  May I direct your Lordships' attention very briefly to the Bill itself as you have it before you? The appointment of the new Minister is dealt with in Clause 1, which contains a general description of the functions that are to be transferred to him, Broadly these functions are these: First, the function of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland in regard to national health insurance and contributory pensions; secondly, the functions of the Minister of Labour with respect to unemployment insurance; and thirdly, the functions of the Home Secretary in regards to workmen's compensation. I would ask your Lordships to note that the new Minister will also be answerable in Parliament for the work of the Assistance Board covering not only unemployment assistance but also supplementary pensions. As regards the Assistance Board, the Minister will take over simply the existing responsibilities of that Board and the Parliamentary responsibilities which devolve under three Ministers. Clauses 2 to 5 are
  1182
  the usual common form for the setting up of a new Ministry, with the limiting factor that only one Parliamentary Secretary shall be appointed.
  Clause 6, which is the operative clause deals with the transfer of functions. It provides that the transfer shall be effected by Orders in Council which will be laid before Parliament as soon as they are made. Your Lordships will have observed that in another place Parliamentary control was increased by an Amendment in subsection (8) of Clause 6 which lays it clown that Parliament is in a position to vote against any of the Orders and that they shall be annulled if either House resolves within twenty-eight days of the making of an Order that it shall be annulled.
  I think perhaps I ought to mention that in Clause 6, paragraphs (a) and (e) of subsection (1) contain two specific exceptions to the general plan that the responsibility for the existing insurance schemes shall be transferred to the new Minister. The first of these exceptions relates to the functions of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland with respect to the administration of medical benefit—that is free medical attendance and treatment, including medicine, for persons insured under the national health insurance scheme. This will be provided for the whole population under the projected National Health Service, and it is clearly right that until this service comes into being medical benefit for the insured should remain the responsibility of the two Health Ministers and not of the new Minister who will be responsible for the administration by the approved societies of the cash benefits of the National Health Scheme. The second exception concerns the functions of the Minister of Labour under specific sections of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, relating to courses of instruction and the promotion of employment. I hope that I have said enough to deal adequately with this measure and that what I have said will commend it to your Lordships' acceptance. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Woolton.)
  2.20 p.m.
  LORD NATHAN: My Lords, in this Bill I take almost a personal interest because in February of last year, speaking in a dis-

  1183
  cussion of Sir William Beveridge's Report, I expressed on behalf of my noble friends the opinion that the creation of a Ministry of Social Security was a test showing whether or not the Government meant business in the matter. I remember very well how in reply the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in the most friendly way castigated me, and whilst I recognized then as I do now the cogency and force of the formidable arguments which he deduced, I must confess that I was not convinced although those arguments won my reluctant admiration. But reading again the speech which the Lord Chancellor made on that occasion, I think his attitude was rather criticism of the fact that I was suggesting a Ministry there and then than a suggestion that there should be no Ministry whatever. I think perhaps in the light of experience and as things have developed no harm has been done in fact by the delay which has ensued, but I am glad indeed that this Bill is now before your Lordships to be passed into law.
  I should have been inclined to say, as the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading has said, that this was purely a machinery Bill were it not for the change In the title of the Bill introduced in another place last evening. I myself feel that there is much substance in the criticism made in a closely reasoned leading article in The Times of this morning, which expresses the opinion, which I myself accept, that this is not a change for the better. The term "social insurance" is almost a term of art not only in this country but in every country where social reform has become part of the legislative and administrative functions of government. "Social security" was the phrase which attracted the attention and warmed the enthusiasms of the great mass of the people of this country when they first came to study the proposals made by Sir William Beveridge and later the suggestions in the Government's White Paper. When the Bill was originally brought forward as a Social Insurance Bill there were many who felt that they had already lost the security, and now that the Bill is called the National Insurance Bill there are many who feel that a good deal has been lost by the omission of the term "social." Indeed, it looks like the old National Health Insurance Act but with health taken out. I think
  1184
  it was a psychological mistake, I think it was a political error to change the name of the Bill to the National Insurance Bill.
  I do not propose—it would indeed be unsuitable even were it in order—to discuss to-day in any way the provisions of either of the Government's White Papers and the proposals that are contained therein. I would make but this observation. I think it a pity, perhaps, that it has not been possible to order the business of your Lordships' House in such a way that these White Papers might, in your Lordships' House as in another place, have been discussed before this Bill was introduced rather than, as will be the case, after this Bill has been introduced and indeed passed into law. In that respect the House of Commons has had an advantage over your Lordships' House. There is nothing in the terms of this Bill upon which on behalf of my noble friends I would wish to comment, except that did time allow and the procedure of your Lordships' House make it easier—for all stages are to be taken in the next few minutes—I might have brought forward a suggestion for reinstating the original title of the Bill or even substituting in addition the word "security" for "insurance." As matters stand, however, on behalf of my noble friends I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House and I have no doubt that within a few minutes of my sitting down it will have been passed.
  2.28 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, when these matters were discussed comprehensively in February last year I strongly supported the suggestion in the Beveridge Report that there should be established a Ministry of Social Security. At that time the proposal was rejected by the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in your Lordships' House expressed the view that at all events at that time the appointment of such a Minister was not expedient. Now they consider, as we are glad to know, that the time has arrived. Precisely the same course of events has occurred on two previous occasions. Before the outbreak of the present war, for a period of at any rate two years some of us were strongly advocating both in your Lordships' House and in another

  1185
  place the creation of a Ministry of Supply, which the Government then said was inexpedient and wrong and unnecessary and would indeed be harmful, with results to the national interest that were most lamentable. Again, in the case of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, incessantly we urged that it should be created, and continually the Government gave a negative answer or a temporizing answer until at last they were converted. Now we have the third case and I can oily regret that the step was not taken earlier.
  These new Ministries, which are somewhat numerous one must confess, are a necessity of the changing times in which we live when the State is called upon to assume all kinds of new functions which previously were not conferred upon it. But there are certain economies to be set off against the creation of a Ministry. The present Minister Without Portfolio is to become the Minister of National Insurance, and consequently there will not be any addition in that regard in the numbers of the Ministry. Here let me add in parenthesis that I hope when the title Minister Without Portfolio ceases to have a Minister to bear it, the title itself will disappear and never be revived. It is a continental title which is quite foreign to British traditions and which is clumsy and, indeed, meaningless. As I have said before, no Minister in this country has a portfolio. Therefore how can you properly designate a Minister for the non-possession of that which does not exist? In the second place, it is possible that the functions of the Minister of Pensions may be absorbed in those of the Minister of National Insurance, and I hope that will prove to be the case. If the noble Lord the Minister of Reconstruction can add a word before this Motion is put to the House to say whether the Government do in fact contemplate that the Ministry of Pensions will be absorbed in that way, I am sure that we and the public would be glad to know it. I find no mention of the Ministry of Pensions in the clauses of the Bill which provide for transfer of certain powers to the new Department.
  As to the title of the Bill, if this were a matter on which the House would wish to arrive at a fresh decision after discussion I should have a good deal to say. But as the House of Commons decided yesterday in favour of the present title, by a majority of two to one, I imagine that
  1186
  your Lordships would not wish to revise that decision. Therefore it is unnecessary to occupy your Lordships' time by discussing that particular point. For my own part, and on behalf of my noble friends sitting on these Benches, I may say that we give to the Second Reading of this measure a cordial welcome.
  2.33 p.m.
  LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, if I may be permitted to thank the noble Lords who have spoken welcoming this Bill I should like to do so. In reply to the question that the noble Viscount put to me, it is quite true that we have deliberately not included the absorption of the work of the Minister of Pensions in this Bill, because it seemed to us that for a period of a few years after the war it was likely that the Minister of Pensions would be very considerably occupied with very special responsibility, and we thought that it was advisable to leave him with that responsibility. Subsequently it may indeed be that when that responsibility becomes less it will be possible to make such an amalgamation as that to which the noble Viscount has referred. It clearly would not be proper for me to make any commitment as to what the intentions of what obviously will be a future Government may be in this matter.
  On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.
  Bill read 3a, and passed.

PALESTINE: PREMIUM BONDS.
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL rose to call attention to the action of the Government of Palestine, with the approval of the Colonial Office, in issuing Bonds carrying the right to participate in a State lottery, and to move to resolve, That this House trusts that the sale of Premium Bonds now begun in Palestine will not be continued. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name on the Order Paper. As soon as I became aware of the fact that the Government of Palestine had issued a draft Ordinance permitting the issue of so-called Premium Bonds I wrote to the Colonial Office to ask them if they would be kind enough to give me particulars of this measure. This they, at once, very courteously did. Thereupon.

1187
at the end of the Parliamentary Recess, I wrote to the Colonial Secretary expressing the objections to this measure, and asking that the Ordinance should not be definitely brought into force until an opportunity had been given for its discussion in this House. At the same time, I put down a Resolution on your Lordships' Order Paper which was to be debated on the first available day. The Colonial Secretary replied expressing his regret that the measure should receive opposition, and saying that he would cable to Palestine to ask what was the position with regard to its enactment. It was only on November 2 that I heard from the Colonial Office that the Ordinance had, in fact, been enacted on September 13, and that the sales of these Bonds had begun on September 26. Thereupon, it was necessary for me to alter the terms of the Resolution which I had on the Paper, which expressed the hope that this measure would not be brought into operation, and to put it in the terms now before your Lordships; the Resolution being to the effect that "This House trusts that the sale of Premium Bonds now begun in Palestine will not be continued." I have to trouble your Lordships with this short preamble to explain why the terms of the Resolution have been changed.
In the first place, I would invite your Lordships' attention to the character of these Bonds. I hold here in my hand a leaflet which has been sent to me from Palestine and which is being publicly distributed there by the Government. It is headed: "Palestine Bearer Bonds"—I will draw attention in a moment to that wording.—"War Loan (Bearer Bonds) Ordinance, 1944, First Issue." This leaflet has its first paragraph headed: "What They Are." As the matter may appear somewhat complex I will read this paragraph:
"100,000 Bonds are being issued by the Government of Palestine and can be bought for ten pounds each at leading Banks, Co-Operative Societies and all Post Offices. There are no forms to be filled or stamp duties to be paid at the time of purchase. The Bonds are current for twenty years from the date of issue, and those which have not been previously redeemed at a premium will be bought back by Government on 20th September, 1964, at the full price of ten pounds for each Bond. Interest at 1 per cent. per annum will be paid on each Bond for the period it remains unredeemed and
1188
in addition every three months there will be drawings by lot for one hundred and fifty-nine Bonds which will be redeemed at the following prices:

One Bond

at L.P. £1,000

One

L.P. £500

Two Bonds

at L.P. £250 each

Ten

at L.P. £100 each

Twenty

at L.P. £50 each

One Hundred and twenty five Bonds

at L.P. £20 each."

The paragraph proceeds:
"There is therefore no risk of losing your money; there is a certain return thereon of one per cent. per annum and there is a chance of very considerable profit."
It at once appears that the term which is currently given to this kind of Bond, Premium Bonds, is quite misleading, and the title which is given to them in Palestine, Bearer Bonds, is meaningless. Investors are quite familiar with the principle of the premium. When an issue of debentures or shares or Government securities is made, and when it is not desired to pay off the whole issue at any one date it is the common practice for drawings to take place annually, and for individuals to have their Bonds repaid, perhaps not at their own desire or at their own convenience, and to receive a premium as compensation. And that may be one, two, three, or even as much as 5 per cent. But to suggest that it is a premium when a Bond for which an investor has paid £10 is repaid at the price of £100 or £1,000 is obviously a misuse of the term.
There was a Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting in 1932, which reported in 1933. That Royal Commission sat under the chairmanship of a distinguished Judge, Sir Sidney Rowlatt. In their Report the Commission said:
"The characteristic feature of a lottery is that it is a distribution of prizes by lot or chance."
They went on:
"A raffle or a prize-drawing is a simple form of lottery. A sweepstake is a more complicated form of lottery.…. Premium Bonds are another form of lottery."
I submit, therefore, that I am justified in placing a Resolution on the Order Paper saying that this is a State lottery which is set up in connexion with an issue of Government Bonds. The right name for these Bonds, and the only right name, is Lottery Bonds. Why is it that this form of security conceals its real name? Why is it that at one time it is called a Premium Bond, and in this leaflet,

1189
most modestly, a Bearer Bond? Why does it take all these different aliases? Obviously for the same reason that malefactors take aliases—in order to conceal their previous convictions.
We have had a long experience of State lotteries. The Royal Commission in their Report gave a history of them in this country. The first English State lottery for the benefit of the Exchequer took place precisely 250 years ago, in 1694, and, strangely enough, the issue was precisely the same as is now being made in Palestine —namely, 100,000 shares of £10 each. The Royal Commission said in their Report that that issue had more in common with Premium Bonds than the ordinary State lotteries. In the latter part of the eighteenth century, when, as we all know, gambling was exceedingly rife among all classes of society in this country, the State pandered to gambling and encouraged it, and held a number of public lotteries which were very profitable. The yield from them reached its peak in the year 1802, when they brought in £520,000 to the Exchequer.
Public opinion, however, soon became aware of the harm that was being done to the nation by this system. The City of London petitioned the House of Commons against the authorization of lotteries as "highly injurious to the commerce of the kingdom and to the welfare and prosperity of the people." That was in 1773. In 1808 the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee which (I quote from the Report of the Royal Commission) "denounced the social evils to which it"—that is, the lottery system— "gave rise," and went on to say that regarded as a method of raising revenue, "no mode of raising money appears to your Committee so burdensome, so pernicious and so unproductive." Finally, in 1823 Parliament passed a Statute which prohibited all lotteries, whether State or other; but, in order not to give too sudden a jolt to the national finances, it allowed one more to be held, in 1826, and that was the last until the system was revived by the present Government in 1943 in Cyprus and in 1944 in Palestine.
I have had to refer to these old statements and to these rather ancient quotations because for about a hundred years nothing was heard of a method of raising money which had been so strongly condemned by experience and which had been rejected by Parliament. At the time
1190
of the last war, however, this suggestion of Premium Bonds was revised. At that time the State naturally had difficulty in raising sufficient money to pay for the war, and the Premium Bond method was proposed in various quarters as a device to help the Exchequer in its difficulties. The House of Commons appointed a Select Committee in January, 1918, to consider the proposals which were then being mooted. I would mention to your Lordships that among the witnesses who appeared before that Committee (which was not concerned with lotteries in general, but specifically with Premium Bonds) and who urged that the proposal should not be adopted, were Mr. Reginald McKenna, who had just been Chancellor of the Exchequer and was then, or afterwards soon became, Chairman of the Midland Bank, Sir John Bradbury, the Secretary of the Treasury, and Sir Robert Kindersley, who was then the Chairman, as he is now as Lord Kindersley the President of the National War Savings Committee. Lord Kindersley very much regrets that he is not able to be here to-day, and authorizes me to say that he is still of the opinion that Premium Bonds are objectionable and should not be accepted. Among other witnesses who appeared before that Committee in 1918 as opponents were Lord Cunliffe, Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Edward Holden, Lord Leverhulme, Mr. Lionel Hitchens, and other financial authorities, the Secretary of the Co-operative Union, and various leading trade unionists and labour leaders, such as Mr. Will Thorne, M.P., together with many representatives of the Churches.
Although that Committee contained members who had previously publicly expressed an opinion in favour of Premium Bonds, the Committee unanimously advised that the method should not be adopted at that time. That advice was acted upon by the Government; but on December 1, 1919, the matter was again brought forward and pressed in the House of Commons on a Motion most fittingly moved by Mr. Horatio Bottomley. He was at all events, in the terms of his Motion, candid enough to say that the Bonds "should be drawn at intervals and paid off with a premium or prize attached." It is the first time that the word "prize" was used, showing definitely that this was regarded as a

1191
lottery. In the debate which followed, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced that the Government would leave the matter to the House and not put on the Government Whips. He said that so far as he himself was concerned he had at first been somewhat favourable to the idea of Premium Bonds, but on consideration he was definitely opposed to it, largely in the interests of the War Savings Movement. Mr. Chamberlain in the course of his speech said this:
"It is not worth while to confront evils inherent in an issue of this kind with the doubtful advantages which we would derive …. Just in proportion to your success would be the revival of evils which affected the old lotteries. Above all, at a time when the one lesson you have to teach everybody is that there is no salvation except in work, you teach them to expect salvation by luck."
Among other opponents of the proposal were Lord Hugh Cecil, now Lord Quickswood, and Mr. Bonar Law. When the Motion was voted upon the Ayes numbered 84 and the Noes 276.
The next event in this history was the Royal Commission of 1932, which in 1933 unanimously and strongly reported against lotteries in general. They reported that all serious writers who had recorded their views upon the subject had condemned large public lotteries. They drew a distinction between such lotteries and small bazaar lotteries and the like, which they said might be condoned, and they recommended that all large State lotteries, whether for the Exchequer or for charities or for other purposes, were socially undesirable and should not be allowed. I asked a question in your Lordships' House recently as to the pronouncements that had been made on behalf of His Majesty's Government in recent years, and the Lord Chancellor kindly gave a very full reply, in which he mentioned that the Government had at the time accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission in 1933 and that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had consistently refused to consider the issue of Premium Bonds in this country. He quoted in particular, on December 7, 1939, in answer to a question advocating national Premium Bonds with cash prizes, the reply of Sir Kingsley Wood, Chancellor of the Exchequer:
"No, Sir. The Government do not propose to make any issue of Premium Bonds."
1192
On June i8, 1940, Sir Kingsley Wood again said:
"No, Sir. It is not proposed to make an issue of the kind referred to which I consider would cause controversy and weaken the force of the National Savings Campaign."
And on December 9, 1941, in answer to a question suggesting an issue of bonds numbered for the purposes of a lottery for substantial prizes, Sir Kingsley Wood simply answered: "No, Sir."
There has been within the last few years, as I say, a revival of this suggestion, and the Government of India made an issue of Premium Bonds last year. That of course was done on their own authority. His Majesty's Government at Westminster do not endeavour to exercise any control over the Indian Government in a case such as this, and your Lordships' House probably would not regard the matter as within their purview. But I wish to draw attention to the case of India to show the danger of a spread of this system in various countries. I hold here a copy of a Press message issued in December last by the Information Department, India Office, London, embodying a telegram from New Delhi from Reuter's Agency. This paper, issued to the Press by the India Office in Whitehall, is headed "The Indian Government is starting a State lottery" and begins:
"As a new move in the anti-inflation drive, the Finance Department has announced that five-year, interest free prize bonds will be on sale from January 15th"—
that is, of this year.—
"They will have a chance of winning a big prize up to 50,000 rupees (about £3,750). The bonds … will not carry interest",
and they give particulars of the various prizes for which they were drawn. This paper, issued by the India Office in London, ends:
"In effect, the Government is securing a short-term loan at 2 per cent."
(That is because the value of the prizes amounts to 2 per cent. of the amount raised.)
"At that figure there would be no rush to invest, but with the prospect of winning the largest sum of money, the new bonds are expected to prove very attractive."
There is another sentence here which is worth reading:
"The latest method will soak up the surplus purchasing power."
That was the object in the great Indian Empire, to soak up the surplus purchasing

1193
power and so prevent inflation. As a matter of fact, in their population of 400,000,000 the result has been that £2,300,000 only have been subscribed.
The next instance was in Cyprus in June of last year, where, with the approval no doubt of the Colonial Office (because the Colonial Office has to approve of these things), on June 1 an issue of Bonds of this character was made. There, with a mainly Greek population, it proved to be more attractive, and the result was that a sum of about £1,000,000 has already been raised. The third is this present instance in Palestine. Here the Colonial Office is directly responsible. There is no local system of self-government at all in Palestine. I greatly deplore it, but your Lordships are aware that the difficult political situation there has made several attempts to establish self-government abortive. There is no Council in Palestine, either elected or nominated, and the Government is directed entirely by the High Commissioner and by Government officials under him, the whole being controlled by the Colonial Office. This particular Ordinance had the approval of the Colonial Office, and I am sure the noble Duke, when he replies, will not deny the direct responsibility resting upon the Colonial Office and His Majesty's Government. Is there any special reason why an issue of this kind should be made in Palestine? A question on the subject was asked a month ago, on October 11, in the House of Commons, and the Government spokesman there gave the reason for it as:
"Having regard to the general financial situation and the dangers of inflation, …. the Government are anxious to raise in Palestine as much money as possible by local borrowing"
and consequently thought that Premium Bonds would be an attractive way of securing this end.
As the noble Duke, when he replies, I have no doubt will give the same answer as was given in the House of Commons and will endeavour to persuade your Lordships that the justification for this is the danger of inflation in Palestine, I must make a few observations on that particular point. In Palestine the cost of living has gone up very greatly and the real value of the currency has in fact declined. That has been due to the expenditure during the war of immense
1194
sums in Palestine by the military authorities and by the Government in purchasing supplies for the Army and by the expenditure of the troops who have been there, and, on the other hand, by a lack of shipping that has restricted the supplies available in the country. The consequence has been a rocketing of prices and a very high cost of living, which has necessitated in turn a rise in wages and salaries and the vicious spiral of which we always have to be afraid in times of war. The same conditions prevail to an even greater extent in the neighbouring countries of Syria and Egypt.
The remedies for this situation are already having effect. The vast expenditures in that part of the world are being reduced; the shipping situation, one may hope, will be remedied before long; and even the prospect of a remedy and more abundant supplies tends to reduce prices. Already the rise in the cost of living has been stopped some months ago and is apparently on the eve of being replaced by a decline. The immense available purchasing power has not been let loose upon the markets. It has found its way into the banks. In the Palestine Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, the latest number of August, 1944, has a table showing the amount of money on deposit held by the banks and credit institutions in Palestine, and the figures are most striking. The first figure in the table is for the month of July, 1941, when the deposits in the banks of Palestine amounted to £17,000,000, already a very large sum for a country like that. But the last figure in the table for June, 1944, amounts, not to £17,000,000, but to £60,000,000. That little country, with a population of one and a half million people, about the size perhaps of an English county, has now got in its banks or co-operative societies, on deposit and available when required for purchases, the sum of £60,000,000. The amount withdrawn from the savings banks through the Premium Bonds is at present £350,000. As a beginning £350,000 have been spent on these Bonds. But even if the whole million is spent, what is that as a means of effecting a cure for inflation, when the banks have £60,000,000 on deposit? It is perfectly futile, and would play only a trivial part. Thus the amount raised by Premium

1195
Bonds would be ludicrously out of proportion to the degree of any possible inflation.
Are there any special circumstances in Palestine affecting this matter? Yes there are, but not on the economic side and not in relation to inflation, and not in favour of Lottery Bonds, but against them. There are special circumstances. Palestine, after all, is a country unique in the world, and if there is one country whose traditions and the reverence which it inspires among the adherents of three religions should save it from experiments of this character, it is Palestine, for there at least we should expect to have a Government in office which would have due regard for the dignity of the State and for sound principles in matters of finance and government. Now the Government of Palestine some few years ago, not when I was High Commissioner but subsequently, enacted a new Penal Code, and Section 191 of that Penal Code prohibited private lotteries and made them a criminal offence. Some few issues of Premium Bonds had been made in Palestine before the Penal Code was enacted, by credit co-operative societies, which had to suppress their issues in consequence of the Ordinance issued by the Palestine Government. Why did the Palestine Government make that Ordinance if Premium Bonds are innocuous, and if State lotteries do not matter? Only because, it must be held, they were wrong in principle and against the public interest. Now that the Palestine Government itself is entering upon a career as lottery-monger does it propose to repeal its own Ordinance and to allow other people to pursue the same methods? If not, why not?
What justification can there be for regarding as a criminal offence in other people that which the State itself is practising at the present time? It is much worse for a Government to start a lottery than for some credit co-operative society, or some charitable organization, for, after all, what the Government does is regarded by many people as an authorization, a justification. If individual people wish to gamble with their money that is their own concern, and if they do wish to do so, the law would not necessarily say that they should not do it. But for a State to pass an Ordinance and itself invite or urge its
1196
people to take part in a lottery seems to me most reprehensible. I will read the concluding paragraph of this leaflet which I read at the beginning of my observations. These are its words, issued by the Government of Palestine:
"Why You Should Buy These Bonds:
By lending your money to the Government on these attractive terms you are:

(a) assisting the war effort;

(b) helping to make it possible for the Government to grant loans to municipal and local councils;

(c) deferring personal expenditure on consumable goods now while prices are high and thereby increasing your chance of getting better value for your money."

So that the Palestine Government says to the people of Palestine that it is a social duty and a service to the State to purchase these Lottery Bonds.
Any individual responding to that who buys, let us say, £100 worth of Bonds will, it is true, have his capital secure: he will get the whole sum repaid at the end of twenty years if the Bonds have not been redeemed previously. He will have received during those twenty years, at the rate of 1 per cent., £20 in interest. If he had invested in an ordinary Government loan in Palestine, on which he would have received probably 4 per cent., he would have received on his investment of £100 in twenty years £80. What has become of the other £60? He gets, in return for the other £60, lottery tickets which are supposed to be worth that amount, drawing every quarter for a certain number of years. Four times a year in Jerusalem in the office of the Government there will be set up a tombola in the Treasury, and 100,000 numbers will be put in that tombola, and 159 prizes will be drawn. These 159 prizes will be scattered over the towns and villages of Palestine among the Arab and Jewish population. One person will get £1,000, another £500, and similarly for the rest of the 159, demoralizing each family that receives it in whole streets, neighbourhoods, towns or villages. The news goes like wildfire round the whole neighbourhood that So-and-so has got £1,000, another £500. In George Meredith's letters is included one in which he describes how as a young man he went once to a race meeting, with very rueful results. He adds:
"Wise grows the loser, merely happy the winner."

1197
The winner may have temporary happiness, but the history of lotteries shows that the moral results on character and the results on the future fortunes of the winners are very frequently disastrous. And let these people owning the 100,000 Bonds, if so many are issued, remember that while 159 get prizes 99,841 get nothing at each drawing, a fact which is not always sufficiently realized by those participating.
This proposal has met with considerable opposition in Palestine. The general manager of the principal local bank, which has a capital of about £1,000,000 and is connected with the Zionist movement, has written to me to say that he himself strongly opposes this proposal. He writes, so far as inflation is concerned:
"I answer first of all that in a matter of principle expediency is no argument, secondly, that each population must save in its own way, and that Palestine has been saving enormous amounts which have gone to the British Treasury, and thirdly, that our inflation is under control and is the mildest in the whole of the Middle East."
He also writes in his letter:
"If a Premium Bond issue is a thing repugnant to British tradition why should the Holy Land, the country of regeneration of the Jewish people, be singled out for introduction of such a scheme? Jews do not want their name to be connected with the first official lottery scheme within the British Empire."
I would read here a paragraph that has appeared in art article in an organ of the Jewish community in this country, the Jewish Chronicle. This is a very important aspect of this question in view of the fact that the Jewish community is very closely concerned with Palestine. This is what it says:
"Similar proposals have been made from time to time in this country but have always been turned down. Why Palestine should be deemed a more suitable ground for them is a puzzle and, we would add, an insult. The Chalutzim"—
those are the pioneers trained in modern agriculture who have gone out there to redeem and work the land—
"have not gone to Palestine to enrich themselves by a gamble. They believe that the Jewish National Home is to be built by hard work and not by pandering greed or to the get-rich-quick mania. The whole proposal is, in fact, quite out of keeping with the spirit and motives behind the Zionist movement, and one which introduces an element of degradation into the Holy Land."
The Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem has also issued a protest as well as the representative of the Scottish Churches. The late Archbishop Temple, whose death we so greatly deplore, wrote to me not very long before his lamentable death, on October 5:
"I am writing to the Colonial Secretary in support of your letter. If my own state of health, which at present is completely laying me up, and other engagements permit, I should like to support you in the House of Lords; but I am afraid it is very doubtful if I can manage to be there. I am in the most cordial agreement with everything you say in your letter to the Colonial Secretary."
I have also had communications embodying resolutions of protest from the Methodist Church and from the Congregational Union. Are we to expect when the people in the churches sing the hymn—.
"I will not cease from mortal fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land,"
that it is to be this new model Jerusalem with. State lotteries and tombolas with money drafts scattered throughout the country for £1000 and similar large sums to people who have lent £10 to the Government?
The Palestine Government is not accountable to any local Assembly but it is accountable to an international assembly, to the League of Nations. The Mandates Commission of the League of Nations is still functioning and it still has supervision over the acts of the Palestine Administration. I do not envy the spokesman of that Government who has to appear before the Mandates Commission and has to answer this question from one of its members: How is it that you have established there a State lottery on a plan which has been condemned by your own statesmen, condemned by a Select Committee of your House of Commons and by a Royal Commission, and by your Chancellor of the Exchequer and your Government, which you hold is not good enough for the British people but which you thrust upon the population entrusted to your rule by international agreement? And let the House realize this, that once this principle is established in Cyprus and in Palestine, then the Government of any Colony which is tempted to find an easy and perhaps attractive source of raising revenue will be entitled to, and cannot be denied, the right to follow the same course. This system may spread to any part or to all parts of our Asiatic or African Empire.
Then what action should be taken now? The whole issue has not been made yet, but only one-third of it has been taken up. It is what is known in the City as being "on tap." I trust that a new Ordinance will be issued by the Palestine Government repealing the old one and providing for the repayment of the sums so far subscribed with, no doubt, a payment of interest at an appropriate rate to cover the short period that has elapsed and that then an ordinary loan should be issued. Or if that is thought quite impossible by the Government, at least they should undertake that no more Bonds shall be issued beyond those that have at present been taken up by the public. I trust the noble Duke who is to reply will agree that that should be done. If not, I earnestly hope this House will exercise its influence and authority as a House of Parliament and require that that shall be done.
In conclusion I may summarize the propositions which I have laid before your Lordships' House and which I trust you will accept. First, that this loan in Premium or Bearer Bonds consists of Lottery Bonds and that what is being done is to set up a State lottery; secondly, that State lotteries are wrong in principle and detrimental to national character; thirdly, that His Majesty's Government are directly responsible for the administration of Palestine and must bear the direct responsibility for this action. I would remind your Lordships that this proposal has been often considered and always rejected—by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1918, by the House of Commons itself in 1919, by a Royal Commission in 1933, and by the present Government in repeated statements in Parliament, and that the Colonial Office ought not, without further authorization, to have gone directly counter to these decisions. I maintain that there is no financial reason for asking for any exception in the case of Palestine; that £60,000,000 of deposits in banks make any financial transaction of this kind quite futile for the purpose of meeting inflation; that there are no special circumstances of the character that I have described, but that there are special circumstances which should lead to the conclusion that Palestine should not be the first but the very last country to have a system of this kind introduced; that if
1200
once established and approved by His Majesty's Government and by this House any Colony throughout the British Empire may be tempted to indulge in this expedient in derogation of the very high standards of government which have long been the pride of our Commonwealth and Empire. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House trusts that the sale of Premium Bonds now begun in Palestine will not be continued. —(Viscount Samuel.)
3.19 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, the noble Viscount has done a great public service by calling attention to this matter and, if I may say so, I have never heard a good cause so exhaustively, comprehensively, and unanswerably presented. There would indeed be little I should wish to add and I have risen chiefly to say that I support this Motion not merely for myself but on behalf of a great volume of Christian opinion which the noble Viscount has already indicated. I believe that wherever the knowledge of these Premium Bonds has extended amongst Christian people it has caused a great shock and really deep indignation that such a thing should be done in what, to them, must appear a hole-and-corner manner in a distant part of the world.
I am expressly charged by the executive of the British Council of Churches, which represents all the great denominations in this country except the Roman Catholic Church, to express their strongest possible disapprobation of that step. What is felt amongst Christian people here is felt even more acutely by Christian people in Palestine itself. The noble Viscount referred to a letter from the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem. I have a copy of that letter. He writes with the unanimous support of his advisers and he says that it seems regrettable that the Palestine Government should set the example of raising funds by what is practically an appeal to cupidity. He goes on to say that such a scheme is in fact nothing else but a lottery and would be illegal in this country. I will not read the rest of the letter but there follows a postscript signed by the Special Commissioner of the Church of Scotland in the Middle East and by the Minister of the Church of Scotland in Jerusalem, saying they desire to give their fullest adherence

1201
to the letter from the Anglican Bishop, adding that they think this action is deeply to be deplored and contrary to the spirit of the British Mandate.
It is difficult to add anything to the arguments put before your Lordships by the noble Viscount and I do not mean to embark on any discussion of the ethics of lotteries. I will merely say that it is the declared and maintained policy of this country, reaffirmed again and again as history has shown, that State lotteries are socially undesirable and disturbing and disrupting. That being so, this present action would seem to me quite indefensible on two grounds. The first is simply this, that we are the Mandatory Power, holding in trust the interests of Palestine, and it is unthinkable that trustees should allow and encourage in the country for which they are responsible a practice which they regard as socially undesirable and deplorable for themselves. We know there are parents who are in the habit of taking liberties and licence for themselves which they deny to their children, but it is an altogether unnatural parent who, having denied for himself practices which he things morally and otherwise undesirable, will encourage his child in those same practices. If that is true of the parent it is true also of the schoolmaster or of any trustee. I think it directly concerns our repute as a nation that we should in any way encourage among those for whom we are responsible that which for ourselves we regard as socially disturbing and disrupting.
The second simple reason is that this should be done at such a time as this when the whole emphasis of the thought and the social policy of this country is in the direction of saying that men in this nation must work out their salvation by honest work earning their profit legitimately and by no other means, and that that profit itself must be controlled by ultimate social interests. That is the only basis on which we can possibly in the years after the war work out our own national salvation. Dare we at such a moment commit a people for whom we are responsible to the opposite policy of depending upon money for nothing and sheer cupidity, those very things which have worked disaster in our own society and the renewal of which we are determined should be limited in the future?
1202
For these two reasons I support most warmly this Motion. I gather from what the noble Viscount said that he expected the Government would attempt to justify this policy. May I earnestly express the hope that the Government will not attempt to justify the policy but will honestly say "A mistake has been made, we regret that mistake and al: the earliest possible moment we will withdraw"?
3.26 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate I desire to associate myself with what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, speaking with the authority of one who has been High Commissioner for Palestine. To put it mildly, the issue of these so-called Premium Bonds by the Palestine Administration under the ægis of His Majesty's Government as the Mandatory Power is a most reprehensible step, and certainly runs counter to Christian and Jewish religious opinion both in Palestine and in this country. The facts are not in dispute. The aim is to raise one million pounds by the issue of 100,000 Bonds of £10 each, the Bonds to carry interest of 1 per cent. only, with the additional attraction of premiums to be paid quarterly. The first Bond drawn each quarter is to be redeemed for £1,000 and 158 others are to be redeemed with smaller substantial money prizes. The actuarial cost to the State of such an issue is approximately 3 per cent., but two-thirds of that, instead of being paid in interest, is to be withheld in order to create a gambling pool to provide prizes for the lottery.
The defenders of this unorthodox method of raising funds for the State claim that this does not involve gambling because all the principal, as the noble Viscount said in his opening remarks, and part of the interest are secure. But surely that part of the interest which is applied to prizes—namely two-thirds—is unqualified lottery. To contend that a man is gambling if he stakes the whole or part of his capital and not gambling if he stakes only a portion of his income is sheer sophistry. Nay more, it is unadulterated non-sense. That is a difference of degree, not of principle. The appeal of the Premium Bond with large money prizes is quite frankly to cupidity, to the craze to get rich quickly without effort. The very fact of their being issued by the Government and in the form of a lottery means

1203
that the gambling bait is presented in its most insidious and attractive guise. I do not suggest that this is bringing a new evil for the first time into an otherwise guileless world, but I do submit that this is a concerted attempt to exploit an existing evil by appealing to some of man's worst instincts. Surely instead of deliberately playing upon and cultivating this weakness of human nature the Government should seek to build character, not debase it.
The noble Viscount has referred to some of the findings of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting which reported in 1933 and which rejected the proposal to legalize lotteries. I should like to refer to two other paragraphs of that Report. In the course of their Report the Commission stated:
"Lotteries depend for their success upon the blatant advertisement of large money prizes. They tend to exalt the results of chances and to encourage a belief in luck, while the draw and the announcement of the result give rise to an unwholesome excitement…In the history of public finance, lotteries take their place among the expedients which are resorted to when other and more reputable methods of finance have failed."
I invite your Lordships' special attention to those latter words from the Report of the Royal Commission, because, judging by the answer given by the Colonial Secretary in another place—to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has already referred—that is the raison d'être in this case, for we are told that owing to the danger of inflation, through war conditions, and the more reputable methods of ordinary family savings having failed in Palestine, His Majesty's Government have approved of this, a priori, less reputable method of raising funds.
The Royal Commission found that it was "much easier to authorize large public lotteries in this country than to put a stop to such lotteries once they are started." If that is true in this country, how much more true is it likely to be in a country like Palestine. And if the State does it, what is to prevent the gambling mania running like a prairie fire through dried and tractless grassland, and becoming a menace in every walk of Palestinian life? This rejection by the Government of a sound economic basis for their financial transactions, in thus raising funds, may well have a debilitating, and possibly destructive, effect in Palestine upon
1204
finance generally and the whole attitude of the community to financial responsibility.
Then I want to raise another point, a point arising out of the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I wish to ask the noble Duke who is going to reply for the Government why such a serious step as this was taken without Parliament being given an opportunity of discussing the matter, more especially —the noble Viscount has told us this—as the Government were specifically asked to hold their hands until an opportunity had been afforded for such discussions to take place. Yet a further point arises this afternoon, and it is, I suggest, a rather serious one. I think that we ought to have some light thrown upon it. If I understood the noble Viscount aright he told us that the issue of these Bonds actually started on September 13.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: They were authorized on September 13 and issued on September 26.
LORD ROCHESTER: Authorized on September 13 and actually issued on September 26. Now I am sure that the noble Duke will exonerate me from imputing motives, but I want to ask the very categorical question why, in view of the fact that these Bonds were actually issued on September 26, the Colonial Secretary said in another place on October 11—and I have Hansard with me—"It is proposed to issue these Bonds." I suggest that your Lordships' House is entitled to some explanation of that discrepancy. What has happened is that the Government, as trustees in a mandated country, have given way on a fundamental and vastly important question of principle, and by so doing have weakened, if not surrendered, their power to control or suppress other nefarious prize schemes and lotteries, which their own example will have encouraged. Ignorant of the laws of probability, subscribers to these Premium Bonds will confidently expect to win, without realizing how infinitesimal is their chance of doing so. And there is the added danger—to which reference has been made—that they will relax effort and concentration, always thinking of, and hoping for, a prize which seldom, if ever, comes their way. State lotteries, widely advertised, involve an absorbing excitement and capture thought and interest to the detriment of the real and important

1205
concerns of life, and the excitement spreads through the community.
Admittedly a lottery is entirely devoid of skill; the whole determination rests upon chance, and this indubitably encourages and develops a false value of life. What is the Government's excuse for this departure from the canons of sound finance? Well, the Colonial Secretary has told us, in that answer to which reference has been made, that "whereas this country is well accustomed to ordinary family savings, so far that has been a failure in Palestine." So it was in this country, until an appeal was made to the highest, instead of pandering to the basest, in human nature. Put on the lowest level, it pays to go straight. And here we come on the border line, where business and morals touch, which Parliament is bound to consider. The appeal of Premium Bonds is to the small investor; that is why they are only £10 each. It is not suggested that large investors and big business concerns, or industrial undertakings, will be appealed to by the element of chance. To them Premium Bonds would be anathema, and to a business man, to say the least, they would be less attractive than Bonds with a fixed yield at current rates of interest. Unfortunately, lotteries appeal with special force to those in straitened circumstances, and to those in economic insecurity. Is it such as these the Government seek to beguile?
The people of this country were at one time, no more "accustomed to ordinary family savings" than the people of Palestine are said to be now. But the War Savings Campaign of the last war altered all that, with the result that vast numbers of people were educated as to the whole meaning of investment. With what result? Before the last war started, only about 345,000 persons held Government securities in the United Kingdom, and after the war, in 1919, the corresponding figure was well over 17,000,000. In this war that experience has been repeated, and on an infinitely larger scale. If a similar great organization of thrift were built up in Palestine, in order powerfully to influence the habits of the people, similar beneficial results could be looked for. The essential wrong of lotteries is the wrong of gambling of all kinds. Financial advantage is sought, not as a result of work or skill, but by
1206
chance. To seek either pleasure or gain at another's expense is immoral. Gambling is a cancer in the body politic and, quite as surely, rots the moral foundations of society.
Just at a time when the Football Association of this country is asking for new legislation to prohibit football pools of all kinds as contrary to public interest, His Majesty's Government are a party to the promotion of this State Lottery in Palestine. Could anything be more cynical? In my submission, this is an offence against the moral and financial rectitude of the country. We do well to remember that Jesus Christ said: "It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" I desire to associate myself whole-heartedly with what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has said, in which he was so ably supported by the right reverend Prelate.
3.40 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, perhaps I shall be forgiven if I approach this subject from a different point of view from that expressed by the last speaker. I can claim lo speak as representing the National War Savings Movement, to which reference has been made, because for the last eighteen years I have been closely connected with it, most of the time as Chairman and now as Vice-President. I have consulted Lord Kindersley, to whom reference has been made by my noble friend Lord Samuel, and the Chairman who succeeded me, Sir Harold Mackintosh, and a great many other persons, and I think that I can express their views. They are vitally concerned in this matter, if one hypothesis be true. That hypothesis, which I hope that the Government spokesman will demolish—but there is at any rate a prima facie case for it, and therefore we thank the noble Viscount for bringing this matter forward —is that the Government are weakening on this matter of Premium Bonds, and that as they have sanctioned them in Palestine they are not sure that in the near future they may not adopt that method here.
I want to say that we who are concerned with the War Savings Movement, including the 600,00o voluntary workers engaged in it, are unanimous in saying that we think that that would be inadvisable. We do not say as a body that it is morally wrong. If we thought that

1207
it was morally wrong, we would not go into any arguments about whether it was expedient or not. I cannot understand the attitude of people who say that it is morally wrong and who then go on to say that it is really not necessary. Either it is right or it is wrong. A great many of those for whom I speak do think that it is morally wrong, but a very great number of others, of course, do not. The spectacular success of the so-called "Irish Sweep" and of the football pools shows conclusively that the view that gambling is not in itself inherently vicious and contrary to Christian law is so widespread in this country that one could not claim to speak for millions of people and say that they are all of opinion that it is wrong. We do not take that view, and I wish publicly to dissociate ourselves from it; because if we did the argument the other way would be rather dangerous to us.
Nor do we take the view that it is our business to tell the Government what they ought to do in Palestine, and for the same reason. The Government may be able to say that there is some peculiar reason why the High Commissioner thought that it was a good thing to do there. I cannot think what that reason would be, and we are curious to know; but that is not our point. Our real point is this: Will the Government say here and now, in response to the appeal made to them by my noble friend, that they have no intention of going back on the decision so clearly expounded only the other day by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack? Are they as determined as ever to see that this way of raising money shall not be attempted here? The speeches so far would seem to show that everybody is of one mind, but I know that that is not the case. In the course of my inquiries for the purpose of what I am saying to-day, I have found that there are large numbers of people who for the reason I have mentioned—the spectacular success of the "Irish Sweep" and the football pools—are beginning to think that there is something to be said for adopting the Premium Bond plan. I would pray all those who think in that way to realize that even if the arguments adduced, which were referred to by the Lord Chancellor, were true, it would be disastrous to adopt such a policy now, at this crisis in our financial
1208
history. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we know it to be true, that our War Savings Movement is a vital element which we cannot possibly do without. If it stopped, the embarrassment to the Treasury would be extreme. That must not happen. We have been told again and again by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he repeated it only the other day—that this movement must go on.
Any attempt to adopt this plan would be disastrous—I use the word advisedly—quite apart from the moral issue. I will tell your Lordships why we all think that that would be so. We have this great body of 600,000 voluntary workers. To take the case only of what are called the street groups, there are 122,000 of them, with 122,000 secretaries, devoted people who in all weathers go round appealing to their neighbours to lend their money to the Government. Under those 122,000 there are an indeterminate number of people, four or five in some districts, who help in the same work and who go to great pains and really to great sacrifices in order to persuade people to lend their money to the Government. They do not say to them, "Do this because it will pay you." We know that to a greater and greater extent the appeal to selfishness is losing its force and that appeals to patriotism—"Help the Government to win the war; Help our fighting men to have the best chance"—are having more and more force.
We know what the feeling is. We spend a considerable sum on advertising, and we know the effect; we can try it and see for ourselves. I have some remarkable figures here with which I shall not weary the House in any detail, but which show the results which have accrued in quite recent times, and also the cost of collection. This latter point is interesting, because, if you spoil our movement, what could you put in its place? Such a spectacle of voluntary effort producing so great a result is, I am sure, unique in the world's history. To give the most recent figures, the total savings for last year were £1,565,000,000 of which "small savings" accounted for £614,000,000. On the figures which I have, the expenditure under the National Committee, taking the whole total, shows that the cost of administration works out at 0.085 per cent. of the total—a tiny fraction, about one-twelfth of one per cent. That is the

1209
extraordinary result of almost the whole of the work being voluntary. In the case of what are called "small savings"—the savings obtained by the people I have been describing—the cost is necessarily slightly more, because the expenditure has to be greater, but it works out at 0.21 per cent., or just over one-fifth of one per cent., to raise this gigantic sum.
Most of your Lordships have been of immense help to our National Savings Movement in recent years. I am here to say on behalf of all of those who work at it that we are indeed grateful, and to beg of you not to relax your efforts in the weeks, and indeed a few years, to come, because we do know how vital it is to keep it going. I think I have proved to your Lordships that to adopt the Premium Bond plan would shatter the Savings Movement, and it is just because we want any suspicion of the kind dispelled that, quite apart from the moral arguments so eloquently put forward by the Lord Bishop and by Lord Rochester, I beg of the Government to repudiate emphatically any such intention on their part.
3.51 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not claim to be speaking for my noble friends of the Opposition, but every one of them I have spoken to on the subject supports the plea to the Government to stop this whole business once for all: in other words, we support the Motion of the noble Viscount in the terms on the Paper. I cannot refrain, however, from expressing some sympathy, if he will allow me to do so (I hope I do not embarrass him) with the noble Duke. I cannot remember a case, in recent years anyhow, where there has been such an overwhelming attack by Peers on all sides of the House on a Minister who, I suppose, did not know anything about it until a few weeks ago. He has my complete sympathy. He sat with me in another place for a great many years and I know quite well what his feelings must be at having to defend (if he is going to defend) the issue of Premium Bonds in Palestine.
Nor can I refrain, if he will allow me to do so, from congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, on his wonderful detachment. I suppose a debate such as we have heard this afternoon could not have taken place in any other assembly in the world at such a time on such a subject. Here we have the whole future
1210
of Palestine in the melting-pot; all your Lordships know that. There has been a virtual ban on discussions on Palestine in this House for some years now. A great drama is being enacted. Scores of thousands of miserable fugitives from Nazi cruelty and tyranny are knocking at the doors of Palestine, and a thin stream is being admitted. The terrible outbreak of violence which we all condemn, the brutal murders and assassinations, are the symptoms of some deep, underlying trouble. Yet the noble Viscount could make the speech he did this afternoon, obviously with tremendous preparation, with much documentary support—on what? On the issue of Premium Bonds by the Government of Palestine. I cannot conceal my admiration for the noble Viscount's detachment in such a matter. A modern Joshua comes here with this message from Palestine at this time: "Cease issuing Premium Bonds." I stand up here with no such claim to speak for the great causes for which he speaks, but I wish to support him.
3.54 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, before the noble Duke replies, might I mention one fact which has not been stressed in the debate? It is the opinion of practically all social workers that, in the poverty-stricken quarters of our great cities, the two chief evils are intemperance and gambling. Social workers belonging to all the Churches spend the greater part of their efforts in trying to eliminate these evils from our midst. Their task is immensely difficult, but it has been possible in the past to say as against gambling that the State has set itself steadily against gambling Bonds, in spite of the profit from them which it would derive. In future that argument will be gone if the Government refuse the appeal so splendidly made by the noble Viscount. Social workers will in future have to admit that the Government see no harm in obtaining revenue from gambling methods and the volte face will be associated with the place in the whole world regarded as most sacred by Christian people.
3.55 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, in a political acquaintanceship extending now for over twenty

1211
years with the noble Viscount who raised this Motion, an acquaintanceship which I think I can truthfully say has ripened into a warm personal friendship, I have become increasingly reluctant to find myself taking a view different from his. During those years one has become ever increasingly conscious of the admirably poised balance of his judgment and of the complete and utter integrity of his political faith. I am therefore extremely reluctant to find myself in disagreement with the noble Viscount, but I am bound to say that, if I am reluctant on any normal occasion, I am still more reluctant to find myself in disagreement with him on the subject of Palestine, a country where he rendered such exceptionally distinguished and devoted service and which means so much to him. Nevertheless, I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with him on this issue or with the noble Lords who have supported him on this issue this afternoon. I appreciate to the full the strength of their convictions, and I know that they have been moved only by sincere desire and sincere concern for the public interest. But there are factors in Palestine, and in some other countries, which do not apply in this country, which have not, I think, been fully brought out in the debate and which it is my submission fully justify this method of raising a loan in the particular case of Palestine.
I have been a little surprised at the fervour with which the noble Lords have spoken on this issue of Palestine, as if it were an entirely new thing. Haying regard to the fact that Cyprus has been employing this method of raising money for some considerable time and has already raised a very substantial sum, having regard to the size and wealth of the island, (over £1,000,000 has been raised without, so far as I am aware, one word of protest from any quarter whatever or any dissentient voice being raised)—
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: No one knew anything about it.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: But I do want to stress that, became the noble Lord referred to the fact, or it has been repeatedly said, that this is a new thing. Of course it is not a new thing.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Last year.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: India has had Premium Bonds; Cyprus has had Premium Bonds; and, although it is not strictly relevant to this debate, I shall try to show that in these Premium or Prize Bonds—it is a matter of indifference to me which they are called, because, after all, "premium" is merely the Latin for prize, and that seems to be a point of no very great importance—we are not concerned this afternoon strictly with State lotteries. Not that I attempt to defend them; they are no concern of ours; but in most of the States of Australia State lotteries have gone on for many years, so this is nothing absolutely new.
But I want to make it quite clear what exactly these Premium Bonds are. They have been spoken of by certain noble Lords this afternoon as if they were something strictly comparable with a lottery, with the "Irish Sweep," for instance, in which thousands of people bought tickets and a few lucky individuals got large prizes, while the vast majority, the rest, got nothing at all. That is clearly sheer gambling. But the position of holders of these Premium Bonds is really entirely different. They all receive a regular, if modest, rate of interest on their investment, a rate only three quarters of 1 per cent. less than that which the Government of this country hope will prove attractive to investors here. They are all assured of their capital intact, if their Bonds are not drawn before, on September 15, 1964. So that the main element of saving, the preservation of the investor's capital intact, is preserved. If however, a limited number of these bondholders are lucky their bonds may be drawn for redemption before 1964, in which case they will receive as well as their bond interest a cash premium calculated to compensate for the lower rate of interest. The cost to the Government of Palestine of interest plus premium on the whole issue will be roughly the same as if there had been an ordinary straightforward loan at 3 per cent.
The scheme is different from a lottery, not only as regards its effect on the investor but also as regards its advantages to the promoters. In a normal lottery the promoters reserve a very considerable proportion of the funds subscribed either for their own personal benefit or for the objects in aid of which the lottery is promoted. The noble Viscount who as Home

1213
Secretary presented the Report of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Bettings it 1933, will be aware of the fact, though many of your Lordships may not, that the building of a former Westminster Bridge was financed by means of a lottery authorized by Parliament, and that the British Museum rests on a similar foundation.
A NOBLE LORD: What date was that?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I cannot remember the exact date. But my point was not to defend or condone it, but to shows that by what is strictly speaking a lottery a large profit is made, whereas the Government of Palestine is making no profit at all. I have tried to explain the nature of these Premium Bonds, and I now pass to what seems to me their complete justification. It is that Palestine, in common with all other Middle Eastern countries, has suffered from severe inflation of prices. Thanks to the energetic measures of control that have been taken by the Government, this inflation has not reached the very high level which it has in some other Middle Eastern countries, but it has been quite serious enough. The cost-of-living index figure is now only a little under 150 per cent. above pre-war level. The two most important causes of this inflation of prices have been the immense military expenditure in the area, which, taking the Middle East as a whole, has to be reckoned in hundreds of millions, and the restriction of supplies from outside the area. Owing to the military expenditure, there is vastly more cash in the area than there has ever been, and owing to the shortage, both in the countries of supply and of shipping, there are fewer goods available than there have been for many years past.
I scarcely think I need elaborate the reasons which have led to the acute scarcity of supplies in Palestine. Most of your Lardships will be aware that that country is suffering severely from a scarcity of consumption goods, and that shortage is coupled with an abundance of cash such as has never been seen before. Serious inflation must bring very many evils in its train; it hits very hard those with fixed incomes, it gives a temporary and unwholesome stimulation to internal production at very high cost—an internal production which has little hope of survival when free competition returns; while the rise in the cost of production endan-
1214
gers the prospect of future export industries. I could not entirely agree with the noble Viscount opposite, who seemed to contradict himself at one point, when he urged that the bank balances were so great and that this trumpery measure—with only £350,000 so far subscribed—could have no effect on the problem of inflation; while almost in the same breath he spoke of the widespread nature of this evil which would spread throughout the land. He cannot have it both ways.
In Palestine the position of recipients of fixed incomes, Government servants included, has been one of real difficulty and indeed hardship, and considerable apprehensions are felt about the post-war export prospects, not only for the wartime industries which have sprung up but for the country's economic mainstay—the citrus industry. Prices would have risen much higher than they have, and Palestine would have been faced with a really damaging inflation if it had not been for the co-ordinated system of anti-inflation measures taken by the Palestine Government. They have held down the price of necessities and prevented the growth of an uncontrollable black market. I do not deny that there is a black market, but they have prevented the growth of it by rationing supplies wherever possible on the one hand, and on the other by subsidizing at very considerable expense the price of essential foodstuffs. They have at the same time taken all the measures possible to remove the excess purchasing power from the pockets of the public. New taxation imposed, both with that object and for the purpose of meeting the cost of the subsidies and other additional war-time charges, has been heavy, and after a very searching review my right honourable friend is satisfied that the level of taxation at present cannot be increased.
Nevertheless there remain very many individual residents of Palestine who have money available for investment. Much of this is held on deposit and, either directly or indirectly, goes to swell the balance in London on Palestine account. There has thus arisen the somewhat anomalous position that while the sterling balances on Palestine accounts in London are swelling, His Majesty's Treasury has had to make additional sterling available to the Palestine Government to enable it to balance its expenditure on food sub-

1215
sidies. It will be obvious to your Lordships, and not least to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who has done such tremendously valuable work in connexion with the Savings Movement here, that in a situation of this kind it is most desirable that everything possible should be done to attract the money available for investment in Palestine to Government loans issued in that country, and that has throughout been an object of policy of the Palestine Government. Raising local loans serves more than one purpose. It helps to reduce the surplus purchasing power immedately available, and therefore tends to check inflation, and it reduces the tendency of prices to rise. It also helps to reduce the accumulation of sterling balances in this country. In fact, it helps the country concerned to solve its problems without calling on outside assistance. But, unhappily, it has not proved so easy to accomplish this obviously desirable object of raising loans. United Kingdom Bonds and Savings Certificates have been on sale for some time but they have not met with that wide response which could have been wished. The practice of investing in Government securities is new in Palestine, and indeed in many other countries also.
So the Government of Palestine is confronted with the problem of finding a new form of loan which would appeal to the local communities, and I must remind your Lordships that the outlook of the local community in Palestine is very different from that in England. To a considerable section of the Moslem world, to the very strictly orthodox Moslem, the receipt of a steady 3 per cent. or 3½ per cent. on a Government loan which would seem entirely respectable to the Quaker community in this country, or indeed to those sections of the community whose opinion was voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, this afternoon, is utterly abhorrent, because to them it is the sin of usury. On the other hand, the receipt of large casual or adventitious gains which might well seem objectionable to those respectable sections of our own native community here will not cause the slightest twinge of conscience to the most orthodox Moslems. I would also remind your Lordships that we are dealing with an Arab Moslem country, and the Government have to consider very carefully the views of this Arab Moslem community.
1216
The Government there have been faced with the fact that previous efforts to induce the public of Palestine—a public which the noble Viscount himself has said have large resources in cash—to invest in Government loans, have met with only a very moderate measure of success. Other Governments have found themselves in the same difficulty and have had recourse to the same solution. The Government of India have made somewhat similar arrangements to those we have been discussing this afternoon. They are not on exactly the same lines as in Palestine, but the essential features are common to both loans—namely, that the Government repay to the investor the full capital value of his investment when the term of the loan expires. In Cyprus, too, Premium Bonds have also been raised with encouraging results as regards inflation which was threatening the stability of the Budget. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been advised that in Palestine also the best, indeed the only means of achieving the very necessary object of a successful loan, is by the issue of Premium Bonds on the same lines.
My noble friend Lord Rochester asked why the Minister did himself state in Parliament that this was proposed when in fact it had already been started. My right honourable friend said on October 11, that it was proposed to issue 100,000 Bonds and he could equally accurately make that statement to-day. Some 35,000 have now been issued and that number had not been issued then. The statement at the time was quite accurate when he said it was proposed to issue 100,000 Bonds and it is still proposed to do so. There is no question of his going behind the back of Parliament, which was fully entitled to discuss this matter.
LORD ROCHESTER: If that be so, why was Parliament not given an opportunity of discussing this when the request was made in writing and the reply was made that information was being sought from Palestine?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The issue had already started when this question was raised and my right honourable friend, not unnaturally, wanted information as to how the loan was going. As to the question why Parliament was not consulted at every single moment, my right honourable friend would not shirk or deny

1217
his full responsibility. It is his responsibility. He has full powers to disallow this Ordinance in Palestine and it is his responsibility entirely. On the other hand, this is a very definite recommendation—it is not our plan—from the Government of Palestine. Finding itself confronted with the various problems that I have been detailing to your Lordships, it made this very definite recommendation to my right honourable friend and I think it would have been a very strong order on his part if he had refused the representations of the Government of Palestine and had abolished the Ordinance. It is his definite opinion that this method will achieve the object of a successful loan and I think that will be another justification for this measure.
Just as it was found not only desirable but also possible to do without Premium Bonds in this country, we hope that through the inducement of these Premium Bonds the public of Palestine, which is wholly unaccustomed to the idea of Government loans, will gradually see its way to lend its money to the Government in this part of the world, and that we shall find that a moderate rate of interest will be as satisfactory there as we have found it to be in this country. We hope the time will come when no premium will be necessary to attract the investor. I do not for one moment pretend that Premium Bonds or Prize Bonds are the ideal way for any Government, in any part of the world, to raise money, but I do say, and I say it with great conviction, that in the special circumstances with which we are confronted in Palestine, it is very much better to raise money by these means than not to raise it at all.
I am glad to be able to give my noble friend Lord Mottistone an absolute assurance on the point on which he sought reassurance. I have been speaking almost entirely this afternoon on the special question of this Premium Bond issue in Palestine and not of the general merits of Premium Bonds or State lotteries or gambling in general. Some noble Lords who spoke this afternoon seem to apprehend that this was, as it were, the thin end of the wedge and that this might be the first step towards the introduction of Premium Bonds. Thanks very largely to the unceasing efforts of members of your Lordships' House, Lord Kindersley, Lord Alness and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who have done so very much,
1218
and of their lieutenants, the habit of saving and lending to the Government is now deeply ingrained in this country. The campaign which these noble Lords and their innumerable assistants have waged has resulted in a continuous flow of investments into Government loans both large and small, and this has been a vital factor in the sound financing of the war. I quite endorse every word the noble Lord said when he stated that any suggestion for the issue of Premium Bonds here would have an adverse effect on the voluntary war workers of this country and the public, and that it would be most damaging to the Government. I can give the noble Lord a definite assurance that no such issue is contemplated for one moment by the Government of this country.
Little remains to be said. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, concluded by saying he thought I should find difficulty at Geneva. I can only say that I have only once been at Geneva and I hope I shall never go there again. It is full of foreigners and has a most horrible climate. But if ever I do go again I shall wish for no better wicket to bat on than this particular one.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: My Lords, may I ask the noble Duke a question arising out of what he has just said? He observed that Moslems have a conscientious scruple against usury. If so, how is the Government's scheme going to attract them? This scheme surely gives them usury? How is it going to overcome their conscientious scruples?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The same question occurred to me. Those who know more than I do assure me that the conscience of some Moslems, like the conscience of some Christians, is somewhat elastic.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, let me, in the first place, thank the noble Duke very sincerely for his personal references to myself which moved me deeply. I do not propose to add to the lengthy speech with which I detained your Lordships at the beginning of this debate by even two minutes. I would only answer one specific point in the speech of the noble Duke in which he said I had been guilty of a contradiction in saying that after all there were £60,000,000 of deposits and the money to be raised by

1219
this loan would be small in comparison, and yet I declared that possibly it might spread like wildfire and attract great numbers of subscribers. I think there is no contradiction at all. The people of Palestine, instead of spending their money and thereby increasing business, put £60,000,000 into the banks, £43,000,000 of that in the last three years. My point was that if this scheme does raise £1,000,000, that would not destroy all the danger of inflation if the people of Palestine choose to spend all the money they had available. It might have some small effect, but if there were no Premium Bonds they would probably be willing to take up at a proper rate of interest the required amount of money, as many of them have subscribed to previous loans. As Sir Austen Chamberlain said in the House of Commons in the speech to which I referred, the more success you have in one direction the more evil you have in another. If this scheme is bad in itself we ought to wish for its failure. I think
Resolved in the negative, and Resolution disagreed to accordingly.

RABBIT TRAPS.
4.30 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Paper.
that when the war comes to an end there will probably be no danger of further inflation in the Middle East, but on the contrary there will be deflation. Consequently the whole of this argument falls to the ground.
The reasons for and against have been very fully stated. It is true that all the speakers with the exception of the Government spokesman have been on one side, though no doubt the noble Duke has done his best to present as convincing a case as the matter allows. It is now for your Lordships to decide. I am afraid I must trouble you to go to a Division, because the principle is far too great to allow the case to go by default. I trust that those in favour of the condemnation of the scheme will not hesitate to use their authority as members of the British Parliament.
On Question, Whether the said Resolution shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.

Cavan, E.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Meston, L.

Jersey, E.

Sheffield, L. Bp.

Nathan, L.

Truro, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Mersey, V. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Samuel, V.

Ammon, L.

Southwood, L.

Wimborne, V.

Denman, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lang of Lambeth, L.

Terrington, L.

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Latham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Ailwyn, L.

Lawrence, L.

Devonshire, D.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Marchwood, L.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.) [Teller.]

Abingdon, E.

Bingley, L.

Carlisle, E.

Birdwood, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Lucan, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Poulett, E.

Cecil, L. (V. Cranborne.)

Sherwood, L.

Croft, L.

Simonds, L.

Allendale, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Cowdray, V.

Elton, L.

Elibank, V.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Goschen, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) [Teller.]

Long, V.

Wardington, L.

Margesson, V.

Hindlip, L.

Wolverton, L.

[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether the prohibition of the setting of traps for rabbits elsewhere than in rabbit holes having been unanimously recommended by a Select Committee of this House in 1937, and enacted without dissent in Section 5 (I) of the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act,

1221
1939, and in view of the strong public feeling against the cruelty of the gin trap, they will take steps to rescind Order in Council No. 5o, dated 15th January 1941, whereby the section in question was set aside.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, my right honourable friend has considered very carefully whether present circumstances would justify him in withdrawing the war-time regulation (Defence Regulation 63 (5,b)) which relaxes the statutory prohibition, imposed by the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act, 1939, of the setting of steel traps 4or rabbits elsewhere than in rabbit holes. He has decided that having regard to the continued seriousness of the food position he would not be justified in taking this step, but he has instructed the county war agricultural executive committees (who alone can authorize open trapping) to ensure that authority for the open setting of traps is given only in very special circumstances—for example, felled woodland areas with uncleared brushwood where no other means of rabbit destruction would be effective. Committees have been asked to aim at reducing open trapping to a minimum, to take care to see that the conditions attached to the authority to use this method are strictly observed, and in particular that the operators concerned are thoroughly skilled in the proper method of setting the traps.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Duke for his answer, and for the intention, expressed by his right honourable friend, to issue these instructions, may I ask one further question? Are the noble Duke and the right honourable gentleman aware that the replies to a questionnaire, circulated by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, go to show (in this matter of the effectiveness of instructions) that out of 36 committees who replied 29 were permitting open trapping, and 17 of these 29 were permitting it both to official and unofficial trappers?
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I will certainly take notice of any document which my noble friend cares to forward.

PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
4.33 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether all increases in pensions and allowances granted to officers and other ranks and ratings during the present war have also applied to the pensioners, and dependants, of all previous wars and campaigns in which His Majesty's Forces have been engaged since 1870; if not in all cases, what exceptions have been made, and the reasons for doing so.]
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, the rates of pension for disabled officers and other ranks and ratings and for their widows, where the disablement or death resulted from service in wars which took place prior to 1914, were, shortly after the termination of hostilities in the Great War, brought up to the Great War rates. Broadly speaking, the Great War and present war rates of pension for disablement (both for officers and other ranks and ratings), and of pensions for the widows of other ranks and ratings, and of allowances where payable, have been assimilated. There is a difference between the Great War and the present war rates for officers' widows arising from the fact that the former were on a basis different from the present war rates. There is also a difference in the disablement rates of one or two classes of officers. These are the main differences, and they are receiving consideration with a view to deciding whether any alterations are justified. There are also certain differences in respect of parents, separated wives and unmarried dependants who have lived as wives of the disabled or deceased members, but in these cases the conditions governing the award of pension also vary.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I presume that one may take it from the reply which has been given to my question, that the matter of these pensions is definitely being reconsidered. I am thinking especially of a very small case, that of a widow, a widow of this war, who gets £10 in pension more than a widow of the last war. I asked that the widow

1223
of the last war should be allowed the extra £10 and was told that that could not be done.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: These matters are receiving due consideration.

SUGAR BEET IN EAST ANGLIA.
4.36 p.m.
LORD AILWYN LORD AILWYN had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they are aware—

(1) That many thousands of acres of sugar beet in East Anglia are still in the ground with little prospect of being lifted this side of Christmas;

(2) that delayed lifting can only result in serious depreciation in the quality of the crop;

(3) that farmers who were directed to grow this sugar beet are faced with considerable financial loss unless immediate assistance to them is forthcoming;

(4) that Italian prisoners of war are the main source of labour supplied to cope with this urgent matter, and that their output of work in this direction is altogether inadequate and shows no sign of improvement;

and to ask His Majesty's Government to state what steps it is proposed to take to remedy this deplorable situation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper I should like to preface the few remarks which, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to make in amplification of the question by saying that I am in no way an interested party, nor can I lay the smallest claim to the distinction of being an agriculturist. My information, on which the question is based, has emerged from conversations with residents living on the spot close to my home, from personal interviews with some of the unfortunate farmers concerned, and from written testimony from other suffering farmers, all of which reinforces and confirms the substance of certain paragraphs which appeared in the public Press some ten days ago, describing the situation in this part of the country. The district to which I am referring lies in Suffolk and Cam-
1224
bridgeshire. Although I have been unable to check the exact figures, I understand that the area affected is something in the neighbourhood of 25,000 acres. I was assured on the 5th of November, when I was making my inquiries, that, owing to lack of suitable labour and conditions aggravated no doubt by the treacherous weather of the last few weeks, the probability was that some 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. of this vast crop of sugar beet would still be in the ground at Christmas.
There are three aspects, as I see it, of this deplorable situation. The first is the potential loss to the country of valuable food supplies. The second is the grave loss overhanging the farmers concerned. The third is the unsuitability of, and apparently the complete lack of control over, these Italian prisoners of war upon whose work mainly depends the lifting or the loss of the crop. As regards the first aspect—the loss to the country of food supplies—your Lordships will not be disposed to minimize in any way the gravity of such a situation. I believe it is true to say that, in this area, you get the highest yield of sugar beet to the acre in the country. It has been computed that the sugar rations for something like 3,000,000 persons are involved in this threatened peril. I was told moreover, at the time, that the authorities of certain of the factories were talking of closing down owing to lack of supplies.
With regard to the second aspect, the loss to farmers, I will quote only one case, that of a farmer, which was disclosed to me in a personal interview. He was directed to grow 275 acres of sugar beet on his 1,200-acre arable farm. The whole operation cost him £5,000. At the time of my interview with him, ten days ago, he saw no prospect of lifting 200 of those 275 acres. It seemed as if he would be involved in a loss of something like £4,000, and that some 30,000 sugar rations might go to waste. I feel I should tell your Lordships that I took the precaution last night of ringing up this farmer and he told me, much to my content, that the situation during the last week had slightly improved, and that he was not so gloomy about the prospect as he had been ten days earlier. The only comfort that this man received when he went to the district war agricultural executive committee was an observation by the chairman telling him to go home "and

1225
not to worry, as the war agricultural committee would get his beet up by March." Comment on such a remark is needless. Ribaldry of such a nature in the face of grave misfortune, and from such a source, is, to say the least of it, out of place; and I only hope that the noble Duke who is to reply will be able to say that such an attitude is not typical of war agricultural committees generally throughout the country.
Finally, there is the question of the Italian prisoners of war. On every hand one hears the same complaint, that they are absolutely and utterly useless. From among the mass of evidence which I have here I will select an extract from the letter from one farmer:
"During the past three years, through an acute shortage of labour, I have endeavoured to make very extensive use of Italian prisoners but have been forced to the conclusion that, with rare individual exceptions, they are absolutely useless. The farmer himself is for all practical purposes in a hopeless position, firstly because he has no legal means at his disposal to force a prisoner to work, and secondly because any complaints he makes to the authorities concerned are either ignored or belittled. In either case the prisoner himself knows by experience that no action worth mentioning will be taken against him, and therefore he continues sitting still accordingly.
"As two typical instances of the appalling slacking which takes place, I have had a gang of twelve prisoners who spent four days singling under one acre of beet, and six who took three weeks to top four acres. It appears in all seriousness that the recognized duties of a gang of twelve men are as follows: two men to cook, two to assist the cook, and eight to poach, pilfer or peruse the paper."
The efforts of sentries, interpreters and labour officers are all ignored. Meanwhile, the local beet factory runs at half capacity, while the Italians chew their ample cud and our men are pushed to the limit of endurance. That is the burden of the complaints which I have heard on all sides. In reply to questions in another place, the Minister of Agriculture admitted that he was not satisfied with the output of these Italian prisoners of war, but at the same time he admitted that he knew of no way of improving the situation. We are told that it is contrary to International Law and to the Geneva Convention to exercise compulsion or to resort to disciplinary action of any kind against prisoners of war. One can only hope that this same consideration and protection are afforded to our own prisoners of war in enemy countries. In any case, what is the use of drafting this type of labour to assist our harassed
1226
farmers in a really serious and urgent situation such as I have described?
Cannot something be done in the way of diverting, temporarily, labour from other industries in order to cope with this urgent situation and tide over this difficult period? Cannot volunteers be called for from our own Armed Forces in this country? In my own experience volunteers were continually being called for from naval establishments to help in the wheat harvest, and volunteers were forthcoming. Is there any reason why the same procedure should not be used for the sugar beet harvest? Is there any reason why greater use should not be made of German prisoners of war? I imagine that there are large numbers of them in the country to-day, and I understand that where they are working they work very well.
Before leaving this question of the Italian prisoners of war, I should like to say that I cannot help feeling that there may be something not altogether satisfactory about the way in which these Italians are supervised. I wonder whether a contributory cause to their ill behaviour may not be that the wrong type of man is put in charge of them. How are these gangers (as I think they are called) selected? Have they had any experience of taking charge of men? Is there a sufficiency of interpreters distributed amongst these prisoners of war to snake known requests and complaints? Is full use made of such people as pensioned petty officers from the Royal Navy and pensioned N.C.O.'s from the Army and Air Force to take charge of these men? I do not know; I can only throw this out as a suggestion, and I do not ask the noble Duke for a reply on this aspect of the case: I imagine that the War Office is the Department to which we must look for an answer in due course. I do feel, however, that some investigation along these lines might prove fruitful, and might bring to light reasons for the ridiculous ill behaviour of these Italians. In any case my submission is that immediate assistance is—or was ten days ago—necessary to avert this disastrous waste and loss to the country and to farmers alike. I sincerely hope and believe that I have put before your Lordships a fair and accurate picture, and I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name.
4.47 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Duke replies, I should like to

1227
make a very short observation about that part of Lord Ailwyn's question which deals with Italian prisoners of war. I wish that my noble friend Lord Addison were here, because in the county of the agricultural committee of which he is chairman and in which he himself farms, he has had much better experience than apparently has been obtained in East Anglia. I have been about the country a good deal lately and have been making inquiries about the work of the Italian prisoners. I find that it varies a great deal. I have heard farmers say that they are useless, and I have heard other, and I am glad to say more, farmers say that they have done excellent work. It seems to me that a good deal depends, as the noble Lord has said, on who is in charge. I have usually found that where the Italian prisoners have given satisfaction, they have had a good sergeant who has been given, no doubt, some extra privileges to act as foreman or ganger. The work which they do under him is good.
I understand that a good deal also depends on the sort of attitude which the local people adopt towards them. If the local people treat them as Ishmaelites or war criminals, or anything of that kind, and ostracize them, they become very disheartened. Men from the South of Italy in particular are sensitive and temperamental and may lose heart and not work. I put a question some little time ago to the Government which was answered by my noble friend Lord Croft, asking about the general work that these men had done under contractors. Of course the contractor cannot afford to employ men who do not work. The contractors have found out how to make these men work and they do it. The answer I got from the noble Lord on behalf of the Government was that the work they had done of national importance had been valuable, and I know my noble friend will stick to that. But on isolated farms, of course, the problem is much more difficult.
It comes down, I think, to this: it is partly a question of the man in charge and partly one of the general attitude of the people, employers, neighbours and so on, to the men themselves. I am speaking of those who are collaborationists now; I do not mean the Fascists; the 80 per cent. who collaborate and are prepared to do anything: if they are given a little sympathy and encouragement, I
1228
think the reward from these men will be very ample indeed. After all, we have now diplomatic relations with Italy. She ranks as an Ally; Italian warships are sailing with the Royal Navy; Italian divisions are fighting on the front with our own Eighth and Fifth Armies; and I do not think it is too much to ask that these men who are trying to collaborate and to help should be given a little encouragement.
I am sorry to dwell on this matter, but I spoke yesterday, when I saw this question of my noble friend Lord Ailwyn's on the Paper, with a gentleman in London of Italian descent, who has taken a great interest in this matter, and I think he feels, too, that that is quite right. He is a very loyal subject of this country, but he feels for his former compatriots. He has gone into this matter deeply. He is a considerable employer of labour, and he says: "I could guarantee that if I had charge of those men I would get that acreage cleared in record time. It is simply a matter of how they are treated and how they are handled." I hope therefore that the result of my noble friend's question will be that the Ministry of Agriculture and the executive officers will look a little more closely into the conditions under which these men work, particularly with regard to those in charge of them and what is the system of seeing that they do an honest day's work in return for the small amount of money and the meals which they receive.
4.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF STAIR: Before the noble Duke replies, I have one point I wish to bring up in connexion with these Italian prisoners. Our experience has not been quite the same as Lord Ailwyn's. In many cases the prisoners work extremely well where they are working only one or two on a farm. It is when they are together in gangs that there is practically no work done at all. But the point I wish to raise concerns the transport of these prisoners to work in country districts. At the present moment in our district, which is very widely scattered, these Italian prisoners are sent in some form of contractor's conveyance. The contractor is paid very highly for this contract and the service is abominable. The drivers of the lorries very often will not drop the prisoners within three or four miles of where they have got to work, and they

1229
tell them they have to get back there by a certain time. The result in the end is that the actual transport costs a good deal more than the value of the work. In many cases these prisoners are quite unable to get in any work, even if they wish to do so, for more than perhaps three hours a day. They probably do not arrive, on these winter days, until half past ten, possibly wet through and tired, and they have got to be back at some quite remote spot by half past three or earlier. If military transport could be given definitely to these camps I am perfectly sure it would save a vast amount of labour and a great deal of cost to the public in every way.
4.55 p.m.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, I shall try to give as full an answer to my noble friend as I possibly can. I would not like to appear to be trying to pass any of the points raised to other Departments, but it will become obvious as we go on that the War Office plays a certain part in the matter of that part of the question which deals with the Italian prisoners. The last point which has been raised by my noble friend the Earl of Stair is one of which I have not had any notice. We have had no complaints that I know of, but, if it is across the Border where it has happened, it would be with some diffidence that I should answer; and certainly not without finding out the facts; but I will bring them to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Department of Agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned that he had somebody who could make these Italians work very well, and I wonder possibly whether, if the person he meant was brought into closer contact with the Italians, we might have the results that we are all aiming at.
LORD STRABOLGI: Certainly I will put him in touch with the noble Duke.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: Thank you very much. I think that the best means of answering this question would be to take the question in the order of its divisions on the Paper. I would at once tell my noble friend that the Government are well aware of the great difficulties that farmers are having in East Anglia in gathering in these root crops, potatoes and sugar beet. Also I should like to say that they are having great difficulty all
1230
over the country, owing in no small degree to the enormous amount of time that has been lost and to the delays caused by bad weather. At this moment in East Anglia priority has been given to the gathering of the potatoes, because the potato is far more apt to come to harm and be lost if it is left out after the end of this month. So we are hoping that in another week or so, when all the potato harvest is finished, there will be slightly more labour available for the gathering of the sugar beet. It is estimated at this moment that between 25 and 50 per cent. of the sugar beet crop has been collected in East Anglia; and I am afraid that a proportion of the crop—though, unless the weather continues to be really bad, it should not be a large proportion—will not be lifted before Christmas. But practically the whole crop should be lifted before the end of January.
With regard to the second part of the question, it is perfectly true that a certain amount of the sugar content falls when the beet is left out as late as Christmas, and the risk of damage by frost of course is greater as the winter progresses. I admit therefore that the probable production of sugar in this country this year will be less than it was the time last year; but I do not think that, if we are able to find the labour and have favourable weather, the loss is going to be serious, provided, as I said just now, we can get the crop lifted by the end of January.
As to the third part of the noble Lord's question, the contract prices for this year's sugar beet crop are 81s., 82s. and 83s. per ton according to the factory group. The factory group price in East Anglia is 81s. This price is paid on a sugar content of 15½ per cent. and the price is also subject to a variation of 3s. 4d. for each 1 per cent. either up or down from the 15½. In 1944 a new provision has been introduced into the contract which in effect relieves growers in all parts of the country of freight costs to the factory in excess of 7s. per ton. Previously this concession only applied to two factories, Alscott and Kidderminster. In the last three years the averages of the sugar content have been: in 194r, 17.2 per cent.; in 1942, 16.65 per cent.; and in 1943, 16.5 per cent. The sugar content of the 1944 crop (the one which is now under discussion) is likely to be slightly less than

1231
last year's; but it is not possible at this moment to give a precise forecast of the percentage.
Both 1942 and 1943 were good years, and the average return to the grower in those years was 85s. 11d. and 85s. 3d. per ton. The Government consider that the present prices will cover the costs of production and provide a reasonable return to growers and do not regard any further price adjustment as necessary or desirable. The growers have had the advantage of two good seasons which have brought them returns above the average and ought not to expect compensation from the Government on account of the less favourable conditions prevailing this year. This would be merely a "Heads I win, tails you lose" policy. I am afraid it is not possible at this stage to furnish any estimate of the extent to which sugar beet growers' returns are likely to be reduced this year as compared with the two previous seasons. Naturally, this is bound to differ as between one grower and another according to individual circumstances, but the Government do not consider that any substantial loss will occur provided we can get the beet collected.
I now come to the last of the noble Lord's questions, referring to the work of Italian prisoners, and I shall try to deal reasonably fully with this. It is perfectly true that we have been obliged to rely to a considerable extent on Italian and German prisoners of war in East Anglia. We have, of course, had the assistance of the Women's Land Army and a certain number of sailors, soldiers, airmen and civilians, but those numbers, owing to the present state of the war, are not as great as they have been in the past. The noble Lord referred to the unsatisfactory way in which, he said, the Italians worked, but I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Earl, Lord Stair, said, it is not quite true to say that they are all unsatisfactory. Some are good, and they work better, as I think everybody agrees, when there are only two or three working for an individual farmer, than when they are in gangs.
But there has been a justifiable complaint about one of the camps in East Anglia, and the worst offenders in that camp have now been sent to a deten-
1232
tion camp, where they are submitted to the disciplinary measures which are allowed under the Geneva Convention. But all matters concerning the action that may be taken in handling the prisoners is, as my noble friend realizes, a matter for the War Office, and if any-body has reason to complain about the behaviour of these Italians or the work they do, a formal complaint has to be made to the camp authorities, and it will be taken up. Whenever that has been done we have had the fullest support from the military authorities. At this moment we are having another urgent investigation made at the camp by the Labour Advisory Officer, and we are now awaiting his report.
One of the troubles this year is that in the whole country there is an increase of 40,000 acres of potatoes and sugar beet, and although we have got an increase of labour the extra labour is only that of women and prisoners. But the real grievance with all the farmers, and with my Department, is against the weather, which has played a part which we could not have foreseen. We did, in fact, foresee that the shortage of labour in East Anglia was going to be great, and we had arrangements some months ago to post 9,000 additional prisoners of war to the Eastern Counties to collect the root crop. But unfortunately when the moment came for those men to be moved from the other areas where they had been working, it was found that owing to the weather the harvest was still out in those areas and the men could not be taken from them until that part of the harvest had been collected. However, since the 1st of October last 12,500 German and Italian prisoners have been sent to East Anglia. Altogether, there are now working in those counties 15,000 Italians and 4,000 German prisoners.
LORD AILWYN: Could the noble Duke say what is the proportion of German and Italian prisoners?
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I have just given it—15,000 Italians and 4,000 Germans. The number, however, is still too low. The noble Lord has asked what steps we are taking to remedy the situation. We are hoping that the weather will improve. We shall, however, continue to transfer prisoners of war to the Eastern Counties, both German and Italian, but one of the difficulties at this

1233
moment in trying to get a large quantity of labour into this rather small area is that of accommodation. Although many buildings may appear to be suitable for the purpose we are again up against the Geneva Convention, under which only a certain level of accommodation can be used for this purpose. Therefore I think your Lordships will agree that the matter is not altogether an easy one. We have made representations to, I think, all Departments, and as far as it is possible all Departments have helped us with a certain amount of labour. But after five years of war and with the large number of our Forces overseas we are not in a position to call upon the military. If things improve and we can get this prisoners' labour accommodated and working satisfactorily, the Government feel that they will get the sugar beet crop harvested and lifted in time. The matter is at this moment under the active consideration of the Government, and everything that is possible is being done to accelerate the work.

TRANSPORT OF OFFICER PRISONERS OF WAR.
5.10 p.m.
EARL POULETT EARL POULETT had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that enemy officer prisoners of war are being taken by train without reservations being made for them in advance, and that this necessitates fare-paying passengers being turned out of their compartments, not only during the day, but also at night, to their considerable and entirely unnecessary inconvenience; and inquire whether the Minister responsible will take the necessary steps to ensure that proper arrangements are made by the authorities in charge of prisoners of war, whereby these officer prisoners are conveyed with the minimum of interference to travellers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to ask the question which stands in my name I would like to point out that at first sight my question appears to condemn generally the transport of prisoners, but that is not the case, as I propose to show. As your Lordships are well aware, there have been many complaints both in the Press and in another place on this subject, and also among the general public when they have seen trains convey-
1234
ing prisoners of war, with the prisoners comfortably seated while the general public are crushed up like sardines in a box. They have also complained bitterly when there have been coaches added to the train that are locked for the benefit of prisoners and they have complained about locked carriages in general trains. Personally I have no objection to the first two things that I have mentioned, but as regards the third, the locked carriages in certain trains, I consider it somewhat unfair to the public when such trains are already crowded enough. It does seem to me that those prisoners might be taken by other means. Your Lordships may or may not be aware that since this war began many through coaches have been put on that never existed before so that there should not be the usual scramble for seats at railway junctions. If those through coaches, which may number only one or two, have two compartments or one compartment reserved for prisoners of war, that means that the other compartments are going to be overcrowded.
I agree that prisoners of war must be kept separate from civilians and the general public. The proper arrangements therefore for the conveyance of prisoners is for carriages or compartments to be locked and reserved well in advance. But there seems to be a practice growing up, when moving two or three prisoners, not to make reservations in advance, with the result that when the train arrives at a station the officer in charge of the men searches the train for accommodation—that is to say, he searches for an empty compartment. Searching for an empty compartment in these days is like looking for a needle in a haystack. When the officer fails to find the necessary compartment he has to select one. That means that the occupants of the compartment which he selects are turned out quite regardless of their age or the state of their health. The officer, I do not doubt, uses discretion; I am not blaming him. But that is how the matter stands at the moment. Travellers are turned out and they must stand in the corridor or be squeezed into another compartment.
This is the present state of affairs, and it need not exist if the authorities responsible for moving prisoners took the trouble to make proper arrangements with the railway companies or, should I say, with the Government-controlled railways. I

1235
have heard it said, I do not doubt your Lordships have also heard it said, that it is no good hearing about a thing, that the great thing is to experience and witness it. The other night I not only witnessed it but I experienced it. I was travelling from London to Scotland and left London at approximately ten o'clock. In a certain Midland town—a large town—we arrived at about a quarter past one in the morning. We were dozing and were awakened by an officer who appeared and said: "You have got to get out; I have two prisoners and they have got to have this accommodation." I expostulated. I said I thought it was ridiculous and asked for the stationmaster. At that hour the stationmaster was in bed but the assistant stationmaster came and said: "I am afraid there is nothing else for it." There certainly was not anything else for it. The result was that I and the other occupants had to turn out. The other occupants included my wife and a naval officer. We had either to get into the corridor or to be squeezed into another compartment, if possible. That is what happened.
I am quite aware of the Geneva Convention which broadly is, I believe, that prisoners of war must be treated as we expect our prisoners to be treated, and that officers must be treated in this country as our officers of similar rank would be treated in enemy country. But I would remind your Lordships that after Dunkirk, as you can easily find out if you do not know, our men had to march and then were packed into cattle trucks. I quite agree that we do not want to imitate the Hun and I sincerely trust we shall not do so. But our own people, in our own country, should be considered a little more than they have been considered so far, certainly as regards railway travelling. I quite appreciate the difficulties in moving prisoners but we have had five years of war and the Government controls one of the greatest transport organizations in this country. Surely therefore it is not too much to ask that the British traveller shall not be subjected to such inconveniences as those I have mentioned. I beg to ask my question.
5.17 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, the regulations lay down that when prisoners of war are being taken by train accommodation must be reserved in advance. In order that passengers shall not be inconvenienced these arrangements, as far as I am aware, are in general carried out properly and satisfactorily. As to the case to which the noble Earl has drawn my attention, he spoke to me about it before he put the question on the Paper and I promised to make inquiries. I am informed that the reservations were properly made but that some unauthorized person removed the labels from the compartment. I very much regret to hear that the noble Earl, when he was asked to move out of that compartment, did not have vacant seats pointed out to him. If in fact he was compelled, in those circumstances and under most unpleasant conditions, to remain in the corridor, I can only say I am extremely sorry. I have explained how it occurred and I was under the impression that there was alternative accommodation in which he could have been seated. I am sorry if that information is incorrect.
EARL POULETT: It is not exactly correct because the train was so filled that it was only by the method of squeezing and pushing that it would have been possible to sit down. I may say that my wife found it impossible to do so and remained in the corridor for the remaining five hours.
LORD CROFT: I am sorry to hear that but the fact remains that the regulations are as I have stated. If the noble Lord or anyone else is able to assist us in finding out who removed the labels, I shall be very glad to pursue the matter further.
EARL POULETT: May I say one more word?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): May I draw the noble Earl's attention to the fact that it is not strictly in order on these questions to speak again.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past five o'clock.