Lords Sitting of 5 November 1946

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

INDIA.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' leave to ask a question of which I have given private notice to the Secretary of State for India and Burma. May I say that my appearance in other than my usual seat implies nothing beyond the infirmity of my eyes. I desire to ask the noble Lord how soon further Papers will be laid on the Table as to events in India since the last statement was presented in July. These Papers should set out the correspondence and negotiations leading up to the formation of the Interim Government, and in particular show what guarantees have been given by Pandit Nehru for the protection of minorities. They further should also set out what have been the nature and extent of the recent riots in India, how far British troops have been used to intervene, and whether that has been done on the direct authority of the Viceroy. I beg to put the question.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE): My Lords, the negotiations which have led to the setting up of the present Interim Government in India necessarily involved a large number of interviews between the Viceroy and the leaders of the two major parties. These interviews were interspersed with correspondence. There were also correspondence and discussions between the Party leaders themselves.
The negotiations were of a confidential character and agreed records of the interviews do not exist. The correspondence alone would not give a complete picture of the negotiations. It is true that part of this correspondence has been published in India on the initiative of the Party leaders, but the publication of these documents as a White Paper would obviously
958
be a very incomplete compilation and would not give to Parliament a full picture on which to base any considered conclusion. I can, however, inform your Lordships that nothing which has passed in this correspondence between the Viceroy and the Party leaders involves any departure from the previous intentions of His Majesty's Government as to the constitutional position of the Interim Government. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government do not propose to publish a White Paper setting out the details of the correspondence and negotiations which preceded the formation of the Interim Government. The Viceroy concurred.
With regard to the other matters on which the noble Marquess asks for information, these do not seem to His Majesty's Government to be suitable for inclusion in a White Paper, but so far as practicable and in accord with the public interest I will endeavour to answer any questions in regard to them which noble Lords may wish to put to me.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am, of course, obliged to the noble Lord for the courtesy of his reply, but he will not be surprised to learn that your Lordships are not likely to be satisfied with it. I would not desire—I am sure your Lordships will believe it—to press the noble Lord at the present time, but undoubtedly further questions will be asked of him as soon as possible, and I hope that the noble Lord will be in a position to answer far more fully than he has answered this afternoon.

RICE SHORTAGE IN MALAYA.
2.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask your Lordships' leave to ask a question of His Majesty's Government of which I have given them private notice. The question is: To ask His Majesty's Government, having regard to the very grave shortage of rice in Malaya and to the fact that there is a large surplus of rice estimated at 1,500,000 tons in the adjacent country of Siam, which can be purchased and exported, what steps they are taking to see that Malaya is provided immediately from this surplus rice.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the Malayan Union and Singapore

959
Colony have been importing rice from the exportable surplus of Siam to which the noble Viscount refers. The exports from Siam and the imports into Malaya are made in accordance with allocations by the International Emergency Food Council. The rice from Siam is required in many countries and the need in many areas is urgent. Recent exports from Siam however have fallen short of estimates on which allocations to Malaya and other countries were made. In the case of Malaya, that country also received allocations of rice from French Indo-China, Brazil and Australia. Moreover, because of Siam's short fall, Malaya and Singapore have, in addition, received supplies from Burma through the operation of the South East Asia pool. Other supplies are now on the high seas from Brazil and a part of the supplies from Australia has also been received.
I should also add that, under the tripartite rice agreement between the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Siam, all rice for export from Siam is bought by the Siamese Government and resold to various exporting agencies at a fixed price. My noble friend can be assured that His Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to increase supplies of rice from all producing areas. In the case of Siam they have among other things, facilitated the export of consumer goods to that country to encourage the export of rice.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Viscount for the courtesy of his reply and for the fullness with which he has given it; but I would like to ask him whether it is not a fact that exchange difficulties have arisen in regard to providing the funds for the purchase of this rice. I should also like to ask whether transport difficulties have arisen, because, as I understand it—and I ask the noble Lord whether this is so—there are a great many Army lorries in Malaya which could be sent to transport this rice from Siam to Malaya. I feel that as Malaya is adjacent to Siam, its needs ought to be dealt with more speedily than those of other countries which he has mentioned. I beg to ask those supplementary questions.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, the noble Viscount will realize that the greatest diffi-
960
culty in all rice-consuming countries is the world scarcity of rice. I am not suggesting that there are not other difficulties, but if there were a plentiful production and supply, then I think the other difficulties would be very speedily overcome.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (CIRCUIT OFFICERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
PUBLIC NOTARIES (WAR SERVICE OF ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Lords Amendments agreed to and several others disagreed to, with Reasons for such disagreement. The said Reasons to be printed and to be considered to-morrow.
ATOMIC ENERGY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAM SHIRE ELECTRIC POWER SPECIAL ORDER, 1946.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER SPECIAL ORDER, 1946.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COLCHESTER GAS ORDER.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARGATE, BROADSTAIRS AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1946.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL BILL.
2.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the Bill. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, in the Bill before us we are afforded an opportunity of paying tribute and making possible a memorial in London to the late President Roosevelt. It is an opportunity which I feel sure will be welcomed from the heart by everyone of us. Never in history, I think, has there been such a desire by all the people of one nation to honour and to express their affectionate regard for the head of another. His voice and messages were eagerly listened to by well-nigh every family in the land. He gave us encouragement in the hour of danger and he inspired us all by the strong leadership he was giving to the American nation that was beside us in the struggle to save their liberties and ours.
We can never forget that even in the days before the United States came into the war and when our purchasing power
962
in that country was becoming exhausted, his original expedient of Lease-Lend made the gigantic sum of £7,000,000,000 available for aid to countries resisting oppression. It was a characteristic example of the boldness of his character and vision that will make him famous in history. We can never forget, either, that, under his leadership, as early as November, 1939, the embargo on the purchase of arms in the United States was lifted in favour of the United Kingdom and France; that in the time of our dire peril after the fall of France in June, 1940, guns were rushed over to this country to help in our defence, and that in September of that year a great fleet of destroyers was transferred to us to help to safeguard our vital supplies.
I make no apology, therefore, for quoting once more in your Lordships' House from his historic speech of March 17, 1941. He said:
"Humanity will never permanently accept a system imposed by conquest and based on slavery. These modern tyrants find it necessary for their plans to eliminate all Democracies, eliminate them one by one. The nations of Europe, and indeed we ourselves, did not appreciate that purpose. We do now. The process of the elimination of the European nations proceeded according to plan through 1939 and well into 1940, until the schedule was shot to pieces by the unbeatable defenders of Britain … So our country is going to be what our people have proclaimed it to be, the arsenal of democracy. Our country is going to play its full part, and when the dictatorships disintegrate, then our country must continue to play its great part in the period of world reconstruction for the good of humanity."
We know how well he lived up to it. What an unspeakable relief his speeches and actions were to us; how staunch a friend he was even before he became our ally. He was also, with Mr. Churchill, one of the architects of the Atlantic Charter. It is true that the world has not yet risen to the inspiration of that great document, and many year may pass before international rivalries are so abated that nations will be willing to co-operate sincerely in the endeavour to realize its ideals.
The fact that he is not here to-day to share in the work only makes our sense of loss the more poignant and increases our sense of the debt the world owes to him. The part that he played in the many conferences that gave direction to the war effort is fresh in all our minds. In all of them there was on his part the

963
same boldness of conception and warm-hearted friendliness. It is difficult for us to estimate what his skilled guidance and masterly handling of affairs meant in his own country. He welded together in an unexampled unity of effort a great nation composed of people derived from many races with deep differences of tradition and interest. I think the greatness of this achievement has not yet been fully realized, but we cannot wonder that, despite strong tradition, he was the first man to be elected three times President of the United States, and we do not forget that in all this he provided mankind with a wonderful example of how character and mind can overcome bodily infirmity. The British people, as well as his own, loved him. We are glad that the provision of this memorial in a place so well-known to multitudes of his fellow country-men is to be one in which, by the aid of the Pilgrims Society, the men and women throughout the land can take their share together. He lives in our hearts and will live in history. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Addison.)
2.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like, on behalf of my friends on this side of the House, to support most whole-heartedly what has been so well said by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Sometimes we have before us in this House legislation which may be said to be of a somewhat controversial character. I can imagine nothing less controversial than this measure with which we are now concerned. There is one thing which is quite certain. There is not one man or woman in this country, to whatever Party he or she may belong, who will not wish to do honour to the memory of President Roosevelt, that faithful friend of freedom and of this country, who never lost faith in us even when things were blackest. It is a commonplace nowadays to speak of President Roosevelt as one of the truly great men of this century, and possibly of all history, but what constitutes greatness? Some men are great merely by virtue of the posit.on which they occupy; others are great by the sheer force of their own personality. President Roosevelt, I suggest, was one of those rather rare cases in which both those two elements of great-
964
ness were combined. He was a great man in a great position at a great moment.
It was one of the supreme strokes of good fortune for humanity at large that one of the most momentous crises with which the civilized world has ever been faced found at the helm of the United States, a man not only vigorous and courageous, but a man of transcendent vision. From the moment the battle was joined between the Axis and the Western Powers he recognized the fundamental character of the issues with which the United States, as Britain, was faced. As he said in one of the most famous and moving of his utterances at that time:
"The British people are braced for invasion. Whether such an attempt comes to-morrow, next week or next month, the essence of their superb morale is in the masses of the British people who are completely clear in their minds about the one central fact that they would rather die as free men than live as slaves."
That is what President Roosevelt said to his own people, and that was his confident view. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has already pointed out this afternoon, he so guided his country that even before it entered the war it gave the fullest measure of help to the forces of liberty. Had it not been for President Roosevelt the result of the war might well have been very different from what it was. This memorial which it is proposed to set up in London commemorates not only the man but the greatness of the human spirit of which he was so predominant in example, and we on this side of the House are proud to be associated with it.
3.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, when President Roosevelt died so suddenly eighteen months ago, the news came as a shock to all of us, and it left behind something of a heartache. For it was not as though some public personage had died, respected but remote; we felt it as the death of a friend, and a dear friend. That was so not only with those of us who had the privilege of knowing him personally but with everyone. At that time there was a general feeling that there ought to be, in due course, some public memorial, here, in this capital city, so that posterity might be continually reminded of the honour in which President Roosevelt was held by his contemporaries.
The Government, in this Bill, have rightly interpreted the wishes of the nation and of Parliament, and your Lordships will

965
surely welcome it whole-heartedly. In that welcome, we on these Benches fully share. The proposal, itself, is, I think, well conceived. It would have been easy to have come to Parliament for a vote to defray the financial charges, a vote that would readily have been granted; but it is better to give the people at large an opportunity of participating by means of a general subscription. It would have been easy to have chosen some more accustomed site, side by side, perhaps, with many existing memorials, but it is a greater distinction to give to this memorial a location of its own, especially one, such as in this instance, which is so closely associated with persons and events in Anglo-American history. The City of West-minster, now, will have the honour of possessing memorials to the three Presidents of the United States whom history is likely to account the most illustrious—Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. They were the Presidents who were called upon to deal with the three greatest crises in the history of their country and all of them rose to the full height of the occasion.
Not only will this memorial symbolize our respect and admiration for President Roosevelt as a statesman but also our gratitude for the help which, in the hour of our greatest danger, under his leadership and at his appeal, the people of the United States afforded to us. We can never forget how, as previous speakers have said, before direct attack brought the American people into the war, President Roosevelt, grasping the realities of the situation, used all his executive powers and sent us ships, munitions, materials, and food in great abundance and on easy terms. And they arrived just in the nick of time. We may be sure that every effort will be made to render this memorial a worthy one to a man honourable and lovable, to an allv loyal and staunch and to a statesman among the greatest men of the modern world.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (in pursuance of the Resolution of October 17):
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Addison.)
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I say a few words at this point? I wish to make a suggestion which I would rather have put to the Leader of the House before, but I never read the Bill until this morning. I am not quite sure that there is not a trivial legal point upon which the Bill is not effective. I have had some experience, during the last six years, of what happens to squares when they are not enclosed by railings. Now I see no reason why this square should not be enclosed by a railing—the existing railing. And I would add this: I am not quite certain that, on the Bill as it stands, there would be authority in the Minister to shut the doors at night, and that will make a very great difference to the amenities of the garden. The Bill says at line 22 on page I
"that the Square shall be opened for the use and enjoyment of the public and kept open for ever for that purpose."
It may be argued that that does not mean that you cannot shut it at night, but the matter ought not to be left in doubt.
That is not the only thing which I should like the Government to consider. The next matter is this. Ownership of the site of the garden will remain where it is now. It is not transferred to the Crown; or the surface is not conveyed to the Crown, which I should have thought would have been the best plan. But, at any rate, what we know about the garden in the future is that it is to be managed and maintained by the Minister for the use and enjoyment of the public. I venture to think—and as a lawyer I hold this view rather strongly—that there ought also to be a few words added here to say that he shall be entitled to make by-laws for that purpose, and to authorize him to take proceedings against malefactors—by that I mean misusers of the square—and, if necessary, to take them before a magistrate. That I do not think would be possible under the words in the Bill as they stand. All I want to suggest is that that point should be considered. I did not know, unfortunately, that it was hoped to get through all the stages of the Bill to-day. If the noble Viscount the Leader of the House tells me that this has been considered, then I am content. But as, I am afraid, a very old lawyer, I have a feeling that you might have trouble here-after with regard to the management of

967
the square, which would be a disastrous misfortune. Nobody is more keen than I am not only that this memorial should be worthy of the great man who has passed on but that the garden should be one of the best in the country.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I can say, from the memoranda which has been supplied to me, that I think all the circumstances mentioned by the noble Viscount have been taken into consideration. It is understood that by the word "open" we mean open. The garden will be safely guarded and well looked after. I feel sure that we can rely upon our fellow countrymen to see that this is done and to look upon it and treat it with all respect.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE- GENERAL.
3.8 p.m.
LORD MORRIS LORD MORRIS rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now prepared to implement the long promised and long overdue reforms in the office of the Judge Advocate-General; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion standing on the Paper in my name this afternoon may, I think, be said to have misfired in two respects. In the first place, it was no sooner in the hands of the printers, some weeks ago, than the Secretary of State for War rose in another place and undertook that a Committee would be appointed immediately to inquire into the matters which form the subject matter of my Motion. The second respect in which the Motion may be said to have misfired—if I may use that expression—is that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has been kind enough to tell me that this afternoon he proposes in reply to me to announce to your Lordships the constitution of the Committee in question and its terms of reference. I shall listen with hated breath to the terms of reference and the constitution of the Committee.
Until this morning, I had intended not to take up your Lordships' time, except to withdraw my question, having obtained an answer in advance by putting the question down on the Paper. In all the circumstances, however, I think that perhaps the best course—if your Lordships
968
approve—will be for me to move for Papers. Then the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, can speak in reply, and I will very briefly and formally ask your Lordships for leave to withdraw—as I have done before, and even been refused. If I may detain your Lordships for just two or three minutes, I would make one or two observations, mainly in the nature of pious hopes concerning this Committee to be appointed and its functions. I am sure that your Lordships—some of you from bitter experience—will share my feeling and my view that sometimes those of us who move for Papers in this House labour under a considerable handicap in not knowing what is to be said by the Minister who replies for the Crown. For example, had I known some of the terms of reference of this Committee which is to be appointed and, even more important, its personnel, it may well be that some of the things I propose to say need not be said; or it may be that they will be conceived to be misguided. But on that, I must take my chance, because those of us who move for Papers do labour under this handicap. I have often thought that in the ten years in which I have had the honour to be a member of this House.
What I feel very strongly is that in this country—I do not care whether it is the Judge Advocate-General's office, or a lay Bench, or coroners, or the conduct of children's homes—it is frequently the case that no inquiry is made until there has been some particularly flagrant case which arouses public indignation to such a pitch that an inquiry is demanded and, in due course, granted. That is the point I would like to make this afternoon, and I think your Lordships would agree that had it not been for the case of the 250 paratroopers in Malaya, this matter would probably not have come to a head at all. One can dismiss the case of the paratroopers by simply quoting the leader of The Times which said that the Judge Advocate-General could not very well pass over responsibility for his share in the matter by saying that the papers had been submitted to him, and that therefore he had advised His Majesty's Government that the only proper course would be to quash the proceedings. That is not good enough.
The point is that there has been a long, grave and public trial of no fewer than 250 people, and it has been conducted in such a way that it has been necessary for

969
the authorities to advise the Crown to quash the proceedings. The result of that, as The Times leader to which I have referred pointed out, is either, on the one hand, that you have a body of men who should never have been convicted at all, convicted of the grave offence of mutiny, although innocent; or, alternatively, you have a body of men who should either have been shot, or who should be serving long terms of imprisonment, for a very grave offence going about free. The Judge Advocate-General cannot have it both ways. I do not know if it is true that his deputy in the Far East was called to the Bar at the beginning of this year. That is what I read in the Evening Standard. I have not had the time or the inclination to check that, but it is unfortunate that this should have got around.
If I may delve for a moment or two into slightly ancient history, the Oliver Committee was appointed (as your Lordships will remember) to look into these grave matters—they are certainly grave to soldiers, sailors and airmen—as long ago as 1940. In due course, the Committee reported and to the best of my knowledge and belief—and I. have the misfortune to have some inside knowledge of the Judge Advocate-General's office for three and a half years—nothing has been done in any shape or form to implement those reforms. Hence my Motion this afternoon. The specious excuse was put forward that there was a war on, and that they could not do that sort of thing. On the contrary, I should have thought that that was just the time to do it, when you have more soldiers, sailors and airmen than you have normally in peacetime. Yet nothing was done.
The Oliver Report made a number of recommendations, with most of which I whole-heartedly agree. I hope that many of them will be carried out and followed up by the new Committee which is to be appointed. With great respect to the learned Judge who presided over the Oliver Committee, however, I would say that in some respects that Committee did not go nearly far enough. It was just pawing at the thing; it did not tackle the problem at all. Yet in other respects it was much too far-reaching, and ranged over the whole history of courts-martial and whether trial by courts-martial was in itself a good thing. Of course, it is
970
a good thing. It has been accepted by the Services for a very long time as being good. What the Committee should have done, and what I suggest the new Committee should—and must do, is to probe very carefully into the interior running and internal organization of the Judge Advocate-General's office, a place in my humble opinion which is nothing more nor less than a nest of incompetence and intrigue. To my mind, that probe should be the main purpose of the Committee to be appointed in response to what is neither more nor less than public clamour. When the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, replies, I hope he will be able to give some sort of assurance that the gentlemen who are appointed not only by reason of their qulaifications but for their integrity and determination, will really probe into these matters, and will be able to tell Parliament and the public, or the Secretary of State for War, who appoints them, exactly what they have found, and exactly what they recommend.
It is idle to pretend that the present state of affairs in that office is satisfactory. For a long time prosecutors and judges, Army and Air Force have all been mixed up and reform is long over due. As I said, this is a long overdue reform, and I do hope that very speedily I shall be able to withdraw my Motion, confident that the terms of reference and the names of the Committee to be appointed by the Government will inspire in your Lordships, and in the public, confidence that this very important matter will be properly investigated. I have finished but for one final word. I did think it a little novel that the Judge Advocate-General himself was appointed as a member of the Oliver Committee. Surely, it was a little invidious to ask him to be a member, and a little curious that he should have aceepted the invitation. I should like to think, and I hope, that he will have no part in the deliberations of the new Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I interrupt? The noble Lord just said that the Judge Advocate-General was himself a member of the Oliver Committee. Is he not making a mistake, being a little out of date? Is it not the case that Sir Felix Cassel was not the judge Advocate-General at that time, but in fact had retired many years before?
LORD MORRIS: I think not. It may well be that Sir Henry MacGeagh was not really a member of the Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No.
LORD MORRIS: I think I am right in saying—surely my recollection is correct in saying—the paper ought to be available, anyway.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD PAKENHAM): Here it is.
LORD MORRIS: May I see it?
LORD PAKENHAM: Certainly.
LORD MORRIS: Yes, with permission, I entirely withdraw. That is incorrect. Sir Henry MacGeagh was not himself a member of the Committee, but, as the noble Marquess very rightly points out, his predecessor in office was. In this document, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, knows better than I do, there are recommendations made, from some of which the then Judge Advocate-General, Sir Henry MacGeagh, dissented. I beg to move.
3.21 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, if the observations which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, had fallen from any other member of your Lordships' House, they would, I think, have required a full and careful reply! I do not intend to say anything about them, except that they were inaccurate, ill-conditioned, and most unwelcome in this House.
I have a statement, I think, of some interest to the House to make this afternoon. The reforms to which the noble Lord's Motion refers are presumably the changes relating to the appointment, constitution, and functions of the Judge Advocate-General and his office, which were recommended by the Oliver Committee in their report on court-martial procedure in 1938. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said it was in 1940. That was one of his smaller inaccuracies.
LORD MORRIS: Reported in 1940.
LORD PAKENHAM: 1938. The recommendations of that Committee were under consideration at the outbreak of war, in 1939, but the action to put into effect those recommendations, which were acceptable to the Government of the day, was suspended, as it was impossible
972
during the war to carry out any far-reaching reorganization of the office of the Judge Advocate-General. As my right honourable friend announced in another place, a fresh Committee is being set up, which will include in its deliberations a review, in the light of war experience, of the recommendations of the Oliver Committee. Until this new Committee has reported, and decisions have been reached upon its recommendations, I am sure the House would agree that it would be premature to alter the existing structure.
The composition of the Committee is as follows: Chairman, Hon. Mr. Justice Lewis, O.B.E. Members, Major-General the Right Hon. Viscount Bridgeman, C.B., D.S.O., M.C., A. R. Blackburn, Esq., M.P., T. N. Donovan, Esq., K.C., M.P., Sir Theobald Mathew K.B.E., M.C., Director of Public Prosecutions, J. C. Maude, Esq., K.C., M.P., Lieut.-Colonel R. A. F. Thorp, O.B.E., M.P., and also a retired senior R.A.F. officer. The terms of reference are these:
"To bring under review, in the light of the experience gained in the late war and of the composition of the Army and the Royal Air Force, the recommendations of the Army and Air Force Courts-Martial Committee, 1938 (Cmd. 6200), with special reference to the question whether it is desirable to provide any, and if so what, form of appeal from the findings or sentences of courts-martial; to investigate the powers of courts-martial and of Commanding Officers to award punishment, and the nature and scale of such punishment; and to make recommendations upon these and kindred matters."
I hope that that statement will be satisfactory to the House.
LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PETROL RATIONING.
3.24 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had given notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to indicate when it is proposed to bring the rationing of petrol to an end, and if not, whether they will state clearly the reasons for its continuance. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the question which I desire to ask His Majesty's Government this afternoon is one which goes a very great deal further than just the personal convenience

973
of any one of your Lordships. So far the question of petrol rationing has never been very clearly stated in either House. There have been a number of questions relating to it in another place, but, in so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, I think I am perhaps right in saying that no very clear answer has been given.
What a number of people in the country desire to know is, first of all, what is really the reason for petrol rationing. Is it intended to continue petrol rationing? If so, for how long? If these questions could be answered clearly, so that everybody could understand, I think it would help the ordinary man and woman very much. But the trouble is that the replies which the Government have so far been able to give about this question have not been clear and have not taken us very far. Therefore I wish to ask His Majesty's Government a few questions with which I would like them to deal if they can. It has been suggested, of course, that you do not want to remove petrol rationing because you have got a large staff employed. Some people have put that number as high as 20,000 but, according to an answer in another place, it is much lower than that, though the total is still appreciable.
It has also been stated from time to time that petrol rationing is still necessary because of a shortage of tankers. I wonder if that is really so. I wonder if that is the reason, and, if it is so, whether it is a fact—and this I would like to ask His Majesty's Government particularly—that tankers have been lying in the harbours for as long as three weeks, because they have been unable to discharge their cargo. My information is that that state of affairs has occurred in the past. If the Government could lay that ghost, no one would be more pleased than I. Further, it has been said that the Government are exporting oil, that oil is one of our greatest exports. Well, if oil is being exported, would it not help us all to appreciate the problem in all its implications if we could be told to what places oil is being exported and on what terms?
Another argument is that the demands of the Services are so great that petrol rationing cannot be removed. I should like to ask the Government: Are efforts really made in the Services to effect economies? I have here a statement made
974
in a responsible organ of the Press, which states that the writer is serving in Italy, and that he was told that the Army in Italy were burning petrol because they did not know how to get rid of it. He did not believe it, but he did go to a place where this was supposed to be happening, and found that that was the fact, that petrol was being burnt because the Army did not know how to get rid of it, and being burnt at a very appropriate place, on the slopes of Mount Vesuvius. Again, is there any hanging back on the part of the Government because they consider the possession of a motor car a luxury? That has been suggested by many people, and if in any answer given for the Government that point could be dealt with, no one would be more grateful than I. May I observe also that what is one man's luxury is another man's necessity? I therefore hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to lay that ghost.
There was, I believe, a Committee on Public Safety set up by the police and the Ministry of Transport, which included representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. That Committee sat in 1944. Amongst its recommendations was one which suggested that the return of motor vehicles to the roads should be regulated and controlled by means of petrol rationing. Is that what we are really enduring at the present time? Lots of other people suggest, quite wrongly as I am sure they would be the first to realize if the Government would make it clear, that the Government are keen on control for control's sake. Is there some mystery about it? At any rate let us know what the facts are.
Then I would like to point out the sort of thing that happens. I am told you can go anywhere in London and for five shillings buy a petrol coupon. In other words, so long as this system of petrol rationing continues it gives rise to a flourishing black market. I feel that such a state of affairs is most undesirable, but at the same time it is understandable because people are being restricted in the gratification of their desires and that sort of thing. Far be it from me to defend the black market but I can quite understand how it arises, and if the Government would only give us some sort of hope that they will increase the ration—if they cannot do away with it in one go—they would do much to do away with

975
this black market. It must be remembered that at the present time small traders with delivery vans are hopelessly constricted in their movements. Several have told me that if only their allowance of petrol were greater they could do much to abolish queues. We are surely in favour of anything that does away with queues. It seems to me there may be something in that point. If the traders were able to give faster and better delivery and if they could extend their deliveries, that might do something to do away with queues. I do not feel I need say very much about that.
Suggestions have been made in the Press and elsewhere that we should go in for an extension of the Fido system at airfields for the landing of aircraft. I believe I am right in saying there is only one airfield at present using the Fido system, and that is at Manston. I understand that the consumption of the Fido system is 80,000 gallons of petrol an hour; in other words, enough petrol to run a 10 h.p. car for 280 years. If only the Government would consider these points and also turn their mind to what is going on abroad! I understand that Franco's Spain has done away with petrol rationing and I am sure His Majesty's Government will be anxious to follow that good example. I understand that Belgium, the Channel Islands, Sweden, and Switzerland—I cannot say about Portugal and Holland—have done away with petrol rationing. I was in France the other day and I happened to be talking with a certain member of the French Government. He informed me that there was a great urge in France to do away with petrol rationing, as there is here, but the authorities in France were holding their hand because they wanted to see what was going to be done here. I am informed that New Zealand has also done away with petrol rationing.
Would the Government say quite clearly what our petrol stocks are? We get a return which comes out from time to time. I have the latest published figures here but I will not weary your Lordships with them. They seem to me to show there are vast quantities of petrol being imported into this country. I cannot for the life of me see why the continuance of petrol rationing should be necessary. One feature of our petrol rationing is that
976
which involves the use of Pool petrol. Those of you on both sides of the House who are acquainted with the running of motor vehicles will know the effect of Pool petrol. You find your engine pinking, or if you leave your engine for a sufficiently long time you find the petrol pipes choked up and a gummy deposit in the petrol tank which will take any repairer quite a long time to get rid of. The whole thing is a thorough nuisance from the word "Go." If we could get back to branded petrol that would be something gained. I do not know if the noble Lord who is to reply can give us some hope there. What those of us who are interested in the matter feel is that the alleged shortage of petrol is artificial. We feel that there is any amount of petrol in the British Empire, and that there are ample supplies available largely to increase the ration or even to do away with it altogether. We feel that if the Government had really got their will behind it they could do this.
It must be remembered that the motor vehicle industry is really being knocked in a number of ways at the present time. The manufacturers find it difficult to produce new cars because they are told they cannot have the steel. I belong to a firm which makes heavy motor cars and at the moment we have difficulty in getting steel to make wheels for our vehicles. We have enormous orders from South America, South Africa, and all over the world, and yet very shortly we are not going to be able to get the steel to make the wheels to complete the orders. And again, the motor world is suffering from severe taxation. I am not going to dogmatize upon what the basis of taxation should be; but I want to say it is almost time that the motor vehicle owner got a break. Give him a little hope, show him a little blue sky, show him that the clouds have some sort of a lining—I will not say silver or cupro-nickel. Give him some sort of hope and he will be much better able to put up with the tiresome restrictions.
3.38 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend has put up a very powerful case, as he always does, and I am sure your Lordships will await with interest the reply for the Government. I understand this is to be in the hands of my noble friend Lord Chorley, and I take

977
this opportunity of congratulating him on his elevation to the status of spokesman for the Government. I have always understood that one of the reasons why this restriction of petrol has obtained is that there is a shortage of rubber and a shortage of tyres. There may not be a shortage of rubber because I understand the rubber plantations are resuming again, but the shortage of tyres will surely prove an understandable reason. It was in order to deal with that situation that the petrol restriction was put on. My noble friend does not, I believe, speak for the Ministry of Transport on this, so I will address my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, who does speak for that Minister.
If you are going to remove the restrictions upon petrol and tyres you are going to have a great influx of cars on the market. What is going to happen to the streets of our cities and to the roads leading thereto? That question is far more urgent than doing anything to increase the number of cars already on the roads, which are already too many for the capacity of the roads. I returned to London at the end of last week after being away for only seven weeks. To see a child grow you have to be away from it for some time and then come back. After these seven weeks—and all your Lordships who have been away for the same time will also have this experience—I noticed an extraordinary increase in the traffic in and around London. It is appalling. I could hardly get to my first engagement in the House this morning owing to a terriffic traffic block in Parliament Square, and there are traffic blocks of that sort all over this city of London. What is even more tragic is that I can see no signs of anything having been done during those seven weeks to open up the bottlenecks and to improve the means of communication. I do suggest that this is a very apposite subject to that raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. If you are going to have petrol rationing removed, more cars on the road and motoring facilities greatly encouraged, then you will really have to do something about the traffic facilities in this city of London and in other great cities.
During the Recess many of your Lordships took the opportunity of crossing the Atlantic. I went back to New York City after an absence of some twelve years, and I must say that I was astonished at the tremendous improvement that had
978
been made in those twelve years to the means of communication in that city. London has hardly changed, apart from war damage; very few new outlets, new exits or through roads have been made. I think in those twelve years we have had improvements made to the North Circular Road, and we have opened out Western Avenue, but within the confines of the city itself practically nothing has been done. Since I was in New York City last magnificent wide riverside drives have been put down which are linked up with a series of through roads, and there are no cross-tracks at all. The result is that they have practically solved a far worse traffic problem than we have here, because New York City for its size is a more congested area than this beautiful but sprawling city of London. They have built tunnels under the roads and bridges over the roads, all for motor traffic; they have built new bridges across the rivers, also for motor traffic, and fast roads radiate in all directions from that great city. I think they have done a wonderful job. I have already privately suggested to my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport, Mr. Barnes, in the other place, that he should send a small expert committee over there, with representatives of course of the city of London, the city of Manchester and other great cities, to see what has been done in New York. If that can be done in New York in war time, why have not we done more in the city of London?
This is not a matter for which any responsibility can be placed on the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, or on the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Walkden. I do in the most friendly manner make the suggestion that as soon as we possibly can we have got to quicken up the improvements to our communication systems within the city of London and other big cities. I know the difficulties of labour and material, but if we do not do that we will have the most appalling blockages of traffic as soon as the happy state of affairs envisaged by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, comes about. There are many complaints from the public, but I myself would suggest with great diffidence that we should think twice about encouraging a greater volume of motor traffic on the roads until we have, at any rate, begun to tackle this growing evil in all our great cities.
3.43 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Earl, Lord Howe, may be a little disappointed at the answer which I am going to give to his question. He spoke about the hopes which he entertains. Well, hope is always doomed to be disappointed, or largely disappointed. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Strabolgi will not be disappointed, because he was apparently afraid of what might happen on the immediate withdrawal of these restrictions on the issue of petrol. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, covered a great deal of ground at a very rapid rate. Those of us who know him are perhaps rather accustomed to the speed at which he traverses a considerable area of ground and are not therefore in any way surprised. A number of the matters which the noble Earl mentioned are matters which I can assure him are very much in the mind of my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. Other observations which he made to your Lordships were in regard to the difficulties which inevitably, to a greater or lesser extent, follow every system of rationing. We all hope that all these rationing systems may be abolished before long. He also drew attention to difficulties which crop up from time to time in this sort of connexion. Some of them are present to the mind of my right honourable friend, and I can assure the noble Earl I will bring the others to his notice.
With regard to the general question of relaxation, a statement was made on the subject of petrol rationing by my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power in another place on July 16, and as I am afraid there is no.' very much to add to that, perhaps with your Lordships' permission I may refer to what was then said. The statement is rather a long one. I do not propose to read it verbatim to your Lordships, but perhaps with your Lordships' permission I might be allowed to summarize what the Minister said. In the first place, he made it very clear that the problem was to a large extent bound up with difficulties of currency and foreign exchange. He pointed out that, although the American Loan had been ratified, we had to utilize the additional dollar credits which it has brought to us in a number of different directions, only one of which was the provision of greater quantities of petrol
980
for the users of motor vehicles in this country. He had, however, endeavoured to spread the relaxation in petrol rationing over as wide an area as possible, and he had decided to increase the basic ration by 50 per cent. Although the noble Earl suggests that there was a complete absence of blue sky, I can assure him that, during the holiday season, at any rate, many motorists regarded that as a very useful break in the clouds and profited by it to that extent. The Minister pointed out that this concession would absorb more than half the additional supplies which he was able to make available.
In regard to motor cycles the Minister was able to promise a larger increase in the case of the smaller and more economical machines. In regard to what are called the semi-essential class, to which the noble Earl made special reference, that is to say, some 330,000 cars which are used by people like commercial travellers, insurance agents and business men making deliveries, there he agreed that there had been a severe rationing of that type of user. The administrative problem of making larger supplies available for them was a somewhat difficult one, but what he had done was to increase the current issue of the S unit coupons to a value of 50 per cent., and he would consider whether he would not be able to increase the maximum allowances so as to help those categories in the greatest need. The Minister then dealt with the position of the owners of hire cars and taxi-cabs and mentioned the restrictions to which they have been subjected, of which your Lordships are aware. He said that he proposed to remove the restrictions completely and to give increased allowances of 25 per cent. in fuel—a very considerable concession.
Finally, he dealt with what is called the essential class, pointing out that very many users of vehicles in this class had received as much petrol as they required but that in other cases there had been a certain stringency in the allocation of the petrol, and that he, especially having regard to industrial requirements, was giving instructions to the regional petrol officers to make rather more generous allowances where those could be justified. That is the substance of the statement which my right honourable friend made on July 16 in another place. Since then the position has been constantly under

981
review by the Government. The importance of the matter is very clearly understood and recognized, but in present circumstances the Government are not yet able to announce any further relaxation.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, I may be allowed to ask one question of the noble Lord, after thanking him very much for his reply. The question is whether he can give us any sort of forecast in regard to the future.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am afraid I am quite unable to add anything to the answer which I have given to the noble Earl.
LORD REA: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain how it is, if all these considerations which he has put before us apply, that there are these huge quantities on the black market?
LORD CHORLEY: It the noble Lord will give me specific details about any huge quantities of petrol on the black market, I shall be very glad to take steps to absorb some of it. The noble Earl referred to a supply of petrol which would be sufficient to run a 10 h.p. car for 280 years. I am the proud possessor of a rather old 10 h.p. car, but I can assure your Lordships that I have no intention of trying to run it for 280 years.

DRIVING EXAMINERS.
3.53 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had the following question on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government what instructions are given to driving examiners; how many Ministry of Transport driving examiners have been sent on courses to police driving schools; the average percentage of marks obtained at the end of the course; the number who failed to satisfy the examiners that they were competent themselves to act as examiners, and the steps taken to ensure that they do not in fact become examiners.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name. I do so because, many years ago now, I was a member of the Public Safety Committee which was set up under the Ministry of Transport, just about the time that examinations
982
for drivers were first instituted. One of the points I endeavoured to make as a member of that Committee was that, as far as the usefulness of the examinations were concerned, everything depended upon the instructions given to examiners. I am sure it has been the frequent experience of many members of your Lordships' House to see the type of driver who 'holds out his hand, like the taxi driver in London, or who puts out an arrow—a trafficator—and without any more ado, without looking to see what is happening on the rest of the road, simply starts to make his turn. What I want to know is whether in examining the various, applicants for driving licences, the examiners insist on the applicants using their mirrors to satisfy themselves that somebody is not overtaking them at the precise moment when they begin their manœuvre. That is one point.
Then with regard to position on the road, in these days of congested traffic—the sort of conditions that were referred to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—if our crowded roads are to be used with safety by all road users alike it is essential, to use the words of the Government, that there should be "fair shares"—that there should be ample room for all. At the present time many of the roads in our country are 30 ft. roads, and they are often divided into three 10-ft. widths, delineated by white lines along the road. If any of your Lordships would care to go along such a road as Western Avenue and watch the traffic, you would see a lot of small cars, no matter what the traffic conditions were, straddling the near-side white line instead of keeping to the left of it, thus creating a very dangerous condition indeed. If they happen to meet another vehicle doing the same thing and if there is another car trying to overtake in one direction or the other, it is quite obvious that there is the risk of a severe accident occuring. Are any instructions given to the examiners to be particularly careful to note the sort of position that the applicant for the driving licence takes up on the road? Are they asked to note whether he goes steadily, like a chicken, down a line in the road, or whether he keeps, as he should do, as close to the near side as is reasonably practicable and safe, having regard to all other considerations?
Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed many drivers—and I do not exempt Service drivers—who, when they are going to turn to the left, start the manœuvre by turning first of all to the right, and any vehicle coming along behind imagines they are going to turn somewhere to the right or to pull over to the offside of the road. But not at all; when the driver of the vehicle behind is wondering whether he had better go by under the stern of the vehicle in front, he finds the driver ahead sometimes turns right across his bows and goes over to the left. Alternatively, it may be a turn to the right, in which case the driver—and this is a much more dangerous manœuvre—turns first of all to the left. Naturally the driver of the car behind thinks he is going to stop on the near side of the road and accordingly starts to pass him, but suddenly the car in front turns across him, and a position of danger is created at once.
How far are points of that kind covered by the instructions to examiners? We were told on the Committee on which I sat that everything depended upon the instructions to examiners and that all these points would be covered. For all I know, they may have been covered, but there is no obvious evidence of it yet. In these days it is very often the fashion for various people, motor drivers and the like, to blame everybody except themselves, but the motor vehicle world ought to set its own house in order. I am sure I shall take all your Lordships with me in that and I am perfectly certain that every reasonable motorist agrees. So long as points of this sort are covered by the instructions of the examiners and the examiners insist on them when they are conducting their tests, I am perfectly certain they can do quite a lot to improve the general standard of behaviour on the road. I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to give me an answer.
3.58 p.m.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I am rather afraid that my answer will be, at any rate should be, restricted to the terms of the question which the noble Earl entered on the Order Paper. He has made a circuitous run right round that question and has expanded it somewhat. Perhaps I might inform him, as he has probably been away recently, that the
984
whole question of road safety, operation on the roads and so forth, is, we hope, to be debated some time this month, in the new Session of Parliament. We shall then have a better chance of going into all those points with which I am not really prepared to deal this afternoon.
I think I might say broadly that all the queer vagaries of motorists, mostly inexperienced, to which the noble Lord has referred, are covered in the regulations he has in mind. I am sorry he is not now on the Road Traffic Advisory Committee which has dealt with these matters recently. The regulations are ample, and they are going to be carried into operation. The noble Earl will know, of course, that testing was restarted as recently as November 1. We have had great difficulty in getting the staff together to do the work. We have obtained quite a good number of men who were in the Forces, men who were examiners and drivers before, and we are likely to add to their number appreciably in the near future.
The instructions given to examiners are based on the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations, 1937. I should imagine that is what the noble Lord was referring to. It is a ten-page document which he can easily obtain, and it would give him very full information in that regard. These regulations are designed to secure a uniform test and a uniform standard of competence for the purpose of the issue of a pass certificate. One hundred and fifty-two driving examiners have completed a refresher course in the police driving schools and the remaining twenty-five are taking their course now. These courses are not intended as driving tests, and no marks are awarded. They are designed solely to enable examiners—all of whom are experienced drivers and trained examiners—to refresh their knowledge of driving which may have grown stale owing to lack of practice during the war, and for them to benefit from the knowledge and experience of the police instructors who are, of course, highly competent and very experienced. Additional driving examiners will be appointed in the near future. Any confirmation of their appointments will depend inter alia on a satisfactory completion of a driving course at a police driving school. They will have to be thoroughly competent in driving and in

985
all the qualifications necessary in respect to the issue of a licence. I am afraid I cannot add to that at the present moment.
EARL HOWE: May I ask whether there are any figures with regard to failures, people who are rejects and people who do not prove suitable?
LORD WALKDEN: There are no failures in the three groups to which I have referred. Those who have gone through the course are all competent. They were examiners before, and they are refreshing their driving knowledge. The twenty-five who are now passing through the course are fully qualified, but there will be further men to come and they will be very carefully tested. We will certainly take the utmost precautions to see that none become examiners who are not competent.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: May I ask whether competence in that sense includes knowledge of the recently revised Highway Code?
LORD WALKDEN: Yes, the new edition of the Highway Code is the foundation of the knowledge that the examiner must have. He must also see, to it that all applicants for licences have themselves absorbed that knowledge.
LORD GIFFORD: If the police examiner thinks that a man is obviously unsuitable to act as an examiner, would not that be taken into account?
LORD WALKDEN: If he is found unsuitable he will not be appointed.

THE TERRITORIAL ARMY.
4.3 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Long.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what are the overall future conditions of the Territorial Army, especially as they affect officers and N.C.Os.]
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I hope to be able to make a definite statement on this subject within the next two or three weeks. Meanwhile, the Territorial Army and Air Force Associations have already
986
been given the broad outline of their future role. The Government are fully alive to the undesirability of further delay in the re-formation of the Territorial Army.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord.

AGRICULTURAL TRAINING SCHEME.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question which appears in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, the reasons for the increase of the contributions payable by farmers under the agricultural training scheme for ex-Service men.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, it is a condition of the agricultural training scheme that the training employer should make a contribution in respect of a farm trainee's incidental services. This contribution, which is related to the statutory minimum wage rate for agricultural workers is on a sliding scale, increasing as the trainee gains in experience and thus becomes more proficient. For non-disabled trainees the total contribution payable during the training period is approximate 60 per cent. of the minimum rate. This was arranged after consultation with the representative organizations of farmers and farm workers and on the recommendation of the Agricultural Wages Board. As from July 14 last the minimum wage rate for agricultural workers was increased from 70s. to 80s. per week, and in order to maintain the agreed ratio of 60 per cent. as between the employers contribution and the normal minimum wage, it was necessary to make a proportionate increase in the contributions payable by training employers under the scheme.
At the same time it must be remembered that the agricultural training scheme is only one part of the general Government scheme which embraces many industries. Any increase in allowances to agricultural trainees would require to be associated with a general increase in the scale of allowances applicable to all trainees

987
under the scheme and such an increase would not be justified by the rise in wages in agriculture alone. The question of a general increase in allowances is one for the Ministry of Labour and National Service, who keep the position under constànt review in the light of the tendency of wage levels to rise in trades in which training is given under the scheme.
LORD CARRINGTON: While thanking the noble Earl for his answer, may I ask whether he would circulate that answer to the war agricultural executive committees, as the reason for the increase in contributions was not at all realized by any of the farmers who have trainees under this scheme?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. I will certainly look into the matter.

WHEAT PRICES.
4.7 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the next question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what price per cwt. including acreage payment is being paid for wheat—
(1) Produced in the United Kingdom; and
(2) Delivered to main United Kingdom ports from (a) Canada; (b) U.S.A.; (c) Argentine.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the fixed price ex farm of millable wheat produced in the United Kingdom averages in the current season 145. 10d. per cwt. and the acreage payment represents an addition of 2s. 4d. per cwt. For Canadian No. 1 Manitoba wheat the farmer receives 135 cents per bushel which equals about 12s. 7d. per cwt. He may also receive a further payment from the profits of the Canadian Wheat Board. The amount received by the farmer in the United States is based on the daily quotation of the Chicago Wheat Futures market, or other similar Futures market. The quoted price would include rail and handling charges from the farm to terminal elevators. The current price to the farmer is around 18s. per cwt. The price paid
988
to the grower in Argentina is at present about 15s. per cwt.
EARL DE LA WARR: Reading the words of this question I think the noble Lord has misunderstood it. The question is to ask His Majesty's Government what price per cwt. including acreage payment, is being paid for wheat delivered to main United Kingdom ports. He has only told us what is being paid to Canadian, United States and Argentine farmers. Therefore I think he will agree that he has not entirely answered the question in the way in which we had rather hoped.
LORD HENDERSON: The information I have given is the information which is available. I have no checked what difference there is between the price I have given and the price asked for in the specific question which the noble Earl has put to me.
EARL DE LA WARR: Then the noble Lord does recognize that he has not answered the question.

MEAT PRICES.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the third question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what price per ton is being paid for meat to producers in the United Kingdom, and what is the present price per ton for meat delivered to the main United Kingdom ports from the Argentine under the recent Agreement.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the average price per ton paid to the United Kingdom producers for meat is £126 19s. 3d. I regret that I am unable to supply the information asked for regarding the Argentine meat, the detailed contract for which has not yet been finally signed.

EX-INTERNEES FROM SHANGHAI.
4.11 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether it is a fact that approximately 100 British civilians in Shanghai,

989
urgently awaiting repatriation after long years of internment, are being excluded from the "Empress of Australia" which is shortly sailing for this country from China; whether it is true that this ship is carrying 600 Chinese naval cadets for training in this country; and if so, whether immediate steps may be taken to reduce this number of Chinese cadets, postponing their passage to a later date, in order to accommodate these unfortunate British nationals, many of whom are in serious circumstances arising from the economic conditions and extreme financial disturbance now existing in China.]
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, before answering this question I should like to assure the House that its nature is not quite so solemn as it might appear to your Lordships on first reading the text. You will see that according to the Order Paper, it refers apparently to people "awaiting repatriation after long years of interment." The citizens in question, I am glad to say, have not been interred. When I first read the question, I wondered whether such a funereal statement was really meant seriously.
LORD AILWYN: It was not the fault of the questioner.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, clearly "interment" is a printer's error. It should of course be "internment." The answer to the noble Lord's question is that the Chinese naval personnel referred to comprise the remainder of the crews that are to take over the cruiser "Aurora" and other of His Majesty's ships which are being transferred to the Chinese Navy, and any further delay in their sailing would postpone the release of the British crews that are now manning these ships. Their sailing has already been considerably delayed and cannot be further deferred. I am, however, very glad to state that 118 berths have been allocated in the "Empress of Australia" for ex-internees from Shanghai, and that I have every expectation that shipping space will be provided for the remainder by the end of the year.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, arising out of that reply—which, as was to be expected, coming as it did from the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, was a very sympathetic reply—may I say that while I am most anxious, as your Lordships will
990
appreciate, that no word shall fall from my lips that can be construed as anything but friendliness and warm affection for the Chinese people, I wish to ask whether His Majesty's Government are aware that in a letter dated August 22 of this year, which I have here in my hand, the Ministry of Transport gave a definite assurance to the Chairman of the China Association, on whose behalf I speak today that any accommodation not required for Service personnel on board the two ships, the "Mataroa" and the "Empress of Australia," would be made available for civilian passengers from Hong Kong or Shanghai to the United Kingdom? Can it he contended that it was ever seriously contemplated that the term "Service personnel" should cover such a category as Chinese naval cadets for training in this country? Clearly, it was intended to refer to British and Empire Service men and women. Actually, I have had information only this morning from which it appears that the "Mataroa" never called at Shanghai at all for British personnel.
Are His Majesty's Government further aware of an official announcement by the British Consul-General at Shanghai on September 30, 1946, a copy of which I have here, emphasizing that the "Empress of Australia" would afford the final opportunity for repatriation to the United Kingdom with the assistance of His Britannic Majesty's Government? Finally, are His Majesty's Government aware of the considerable feeling- that has been aroused in the British community in Shanghai by this apparent volte-face on the part of His Majesty's Government, and will they give an assurance that they will accelerate by every means in their power, and assist, the passage home of this 100 odd British civilians, remembering the privations which many of them have undergone during the past five years, and also that they continue to live in most distressing circumstances, many of them having little if any means of livelihood?
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, the Ministry of Transport have really done their best in this matter. As I have told your Lordships, 118 berths have been reserved in the "Empress of Australia." The allocation of space on that ship is not under the control of the Ministry of Transport but is under the control of the military authorities. The

991
Minister cannot say "do this" and "do that"—he can only do his best by negotiation. I am also informed that these civilians whom we are now considering did not avail themselves of the special arrangements which were made some months ago for the evacuation of released Allied prisoners or war and internees. Many of them stayed behind, at the request of their firms, in order to try to keep hold of, or to pick up anew, trade relations in Northern China. It was very commendable in them thus to try to think up with or renew old trading arrangements.
Now they wish to come home, and there is every sympathy for them. Every Everything has been done for them and they will be brought home, or they will be able to sail, it is hoped, before the end of the year.
LORD AILWYN: And assisted?
LORD WALKDEN: With regard to the matter of the Chinese personnel, one has to be very careful. The authorities, naturally, wish to keep faith with them as well as with our own civilians. It would never do for us to lay ourselves open to a charge of having in any way broken faith with the Chinese people for whom we have such a high regard and who have, undoubtedly, a great future before them. Any reduction in the number of Chinese cadets taking passage on this occasion would dislocate the whole of the Admiralty training scheme and postpone the date on which British vessels would be transferred to the Chinese Navy. Our own sailors were to come home after being liberated from the ships that are being handed over to China and we have to keep faith with them. Many of them have been deferred again and again. Relatively speaking, I do not think that the citizens whom the noble Lord has in mind have been very unfairly treated in relation to the other groups of people, all of whom have to be given very careful consideration.