Sitting of 11 April 1940

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a statement on the report of the committee of inquiry into the method of compiling the cost of living index figure; when he expects the report to be published; and what action he proposes to take?
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The summarisation of the main results of the inquiry is now approaching completion. I am, however, unable at present to say when it will be possible to publish the report. I hope to be in a position to announce very shortly the composition of the committee which I am appointing to consider the results.
  Miss Wilkinson: Does that mean that, having waited all this long time to get this urgently necessary index figure, we are now to have a committee to see whether we can have the result?
  Mr. Brown: That is not it at all. The hon. Lady must understand that if this thing is to carry public confidence at every stage, we must have those people concerned—trade unions, employers' organisations and others who are experts in this matter—to give us advice as to what we should do about the millions of figures that have to be analysed.
  Miss Wilkinson: Can we have a guarantee from the Minister that the terms of reference of this committee will not be to see how little they can let the public know?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady shows that she has not followed the course of this matter.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    COAL TRADE, EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the need for placing coal hauliers and employés of coal distributors in a reserved occupation so as to avert the shortage of coal to the households of the country?
    Mr. E. Brown: This matter is being examined in consultation with the Chamber of Coal Traders, and I hope that a decision will be reached at an early date.

    REFUGEES.
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Minister of Labour whether His Majesty's Government are contemplating taking the necessary steps to conscript refugees in this country from Germany, Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, and Poland, who are not considered to be enemy aliens, for non-combatant duties at the appropriate rates of pay?
    Mr. E. Brown: No such proposal is at present under consideration.
    Mr. Strauss: Will the Minister bear in mind the unfortunate feeling that may be aroused if English nationals are conscripted and refugees from Germany and Czecho-Slovakia doing similar work are not conscripted?
    Mr. Brown: That is not my responsibility. The National Service (Armed Forces) Act applies to British subjects.
    Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great majority of these refugees are only too anxious to take any work and that the chief obstacle is the slow working and complicatedness of the Ministry of Labour and Home Office regulations?
    Mr. Brown: I would not agree with that. There are a great many other difficulties.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Minister of Labour whether any steps are taken to verify the accuracy of statements made by men appearing before tribunals claiming exemption from service on conscientious grounds; and whether the applicants for exemption are required to take any oath or make any solemn affirmation of the truth of their statements to the tribunal?
    Mr. E. Brown: It is for the tribunals to determine what evidence they require in support of statements made before them. It is a punishable offence to make false statements in giving any information for the purposes of the Act, and a warning to this effect is printed on the official forms. Applicants may be required by tribunals to give their evidence on oath; the practice of the different tribunals in this matter varies.
    Mr. Thurtle: I did not catch the first part of the reply. Do I understand that, if necessary, tribunals do make investigations into the statements of applicants?
    Mr. Brown: It is open to them to make what investigations they think desirable.
    Mr. Thurtle: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the practice of the tribunals to make investigations?
    Mr. Brown: I have said that the practice of various tribunals differs and the law lays the responsibility on them.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does not the large number of rejections support the desire of the hon. Member in this respect?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to what tribunals do in Germany with regard to conscientious objectors?
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister cannot answer for what happens in Germany.
    Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makinsasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the resentment felt at the fact that a large number of conscientious objectors are better off financially than their contemporaries in the fighting services; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing a scheme under which no conscientious objector should receive more money in respect of his civil employment than the equivalent pay and allowances of a militiaman, the balance to be paid by the employer to the Exchequer?
    Mr. Brown: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Ralph Etherton) and the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Purbrick) on 4th April, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Sir E. Makins: May I, without criticising in any way the opinions of the
    678
    conscientious objectors, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he really considers that a man should benefit by refusing to fight for his country; and is he aware of the rising tide of indignation of men in the Services and the vast majority of civilians?
    Mr. Brown: These are, of course, matters of opinion, but I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to do one thing for me. If he will help me to break down the prejudice which farmers have to using conscientious objectors who are assigned to land work, he will help me greatly.
    Sir E. Makins: I have not heard of the information the right hon. Gentleman has, but if he will give it to me I will be glad to help him.
    Mr. Brown: I should be most happy.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that many privates in the Army are much worse off financially than brigadiers and are doing more work?
    Mr. Kirkwood: And better looking men?
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of difficulties arising through Indians resident in this country who, on conscientious political grounds will refuse to obey their calling-up notices, and that existing arrangements respecting conscientious objectors do not cover this type of Indian political objector; and whether he will take special action to deal with this difficulty, and also to cover the cases of those Indians who volunteered to serve in the British Army and were refused because of their colour and will refuse to be conscripted on the ground that they were deemed unworthy of voluntary service?
    Mr. Brown: Indian British subjects ordinarily resident in this country are liable to be called up for service under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act. They have the same rights under the Act to apply for registration as conscientious objectors as all other British subjects, and I have no power to make special provision for them. As regards the last part of the Question, any Indian British subject who wishes to volunteer for service in the British Army may do so on the same footing as European British subjects.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister not aware that citizens of Eire in this country are allowed to stay here two years before they are made responsible for military service, and could he not at least place Indian subjects in the same position? May I ask, further, whether facilities will be given to Indians who are resident here to go back to India if they so desire?
    Mr. Brown: That, of course, is another issue, and I should like to see that specific point on paper. The hon. Member did call my attention to a difficult case where it was refused before this present rule was operating.

    HARDSHIP COMMITTEES.
    Mr. James Hallasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that an appeal by Mr. P. Shriebman, of 61, Brick Lane, E.1, was dealt with by the hardship court in his absence while suffering from influenza, and that he was also refused permission to appeal to the umpire; and will he give instructions that hardship courts should not decide cases while the applicant is prevented from attendance through illness, and the reason of such absence is authenticated by the production of a medical certificate?
    Mr. E. Brown: It is the practice of Military Service (Hardship) Committees to defer the hearing of cases in which the absence of the applicant is authenticated by medical evidence, unless a duly authorised representative appears in his case. I understand that in Mr. Shriebman's absence his sister, Mrs. Gold, appeared and informed the committee that she had been authorised by him to represent him and have the case disposed of that day. The committee accordingly proceeded with the case and after considering the written application of Mr. Shriebman and the oral evidence of his sister, unanimously refused the application for postponement as they were not satisfied that exceptional hardship would ensue; they did not give leave to appeal to the umpire.
    Mr. Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that in such cases as that to which I have drawn his attention an applicant shall have the opportunity of personal representation on every occasion?
    Mr. Brown: Certainly.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour under what authority and by whom, instructions have been issued to hardship tribunals, under the Military Service Act, that in no circumstances is postponement to be granted for periods exceeding, in the aggregate, 12 months?
    Mr. Brown: The Armed Forces (Postponement Certificates) Regulations, 1939, provide that no certificate granted on the ground of business responsibilities and interests should be allowed to remain in force for longer than 12 months in all.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it just and fair to limit the tribunals in cases where they think that a further postponement beyond 12 months is justified?
    Mr. Brown: I have no evidence of that at the moment, but the House will agree with me that, seeing we have to hold the balance between the interests of the Armed Forces on the one hand and hardship to the applicants on the other, a period of 12 months to make arrangements is not ungenerous.
    Mr. T. Williams: Does that apply to skilled agricultural workers?
    Mr. Brown: It is a question of businesses.
    Sir Arnold Gridleyasked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the large number of representations which Members of this House have received, he will now take steps to remove the restriction which prohibits applicants before hardship tribunals being represented by lawyers or barristers?
    Mr. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) on 18th January, a copy of which I am sending him.

    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour whether, as the classes soon to be called up contain an increasing number of professional and commercial men carrying on one-man businesses involving heavy commitments and, in the case of abrupt stoppage, acute disorganisation, he proposes to issue regulations dealing with one-man business men; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 21st March, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. Gibson: Apart from the question of regulations would the right hon. Gentleman consider making recommendations, and would he include a recommendation that these young men might enter into partnership with old men wherever possible?
    Mr. Brown: I shall be glad always to look at practical suggestions, and perhaps the hon. and learned Member will communicate with me.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE BOARD OFFICES (ESSEX).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Labour where the exact location of the new Unemployment Assistance Board's office will be which is to serve Barking, Dagenham and Ilford?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am informed by the Assistance Board that it is in contemplation to open two new offices, one to serve Barking and Dagenham, and the other Ilford. The exact location cannot at present be indicated.

    SWANSEA.
    Mr. Mortasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons coming within the purview of the Swansea Employment Exchange; and the industries at which they are engaged?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the Official Report.
    Following is the statement:
    The latest available information on this subject is that derived from the annual exchange of unemployment books in July, 1939. The table below shows the approximate numbers of unemployment books exchanged by insured persons, aged 14–64, at the Swansea Employment Exchange (including also Swansea Docks and Swansea Juvenile Employment Bureau) at that date, classified according to the industries in which the persons concerned were engaged (or, if unemployed at that date, the industries in which they had last been employed):

    Industry.

    Approximate Number of Unemployment Books Exchanged.

    Distributive Trades

    8,720

    Building

    2,500

    Public Works Contracting

    2,320

    Tinplate Manufacture

    2,260

    Dock, Harbour, Canal, etc., Service

    2,250

    Brass, Copper, Zinc, Tin, etc., Manufacture

    2,000

    Shipping Service

    1,720

    Tramway and Omnibus Service

    1,560

    Local Government Service

    1,460

    Hotel, Boarding House, etc., Service

    1,070

    Miscellaneous Metal Industries

    880

    Gas, Water and Electricity Supply

    880

    Professional Services

    780

    Construction and Repair of Motor Vehicles, Cycles and Aircraft

    600

    Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing

    560

    Other Industries and Services

    8,510

    Total

    38,070

    Mr. Mortasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registering at the Swansea Employment Exchange for unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance benefit, respectively, for the years 1934 to date?
    Mr. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the Official Report.
    Following is the statement:
    The available figures relate to the numbers of payments of unemployment insurance benefit and unemployment assistance allowances (or transitional payments). The table below shows the numbers of payments of insurance benefit and unemployment allowances made direct through the Swansea Employment Exchange (including Swansea Docks and Swansea Juvenile Employment Bureau), during one week in March of the years 1934 to 1940:

    Week ended.

    Insurance benefit.

    Unemployment Allowances.

    23rd March, 1934

    3,763

    4,310*

    29th March, 1935

    4,520

    4,750

    27th March, 1936

    4,892

    5,677

    19th March, 1937

    3,204

    5,202

    18th March, 1938

    4,822

    4,525

    17th March, 1939

    4,406

    4,969

    15th March, 1940

    2,976

    2,794

    * The figure for 1934 relates to transitional payments.

    EVACUATED CHILDREN (CLOTHING ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that considerable delay is taking place in Dagenham in the grant of assistance through the Unemployment Assistance Board to parents in the clothing of evacuated children; and whether steps can be taken to rectify this unsatisfactory state of affairs?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am informed by the Assistance Board that, in all, some six applications for assistance in the provision of clothing or footwear for children evacuated from the Dagenham district have been received since the beginning of the year. Where the need for clothing has been vouched by some responsible person in the locality, payment has been made within two or three days. In other cases, investigation in the area where the child resides is necessary; the Board are, however, fully alive to the necessity of dealing with such applications expeditiously and take all possible steps to avoid delay.
    Mr. Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate any complaints I bring before him?
    Mr. Brown: I will, certainly. There is one case I notice where the fault did not lie with the Board but with the applicant.

    YOUTHS AND AGRICULTURE.
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many young townsmen of 18 years or so of age would gladly work on the land in the period before entering military service; and whether he will direct Employment Exchanges in London and other urban centres to offer land work to these young townsmen and put them into touch with the National Farmers' Union?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, on the measures necessary to secure the additional workers needed for the land. Every effort will be made to secure that men registered at local offices in urban areas who are prepared to undertake such work, shall be offered the opportunity, including young men of the class referred to by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend will appreciate that in order that the young
    684
    men to whom he refers may obtain work on the land some farmer must be willing to engage them.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman alternatively take steps to prevent older men who are not land workers going on to the land in order to evade military service?
    Mr. Brown: If my hon. and gallant Friend has any information of that kind I shall be glad to have it. I am not aware of any such cases.

    SPECIAL AREAS.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour whether the Commissioner for the Special Areas is still functioning; and whether new applications for assistance are given consideration by the Commissioner?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on this subject on 7th March.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my Question? Are new applications considered?
    Mr. Brown: The reply is in the reference I have given. It is quite clear that only small applications could be considered.
    Mr. Lawson: Is it not true that no applications are considered by the Commissioners at all?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member would like to put that on the Paper I will give him a considered answer.

    UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed on the Unemployment Fund, and also the cost of administration?
    Mr. E. Brown: Approximately 700,000 payments of unemployment benefit were made in the week ended 9th March, 1940, the latest week for which figures are available. The cost of administration of unemployment insurance during the current financial year is estimated at £4,448,000.
    Mr. Batey: I have not heard a single word. Can we have that answer read again?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will realise that it was not because the Minister did not speak up that he did not hear.

    ASSISTANCE BOARD ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed receiving assistance from the Unemployment Assistance Board; and the cost of administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. E. Brown: In the week ended 9th March, 1940, the number of persons in receipt of unemployment allowances (including payments in supplementation of unemployment benefit and under the emergency schemes for the relief of distress due to the war) was approximately 390,000. The cost of administration of the Assistance Board during the current financial year (inclusive of the cost of services rendered to and by other Departments and of the liability in respect of superannuation) is estimated at £4,950,000.
    Mr. Batey: Does the Minister consider that it is worth while to spend £4,000,000 on the administration of 190,000 cases just for the sake of the means test?
    Mr. Brown: I consider that it is certainly not a sound process to take a particular week only and to judge upon that.

    RAILWAY WORKERS, DUKINFIELD.
    Mr. Wedgwood Bennasked the Minister of Labour how many of the men employed immediately before the war in the railway works at Dukinfield have been retained; how many have found alternative employment; and how many are now unemployed?
    Mr. E. Brown: Complete information is not available but it would appear that the number of men employed at these works has fallen by about 700 since the outbreak of the war and is now about 300. I have been able to trace 10 cases of men discharged from their works who are at present unemployed and the total is not likely to be much in excess of this number.

    BENEFIT ("ALTMARK" PRISONERS).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of prisoners of war on the "Altmark," including Ian F. Hunter, 5th engineer on the steamship "Tairoa," who had not previously had occasion to apply for unemployment benefit, were told by Government officials at Leith that the
    686
    Ministry of Labour had been informed that all their papers and books had been lost; that unemployment benefit has been refused from 17th February, 1940, to 14th March, 1940; and whether he will take steps to ensure that payment will be made?
    Mr. E. Brown: The information I have been able to obtain in the short time available is confined to the case of Ian F. Hunter. I am assured that no statement was made to him by any officer of my Department that his papers and books had been lost. He made a claim to unemployment benefit on 14th March and payment has been made to him since that date. On the 14th March he also asked for his claim to be ante-dated to the 17th February, the date at which he landed at Leith. When this was not allowed by the local Court of Referees, he appealed to the Umpire. I will inform the hon. Member of the Umpire's decision as soon as it is given. The hon. Member will observe that the point at issue has to do, not with any loss of papers, but with the rule that claims to benefit ordinarily take effect from the date on which they are made.
    Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that I have had a personal interview with this man and that this was his personal statement to me; and will he do his best to expedite matters so that, if necessary, this House can see that justice is done to these heroes of the "Altmark"?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will communicate with me. He has not done so up to the present.

    DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled ex-service men are at present registering as unemployed; and what was the number at the last convenient date before the outbreak of war?
    Mr. E. Brown: A special count of the number of disabled ex-service men registered as unemployed was made on 8th April. I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible, and will circulate a statement in the Official Report. On 3rd July last, the number was 26,220.
    Mr. Burke: Can the Minister say whether any particular steps are being taken to find work?
    Mr. Brown: Certainly. Regular, specific, definite and local steps.

    INDUSTRY (POST-WAR PLANNING).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Labour whether there is any Department at the Ministry engaged in examining the industrial situation likely to prevail after the termination of the war; and the measures that may be required to meet the same?
    Mr. E. Brown: The general subject mentioned by the hon. Member involves many financial, economic and commercial factors which could not appropriately be dealt with by a branch of my Department. The aspects of post-war problems which particularly concern my Department are constantly borne in mind but it would be premature for me to attempt to formulate definite lines of action with regard to this at the present time.
    Mr. Adams: Could not the Minister out of his omniscience give a general notion of what the situation will be at the end of the war?
    Mr. Brown: This is a case in which I am not omniscient.
    Mr. Hicks: If it is correct that many Departments are interested, are the various Departments concerned formulating some examination of this matter?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the Prime Minister's answer to a Question on that point. I will send him the reference.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the British Sailors' Society is paying 12s. 6d. per week as a temporary grant to the father, an ex-serviceman, and the mother in order to meet their pecuniary need because a pension has been refused them for the loss of their son, a young county Down Man, who was serving in the Royal
    688
    Navy, and who allowed them £1 per month to assist in meeting the expenses of the home for themselves and their two children; and whether he is prepared to free the British Sailors' Society from making payment in this case, of which particulars have been sent to him, by granting a pension to these bereaved parents?
    Mr. Boulton (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend is looking into this case and will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure prompt and proper attention to the needs of soldiers'dependants by the War Service Grants Advisory Committee; and, as worries due to the negligence of this committee are causing in creasing anxiety to serving men and jeopardising their mental and physical efficiency, will he expedite the procedure of this committee?
    Mr. Boulton: My hon. Friend is satisfied that applications to this committee are promptly and properly dealt with when they reach the committee or the staff working for them, but there have in the past been delays in bringing applications to the knowledge of the committee, which it is hoped are now obviated, or through omission by the applicant of information required for decision. My hon. Friend fears that some disappointments are caused by misunderstanding of the function of the committee, which is empowered only to assist cases of hardship resulting from the man's war service.

    DRUNKENNESS (PENALTIES).
    Mr. C. Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the fines imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction in cases of drunkenness were fixed in 1872 when the value of real wages was 122 against the present value of 220; that in many cases the amount of the fine bears no relation to the present police and administrative costs incurred, and that consequently both the local and national exchequers are bearing a burden which should be imposed upon the offender; and what steps he proposes to take to relieve the two exchequers of this expense?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): There are many offences in respect of which the fine imposed does not cover the police and administrative costs incurred in dealing with the offender, and the amount of such costs ought not, in my view, to be the governing consideration in determining the penalty appropriate to any particular offence. I have no reason to think that the penalties provided by the Act of1872 and subsequent Acts for offences of drunkenness are not adequate, and I do not think that there is ground for any action on my part.

    POLICE RESERVES (LEAVE).
    Mr. Isaacsasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the conditions under which annual leave or portions thereof may be taken by members of the First Police Reserve and War Reserve; and if he will state the reason why any distinction is made between the First Police Reserve and the War Reserve?
    Sir J. Anderson: The general rule for full-time workers in the Civil Defence Services—including the Police War Reserve—is that one day's leave may be granted for each completed month of continuous service up to a maximum of 12 days. In the case of the First Police Reserve, which is mainly composed of retired police officers who have come back to duty, the general practice is to give them leave in accordance with the Regulations which apply to the regular police, that is, for a constable 12 days a year.

    AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (EXPENDITURE, LONDON).
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Home Secretary what is the gross estimated cost of air-raid precautions on maintenance account incurred by the London County Council and each individual Metropolitan borough for the years 1939–40 and 1940–41;how much of this expenditure will be met from grants and from rates; what is the gross capital expenditure incurred by the London County Council and Metropolitan boroughs on air-raid precautions account for the year ended March, 1940, and the estimate of capital expenditure for the year 1940–41;and what is the capital expenditure incurred from Government sources for the
    690
    provision of appliances, etc., to the London County Council and Metropolitan boroughs during the year ended March,1940, and the estimated amount required for the present financial year?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am having this statistical information compiled and will let my hon. Friend know when it is ready.
    Sir H. Williams: Will this be published in the Official Report when it is ready?
    Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to put down a further Question. It will take some little time to get the information ready.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE RATE.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Police rate has been increased by nearly 4d. in the £ for the coming year; that the increase is causing grave concern to the local authorities who have to collect the rate; and whether he will consider giving local authorities the right to see the estimate on which the precept is based, and be allowed to make representations to the Home Office if they think fit?
    Sir J. Anderson: The increase, which is 3d. in the £, is to meet Civil Defence expenditure in the two years, 1939–40 and 1940–41. The estimates of the Metropolitan Police Fund are included among the Civil Estimates, Class III, and will be found on pages 29–30 of the current volume. These Estimates are revised before the amount of the police rate is settled at the end of February. Details of the revision made in February last have been furnished to all local authorities who have asked for the information. It is open to local authorities to make any representations they think fit with regard to Metropolitan Police expenditure, but it would not be practicable to consult the different rating authorities, numbering 101, in the Metropolitan Police District before the Estimates are settled.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that local authorities think that this extra burden for special police ought to be borne by the Government and not by them?
    Sir J. Anderson: To a very large extent it is already borne by the Government.
    Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was not necessary to increase the pay of the police during the Great War?
    Sir J. Anderson: The conditions are entirely different this time.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Home Secretary when a Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act will be introduced?
    Sir J. Anderson: The Bill is in an advanced stage of preparation and I hope to introduce it at an early date.
    Mr. Batey: Does the reference to an early date mean that there is a possibility of getting it before the Whitsuntide Recess?
    Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps the hon. Member would put down a Question this day week.

    NIGHT-DRIVING MOTORING OFFENCES.
    Captain Sir William Brassasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that the Metropolitan police are trying to time motor cars by tailing motor-car drivers in the darkness, reading their own illuminated speedometers, and then accusing the drivers of the motor cars in front of travelling at the same speed as the following motor car; and whether he will consider the difficulty of drivers refuting this charge as their speedometers are unilluminated, and devise a fairer test;
    (2) whether he is aware of the difficulty of the police attempting to gauge the speed of a motor car in front when tailing it in the black-out with the Government head-lamp mask so designed as only to throw a dim light close to the ground at about 19 paces in front, making it impossible to gauge whether the two motor cars are travelling at the same speed or not, a gain by the rear car of 3⅔ yards in a second on the motor car in front meaning an addition of about 7½miles on the recorded speed in the motor car behind; and whether he will consult with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police with a view to arriving at a better system?
    Sir J. Anderson: The instructions issued by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis with regard to the enforcement of the speed limits in built-up areas both by day and by night lay special stress on the necessity for keeping, as far as possible, at an even distance behind a vehicle which is being followed, and in calculating the speed of the vehicle due allowance is made for possible variations in that distance. At night, the distance is naturally rather less than it is by day. The police keep well within the range of their headlight, which has been found to be adequate for this purpose, and, in keeping an even distance, they are also assisted by the light showing from the red rear lamp of the vehicle they are following. The only other method employed is that of fixed controls, and experience does not suggest that any more satisfactory or fairer method of enforcing the speed limits can be devised. If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend can put forward some alternative suggestion, I shall be very glad to consider it.
    Sir W. Brass: Would my right hon. Friend answer the first Question, in which I asked how it was possible for drivers to refute police evidence, considering that the speedometers of their cars were unilluminated?
    Sir J. Anderson: A driver who cannot judge at night whether his vehicle is travelling at a higher speed than 20 miles an hour is at liberty to switch the dashboard light on momentarily, in order to reassure himself.
    Sir W. Brass: Has my right hon. Friend ever driven at night, and is it not a fact that if a driver leaves the dashboard light on he cannot see anything else at all?
    Sir J. Anderson: That was not my experience.
    Sir H. Williams: Is there anybody in the traffic department at Scotland Yard who knows anything about this matter?
    Mr. Watkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman set his mind against any relaxation of the regulations intended to prevent speeding at night?
    Sir W. Brass: Are these speedometers expected to be kept illuminated at night or not; will my right hon. Friend make a ruling?
    Sir J. Anderson: I think the instructions are clear that they are not expected to be kept illuminated.
    Sir W. Brass: How then can they be seen?
    Mr. Davidson: The driver is expected to be illuminated.
    Sir W. Brassasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the heavy penalties being imposed on drivers accused of exceeding 20 miles per hour in the black-out owing to the fact that this regulation was imposed under the Defence of the Realm Acts instead of under one of the Traffic Acts; and whether he will circularise magistrates to the effect that the reason for this was not that it was considered a more serious offence than exceeding the 30-mile-per-hour limit in daylight but because of certain restrictions in the present Traffic Acts, as explained, by the Minister of Transport on its introduction?
    Sir J. Anderson: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport explained, in announcing the decision to impose a speed limit of 20 miles per hour in built-up areas after the hours of darkness, it was not possible to do this by means of a regulation under the Road Traffic Acts, and it was accordingly decided to impose the new speed limit by means of an order made under the Defence Regulations. In consequence, the maximum penalties which may be imposed for this offence are those generally applicable to offences against the Defence Regulations. In view of the element of danger to other road users which may be involved, offences against the order may be of a serious character, but, like other offences, they vary in the degree of their seriousness, and the question of the appropriate penalty in any individual case is one for the court to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of that case. I have no reason to think that the position is not fully understood by magistrates, but if any misapprehension exists, no doubt the publicity given to the matter by this Question will be sufficient to remove it.
    Sir W. Brass: Is my right hon. Friend communicating with the magistrates to the effect that this offence is not considered
    694
    a more serious one at night than in respect of the 30-mile-an-hour speed limit in the daytime, and is a purely technical offence?
    Sir J. Anderson: I could not for one moment accept the contention that these offences are to be regarded normally as purely technical. I have been in communication with chief constables on the matter.
    Sir W. Brass: Will my right hon. Friend ask the police to prosecute only for dangerous driving and not for purely technical offences?
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the action of a magistrate who is steadily fining people £20 for each offence, irrespective of their means?
    Sir J. Anderson: My attention has been called to the case and I have been in communication with the magistrate in question.
    Sir W. Brass: Are you doing anything about it?

    CAPTAIN VON RINTELEN.
    Mr. Toucheasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the application for naturalisation on behalf of Captain von Rintelen; whether this gentleman is now in Government employment; and whether, in view of Captain von Rintelen's activities in the last war, he is satisfied as to the bona fides of his allegiance to this country?
    Sir J. Anderson: There is no question of naturalising this gentleman, and while I understand that he would be glad to help this country if his services were required, I know of no ground for the suggestion that he is in Government employment.

  EDUCATION.

    EVACUATED CHILDREN.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered a resolution from the city of Stoke-on-Trent Education Committee, in which they direct attention to the facts brought to light by the evacuation scheme of school-children, and suggesting the provision of clothing and footwear for children who are unable to be suitably

    695
    provided through the economic position of the parents; and whether it is intended to take any action?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4th April to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr, Groves), a copy of which I am sending him.

    NORTHUMBERLAND AND DURHAM.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the President of the Board of Education what proportions of the children of Northumberland and Durham, respectively, are now receiving from education authorities milk and school meals, medical inspection and treatment, and whole-time education, respectively?
    Mr. Lindsay: In the administrative county of Northumberland 6·4 per cent. of the public elementary school-children are receiving free milk, but there is practically no provision of free solid meals. All the children receive medical inspection and, where necessary, treatment, and about 76 per cent. are receiving full-time education. In the administrative county of Durham, 26·8 per cent. of the children receive free milk and 0·17 per cent. free meals. All the children receive medical inspection and, where necessary, treatment, and about 93 per cent. are receiving whole-time education.
    Mr. Adams: When is it anticipated that these services will be fully restored?
    Mr. Lindsay: They are being rapidly restored.

    SCHOOL INSPECTIONS (REPORTS).
    Mr. Charles Brownasked the President of the Board of Education, why instructions have been issued to His Majesty's inspectors of elementary schools that written reports on the schools they inspect are not, under present conditions, to be furnished to local education authorities?
    Mr. Lindsay: No such instructions have been issued. While it will be appreciated that the difficulties under which many schools have been working in recent months would have made it unfair to the schools, and of little value to local education authorities to furnish the usual
    696
    written reports upon the work, such reporting has not been abandoned and will be fully resumed with the general return to normal conditions in the schools.

    IMPERIAL SUBJECTS (INSTRUCTION).
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the President of the Board of Education what opportunities are granted to school-children to listen-in to broadcasts on various Empire subjects and countries; what opportunities are given for seeing the Empire films belonging to the Imperial Institute; and whether full use is being made of the films available?
    Mr. Lindsay: I understand that nearly 10,000 schools are now registered with the Central Council for School Broadcasting, and it is known that a very large number of classes in schools listen to the broadcast talks on Empire subjects and countries. I am glad to say that the programme of the Central Council recently published for the summer term included a series of talks on "Peoples of the Empire." Films dealing with Empire subjects may be obtained by schools, free of charge except for carriage, from the Imperial Institute, and I am informed that full use is being made of this service.
    Mr. R. Gibson: What is the purpose and the effect of registration by the schools?
    Sir J. Lucasasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can now state the result of his conversations with the Secretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the teaching schoolchildren something of the way all parts of the Empire have rallied to this country, both in materials and manpower; and also of the responsibility which devolves on us to develop and help the Empire; and the way in which we are doing it?
    Mr. Lindsay: A number of the Board's inspectors have been busy for some weeks on a detailed scheme whereby the teaching in the schools may best contribute to a real understanding of the problems of the Empire. As soon as their work is completed, my right hon. Friend will seek the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to secure the objects outlined in the Question.

    FOOD EDUCATION.
    Dr. Salterasked the President of the Board of Education why, in Circular 1506, dated 19th March, on food education, giving particulars as to the intention of the Board, in conjunction with the Ministry of Food, to conduct a public campaign on nutrition and the wider use of home-produced foods, there is no mention of milk or as to its importance as a fundamental item in a healthy diet; and whether he will see that this omission is rectified in future circulars and publications on the subject?
    Mr. Lindsay: The intention of Circular 1506 was to acquaint local education authorities with the purpose and organisation of the public campaign; the circular does not therefore deal with particular items of food. The value of milk, particularly for children, has been strongly emphasised in a leaflet issued in connection with the campaign, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. Copies have been sent in bulk to local education authorities for distribution to their domestic subjects staff, and for use by them in connection with courses and demonstrations.
    Dr. Salter: Is the Minister aware that the circular contained references to sugar, meat and other rationed foods, together with suggestions for cooking and so forth, and that no reference whatever to milk was made from beginning to end?
    Mr. Lindsay: I have the leaflet in my hand, and I see the word "milk" several times on it.
    Viscountess Astor: In view of the fact that the drink trade are always telling people that drink is good for them, is it not important that we should advertise in order to make it clear that milk is better?
    Sir H. Williams: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that all lions and tigers were brought up on milk?
    Dr. Salter: Is it not a fact that milk is not mentioned in the circular in any way?

    ECONOMIC RESOURCES (MOBILISATION).
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Prime Minister whether he has given further consideration to the economic problems that
    698
    arise in modern war which call for super-national organisation; and whether it is now proposed to mobilise the whole economic resources of the nation and to ask for the economic co-operation of all nations allied and sympathetic towards the Allies, and to set up an economic general staff of a Ministry of Economic Planning or some suitable machinery that will work efficiently and meet the needs of the time?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I think that the hon. Member is overlooking completely the machinery that has been set up for the co-ordination of the economic war efforts of the Allies. The general nature of these arrangements was announced after the meeting of the Supreme War Council on 17th November last: they have since been extended and improved in many directions. All this machinery is functioning with great success and I cannot see how any better super-national organisation could be devised. As regards economic co-operation with the Empire, close liaison is constantly maintained through the regular established channels, as well as by special missions where desirable. There is also a direct contact between the Economic Departments of the British and French Colonial Offices, and matters of common interest are under constant discussion between them. I would add that His Majesty's Government make it their constant endeavour to cultivate the closest possible economic relations with all friendly nations. As regards the last part of the Question, I am not in a position to add to statements made on behalf of His Majesty's Government in recent Debates in this House.

    WAR-TIME NUTRITION.
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Prime Minister whether there is any committee or body set up to advise the Government on all matters concerning the proper nutrition of the population in time of war on lines similar to the Food Council established during the last war, which largely determined the nature and volume of home-produced as well as imported foods and raw materials required for the proper and sufficient nourishment of the civilian as well as the service population of the country?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the

    699
    Food Survey Board appointed in March, 1918. Under present conditions major questions of food policy would normally be referred to the Ministerial Food Policy Committee.
    Mr. T. Williams: Do the Government intend to accept any recommendations which are made by this committee?
    The Prime Minister: That depends on what the recommendations are.

    CO-ORDINATION OF DEFENCE.
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Prime Minister whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is now to carry out the essential part of the functions for which the office of Minister for Co-ordination of Defence was created?
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 1st February to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). From this it will be seen that the office of Minister for Co-ordination of Defence was created primarily for peace time duties in connection with the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and that the changes which have been made, since the outbreak of war, in the machinery for the supreme direction of the war have necessarily resulted in an alteration of the functions for which that office was created. As announced on 4th April, arrangements have been made whereby the First Lord of the Admiralty, as senior Service Minister will normally preside over the Ministerial Committee on Military Co-ordination, the Chairmanship of which was previously included among the duties of my Noble Friend Lord Chatfield. More recently I have agreed, at the request of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to take the chair myself at meetings of this Committee when matters of exceptional importance, relating to the general conduct of the war, are under discussion. In addition, arrangements have been made for the re-allocation of the other functions previously performed by my Noble Friend.
    Mr. Edwards: Am I understand from the reply that the office originally created for the Minister of Co-ordination of Defence has now been abolished?
    The Prime Minister: It has lapsed for the time being.

  AGRICULTURE.

    PUBLICITY COMMITEEE.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to ensure that advantage is not being taken or confusion of thought created in certain cases where members of the Government Agricultural Publicity and Intelligence Committee are also editors of so-called independent news sheets?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): There is no ground for the suggestion that advantage of the kind indicated is or could be taken. Nor do I see how confusion of thought could arise in the minds of anyone who understands the purpose and functions of the Publicity Committee, which advises me as to the best way in which to communicate information and advice in regard to the food production campaign to the agricultural community.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend appreciate the importance of separating the true from the false and the real from the unreal? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be good enough to confer with me afterwards.
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I shall be glad to do so.
    Mr. Garro Jones: What is the secretary of the Farmers' Union to do when his duty as a member of this committee requires him to extol the Government's policy and his duty to the farmers requires him to criticise it?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: His duty does not require him to extol it at all. He can take his own line on any given subject.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state, in connection with the Publicity Committee of his Department, the exact relationship between this committee and the news sheet which is issued twice weekly by the National Farmers' Union?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: My advisory committee on publicity has no responsibility for, or connection with, the news

    701
    sheet issued by the National Farmers' Union. I understand that this news sheet has been issued for nearly 20 years.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the matter cannot be so lightly dismissed? Perhaps he will kindly confer with me afterwards?

    SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the total amount paid in subsidies to farmers in the last recorded year; and the number of individual recipients?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with

    Subsidies paid to Farmers in 1938 and 1939 from Votes accounted for by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, with the estimated number of individual recipients in each year.

    Service.

    1938.

    1939.

    Expenditure (actual).

    Estimated number of recipients.

    Expenditure (approximate).

    Estimated number of recipients.

    £

    £

    Cattle—Payments to producers

    …

    …

    4,291,230

    106,000

    3,942,500

    106,000

    Milk—Payments in respect of milk used for manufacture and quality milks and for increasing the demand for milk.(b)

    557,209

    —(a)

    2,303,400

    —(a)

    Land Fertility Improvement—Contributions towards cost of acquiring and transporting lime and basic slag.

    1,322,698

    165,000

    1,117,000

    140,000

    Oats and Barley Subsidy—Payments to occupiers.(b)

    80,224

    75,000

    2,528,000

    163,000

    Ploughing Grants—Payments to occupiers.(b)

    —

    —

    847,900

    35,000

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    6,251,361

    —

    10,738,800

    —

    (a) Payment in respect of milk is made to the Milk Marketing Board.

    (b) Excluding Scotland for which provision is made on a separate Vote accounted for by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

    General Note.

    Deficiency payments to registered growers of wheat are made by the Wheat Commission not from public funds but from the Wheat Fund. The amount paid in respect of sales in the cereal year 1938–39 (ended 31st July, 1939) was £9,290,935.

    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give up-to-date figures relating to subsidies under the following heads: complete derating of agricultural land, sugar subsidy and remission of excise, subsidy in respect of milk and milk products, land fertility improvement payments, cattle and sheep
    the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether that amount is likely to be exceeded in the current year?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir, not at present.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that the farmers are dissatisfied with the amount that they are now receiving?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see to it that the landowners are not allowed to increase rents during the war and for five years afterwards?
    Following is the answer:
    subsidy, wheat, oats and barley subsidies, bacon subsidies, and land drainage grants?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the answer:

    Subsidies and Land Drainage Grants paid from Votes accounted for by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1938 and 1939.

    Service.

    1938 (Actual).

    1939 (Approximate).

    £

    £

    Sugar—manufactured from home grown beet (a)

    …

    …

    1,753,270

    2,651,700

    Sugar—rebate of taxation

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,319,000 (b)

    No information

    Milk—payments in respect of milk used for manufacture and quality milks and for increasing the demand for milk (c).

    557,209

    2,303,400

    Cattle—payments to producers

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4,921,230

    3,94,500

    Sheep—payments to producers

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    nil

    nil

    Land Fertility Improvement—contributions towards cost of acquiring and transporting lime and basic slag.

    1,322,698

    1,117,000

    Oats and Barley Subsidy—payments to occupiers (c)

    …

    80,224

    2,528,000

    Bacon Industry—payments in respect of pigs sold on long contracts and made into bacon(d).

    nil

    77,000(net)

    Ploughing Grants—Payments to occupiers (c)

    …

    …

    nil

    847,900

    Land Drainage Grants—payments to Drainage Authorities (c) (d).

    252,882

    303,500

    (a) Great Britain only—no payments to Northern Ireland.

    (b) The amount represents the difference between the amount of duty received on sugar manufactured in Great Britain from home grown beet and the amount of duty which would have been received had duty been charged on a similar quantity of British refined sugar of foreign origin.

    (c) Excluding Scotland for which provision is made on a Vote accounted for by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

    (d) Not applicable to Northern Ireland.

    General Notes.

    (1) Deficiency payments to registered growers of wheat are made by the Wheat Commission not from public funds but from the Wheat Fund (Wheat Act, 1932). The amount so paid in respect of sales in the cereal year 1938–39 (ended 31st July, 1939) was£9,290,935.

    (2) It is not possible to express in terms of money the benefit which agriculture has derived from derating during the above periods. The amount included in the block grant in respect of the year 1928–29 on the basis of benefit to agriculture in that year totalled approximately £10,800,000.

    HORSE-BREEDING (GRANTS).
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the representations from the Gloucestershire War Agricultural Executive Committee about the damage caused by withdrawing the grants for heavy-horse breeding; whether any final decision has been arrived at in the matter; and whether he will arrange for further consultation with the interests concerned?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have considered representations from the Gloucestershire War Agricultural Executive Committee urging the resumption of the grants for heavy horse breeding, but, as indicated in replies to other recent Questions on this subject, I regret that I cannot see my way to rescind the decision to suspend the grants.

    ALLOTMENTS.
    Sir George Mitchesonasked the Minister of Agriculture how many additional allotments have been provided
    since the outbreak of war, and how many of these are in the county of London?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am expecting to receive returns within the next week or so. The number of allotments made available by the London County Council in their parks and open spaces is 6,630. Full information as to the number of allotments provided by the metropolitan borough councils is not yet available.

    WOOD-PIGEONS.
    Sir R. Glynasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in certain parts of the country wood-pigeons are not classified as vermin, and therefore, the police can prosecute in cases where action to destroy these pests is taken on Sundays; and, in view of the urgent importance of using every effort to reduce their number, whether he will at once introduce legislation to enable these birds to be shot on Sundays?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am not quite clear in what circumstances prosecutions

    705
    have been brought against owners or occupiers, or persons authorised by them, who shoot wood-pigeons on their land on Sundays; and if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any case I will go into the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, who is responsible for the administration of the Wild Birds Protection Acts.

    GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that there are many farmers who ploughed up their land in October, 1939, who have not yet received the £2 grant; that in many cases such grant is required for seeds, fertilisers, and other equipment; and, in these circumstances whether he will insist upon greater expedition in these payments?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: In normal cases, the ploughing-up grant is paid within a few days after the receipt of a certificate from the appropriate county war agricultural executive committee that the lands have been properly ploughed, and have been, or will be, brought into a state of cleanliness and fertility and planted with an approved crop. If the hon. Member will send me particulars of the cases to which he refers, I will gladly have inquiries made.
    Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the county agricultural executive to make a special effort to ensure that payment is expedited as quickly as possible? The farmers who are responding to this call are in need of this money at the earliest possible moment.
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith

    NATIONAL STUD (EIRE).
    Major Carverasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the National Stud is being maintained in the Irish Free State during the war; to what extent the activities of this establishment contribute to the development of horses suitable for use on farms in Great Britain; and whether arrangements can now be made to transfer this establishment to the United Kingdom?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There is at present no intention of closing down the National Stud at Tully, County Kildare,
    706
    Eire, or of transferring it to this country. The activities of the National Stud, which consist in the breeding of high class thoroughbreds and thus contribute to the improvement of the light horse, are not intended to assist the development of horses suitable for use on farms.

    HOSPITALS, WALES.
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Health whether he will state the names and accommodation of hospitals in Wales; their special functions and the prospects of increasing out-patient, isolation, maternity and general hospital accommodation in the near future?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): There are in Wales 213 hospitals and institutions of various kinds, providing a total of 14,326 beds. Further schemes now in progress will provide for 385 further beds. Also, as the hon. Member knows, 800 more beds will be provided by hutted hospitals at Denbigh and Chepstow. I am sending the hon. Member full particulars of the names, accommodation and functions of each of the existing hospitals and also of the further schemes in progress.

    HOUSING (BUILDING SCHEMES).
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Health whether he will favourably consider applications from local authorities for the construction of dwelling-houses, particularly where population has increased due to Government establishments?
    Mr. Elliot: I can assure the hon. Member that applications from local authorities for permission to build houses necessary to accommodate workers in the war factories have received and are continuing to receive my prompt and sympathetic consideration.
    Viscountess Astor: Would my right hon. Friend give special consideration to places like Plymouth where the overcrowding is terrific owing to the large number of people employed in the dockyards?
    Mr. Elliot: All these matters are reviewed and allocations of necessary materials are made as promptly as possible, but, of course, no single area can get priority over another.
    Viscountess Astor: Considering how much Plymouth and Devonport do they ought to have priority.
    Mr. Martinasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the serious deterioration in much of the poorer kind of residential property in certain parts of London, he will now relax the restrictions imposed on local authorities for building purposes during the war?
    Mr. Elliot: I regret that, owing to the demand on materials for other purposes, I am not in a position to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member. As I have already stated, I am most anxious that the building schemes of local authorities should proceed as soon as circumstances permit.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    65. Mr. G. Straussasked the Minister of Health whether he will speed up the long delays now occurring in straightforward cases between the application for a widows' pension and its grant?
    Mr. Elliot: I am aware that there has been some delay, which I much regret, in the award of widows' pensions under the Contributory Pensions Acts. This has been due not only to an increase in the number of claims but also to the temporary dislocation caused by the evacuation of the staffs concerned and to the depletion of these staffs. Every effort is being made to deal with the claims promptly and the hon. Member may rest assured that there is no avoidable delay.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mrs. Atkins, Sarum Road, Lime house, London, E.13, applied for a widows' pension in November last; that she received a reply from Blackpool on 20th February saying the matter was receiving attention, but no decision has yet been notified to her; and will he take steps to get the case dealt with without further delay?
    Mr. Elliot: Mrs. Atkins' application for a widow's pension was received in my Department on 13th December, 1939. She was at that date already in receipt of an old age pension under the Contributory Pensions Acts, and she continued to receive this pension until 19th March, 1940. Her pension order book was then recalled, in order that the date up to which
    708
    pension had already been paid might be verified, and a widow's pension order book commencing on the appropriate date prepared. The new order book was issued on 8th April, 1940, and Mrs. Atkins was advised to this effect.

    DERATING (INDUSTRIAL HEREDITAMENTS).
    Mr. Silkinasked the Minister of Health whether the need for the continued derating of industrial hereditaments still exists; and whether he will consider the question of introducing legislation requiring occupiers of industrial hereditaments to pay their full rate?
    Mr. Elliot: Derating was a measure of permanent reform in the system of local taxation, and was accompanied by grants which are an integral feature of the financial arrangements between the Exchequer and local authorities. I do not contemplate the introduction of legislation with the object of reversing these provisions.

    CIVIL DEFENCE (EVACUATION).
    Mr. James Hallasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the failure of parents to register their children for evacuation and the increase in the number of children returning to evacuation areas is largely due to the difficulties experienced by parents when desiring to visit their children; and will he take steps to minimise the transport difficulties which in many cases could be obviated?
    Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and my information is that the rate of return of evacuated children has generally decreased in recent months. If the hon. Member will be good enough to send me particulars of any cases in which parents wishing to visit evacuated children have encountered transport difficulties, I shall be happy to consider the matter, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. Hall: I shall be pleased to send such information to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that arrangements which have been made for parents to visit their children have been interfered with, with the result that a number of children have been brought back to London?
    Mr. Elliot: I do not think that the arrangements have been interfered with, but I shall be glad to receive any particulars.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no facilities, cheap fares or anything else, for Scottish parents wishing to visit their children?
    Mr. Elliot: There are such facilities in Scotland, but in Glasgow it was not found possible for the local authorities to take advantage of them.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange for at least one official in each office dealing with supplementary pensions to be available for advising sympathetically, old people regarding their rights and difficulties under the new Act?
    Mr. Elliot: I am assured by the Assistance Board that, in making their arrangements, the point made by the hon. Member will be kept carefully in mind.

    DRUG M AND B 693.
    Mr. W. R. Duckworthasked the Minister of Health whether local authorities are using M and B 693 in their institutions?
    Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir.

    NATIONAL CAMPS.
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Health the number of camps built by the National Camps Corporation, Limited, at present built and occupied; and whether it is proposed to authorise the building of any further camps?
    Mr. Elliot: Of the 31 camps built by the National Camps Corporation, Limited, six are now occupied and nine more will be occupied before the end of this month. The question whether further camps should be built and, if so, on what lines, will come under review in due course.
    Viscountess Astor: Will the Minister see that no more camps costing £3,000,000 are built, when they hold only about 350 children?
    Mr. Elliot: I should like to know whether any such camps have been constructed.
    Viscountess Astor: That is what we should like to know, too.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MEMBERS' APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Health what instruction has been issued, or is proposed to be issued, against members of local authorities accepting emergency appointments, particularly in connection with food control?
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Health what instructions have been issued which prevent members of a local authority accepting appointments other than with their own authorities?
    Mr. Elliot: I have not issued, and have no authority to issue, any such instructions.

    KELVIN VALLEY, DEFLOODING.
    Mr. Cassellsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the present position with regard to the deflooding scheme pertaining to the Kelvin Valley, Dumbartonshire;
    (2) the acreage of land available for agricultural and general farm purposes in the event of the Kelvin Valley being fully deflooded?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Captain McEwen): The present position with regard to the River Kelvin drainage scheme is that the weir and rocks at Killermont Bridge have been removed, the channel below the bridge deepened, and work is proceeding on the stretches of the river from Killermont Bridge to the junction of the Kelvin and Luggie Water and on the Allander Water. The area of agricultural land which will benefit as a result of the scheme is approximately 4,000 acres.
    Mr. Cassells: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the approximate date when this work is expected to be completed?
    Captain McEwen: No, Sir; not without notice.

    TEXTILES (EXPORT).
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the difficulties caused to British exporters of textile goods by the inability of textile manufacturers to quote firm prices, he will take steps, in co-operation with the Export Council, to overcome this handicap to our export trade?
    Mr. Shakespeare:The Export Council is in close consultation with the Ministry of Supply and the appropriate export groups as to the various steps which can be taken to assist exporters to quote firm prices.
    Mr. Strauss: The reply is in very broad terms. I asked whether steps are being taken to deal with this specific difficulty. If so, what are those steps?
    Mr. Shakespeare: There are about 12 export groups formed, or in process of formation, for the textile industry. Each one of these will get in touch with the appropriate controller, to try to secure the principle the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILK.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his Department have any evidence to show in what way the consumption of liquid milk is affected by the price?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): Variations in the price of milk over recent years have been such that it has not been possible to detect any marked effect upon consumption of the seasonal changes in price which have taken place.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply only shows how much his Department is out of touch with the position. Will he not make representations to his right hon. Friend the new Minister of Food, not to increase the price of liquid milk to consumers?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are fully acquainted with the consequences in general of price increases of a commodity on consumption. The hon. Member
    712
    should not forget that since the introduction of the cheap milk in schools scheme the consumption among the children has increased from 8,000,000 to nearly 26,000,000 gallons.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that all the information at the disposal of the hon. Member's Department has gone to show that the steady increase in price has militated against increased consumption amongst the poor people?
    Viscountess Astor: Is not that the fault of the Minister of Agriculture?

    SUGAR (AERATED WATER MANUFACTURERS).
    Dr. Littleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the increased demand for aerated waters during the summer and the urgency of increasing the country's export trade in that direction, he will in crease the allowance of sugar to aerated water manufacturers from 40 per cent. to at least 60 per cent. of their pre-war consumption?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the percentage reduction on sugar required by aerated water manufacturers is applied on a monthly basis, due weight is already given to seasonal fluctuations in demand. As regards the export trade, arrangements have been made for replacing in full any sugar used in manufactured articles for export to certain destinations.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

    WASTE PRODUCTS (SALVAGE)
    Sir G. Mitchesonasked the Minister of Supply what further steps he proposes taking to increase the collection and utilisation of household waste; and whether he will ensure that householders should be informed as to the best procedure to be adopted by them in order that the fullest co-operation may be secured?
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Cary) on 21st March, in which I explained the steps taken to increase the collection of household waste and to inform householders as to how best they could co-operate. Since that date the Controller of Salvage has broadcast an appeal to householders, and there

    713
    has been further Press publicity, supplemented in a number of districts by the distribution by the local authority of leaflets to householders, informing them of the local arrangements for collection of the materials most urgently required. These and other methods of publicity are being continued. The Salvage Department of my Ministry is also in constant communication with those local authorities whose returns of salvage operations appear to be inadequate.
    Sir G. Mitcheson: What are the practical results?
    Mr. Burgin: The practical result is a very large increase in the collection of materials required by the country.
    Sir William Davison: Will my right hon. Friend give information, through the papers in each district, as to how these different pieces of waste can be collected, because large numbers of people do not know what to do with the tins and papers?
    Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I am afraid there are some London authorities which are still backward, and I shall be very happy to do all I can to facilitate their task.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that last night he put West Ham in the pillory, but that, as a matter of fact, we are doing all we can?
    Mr. Burgin: I welcome that repentance.

    ENGINEERS.
    Mr. Saltasked the Minister of Supply how many members of the area boards and area advisory committees are actually qualified engineers appointed in their professional capacity; and whether he will consider the desirability of employing a larger number of qualified engineers in this connection who will be able to exercise their special functions as engineers in organising the resources of the country, particularly in connection with smaller firms?
    Mr. Burgin: The Ministry of Supply members of the area boards have considerable engineering experience, including those who are not actually members or associates of an engineering institution. These officers are assisted by persons, on their staff, who are in most cases fully qualified engineers. Members of the area advisory committees are
    714
    nominated by the Engineering Employers' Federation and by the trades unions connected with the engineering industry, through the Trades Union Congress General Council.
    A number of highly qualified engineers are now engaged in assisting in the task of further organising industry for munitions production, and the number of these officers is being increased to meet the needs of the situation. It is one of their tasks to arrange for the fullest use of any available facilities among the smaller engineering firms where it appears possible to make use of them.

    FLAX (PRICE).
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that, owing to the price having been fixed too low, the supplies of flax from Belgium to the United Kingdom have so decreased as to threaten a serious shortage, while the supplies to Germany, which offers a higher price, have considerably increased; and whether, in view of this, he will take immediate steps to fix the maximum price of flax at a figure that will ensure sufficient supplies of that necessary article?
    Mr. Burgin: Steps have been taken in collaboration with the French Government to ensure the purchase of Belgian flax at reasonable prices. Supplies are coming forward in substantial quantities, and I do not think that to encourage prices to return to the high levels they attained a short time ago would necessarily result in larger quantities being secured for this country and France.
    Dr. Little: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the supplies of flax?
    Mr. Burgin: We are getting larger quantities at the present time.

    HEAVY MOTOR LORRIES (BODIES).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Supply how many bodies for heavy motor lorries have been contracted for by his Department in the North American continent; if he is aware that builders of such bodies in Greenock and elsewhere are having to discharge highly-skilled workmen for lack of such orders; and whether he will take the necessary steps to ensure that these workmen are employed to do their part, with their firms, in a united effort to meet his Department's requirements?
    Mr. Burgin: No orders for bodies for heavy motor lorries have been placed by the Ministry of Supply in the North American continent. With regard to the latter part of the Question, the hon. Member will appreciate that while I have every sympathy with workers who are unemployed or anxious about the continuance of their employment and every intention of helping them to the best of my ability, it is the duty of my Department to satisfy requirements and it would be quite impossible to place orders beyond those requirements, simply in order to provide work in particular localities.

    STEAMSHIP "QUEEN ELIZABETH."
    Mr. Cassellsasked the Minister of Shipping whether he will give an assurance that the "Queen Elizabeth" is docked in a United States harbour for no purpose other than the safety of the ship and that at no time will she fly other than the British flag?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping (Sir Arthur Salter): There was more than one reason for sending this vessel across the Atlantic, including the fact that the space she was occupying on the Clyde was wanted for another purpose. But there is not, and never has been, any intention of transferring her to another flag.
    Mr. Cassells: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him to undertake, on behalf of the Government, that no steps will be taken, as far as the future ownership of this ship is concerned, unless this House has in the first instance been fully consulted?
    Sir A. Salter: If I went beyond the very definite pledge that I have made, I think I should be answering what is really a hypothetical question.

    FORESTRY WORKERS (RELEASE FROM FORCES).
    Mr. Davidsonasked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what representations he has made for the release from the Forces of experienced forestry workers; and what response has been made by the Government?
    Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): Representations have been made for the release from the Forces of experienced forestry workers; a few have been released and it is understood that the matter is again under consideration.
    Mr. Davidson: Have representations been made for the 500 men in Scotland who have had great experience in forestry work and are urgently needed in that particular area for work of national importance?
    Sir G. Courthope: Yes, Sir, I have just said so. The number is not quite 500, but it is getting on for that.
    Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend taken steps to enlist the support of any skilled foresters from Europe who are over here as refugees, and who might make a very good contribution to the forests of this country in that way?
    Sir G. Courthope: Steps are being taken to get the labour we want from any source that is available.
    Mr. Davidson: Are the Forestry Commissioners satisfied with this course?

    GREAT BRITAIN AND JAPAN.
    Sir Nairne Stewart Sandemanasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Japanese blockade of the British Concession in Tientsin has now lasted nearly nine months; that British residents in the Concession are living in a state of virtual internment; that their businesses are being destroyed and they themselves continually exposed to humiliation and insult; and how much longer this state of affairs is to be tolerated?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): My Noble Friend is aware of the hardships experienced by British subjects at Tientsin owing to the long continuance of the blockade of the British Concession, and that there has recently been some increase of delay at the barrier. Conversations, however, for the settlement of all matters arising out of the situation at Tientsin are at present actively proceeding at Tokyo in a favourable atmosphere.
    Captain McEwen: No, Sir, not without fact that, although we are having these

    717
    speeches from Tokyo, what we really want is to see these speeches translated into something more tangible?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, certainly.
    Sir N. Stewart Sandemanasked the Prime Minister whether he will make representations to the Japanese Government that the hope for improved relations with this country cannot be secured by mere verbal gestures, such as the promise to reopen the Yangtze or to improve harbour facilities at Tsingtao, so long as Japanese authorities persist in severe restrictions on British trade and discrimination against British shipping?
    Mr. Butler: From the repeated representations which we have made, the Japanese Government are well aware of the attitude of His Majesty's Government as to the restrictions on British trade and discrimination against British shipping imposed by the Japanese authorities in China and of the general bearing of these questions on the improvement of Anglo-Japanese relations. His Majesty's Government continue to watch the position closely.
    Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Can my right hon. Friend say when we may expect something tangible?
    Mr. Butler: I hope as soon as possible.

    RUSSIA (TRADE NEGOTIATIONS, GREAT BRITAIN).
    89. Mr. Davidsonasked the Prime Minister what trade negotiations are now under consideration with Russia; and has he any statement to make?
    Mr. Butler: As I said yesterday, a suggestion on this subject was recently made by the Soviet Ambassador and the question is being considered in all its aspects.
    Mr. Davidson: Has the question been considered in all its aspects only by our own Government, or have any negotiations taken place with the Russian representatives on this question?
    Mr. Butler: The Soviet Ambassador made a suggestion, and that is now being considered by the various Departments of the Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the Business for next week?
The Prime Minister: The Business for next week will be: Tuesday—Supply (5th Allotted Day); Committee. A Debate on Man Power will take place on the Vote for the Ministry of Labour and National Service.
Wednesday—Second Reading of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Bill.
Thursday—Motions to approve the continuance in force of Proclamations made under the Government of India Act.
Mr. Attlee: May I take it that that business is subject to alteration if there should be immediate need for a Debate on the general situation?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Attlee: I wish to give notice, should that need not arise, we may raise a Debate on the Adjournment on Wednesday or Thursday on some outstanding matters of which we have given the Government notice?
Resolved,
"That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[The Prime Minister.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Monmouthshire and South Wales Employers' Mutual Indemnity Society [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the Christchurch Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

3. "That, in the case of the Birmingham Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1940.
  CLASS 1.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  Motion made, and Question again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £319,655, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid to the Kitchen Committee."
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

  THE WAR AT SEA.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  3.48 p.m.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill): I am sure I shall receive the indulgence of the House if by any chance there should be some minor error in fact or detail in the statement I am going to make, or if it has not received that thorough and prolonged preparation which I have always endeavoured to give to any observations I have had to offer to the House. We are working under very sharp pressure in these times, and I have been most anxious to give the House the fullest possible information agreeable with the public interest, that being the strongly expressed direction and desire which I have received from the Prime Minister and my colleagues in the Cabinet.
  The strange and unnatural calm of the last few weeks was violently broken on Monday morning by the German invasion of Norway and Denmark. This crime had, of course, been long and elaborately prepared, and it was actually set in motion in the last week of March. For several
  734
  months past we have received information of large numbers of German merchant ships being fitted as transports and of numerous small vessels being assembled in various Baltic ports and, also, in the river mouths of the Elbe. But no one could tell when they would be used or against what peaceful country they would be used. Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden were, as it seemed, all equally liable to a sudden, brutal, capricious and, in any case, unprovoked attack. Which would be selected as the first victim or when the blow would be struck remained, inevitably, a matter of pure speculation.
  The Nazi German Government is accustomed to spreading through its channels a continuous flow of threats and rumours. These are put forth by all their agents in neutral countries, by the "hangers-on" of their legations and by their sympathisers and backers, wherever they may be found. [Interruption.] I am sure my remarks have no personal aspect. All these countries have been threatened, and as the German Government are not restrained by law or scruple, and as they have an obvious preference for striking at the weak rather than the strong, all the small countries on their borders were, and still are, in a high state of alarm. Even those neutrals who have done the most to placate Germany, and have been the greatest aid to her, could not feel any sense of security that they would not be attacked without any reason or without any warning, swiftly overrun, reduced to bondage and pillaged of all their property, especially all eatables. Fear was, therefore, general in all these unfortunate countries, and none of them could tell, and none of us could tell, which one of them would be the next to be devoured.
  In the small hours of Monday morning we learned that Norway and Denmark had drawn the unlucky numbers in this sinister lottery. Denmark, of course, had special reason for apprehension, not only because she was the nearest and the weakest of Germany's neighbours, but because she had a recent treaty with Germany guaranteeing her from all molestation and because she was engaged in active commerce both with Germany and Great Britain, the continuance of which in time of war had been foreseen by Germany, and was guaranteed by special trade arrangements between the German and Danish Governments. This, ob-

  735
  viously, placed her in a position of peculiar danger. The extraordinary configuration of the Norwegian western coast provides a kind of corridor, or covered way, as everyone knows, through which neutral trade and German ships of all kinds, warships and others, could be moved to and fro through the Allied blockade, within the territorial waters of Norway and Sweden, until they were under the effective protection of the German home Air Force in North Germany. They could go to and fro along this route without molestation.
  The existence of this geographical and legal covered way has been the greatest disadvantage which we have suffered and the greatest advantage which Germany has possessed in her efforts to frustrate the British and Allied blockade. Warships moved up and down it as they thought it convenient. U-boats used it as they thought fit. Stray German liners and merchant ships, trying to get back to Germany from outer seas, followed this route, which is over 800 miles long, and can be entered or quitted at any convenient point. There has been no greater impediment to the blockade of Germany than this Norwegian corridor. It was so in the last war, and it has been so in this war. Therefore, the British Navy has been forced to watch an endless procession of German and neutral ships carrying contraband of all kinds to Germany, which at any moment they could have stopped, but which they were forbidden to touch by those very same conventions of international law which Germany, in this war, as in the last, has treated with the utmost perfect contempt. During the last war, when we were associated with the United States, the Allies felt themselves so deeply injured by this covered way, then being used specially for U-boats setting out on their marauding expeditions, that the British, French and United States Governments together induced the Norwegians to lay a minefield in their territorial waters, across the covered way, in order to prevent the abuse by U-boats of this channel. It was only natural that the Admiralty, since this war began, should have brought this precedent—although it is not exactly on all fours, and there are some differences—this modern and highly respectable precedent, to the notice of His Majesty's Gov-
  736
  ernment and should have urged that we should be allowed to lay a minefield of our own in Norwegian territorial waters in order to compel this traffic which was passing in and out to Germany to come out into the open sea and take a chance of being brought into the contraband control, or being captured as enemy prize by our blockading squadrons and flotillas. It was only natural and it was only right that His Majesty's Government should have been long reluctant to incur the reproach of even a technical violation of international law. After all, we are seeking to establish the reign of international law, and anyone can see the dilemma upon which those who have to consider these matters are liable to be impaled in such a situation as that. It is intolerable that the good cause should suffer by respecting the conventions which those who champion the bad cause have profited by tearing to pieces. But gradually, as this cruel, deadly war has deepened and darkened, the feeling grew that it was placing an undue burden upon the Allies to allow this traffic to continue and that it was intolerable to watch, week after week, the ships passing down this corridor carrying the iron ore to make the shells which will strike down the young men of France and Britain in the campaign of 1941.
  It was, therefore, decided at last—and the scruples caused us injury at the same time as they did us honour—to interrupt this traffic and make it come out into the open seas. Every precaution was taken to avoid the slightest danger to neutral ships or any loss of life, even to enemy merchant ships, by the minefields which were laid and declared on Monday last at dawn, and British patrolling craft were actually stationed around them in order to warn all ships off these dangerous areas. The Nazi Government, the Nazi German Government—I do not know how you can distinguish them; they seem all to be mixed up together, Nazis and Germans, Germans and Nazis—have sought to make out that their invasion of Norway and of Denmark was a consequence of our action in closing the Norwegian corridor. It can, however, undoubtedly be proved that not only had their preparations been made nearly a month before, but that their actual movements of troops and ships had begun before the British and French minefields were laid. No doubt they suspected they

  737
  were going to be laid. It must indeed have appeared incomprehensible to them that they had not been laid long before. They therefore decided in the last week of March to use the Norwegian corridor to send empty ore ships northward, filled with military stores and German soldiers, concealed below decks, in order at the given moment to seize the various ports on the Norwegian seaboard which they considered to have military value. They also set in motion the invading forces which they had long prepared against the innocent neutral countries—or against two of the innocent neutral countries, because there are others not yet affected—who had helped them in so many ways.
  I here must say a word about Norway. We have the most profound sympathy with the Norwegian people. We have understood the terrible dilemma in which they have been placed. Their sentiments, like those of every other small country, were with the Allies. They writhed in helpless anger while scores of their ships were wantonly sunk and many hundreds of their sailors cruelly drowned. They realise fully that their future independence and freedom are bound up with the victory of the Allies. But the feeling of powerlessness in the ruthless grip of Nazi wrath made them hope against hope until the last moment that at least their soil and their cities would not be polluted by the trampling of German marching columns or their liberties and their livelihood stolen away by foreign tyrants. But this hope has been in vain. Another violent outrage has been perpetrated by Nazi Germany against a small and friendly Power, and the Norwegian Government and people are to-day in arms to defend their hearths and homes. We shall aid them to the best of our ability, we shall conduct the war in common with them, and we shall make peace only when their rights and freedom are restored. In their very large, wild, mountainous country—freedom, it is said, dwells in the mountains—in their very large country, sparsely populated, but rugged and full of positions where free men can shelter and can fight, they should be able to maintain vigorous and prolonged resistance, costing enormous labour to those who wish to subjugate them to tyranny.
  But what an example this Norwegian episode is to other neutral countries. What an example it is of the danger of
  738
  supposing that friendly relations with Germany, or friendly assurances from Germany, or treaties of any kind, or friendly offices rendered to Germany, or advantages given to Germany—what a danger to suppose that any of these are the slightest protection against a murderous onslaught the moment it is thought by Germany that any advantage can be gained by such action. If the Norwegian Government had not been so very strict and severe in enforcing their neutrality against us and in leaving their corridor open to German operations and machinations, and if they had entered into confidential relations with us, it would have been very easy to give them more timely and more opportune support than is now possible. It is not the slightest use blaming the Allies for not being able to give substantial help and protection to neutral countries if they are held at arm's length by the neutral countries until those countries are actually attacked on a scientifically prepared plan by Germany, and I trust that the fact that the strict observance of neutrality by Norway has been a contributory cause of the sufferings to which she is now exposed and in the limits of aid which we can give her will be meditated upon by other countries who may to-morrow, or a week hence, or a month hence find themselves the victims of an equally elaborately worked out staff plan for their destruction and enslavement.
  I now address myself to the question which I believe has been asked in some quarters, What is the Navy doing? And I will endeavour to answer it to the best of my ability so far as relates to the past and to the present, but the House would not expect me to lift the veil which should properly and discreetly cover the future operations or operations which are in progress at this moment. As I told the House in the Debate upon the Navy Estimates, we were deprived during all the long winter months of the great strategic advantages of Scapa Flow, but during all that time we laboured might and main to make that base a safe and sure home for the Fleet. About five weeks ago the Home Fleet returned to Scapa Flow and has been resting there or operating from there ever since. We have been exposed to continual air-raid alarms and numerous air raids, but we have now very powerful

  739
  anti-aircraft batteries in action, together with various other methods of defence, and very good arrangements have been made with the Royal Air Force and with our home squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm, so that an adequate number of squadrons are disposed within striking distance.
  In all, there have been five raids on Scapa Flow—many alarms, but five raids. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who paid a visit to that spot, was, I gather, by accident, so unfortunate as just to miss one of those exhilarating experiences. In all, five raids. In the first a cruiser was hit aft, which necessitated several weeks of repair but no more than that. Otherwise, up to the time I am speaking—there was an air-raid warning this morning, and I do not wish at all, remembering the hon. Lady's fear, to make anything in the nature of prophecy, but we must discard superstition in these days—up to the time of speaking there has been no vessel hit or damaged in Scapa Flow, no objective of the slightest military importance has been hit on shore, and very few people have been hurt. The enemy has shown himself increasingly gun-shy in his attacks on Scapa, and this is hardly to be wondered at, since the batteries, especially when reinforced by the powerful batteries of the Fleet, can deliver what is probably far the heaviest concentration of anti-aircraft fire in the world. It is a tremendous fire, and in the latest raid, which took place last night, at dusk, 60 aircraft attacked in successive waves without doing the slightest damage, although they themselves suffered the loss of at least six aircraft, the credit for which is divided between—I might almost say disputed between—the batteries and the very excellently combined and skilfully used air squadrons. We are ready to fight this matter out at Scapa Flow. It is of the utmost importance to the Fleet to make themselves comfortable there, and the repeated attacks give a practice to the batteries against high-speed aircraft which no towed target which we have been able to devise can possibly supply. It is most necessary to have further encounters between the batteries and enemy aircraft and between the Fleet and enemy aircraft if our gunnery is to develop its full efficiency, and, of course, we must
  740
  always be prepared when we run risks for occasional losses.
  The Fleet was, therefore, in instant readiness at Scapa Flow when, on Sunday night, news was received from the air reconnaissance—our air reconnaissance ranges over the whole of the North Sea—that German battle cruisers, with a number of other cruisers and vessels and destroyers, were out at sea and moving very swiftly northwards. The Commander-in-Chief immediately put to sea to find them and bring them to action. At the same time, independently of this, a strong British naval force was approaching Narvik in order to lay a minefield off the Norwegian coast for the purposes which I described to the House a few moments ago. The minefield was laid according to plan at daylight on Monday morning. The task of the minelayers accomplished, they withdrew to the westward in order to avoid the risk of any collision with Norwegian war vessels maintaining their neutrality, which they had been specially enjoined to respect and take every precaution against infringing.
  One of the destroyers of this northern force which went to lay mines lost a man overboard on Sunday afternoon and stayed behind some time to pick him up. This destroyer, the "Glowworm," was proceeding northwards to rejoin its force when, at 8 o'clock on Monday morning, she saw first one and then two enemy destroyers, which she engaged. She then reported an unknown enemy ship before her to the northward. These incidents came to us one by one at a few minute intervals as they occurred, but the last message ended abruptly, and we can only conclude that the "Glowworm" has been sunk by the greatly superior forces of the enemy which she had to encounter. The "Glowworm's" light has been quenched, but there is no reason why a large proportion of her crew should not have been saved if the ordinary humanity of fighting men, which is a different thing from the humanity of some Governments, has been practised by the enemy. This chance encounter showed that major elements of the enemy navy were at sea and that considerable events were in train.
  Since then fighting has been continuous night and day, without stopping, and is

  741
  going on now—a widely dispersed but none the less a general action between large numbers of German ships and aircraft and such forces as we are able to bring into action. A great deal has been reported in the newspapers, a great deal of what has taken place and even more than has taken place, because, of course, we have not reoccupied the ports on the Norwegian coast. These are rumours which come from neutral sources and are naturally given currency. But the House has read a great deal of the truth and a great deal more than the truth in the last few days. I shall merely try to summarise the principal naval incidents. During Monday morning it looked as though the enemy forces which had sunk the "Glowworm," and which contained German battle cruisers and other enemy ships, would be caught between our forces in the North and the main Home Fleet, both of which were superior. However, they got away, and here I must make a digression about the conditions of sea war.
  You may look at the map and see flags stuck in at different points and consider that the result will be certain, but when you get out on the sea, with its vast distances, its storms and mists, and with night coming on and all the uncertainties which exist, you cannot possibly expect that the kind of conditions which would be appropriate to consider in respect of the movements of armies have any application to the chance and haphazard conditions of collisions by ships of war at sea. On Tuesday the Fleet was cruising to the southward about the level of Bergen, when, during the afternoon, it was attacked continuously by German aircraft. The usual tales were put out by the German wireless of several battleships and cruisers being sunk or seriously damaged. I know that some of my friends were concerned at these blatant exaggerations. Actually, two cruisers were slightly damaged by splinters, but this did not at all interfere with their work, and they are still with the Fleet at their stations. One very heavy bomb hit the flagship, the "Rodney," but her very strong deck arm our resisted the impact, and she was not affected in any way by the explosion except that three officers and seven men were injured. As far as the structure of our ships of war is concerned, this incident must be regarded as satisfactory. The cruiser
  742
  "Aurora," which had joined the Fleet, was subjected to five successive bombing attacks, all of which were pressed home with courage and all of which failed, but a destroyer, the "Gurkha," which was accompanying her and to some extent escorting her, was hard hit and listed heavily and sank after four and a-half hours, during which the crew or almost all of the crew were rescued. The same afternoon the destroyer "Zulu" sank a German U-boat off the Orkneys.
  Meanwhile, far to the north off Narvik, on this Tuesday morning, at daybreak, the "Renown," one of our battle cruisers, perceived the "Scharnhorst" and a 10,000 ton "Hipper" class cruiser, which had evidently come up with the force the day before, in the distance dimly. Amid snowstorms, a tempestuous day, sea running high, gales blowing furiously, our battle cruiser opened fire at 18,000 yards. After three minutes the enemy replied, but almost immediately turned away. After nine minutes the "Renown" observed hits on the forward structure of the German battle cruiser, and thereafter her whole armament stopped firing. Thereafter her after turret began firing under local control. The speed the battle cruiser maintained was very great, and the "Renown" had to push to 24 knots through very heavy seas breaking over her forward turrets and guns. After a further two minutes of firing a vertical column of smoke from what they call a possible second hit was observed on the "Scharnhorst," which then turned away and directly retired at a high speed without further firing. During this period a shell had passed through our vessel about the water line without bursting. We had something like that in the case of the "Exeter," and it seems to show that Nazi workmanship is not all of a piece. A second shell went through the foremast, carrying away the main aerial. There were no casualties on board the "Renown." The destroyers which were with her were unable to keep up in the heavy seas at the speed at which she was going.
  The 10,000 ton cruiser "Hipper" now drew across the battleship "Scharnhorst." The two ships of this class, the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau," are of 25,000 tons and most formidable vessels. The "Hipper" threw a smoke screen across her to cover her retreat.

  743
  The "Renown" opened fire on the "Hipper," which turned away. Both ships now retired at high speed, the "Hipper" swinging to fire a broadside from time to time, and also dodging. Firing was intermittent, as all the time snowstorms were sweeping across and closing the view, and the sea was running very high, but in the end we much regret to say that they succeeded in leaving us. Firing finally ceased at 29,000 yards, when they became quite invisible. Someone will say, "If you had all this news on Tuesday morning, why have you been saving it up for the House of Commons?" All I can say is that I have been most anxious to obtain this information, because the "Renown" signals broke off when they became interesting, and we never heard another word from her until a few hours ago upon that subject. Although she made various signals, she did not think it necessary to tell us what had happened. I must emphasise this, that when sailors are fighting they busy themselves so much upon that, and take so much interest in that, that they quite forget for a long time to tell us what they are doing, which causes some embarrassment to the Admiralty sometimes and even more to the Minister of Information.
  I am still on Tuesday. On Tuesday night we gave orders to our destroyers to blockade the West Fjord, that great stretch of water 50 or 60 miles long leading up to Narvik. Our orders to those destroyers were to attack the enemy who had got in there and especially to destroy the store ships in which they had smuggled their soldiers up the Norwegian corridor, and on which they must depend for working up the efficiency of their defences. There were six destroyers and a U-boat reported, and, moreover, it was to be expected that they had landed a certain number of guns in the 24 hours they had been there. The Germans are very quick in landing and making themselves fortified; they are very nimble about these things. From what we heard at the Admiralty late on Tuesday night, we thought the operation so hazardous that at one o'clock in the morning we told the captain of the destroyer flotilla that he must be the sole judge of whether to attack or not, and we would support him, whatever he did and whatever happened. In
  744
  these circumstances, Captain Warburton-Lee entered with five destroyers and attacked the enemy destroyers, and such guns as they could have landed in the interval. In the beginning, all that they reported to us was what they had lost—nothing more—and I let it go out, because I do not think we ought to have a kind of mealy-mouthed attitude towards these matters. We have embarked on this war, and we must take our blows. Therefore, I put the report out, although there was nothing to relieve it, as it were. We are not children to be kept in the dark, and we can take what is coming to us as well as any other country.
  As soon as the further report was received at about one o'clock, I prepared it for the Prime Minister, who immediately gave it to the House of Commons and to the country, through the Press, at the same time. The moment we get any news, be it bad or good, once we can rely on it, we shall present it to Parliament, the broadcast and the Press. I am all for propaganda and publicity, but the best propaganda is results, and I must say that I think these are coming to hand in no unsatisfactory manner. The result of this hard, fierce fight in the Narvik Fjord—half the combatant vessels were knocked out on each side—is worthy of any of the records which are preserved with such respect in the long history of the Navy. What was gained was the destruction of these store ships, as well as the crippling of the force, and on the way back the two destroyers, who were escorting their wounded comrade out of the Fjord, unpursued by the enemy, who had received an equal battering, got the "Rauenfels,"full of reserve ammunition with which, I suppose, it was intended to turn Narvik into a kind of Sebastopol or Gibraltar. This ship was blown up, and we must regard that as simplifying the task which obviously might be among those which lie ahead of us.
  Now I come to Wednesday. On that day a very determined attack was made by two waves of 12 each of the Royal Air Force—whose flying in every direction, as it were, for the reconnaissance and protection of the Royal Navy has been unceasing, and to whom, on behalf of their naval comrades, I tender a most sincere expression of recognition—on two German cruisers sheltering in the Bergen Fjord and covering German troops that

  745
  had been landed there. One of these light cruisers was hit, and we have not seen anything of her since. She may be at the bottom or hiding in some fjord, but subsequent reconnaissance has not revealed her presence. At dusk on Wednesday, the Fleet Air Arm came on to the scene for the first time in this war. They have been very anxious to come into action with their Skuas, which are perhaps not the latest pattern of aircraft. They have a long range, and they flew from the Orkneys and attacked the remaining German cruiser at Bergen, which was moored alongside. Sixteen of them attacked in successions of three's, all making low bombing dives and casting their 500-pound bombs at the lowest point. They secured three hits, and out of the 16, 15 returned. Then a little later, when a reconnaissance aircraft was sent over, no cruiser was seen where this one had been lying—only a streak of oil about a mile long smearing the surface of the harbour. It looks as if a result has been obtained.
  To-day, Thursday, at daybreak, the torpedo-carrying aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, 18 in number, have attacked enemy shipping in the harbour of Trondheim. We had hoped to get a "Hipper" class cruiser which was reported certainly to be there. She had, however, vanished in the night, and all we got was a destroyer, which was hit by a torpedo. This form of attack by torpedo from the air is very old. I saw it when I was First Lord before the last war and was deeply interested in it. It was used once at the Dardanelles. It carries with it great hopes and possibilities, which have never been fully developed, but we must have more practice and experience in the use of this novel, although not new, and unaccustomed weapon. This we hope to obtain as the fighting proceeds during the summer.
  In my task of answering the question, "What is the Navy doing?" I am getting too near the range of current and pending operations to be able to make any further report to the House, but I hope I have to some extent answered the question which has been asked, and shown that the Navy has not been idle or negligent, and that it is actively proceeding on the tasks confided to it by Parliament. I shall look forward to making a further statement to Parliament
  746
  a little later on. I will, however, venture to make a few general observations and attempt to survey the results up to date. When we speak of the command of the seas, that does not mean that the Royal Navy and its French Ally command every part of the seas at the same moment or at every moment. It only means that we can make our will prevail ultimately in any part of the seas which may be selected for operations, and thus indirectly we can make our will prevail in every part of the seas. That is what command of the seas means. Anything more foolish than to suppose that the life and strength of the Royal Navy—which, allow me to remind the House, is engaged in bringing in through the U-boats the immense traffics of this country, now bounding up in their fullness as the U-boat is gradually brought under control, for that is what we are doing all the time while this is going on on the other side of the Island—anything, I say, more foolish than to suppose that the life and strength of the Royal Navy should have been expended in ceaselessly patrolling up and down the Norwegian and Danish coasts, a target for the U-boats, wearing out their crews and machinery on the chance that Hitler would launch a blow like this—anything more foolish than that nobody can imagine. I say with great respect that a man who makes such a suggestion is hardly qualified to offer advice to the nation in these serious times.
  In my view, which is shared by my skilled advisers, Herr Hitler has committed a grave strategic error in spreading the war so far to the North and in forcing the Scandinavian people, or peoples, out of their attitude of neutrality. We have suffered from nothing in our blockade policy so much as the denial of the Norwegian coast, and that cursed corridor is now closed for ever. Hitler has effected with his Germans lodgments of various strengths at many points of the Norwegian coasts, and he has felled with a single hammer blow the inoffensive Kingdom of Denmark, but we shall take all we want off this Norwegian coast now, with an enormous increase in the facility and in the efficiency of our blockade. We are also at this moment occupying the Faroe Islands, which belong to Denmark and which are a strategic point of high importance, and whose people showed every disposition to receive us with warm regard. We shall shield the Faroe

  747
  Islands from all the severities of war and establish ourselves there conveniently by sea and air until the moment comes when they will be handed back to the Crown and people of a Denmark liberated from the foul thraldom in which they have been plunged by the German aggression. The question of Iceland needs further consideration, because Iceland is, as it were, a dominion of the Danish Kingdom. What I can say about Iceland at the moment is that no German will be allowed to set foot there with impunity.
  In the upshot, it is the considered view of the Admiralty that we have greatly gained by what has occurred in Scandinavia and in Northern waters in a strategic and military sense. For myself, I consider that Hitler's action in invading Scandinavia is as great a strategic and political error as that which was committed by Napoleon in 1807 or 1808, when he invaded Spain. Hitler has violated the independence and soil of virile peoples dwelling in very large and expansive countries capable of maintaining, with British and French aid, prolonged resistance to his soldiers and his Gestapo. He has almost doubled the efficiency of the Allied blockade. He has made a whole series of commitments upon the Norwegian coast for which he will now have to fight, if necessary, during the whole summer, against Powers possessing vastly superior naval forces and able to transport them to the scenes of action more easily than he can. I cannot see any counter-advantage which he has gained except the satisfaction of another exercise of the brutal lust of unbridled power. I cannot see any satisfaction which he has gained which is any adequate offset to these substantial and enduring facts. Grieved as we all are at the suffering and misery which are now extended to wider areas, I must declare to the House that I feel that we are greatly advantaged by what has occurred, provided we act with unceasing and increasing vigour to turn to the utmost profit the strategic blunder into which our mortal enemy has been provoked.
  I have two things more to say before I sit down. The first is a very serious thought. Everyone must recognise the extraordinary precision and the reckless gambling which have flung the whole German Fleet out upon the savage seas of war as if it were a mere counter, to
  748
  be cast away for a particular operation. We and the French are far stronger than the German Navy. We have enough to maintain control of the Mediterranean, and, at the same time, we can carry on all our operations in the North Sea. But out of the very much smaller forces of the German Navy, most grievous losses have been already sustained. Four German cruisers—the Norwegian batteries have taken their toll—that is to say, nearly half their total pre-war strength and much more than their existing strength in cruisers, have been sunk, and a number of German destroyers together with several more U-boats have been destroyed, all since Sunday.
  Up to the time I speak those losses have been sustained by the German Navy. After all, a navy is an integral organisation, with its battleships, cruisers and its destroyers, and that navy must be regarded as deeply mutilated in respect of this extraordinarily important and indeed indispensable cruiser element. Our submarines, which, I can assure the House, were by no means asleep, have taken heavy toll from the German transports and store ships now crossing into Scandinavia. We have given them the fullest liberty of action in all cases where humanity does not impose restraints. All German ships in the Skaggerak and the Kattegat will be sunk, and by night all ships will be sunk, as opportunity serves. We are not going to allow the enemy to supply their armies across these waters with impunity. They have already ordered all merchant vessels out of this area, and in this respect our advice coincides with theirs. We hope to take unceasing toll. Up to the present nearly a dozen ships, some of large tonnage, have been sunk or captured, either in the Skaggerak and the Kattegat, or in other parts of the North Sea, or in attempting to bring supplies to the forces which were landed at Narvik. The Norwegian batteries have had their successes, and I must consider the German Fleet crippled in important respects.
  But, Mr. Speaker—and this is the gravity of the thought which I venture to submit to the House—the very recklessness with which Hitler and his advisers have cast the interests of the German Navy upon the wild waters to meet all that moves thereon—this very recklessness makes me feel that these audacious, costly operations may be only the pre-

  749
  lude to far larger events which impend on land. We have probably arrived now at the first main crunch of the war. But we certainly find no reason in the fact of what has just happened, and still less in our own hearts, to deter us from entering upon any further trials that may lie before us. While we will not prophesy or boast about battles still to be fought, we feel ourselves ready to encounter the utmost malice of the enemy and to devote all our life strength to achieve the victory in what is a world cause.
  One word more. There never was a time when the Navy was treated more kindly by the British nation or by the House or when it was regarded with more admiration, nay, I will say affection. It is worthy of your confidence. But showing confidence in the Navy does not only mean applauding it in good days when some glittering success may be proclaimed. It means that those, and they are legion, who repose their faith in our sailormen and their leaders will not falter or become distressed if, for three or four days at a time, silence and darkness and dubious news lie over the sea or come from the sea and that each one who has that confidence and faith will make it his duty to sustain those who are of lesser faith. Each of them will have their part in the great drama of human progress, now so vividly unfolded before us.
  4.53 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: I hope the House will forgive me for intervening and that hon. Members will give me their attention. I do not wish to have to shout at the top of my voice all the way through what, I hope, will not be a long address. I feel sure that, on whatever side of the House we may sit, in view of the circumstances of the present week and the conflict which is being waged at this moment in more than one spot by the gallant officers and men of the Royal Navy, with the support of the Royal Air Force, we must recognise that this is not the time or the place for an inquest upon their technical operations. Least of all is it a moment for people posing as skilled sea leaders or Air Force commanders and engaging in amateur strategy on the basis of a very small-scale map. It seems to me that what we have to say to-day can be said in a comparatively short space. The
  750
  First Lord has, I think, with considerable courage, in view of the stories which have appeared in the Press, laid the position before us, as far as he is able to do so having regard to the general public interest and the proper safeguarding of any operations which may be in progress. In those circumstances, I hope that we shall not—any of us—require to go into a long Debate on the operations now in progress. I feel at the same time that the First Lord has been wise in warning us, as he did towards the end of his speech, that the operations in which we are engaged, arising out of the wanton, unprovoked, and brutal attack upon Norway and Denmark, mark a crucial point in the great war in which we are engaged. Our comments, short as they may be, must, therefore, be governed by a sense of the crucial nature of those operations at the moment.
  The right hon. Gentleman has, rightly, paid a tribute to the Norwegian nation. What was said from below the Gangway the other day is, I think, quite true—that the Norwegians are among the mosthighly-civilised people in the world. They had yearned for peace, they had organised for peace. They had left perhaps too late their attempts to keep complete neutrality, in the hope that that peace might come to them. I am sure the whole House extends sympathy to them to-day and hopes that the Allies will be able to render them early and effective assistance. I may be excused for saying a word about Denmark, because of the difficulty of the situation in which the Danish people are placed and the friendships which many of my hon. Friends on these Benches so greatly value in that country. We would like the Prime Minister of Denmark and his colleagues—many of whom, indeed, I think all of whom, up to a couple of days ago were very largely drawn from the same class as that represented on this side of the House, and who are filled with our general social inspiration and have the same general social objectives—to know how much we feel for them in the position in which they find themselves to-day. I hope that what has been said by the First Lord will be an encouragement to them. I hope that what he said with regard to the Faroe Islands and Iceland, in relation to the Kingdom and people of Denmark will be carried out and that

  751
  our comrades in Denmark will feel convinced that, once we have finished this fight, we shall see to it that their independence and their rights are restored.
  In view of the crucial point which we have reached in the war, I should like next to make reference to some of the elements with which we have to deal in this country—small, perhaps, in relation to the total population, but very vocal. I suggest that they might reflect on the fate of Norway and Denmark. They might realise not only what has been said by speakers on the other side of the House, but what we have always said in our endeavours to deal with this question from this side of the House—that what has happened in Norway and Denmark is only prevented at this moment from happening to this great free people here by our own determination to defend our liberty, and by the action of our Forces and those of our Allies, effectively to do so, by sea, air, and land. I would say this to all my colleagues in the working-class organisations with which I am connected. I feel that we have now been brought right up against the facts of the fight in which this country is engaged. I say that we are fighting at this moment, not only the naval actions recounted by the First Lord as the first step in the relief from oppression of the Norwegian people, but we are fighting for our liberty, for our independence, and, at this crucial moment of the war, for our lives. I am convinced, by my daily contact with my own people, that the ruthless and callous attacks which Hitler has once more displayed, in breach of his treaties and promises, do not react upon the workers of this country as he perhaps thinks they will or as his expert propagandist on the wireless hopes they will. I am convinced that when we look at the situation to-day, we may speak for the working class of this country much more in the spirit of those lines of Sir Walter Scott in the "Lady of the Lake":
  "I thank thee, Roderick, for the word!
  It nerves my heart, it steels my sword."
  That, I believe, is the general feeling we have to-day. At the same time I should like to take this opportunity, because of the picture the First Lord of the Admiralty has put to us in relation to what have been constant rumours in the
  752
  last few days, of warning all our people to beware of rumours. I would much rather exercise a little patience and have the real vetted truth when it is available. There were different pictures perhaps in our minds, dark and light, in the course of the last three days, but I am content at this moment to know that the officers and men of the Royal Navy are already, under their orders, carrying out insistent and effective attacks upon the enemy with a view to lightening the position in Norway and bringing the most confusion and destruction possible on the operations of the enemy. In that we shall support them to the full.
  There is, however, another point to which I should like to refer. I cannot hope to refer to the position of the neutrals to-day, either with the language or with the authority which the First Lord is able to exercise, but I think we are entitled to say to the neutrals what has been uttered by a Turkish source this morning. That is, that the events of this week prove, perhaps more conclusively than has yet been the case, that there are only two choices to-day before any neutral countries anywhere in the danger zone. Either they must now make up their minds that they will have to accept domination, which may be permanent domination, from the Germany of the new and developing type of the Nazi régime, or they must march with the Allies. If they march with the Allies, at the end of the conflict those who fight with us now, and those who have been already subjugated, can be certain of the retention and of the restoration of their independence and freedom; for they have no such prospect of enjoyment of coming happiness and independence to look forward to if they are to be the next victims of the kind of aggression we have seen this week.
  This evening I would say no more than this. The First Lord, if he hits hard, has never been afraid of just criticism, and he will not misunderstand us in the course of this very serious thing that is going on to-day and when the Royal Navy is puting up such a brave show, if we say to him that we are glad he gave the note to his colleagues in the House of Commons at the end of his speech—that in this battle we have to be insistent and increasing all the time in the vigour with which we prosecute this fight. I think I am speaking for the whole House when I say that,

  753
  if the note he put into that part of the end of his speech is to indicate the real type of action of the Government in the future, then they can look to support for that type of action and vigour in prosecuting the war from all Members of the House. What we are most afraid of is lest the vigour and the intentions expressed by the First Lord should not be continuous day by day, in season and out of season, because of any lack of heart or spirit in other elements in the Government. And so, as in the Royal Navy, in the air, and on the home front, we ask the Government, while we give credit for what is being done, to put into this fight every ounce of vigour and to put into their preparations for the fight more intensive and more skilled organisation than perhaps we have yet seen. We believe that if we are to go through this great fight and retain our independence and our liberty, and restore conditions under which that liberty can flourish in Europe, all and not part of our effort has to go in.
  5.6 p.m.
  Sir Archibald Sinclair: First, let me express my agreement with the concluding passages of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). It is when the Government's actions have been weak and hesitating that we feel bound to criticise them but when they show strength and vigour and give us assurance of firmness in their policy, then indeed we feel called upon to support them. I would wish, in the first place, to congratulate the First Lord upon his statement to the House this afternoon and express to him our gratitude for it. It was grave and measured, and on account of those very qualities it was reassuring to Members in all parts of the House. Since the Prime Minister made his statement to the House two days ago it has been made abundantly clear that the plain, ordinary, law-abiding people all over the world are at one with us in condemning the brutal and audacious aggression of Nazi Germany against Denmark and Norway. To-day we do well to rejoice, and we shall not be alone in our rejoicing, at the castigation which the German aggressor is receiving at the hands of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. We deeply regret the loss of gallant lives, and our sympathy goes out to those who mourn them, but we are proud and grateful for
  754
  the courage, fighting spirit, and skill in action which have been so brilliantly displayed by officers and men of all ranks of the Royal Navy and of the Royal Air Force.
  Let us welcome, too, our new Ally in the defence of the common cause of civilised Europe—our Norwegian Ally. Their spirit is shown in the achievements of the brave Norse gunners in the forts of Christians and and Oslo Fjord and the admiration we all feel for the people of Norway on account of their mastery of the arts of peace and civilisation is deepened by the firmness with which they have met the onslaught of invasion by an enemy of overwhelming strength and by the coolness of their gunners, who, cut off from their base, surrounded by the enemy, and attacked by some of the most powerful units of the German fleet, fought back until they sank the German ships.
  Now there rests on the Government the heavy responsibility of ensuring that help is sent in time and in sufficient force to be effective. The German strategy may well prove to have been audacious to the point of recklessness. In a Debate on Finland the other day I referred to the impression made by many recent events on the minds of neutrals that while the Germans are evil, they are swift, terrible and efficient, and that while we are good, we are slow, vacillating, and ineffective. Now is the time, by prompt and vigorous action, to efface that impression once and for all.
  I would ask the House to consider for one moment what will be the effect on public opinion of the impact of these events. There are two possible and opposite dangers, the danger of defeatism and war-weariness on the one hand and the danger of over-confidence and complacency on the other. I have never hidden from the House that in my opinion the second danger is infinitely greater than the first. I do not believe that people yet sufficiently realise how tremendous is our task and how formidable and real are the dangers by which we are encompassed. Ministers have not sufficiently played their part—I am sorry to say this to the First Lord of the Admiralty, because he is one who has played his part, but some of his colleagues are not playing their part—in bringing these realities home

  755
  to the public. It is no service to the people of this country or to the common cause to minimise the effect of Germany's latest coup. Not only iron ore but ferromanganese molybdenum, and other products of Norway are indispensable to us for the manufacture of munitions and to sustain our industry and export trade. These operations in Norway are not a side show. Tremendous issues turn on the results of the fight during the next few days, and the public ought to know that.
  Denmark will give to Germany bacon and butter and, I see it stated in the newspapers this morning, nearly 250,000 tons of oil. I am sure it must have passed through the minds of many hon. Members who read that statement that it was an astonishing risk to run to allow this vast stock of oil to accumulate in the country of so small and weak a neutral neighbour of Germany as Denmark. Now it may be quite true—in the long run I think it will prove to be true—that the occupation of Denmark will on balance be a positive disadvantage to Germany from the economic standpoint although the strategic advantage is indisputable. On the other hand, it is certainly going to be very inconvenient for us, and in these circumstances to tell the public that all will go on as before and that we can draw from Canada, New Zealand, and the Balkans as much bacon and butter as we used to receive from Denmark and that we can eat just as much of everything as before must be the wrong policy. Surely it would be much better to tell the public that the loss of Danish supplies means that we must make greater sacrifices and cut down our rations still further. To import the same quantities from Canada and New Zealand would be a misuse of our limited resources of shipping. His Majesty's Government ought now to think out afresh what rations we can afford and adapt the policies of the Ministries of Agriculture and Food accordingly. It ought to be done promptly before the plans of the Ministry of Agriculture for next year are settled.
  I would say, Do not prophesy smooth things to the people. Keep a firm grip on reality. Tell them the truth, however hard it is, for it will only stiffen their determination to see this thing through to the end. Indeed, the tremendous and dramatic events off the coast of Norway
  756
  are only the prelude to events which will be still more formidable and decisive. We cannot rule out the possibility that the attack on Norway is only a feint and that when our attention is distracted there the main German blow will fall elsewhere. Already the newspapers are warning us to watch German troop movements on the frontiers of the Balkans. I hope that His Majesty's Government will not allow their attention to be distracted from the Western Front, which is and will continue to be the main, if not necessarily the most active, theatre of the war. Here again I should have thought that it would have been a good plan to lift a corner of the veil and give the public some idea of the colossal forces and the immense stores of war material of which Germany disposes on the frontiers of Holland, Belgium, and France. When I hear responsible Ministers and public servants saying that Hitler has "missed the bus"and that we have turned the corner, I am not impressed. I would far rather listen to an intelligent appreciation of the enemy's formidable strength and to assurances, as definite and precise as in the public interest they can be made, that we are doing our utmost to match it. The people of this country have a well-founded faith in the power of France and Britain to win the war. They know that we must win the war if we are to save not only Europe but Britain itself from destruction, and to that end there is no sacrifice they are not prepared to make.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. Benjamin Smith: I would not have risen on this occasion except that during the opening chapters of the First Lord's remarks I, perhaps in a moment of youthful ebullience, used the word "Rot."The right hon. Gentleman heard it. It was concerning a statement which the right hon. Gentleman made to the effect that many people were asking what the Navy was doing. I say that for anybody outside the Navy and the responsibility of action to ask that question is impertinence, and I characterised the statement that people are asking it by the word "Rot," because I believe, with the rest of my countrymen, that the Navy is sound, loyal and efficient and will carry out to the letter any orders that are given and everything that is expected of it.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: I would not have risen but for a feeling I have that there is a growing impatience in the House with any Member of Parliament who may ask questions which one or two people think ought not to be asked. I listened carefully to the First Lord, and I felt that he was replying to something that had taken place previously in the House. When the Prime Minister made his statement giving the House up-to-date facts as far as he could, certain questions were asked by hon. Members. I hope that the representatives of the Government and my right hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench will realise that some Members, at least, believe that having been returned here they have a right to ask questions if they do so with a full sense of responsibility. Therefore, if the First Lord's speech to-day was generally a reply to questions that have been asked by Members about the Navy and the Armed Forces, I trust that we will remember that no one was more assiduous in asking questions about the Service Departments than the First Lord himself before he took office. As a consequence of his advice given in the House, and always listened to with the greatest respect, and as a consequence of the many parts he has played in Service Debates, the First Lord is now in an important position in the drive for the successful termination of the war. When I listened to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench saying that he was prepared to wait two, three or more days in order to obtain satisfactory information, I would ask him to remember the humble position which many back benchers occupy. We are not in close touch with the Departments, and we are not invited to various centres in the theatres of war. If, therefore, we ask questions, I trust that both my right hon. Friend and the Government will recognise that they are asked with a keen desire to obtain the greatest and most effective efficiency within the Forces in order to destroy the German menace.
  Mr. Alexander: I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the passage to which he referred. I was dealing with rumours, and I said that I would much rather wait two or three days for the truth than be led away by the kind of rumours we have seen in the Press.
  Mr. Davidson: I would point out to my right hon. Friend that the questions we asked arose from rumours, and those questions were treated by Members on the back bench above the Gangway, who previously were greater friends to Germany than we have ever been, with great impatience.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: I should like to take this opportunity to say a word by way of explanation of certain remarks I made the other day. I want to make it clear that no one has a more profound admiration for the Navy and for the work it is doing and greater pride in it than I have, and I would be the last to criticise the men who are facing danger every day and every night. The only criticism I would ever make—some time, but not to-day—would be the control exercised by the War Cabinet in the use of the Navy. It might well be argued that it would have been better to lay the mines a month or so ago. That would be a legitimate line of argument, and that was what I had in mind. Everybody in the House and the country was puzzled about the position, and I am delighted to-day that my right hon. Friend the First Lord was able to give such up-to-date, satisfactory and hopeful accounts of the gallant efforts of our Navy at sea.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby:Even when operations are going on I do not think any harm is done, if hon. Members exercise a due sense of responsibility, if on an occasion of this kind one or two hon. Members express their views. I gather that there is a feeling in the House that nobody ought to be allowed to speak. I want to say only two things. In spite of what the FirstLord said, I still think that the methods by which the news was given out yesterday, and particularly to the B.B.C., was disastrous. I listened to the one o'clock news yesterday, and what did we hear? We heard about two destroyers being sunk. Then we waited to hear the next news. That consisted of the displacements and guns of the two boats, but not a word about any other operation. The next we heard was that our force had been withdrawn. What was the final observation? It was that the next-of-kin of those killed would be informed by telegram at the earliest possible opportunity.

  759
  On that the radio closed down. Nobody can tell me that that is the way bulletins should be issued; it was given undiluted and left at that, and, as it turned out, it was untrue. It only spread in every quarter alarm and despondency which proved to be totally unnecessary.
  There is the other side of the picture as well. During the last 24 hours the public through the newspapers and the radio have been deluged with stories that Narvik, Bergen and Trondheim have been occupied by British troops. Even to the most amateur strategist it would appear to have been impossible to have achieved that in so short a time. I suggest that the Government ought to take some steps to secure that rumours of this kind, which naturally lift up hopes unjustifiably in the minds of the public—which will be a little dashed by the First Lord's statement this afternoon—should not be broadcast without at least a warning or a denial from the British Government. It is not necessary in these times to raise or to dash the hopes of the people, and both these things have been done during the last 48 hours.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: I want to endorse what the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has said. I listened to the wireless at seven and eight o'clock yesterday morning, and the impression made on my mind was that the Norwegian Government were engaged in negotiations with Germany with a view to not putting up a fight, that the negotiations had been going on all night, and that there was a meeting in the early hours of the morning. The impression that I got—and my neighbours got it too—was that Norway was to be in the same position as Denmark and would not put up a fight. The Government ought to do something to try and prevent these incorrect impressions from being given in the news. We want to get all the information we can, but it ought not to be information which gives a wrong impression to the public. A vast multitude of people listen in at seven and eight o'clock in the morning while they are getting ready to go to work, and I think that more than anything else the news yesterday morning was responsible for the feeling of depression among the public.
  5.29 p.m.
  Viscountess Astor: I want to make a protest against the appalling news that went out yesterday. One has only to know a Service town to realise the dreadful effect on it of the news we have been getting from the B.B.C. I want to put this to the Prime Minister. Nobody knows what is going on in the Ministry of Information. Is the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the news that goes to the papers? That Ministry has had a bad record and it has been one long line of calamity. The first person appointed was not, some of us thought, closely enough in touch with public opinion, but one could not say a word in criticism, because that was regarded as disloyal. Everybody knows that now we have a good Minister of Information, but has he got the power? If he has not got the requisite power, surely he ought to have it. What went on yesterday and even this morning has filled the whole country with gloom, and people are really beginning to lose confidence in the Government on that point—and on many other points, but on that point in particular; not because they distrust the Prime Minister, but because they feel that he is not a wise selector of men.
  I am one of those who criticise the Prime Minister to his face and not behind his back. Sometimes I feel it would be almost better politically to talk against Ministers behind their backs rather than just to say, "Yes, yes" to their faces, but I cannot join that group, dead or alive. What I would ask the Prime Minister to remember is that the people mistrust the papers but do not mistrust the B.B.C. They say, "We cannot tell what is going on from the papers, because they may be wrong," but the B.B.C. is gospel to them at this time. Therefore, I feel there ought to be some co-ordination between the Ministry of Information and the B.B.C. There ought to be one person in control. I beg the Prime Minister to believe that we who criticise are criticising because we want to help, and we do not feel it is of any help to get up and say, "Hear, hear." Our job as Members of Parliament and as citizens is to do what is disagreeable if it will help the country—no matter how disagreeable it may be. I am tired of people saying, "You must not hurt anybody's feelings." In war-time we should have no feelings about persons, it is prin-

  761
  ciples which matter. We want the best person for the job.
  One of the tragic things about being a Prime Minister is that you have to do very disagreeable things, because if you do not do them you will never win the war. You have to get rid of your "duds," whether they are your dearest friends or not. I do not envy a man in that position, but we have to remember what happened in the last war in the case of the Asquith Government. It was not very pleasant to do some of the things which had to be done then, but it was realised that unless there were changes we should not win the war. We do not want a change of Government, but we do want to feel that when there is a sweep there will be a clean sweep, that it will not be a case of shuffling Ministers round, what you call "musical chairs." Particularly during the war, if there is a Minister who has not been a great success, why give him another job? That is what I do not understand. I can understand it in peace-time, because the party has to be kept together, but in war what the country wants is the best man for the job. People do not mind to what party he belongs.
  I hope the Prime Minister will realise that, great as is the confidence we have in him, we feel that the case of the Ministry of Information alone is enough to make him see that there is something in this question of the selection of Ministers. Things must not go out as they did yesterday. Hon. Members should have seen these mothers of sailors as I saw them yesterday to realise that this putting out of bad news, false news, is criminal, really criminal in war-time. It has happened too often. I beg the House to urge upon the Prime Minister to see that there is one person in charge, that that one person has real responsibility, and that there is not someone else tucked away in another part of the country, as I know, who is not responsible to the House, but is putting out a good deal of information which is going to Germany, which is perfectly useless. I am told that our leaflets are worse than useless, that they have done more harm than good. That is what the experts say who come back from Germany. I have not found a single person who thought our leaflets were any good, and I wonder how much we are paying for them, and I wonder whether the man responsible
  762
  for them is under the Ministry of Information or is under the Foreign Office. We in the House of Commons know very little about it. We do not want to know everything, but if there is a certain branch of the Ministry of Information which has been a crashing failure we ought to know a little more about it, and if the person concerned is to blame we should get rid of him.
  5.35 p.m.
  Miss Rathbone: Until a few minutes ago I had not the slightest intention of rising, and I do so only because I feel that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) has struck a note which needed to be struck, and which could perhaps be best struck by those who are not personally concerned. I want to say how much many of us feel the danger that changes in the Ministry are influenced too much by the likes and dislikes of the Prime Minister. It is very difficult for anyone who is conceivably an aspirant for office to say that kind of thing, and therefore it is left to those like myself who cannot possibly be regarded as seeking office. I sometimes wonder whether the Prime Minister realises how often among those who are his personal admirers there is the complete conviction that appointments to the Ministry are too much influenced by his personal dislikes and likes and by his determination—and a very large share in this is attributed to the Chief Whip—not to allow anyone to come into the Ministry who has ever opposed or criticised, especially on the question of the Munich Pact.
  I ask hon. Members who resent hearing that kind of thing to ask themselves this question. Suppose that a year ago any of their constituents had asked them to make a list of those who are the coming men in the Conservative party, the coming young men, the men who have shown energy, courage, initiative originality of thought, and distinction in expression. Suppose anyone had made such a list. Would there be one person in that list who has recently been put into the Ministry? I shall not mention names, because that would be invidious and for obvious reasons objectionable. I shall not say whom we would regard as supposedly weak junior members of the Government and whom we think are the abler men who might have taken

  763
  their places. Those who have taken a deep interest in international affairs and questions connected with home defence during the last few years cannot help being struck by the fact that those who have shown courage in opposition and independence of mind, who have criticised where they thought criticism was needed, even when they have done it without any suspicion of malice, and taking risks of their future career, have been blackballed. Not one of them has been put into the Ministry. I am speaking entirely of the Members of parties which support the Government. [Hon. Members: "Churchill."] Oh, of course, there are two exceptions—the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for the Dominions. Why were those exceptions made? Because the Government could not have dared not to make those two exceptions. It was because public opinion demanded it, and demanded it with such an insistent voice that it could not be ignored. That
  764
  is why I am speaking to-day and why, I suppose, the Noble Lady opposite spoke. The public has got to know of these things—the public who know that we are fighting for our lives and who know that national unity is important, but who feel that it ought not to bar out criticism and reasoned opposition when there are grounds for those things. We feel that here is something which is the canker at the root. There is a fear that the Prime Minister, and the Chief Whip, and perhaps some of his colleagues are influenced by old grudges and personal affections, and do not obey that prayer which we make every day to be delivered from all private interests, prejudices and partial affections.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes before Six o'Clock, until Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

EDUCATION.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES'EXPENDITURE).
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES'EXPENDITURE).
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
  MENTAL HOSPITALS (RAMPTON AND MOSS SIDE).
  MENTAL HOSPITALS (RAMPTON AND MOSS SIDE).
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  BUILDING INDUSTRY (ARCHITECTS AND SURVEYORS).
  BUILDING INDUSTRY (ARCHITECTS AND SURVEYORS).
  STANDARD FINES.
  STANDARD FINES.
  ENEMY DEBTS (REGISTER).
  ENEMY DEBTS (REGISTER).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  MEDICAL BOARDS.
  MEDICAL BOARDS.
  APPLICATIONS FOR POSTPONEMENT.
  APPLICATIONS FOR POSTPONEMENT.
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  LONG DISTANCE RAILWAY TRANSPORT.
  LONG DISTANCE RAILWAY TRANSPORT.
  FUEL CONTROL (STAFFS).
  FUEL CONTROL (STAFFS).
  EXCHANGE CONTROL.
  EXCHANGE CONTROL.
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
  CIVIL SERVICE (WAGES).
  CIVIL SERVICE (WAGES).
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  ALUMINIUM OXIDE (PRODUCTION PROCESSES).
  ALUMINIUM OXIDE (PRODUCTION PROCESSES).
  SALVAGE COLLECTION (SCOTLAND).
  SALVAGE COLLECTION (SCOTLAND).
  JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.
  JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.
  "PEACE NEWS" (RAILWAY BOOKSTALLS).
  "PEACE NEWS" (RAILWAY BOOKSTALLS).
  CIVIL DEFENCE (REGIONAL OFFICER, CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).
  CIVIL DEFENCE (REGIONAL OFFICER, CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).
  PETROL RATIONING (PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES).
  PETROL RATIONING (PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES).
  AFFORESTATION (NURSERY STOCKS).
  AFFORESTATION (NURSERY STOCKS).
AGRICULTURE.
  SUGAR BEET.
  SUGAR BEET.
  LABOUR TRAINING SCHEMES (WALES).
  LABOUR TRAINING SCHEMES (WALES).
  MOORLAND GRAZING.
  MOORLAND GRAZING.
  LIVESTOCK IMPROVEMENT SCHEME.
  LIVESTOCK IMPROVEMENT SCHEME.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BUTTER (PRICE).
  BUTTER (PRICE).
  IMPORT LICENCES.
  IMPORT LICENCES.

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Shuttleworth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

STAFFORDSHIRE AND WORCESTERSHIRE CANAL BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.
WESSEX ELECTRICITY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.

NORTH SEA NAVAL AND AIR ACTIONS.
4.3 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House if His Majesty's Government have any further statement to make about the naval action in the North Sea.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I have here a statement compiled on a rough diary basis which I have no doubt the House will like to hear. I am afraid the information is in a somewhat disjointed form, but your Lordships will, I know, readily understand that as the naval action is still in progress that is under present conditions unavoidable. The First Lord of the Admiralty is at this moment making a statement in another place and if any item of news comes out in the course of that which is not included in the statement I am now making I hope to be in a position to give it to your Lordships before we adjourn.
On Sunday, April 7, early in the morning, a reconnaissance aircraft of the R.A.F. sighted a large enemy unit twenty miles north of Heligoland. As a result of further air reconnaissance an enemy force of cruisers and destroyers was located to the west of Horns Reef and a strong bomber force was dispatched to attack.
84
This force located an enemy group consisting of a battle cruiser, cruisers and destroyers. An attack was carried out but no hits were observed. During this action an engagement with enemy fighters took place as a result of which one enemy fighter was destroyed and other losses are believed to have been inflicted. As previously announced, two bombers failed to return. Naval forces which were at sea during the day in the northern part of the North Sea saw no sign of the enemy, but reinforcements sailed immediately on receipt of the above information and suitable submarine dispositions were made. These reinforcements included units of the French and Polish Navies.
On Monday, the 8th, the minelaying operation previously planned was successfully carried out in the early morning of that day off the coast of Norway as has already been announced. Reports received indicated that a strong enemy force was leaving the Baltic and naval and air dispositions were adjusted accordingly. In the early morning His Majesty's ship "Glowworm" encountered two enemy destroyers about one hundred miles from the Norwegian coast and at once engaged. She subsequently reported sighting an unknown and more powerful enemy vessel. No further reports have been received from His Majesty's ship "Glowworm" and her loss must be presumed. Constant air reconnaissance was carried out from earlydawn—that is still on Monday—over the North Sea and in the early afternoon a Sunderland flying boat encountered a force consisting of an enemy capital ship, cruisers and destroyers. Weather conditions for a time were exceptionally bad and contact was made at very short range. The flying boat came under heavy fire but, although damaged, was able to return to her base.
A bomber force, which was sent out to search the Heligoland Bight for any enemy ships that might have been returning towards their bases, during the night located and attacked a number of enemy patrol vessels. During that afternoon—that is to say, Monday—submarine forces to the south of Norway reported considerable movements by enemy forces and merchant vessels. Our submarines were hampered by the extremely low visibility and in consequence it was not possible to deliver attacks. But as

85
result of these reports further submarine dispositions were made and the main forces which were at sea moved to locate the enemy. During the evening, as has been previously announced, enemy bombers delivered an abortive attack on Scapa Flow in which five enemy bombers, in all, it is now believed were destroyed. It is confirmed that we sustained no damage during this raid.
On Tuesday, April 9, at dawn, one of our battle cruisers sighted two enemy warships—a battle cruiser and a heavy cruiser—in the Northern part of the area of operations. She gave chase at once through squalls of snow and a full gale. After a few minutes intense action one of the enemy ceased fire, and when she reopened it was evident that her fire control system had been put out of action and soon a vertical column of smoke arose from the enemy battle cruiser which turned right away and made off at high speed. The Nazi heavy cruiser busied herself in throwing a smoke screen across her companion—that is to say, the battle cruiser—but she retired when our vessel opened fire, dodging our broadsides at high speed. The contending forces lost touch in a blizzard of snow. Our ships sustained unimportant damage and no casualties. As a result of air reconnaissance in the early morning—that is, Tuesday—German naval units were disclosed to be at various ports in Norway, while reconnaissance over the Heligoland Bight failed to reveal the presence of any German ships. During these reconnaissances opposition from enemy aircraft was encountered as a result of which one of our aircraft failed to return whilst a number of enemy aircraft were damaged.
Units of the Home Fleet, while continuing their search for enemy capital ships, were attacked by enemy bombers in the afternoon. Earlier information was to the effect that superficial damage was inflicted on two cruisers and this was immediately announced. It is now learned that a heavy ship was hit by one bomb and sustained slight damage and three officers and seven ratings were injured. A third cruiser was also slightly damaged, one rating being killed and four injured. All four ships concerned are still operating with full efficiency. Further attacks by enemy bombers resulted in the loss of His Majesty's ship "Gurkha." The crew were picked up with the exception of
86
fifteen who are missing. Acting on the earlier reports aircraft of Bomber Command attacked two enemy cruisers lying off Bergen. Two direct hits with heavy bombs were obtained inflicting severe damage. All our aircraft returned safely. A further notable success was secured by the sinking of an enemy cruiser by a British submarine south of Norway, as already announced.
No further information is as yet available on the other achievements of our submarines, but there is good reason to believe that they have been both active and successful. A British destroyer sighted a U-boat on the surface and at once attacked. The enemy submerged and was destroyed by depth charges. The attack which was made in the morning on enemy destroyers in Narvik was described to your Lordships yesterday. No further details are at present available. Dive bombers of the Fleet Air Arm reconnoitred Bergen Fjord at dawn and observed only one enemy cruiser. She was at once attacked and three direct hits with heavy bombs were obtained. Reconnaissance during the afternoon reports that this cruiser was sunk. Later in the day a German bomber was shot down by aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm.
4.11 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Snell has asked me to make a few comments, and they will be very few, on behalf of my noble friend, because obviously when operations are actually in progress they cannot be usefully discussed, but I have pleasure in thanking the noble Earl for giving us the account which is obviously as full as can properly be given to your Lordships at the present time. Perhaps I might be allowed to make these observations of a very general character. The first is that from what has happened in the last seven months we can have complete confidence in both the British and the French Navies. From what I have heard also I understand that the Polish destroyers operating with our Fleet and other units will also give a good account of themselves if they have an opportunity. There have been a great many rumours and reports in the last few days and my noble friends and my right honourable and honourable friends in another place think it necessary to express the hope that the Government will advise the public not to jump to hasty conclusions until the full facts

87
are known. In the months in front of us, when apparently large scale operations of various kinds may be expected, there is need of fortitude and in that we are quite sure that the British people will not be lacking.
I also want on behalf of my noble friends and my Party, and I am sure of all your Lordships, to praise the gallantry of the Norwegian people, and to express our sympathy for them and their Monarch in their conduct of affairs in face of a treacherous and unprovoked assault. I noticed that the Foreign Secretary, at some public meeting yesterday, had some weighty words to say about neutrals and their duties and responsibilities at the present time. I see that his words have been re-echoed very quickly by one of the most important of the neutrals—namely, the Turks. In the 12 o'clock news broadcast to-day, it was stated that the Turks had drawn a lesson from the events of these last few days and that lesson is this: that there are now only two courses open to the neutrals of Europe: the one is to side with the Allies and the other is to prepare to suffer the fate of Germany's other victims.
There is one other matter that I think it would be useful just to mention, because, if what I am going to say has any foundation, it is a matter that the Government can begin to put right at once. It does not directly concern the Navy. We have a feeling, and it has been in existence for some time, that the Government's sources of information and intelligence services need improvement. My noble friend Lord Snell mentioned this matter many months ago when the Government were apparently taken by surprise at the conclusion of the Russo-German Pact, or Agreement. I do not want to particularise, obviously, but our sources of information do not seem to be quite as complete as they might be. I am sure the Government are also conscious of this, and I only repeat it because it is very widely discussed among people who are not irresponsible but who have naturally not the same sources of information as the Government themselves and yet are uneasy. The only other comment I would venture to make is that whatever happens in this vast operation which is proceeding now, speaking for myself I am quite confident that the old lesson of sea power is about to be
88
re-taught and that before very long Herr Hitler and his advisers will be sorry they decided to go north.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
SOCIETIES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

SERVICE ALLOWANCES FOR DEPENDANTS.
4.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW THE EARL OF GLASGOW rose to move to resolve, That this House, whilst recognising the just claims of all persons in need of assistance, protests against the action of the Government in recognising illicit liaisons by giving equal allowances to unmarried dependants and wives of soldiers, sailors and airmen and, further, considers that the words defining a given period of six months for cohabitation of unmarried dependants which comes immediately after the word "basis" in Clause 8, Section D, of the Royal Warrant of September 16, 1939, are unnecessary and dangerous to the moral welfare of the nation and should be left out.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on September 16, 1939, a special Army Order by Royal Warrant was issued making Regulations for allowances for dependants of soldiers in time of national emergency. Clause 2, paragraph (2), of the Schedule states that among the dependants to receive allowances is an "unmarried wife." The title is now changed to "unmarried dependant." A woman who has lived with a soldier as his wife may receive an allowance on condition that she has been wholly or substantially maintained by him on a permanent bona-fide domestic basis for a continuous period of not less than six months immediately before the date of his joining the Colours. May I remind your Lordships that equal allowances are being paid to wives and to mistresses and that the procedure for granting those allowances is the same in each case? I do not mind that so much, but I object

89
to the procedure for the granting of the allowances being the same. No distinction is made between mistresses and wives, and in fact mistresses are raised to the level of wives. I shall be told, of course, that this is merely a continuance from the last war; but that is not strictly so, as I propose to show your Lordships. Even if it were, two wrongs do not make a right.
There is a certain country which has been engaged recently in shameful and unjustifiable aggression, which will receive the news of this action by the Government of a great Christian country with the greatest satisfaction. One of the objects of the leaders of Russia is to destroy family life throughout the world. They will naturally be delighted to know that the British Government have passed an official law which recognises illicit relations and which tends, however unwittingly, to undermine the morality of the people of this country. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated recently in another place that we were fighting to keep all that was best in civilisation. That is what he stated, and that is what we all hope and believe. What are we to think, then, when in the same place on October 17 it was announced that equal grants and allowances to those given to married women were to be granted to mistresses who cohabit with soldiers six months before they join, and that the method of granting these allowances was not to be distinct and different from the method of granting them to lawful wives? That is an insult to lawful wives, besides going against Christian principle. It is also an encouragement to young men to take mistresses six months before going into the Army. If concubines are to be on the same level as wives, then this orientalism is the beginning of the end. What is the use of the best and highest types of our young men going out and fighting for Great Britain if Great Britain herself has become so immoral—officially—that she ceases to be the Great Britain of Christianity and of civilisation? There can be no neutrality, nor should there be, in my opinion, any tolerance, in this struggle between good and evil.
In moving this Resolution I am conscious that there are many members of your Lordships' House who are much better fitted to take on such a task than myself. I am not a moralist, nor, I hope,
90
am I a Pharisee; I am just a lay member of the public who takes this matter up because I believe that from the moral and religious point of view it is a danger to our people. Everyone knows that a country which becomes unmoral or immoral becomes decadent. Further, I do not desire in any way to lecture any men or women as to how they should live their lives, and I think it is only right now to say that I had no inclination or wish to move this Resolution. A Motion of this importance should have been brought forward in your Lordships' House by someone who is better known in England than I am. I asked, indeed I implored, more than one member of your Lordships' House to take on this task, but with no success. I think that some consider, perhaps, that the public take no interest in this aspect of dependants' allowances, that there is apathy on the matter. I do not believe it for a moment. There may be ignorance, and in fact I know that there is ignorance; but when wives and mothers know of this slight which has been put upon them there will be no apathy, there will be resentment.
This provision passed through another place in the Army Estimates. It was mixed up with other dependants' allowances and did not have a fair discussion. Naturally members in another place were eager to put their points of view on other parts of the question of dependants' allowances, and this matter was not properly discussed. I do not say that it was not discussed; it was discussed, but not sufficiently. If I may say so, what should have been done was that the Government should have put this particular aspect of dependants' allowances separately at the end of the Bill so that it could have been discussed separately. What I object to is that the Government have officially placed mistresses on an equality with wives. I believe that the Government should take some action—we all believe that—but I think that they have taken action in the wrong way. I should like to make it absolutely plain that in proposing this Resolution I have not the slightest intention of denying the just and rightful claims of anyone who has been placed in a precarious position by the present circumstances. So far from that being the case, I fully realise that some provision should be made for unmarried dependants, but I am moved

91
to make this protest because I think that the methods that the Government have seen fit to adopt are subversive of morality and of family life.
Of course there are hard cases. There is the case of the man whose wife has left him and who has taken up with a girl who acts as housekeeper and as mother of the children, if there are any—perhaps the children have been left with him—and perhaps as his mistress. That woman, if she has been living with him for some time, should be looked after. I am told on good authority that when a wife leaves her husband, he will as a rule let her go, and sue for a divorce, but that when a husband leaves the wife she will not sue for a divorce, on the ground that "If I cannot have him for a husband, no other woman shall." There are also many people who object to divorce in any circumstances. Experience shows that the greater number of irregular marriages are due to the husband deserting the wife, and when that happens it is not always easy to get the husband to give the wife her proper allowance. I have in my hand an extract from a newspaper of April 4 which bears out that point. It says:
"When James Albert Blank, an unemployed labourer, of Blank, Middlesex, was summoned by his wife, at West London for £3 4s. maintenance arrears, it was stated that he received £2 13s. 6d. a week unemployment assistance for his mistress, himself and seven children. Ordering a week's remand the magistrate remarked that it was another case where the wife got nothing."
It is going on all over the country to-day, and it shows that it is true to say that a woman living with a soldier may be usurping the rights of a lawful wife.
The case which I have quoted related to an unemployed man and not to a man in the Services, but such cases happen in the case of Service men as well, and in such cases the woman should be considered after the wife. Of course, she may be simply the permanent paramour of an unmarried soldier. In this case, if there are children, they must be considered, and therefore either the mothers and children must be treated as other unmarried mothers with children are, which is impracticable in war-time, or they must be financially helped, as is the case with a properly married woman.
I admit that the question before the Government was not an easy one. By
92
taking the man for a soldier, the State prevents him from discharging the obligations which his relation to the woman, unlawful and illegal as it may be, impose upon him; and therefore some provision for the woman is necessary and just and for the children absolutely necessary. I may be corrected, but it seems to me that the problem before the Government is to prevent hardship to the women and children of unmarried men and yet not to give public countenance to illicit unions by placing them on the same level as honest marriages. The Government have solved the problem by preventing hardship, but they have not, apparently, taken the moral question into consideration. What is wanted—and I believe that here I speak for the wives of Great Britain—is that the legitimate wife and children should be put into a category distinct from that of the unmarried woman. The unmarried women and their children should be dealt with by local authorities, in the same way as girls who have lapses, and the Central Government should supplement the local grant. In other words, wives and lawful children should remain directly dependent on the Central Government, and the Central Government should give the local authorities the power and the means to deal with the unmarried mothers and their children.
It may be said that that is the same thing, since the Central Government would be directly assisting the local authorities. It is not the same thing; there is a great difference, which would be appreciated by wives all through the country. We may be told that it is not desirable to hurt the feelings of or confer a stigma on these persons, but the action of the Government has hurt the feelings of all wives who remain faithful to their husbands in difficult circumstances. In all civilised countries, the position of a wife has been held in honour. The Government, by officially recognising mistresses, are lowering the position of wives and undermining the fabric of family life.
Then there is another question, the question of pensions. If a soldier is killed who has both a wife and a mistress, I understand that they are both to get pensions. I believe that the Minister for War said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had "come to the rescue." To the rescue of whom? Not of the taxpayers! What it means, I understand, is that both the wife and the mistress are

93
to get pensions, and I should like to ask the noble Viscount who replies to tell me whether that is true or not. If it is true, it seems to me to be iniquitous that the taxpayers should be asked to pay pensions for the mistress and the wife—a double pension.
Perhaps some British wives will thank the most reverend Primate for being instrumental in getting an alteration made in the definition of an "unmarried wife"; but I do not think the majority will be satisfied. The word "wife" is still profaned. There is not much difference between "unmarried wife" and "unmarried dependant living as a wife," which is now the title. This is merely glossing over a situation the truth of which is patent to all. I am perfectly sure the most reverend Primate did his best for the Government, but I do blame the Government for not finding some more just title for these persons. Now how have the Government—I am not sure whether it the War Minister or the Minister of Pensions—approached this matter with the help of their Advisory Committee? I wonder how many of your Lordships have read the debates in another place on this aspect of dependants' allowances. They were entirely materialistic. I know it is not in order to quote in this House the speeches made in another place, but there is nothing to prevent me from generalising. Some of those who were for the Royal Warrant objected to any moralising, and it was obvious that certain lady members who, one feels instinctively, had the moral aspect very much at heart, were with one exception overborne by the general atmosphere. If anyone ever had a right to refer to the moral aspects of a question this is surely such an occasion. After reading those debates one cannot help feeling that the decisions come to were hard-headed material decisions, and that certain aspects and repercussions with regard to allowances to unmarried dependants were not allowed to influence those decisions. I suggest that the Government took carefully into consideration the humanitarian and probably the political point of view, but did not sufficiently take into consideration the moral aspect, which should have taken precedence over the other two.
Now I come to the second part of the Motion on the Paper referring to the six-months period. The old Warrant, which
94
dates from 1919, stated that a woman would receive an allowance if she could prove that she had been maintained by the soldier on a permanent bona-fide domestic basis. In the new Warrant issued last September the following words were added: "continuously for a period of six months before his joining the Colours." This addition is in my opinion entirely unnecessary and undesirable. It may be said, and probably will be said, that if there were no time limit young men might be tempted to take mistresses inside the six-months limit. Surely we can trust the Pensions Committee to make quite sure in their wisdom that the couple had lived together on a permanent bona-fide domestic basis. Supposing they decide even to go under the six-months limit—supposing they decide that the couple could have the allowance if they had lived together for, say, five months: I would much rather that happened than that the Government should make the mistake which they have made, and put in a time limit.
Making the six-months limit is an official call to young men to take mistresses six months before they join the Army. Not only that—and this is more important, because there are a great many of such cases—it is a call to unprincipled young women to tempt lads for their own pecuniary benefit. It is an official call, however unwittingly made, to immorality. If there had to be any limit at all, why should not it be twelve months? But personally I am against all limits. To fix a period of six months, or any form of words indicating a length of time, is entirely unnecessary and dangerous. It strengthens my conviction that the Ministers responsible and the Advisory Committee did not take the moral aspects of this question sufficiently into consideration.
I now refer your Lordships to history. You will remember that Lord Nelson when dying from wounds asked for some pension to be made to Lady Hamilton. He based his request on her supposed political services. Sir William Hamilton had himself recommended her to Nelson for those services, and she was a patriotic and in some ways an able and generous woman; but the Government of early nineteenth century England allowed her to drag out a miserable existence in extreme poverty because, they said, it would be wrong to countenance a woman.

95
of her antecedents. The Cabinet's arguments were that to give her any financial help would be to put a premium on illicit relations. It is a sign of the changed times when the present Government, far from being shocked at illicit relations, in fact invite them and make them a possible means of livelihood to unprincipled women. I do not say that all these women are unprincipled and bad women, but my statement remains true nevertheless.
It may be said—and I have no doubt some of your Lordships are thinking now—"Why bring this up in your Lordships' House? We ought to be going on with the war, it is only a distraction from the war." But this has to do with the war. Do we want to become like Germany or her anti-Christian ally Russia? We are engaged in a struggle between countries on the one side professing Christian principles and, on the other, a Government which does not. We are fighting against the powers of wickedness. We are not only fighting for our own security and freedom and for the security and freedom of small countries but, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a crusade against the forces of evil. It is reported now that no longer in Germany is there any stigma or slur on unmarried girls, even down to the age of fifteen, having babies. The pagan hierarchy of Nazi Germany are pleased if they have babies. As for Russia marriage is a farce there, immorality is rampant and family life is practically destroyed. We do not intend to have that sort of thing in this country. I therefore ask your Lordships to see this protest through and show the country that this House does not agree to a measure which may have a very serious effect on the morality of the nation. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House, whilst recognising the just claims of all persons in need of assistance, protests against the action of the Government in recognising illicit liaisons by giving equal allowances to unmarried dependants and wives of soldiers, sailors and airmen and, further, considers that the words defining a given period of six months for cohabitation of unmarried dependants which comes immediately after the word "basis" in Clause 8, Section D of the Royal Warrant of September 16, 1939,
96
are unnecessary and dangerous to the moral welfare of the nation and should be left out.—(The Earl of Glasgow.)
4.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say a word in support of the Motion of my noble friend, and to thank him for having put it on the Paper. This is a difficult and complicated subject. How on earth any Government could invent an expression like "unmarried wives" I cannot conceive. The present Government are not responsible for having done so originally. This goes back a very long time, and no blame can justly be attached to the Government of to-day for having originated it. At the same time, they seem to have acquiesced somewhat kindly in its continuance. The most reverend Primate came to their assistance the other day and suggested a modification of the term, and it now stands as "unmarried dependant living as a wife" I do not think the most reverend Primate himself is altogether happy about that description, and I cannot help thinking that if the Secretary of State would allow a few of those interested in this question to consult with his officials possibly some further alternative expression might be arrived at.
As my noble friend has said, his Motion rules out those who have claims on public funds owing to the special and peculiar conditions of war, and they are to be entitled to proper consideration. But surely I submit we should not jumble up concubines and respectable married women and be told there is no difference between them. As my noble friend has already said, it is a direct insult to the respectable married women of this country, and as it has become further known, there is a growing feeling against it. The official recognition of concubines attacks the principle of family and home life about which we have been hearing a good deal lately. It is an incentive to immorality; it is a temptation to young girls to secure public money. The real problem is to do justice and prevent misery to women and children, and at the same time not to countenance illicit unions by placing them on a level with honest marriages. No doubt there are many now leading lives of illicit connection who, in other respects, are perfectly

97
respectable members of society, but unfortunately there are others who cannot be so described.
All these illicit connections should be provided for in a different category. My noble friend suggested, as I understood him, the possibility of the local authorities being asked to deal with these illicit cases, leaving proper legitimate cases to be dealt with by the Central Government. I hope something of that kind may be arrived at, because really the feeling is growing very greatly, and there may be trouble about it. I tremble to think of the Prime Minister being asked to receive a deputation on this subject, though I am bound to add that the more work he has to do the better he seems to be, and the better he does it. I cannot help feeling that the Secretary of State might himself form a small committee of those interested to thrash out this question and arrive at some more satisfactory solution than exists at the present time. The public are not fully informed of the actual state of affairs. A great many think that the present Secretary of State is personally responsible for the whole thing, but he is only responsible for having allowed it to continue. He has no responsibility for the origin of it, and I hope my noble friend who is going to reply on behalf of the Government will not bar the door, but will vouchsafe the possibility of the Secretary of State going further into this matter and allowing it to receive further consideration.
4.44 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, your Lordships will probably expect me to say a few words on this delicate and painful subject. I do not propose to say much, but having been concerned with it closely since the beginning of the war, I probably know something more about the difficulties, on the one side, of public opinion, and, on the other side, of the Secretary of State than most of your Lordships. We must all agree with a great deal of what has been said so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Glasgow, and we should all deplore any steps that could be regarded as disparaging to the institution of marriage, which is, of course, the real basis of any civilised community. But the position of the women who are under discussion must
98
always be one which arouses within all of us the very greatest possible difficulty.
At the beginning of the last war, in 1914, this matter received quite exceptional consideration. At the outset of that war there seemed to have been very little care taken to make any distinction between the wives of men serving in His Majesty's Forces and women living as their wives, though not married. I suppose one of the most important Committees ever appointed sat upon this matter in the early days of the Great War. It included the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. McKenna, and all the leading members of the Government and indeed of Parliament at that time. They went very fully into the whole matter, and took an immense amount of evidence. My own revered predecessor, Archbishop Davidson, took great pains in the matter, and himself gave very long and full evidence. The Committee came to two main conclusions. One was that there must be a clear distinction made between a legal wife and an irregular woman living as a wife. As a result of that Committee's very careful consideration of the whole matter, two distinctions were laid down. The first was that whereas the legal wife would receive her allowances as a matter of right, in the case of the other woman they would only be granted after most careful, special investigation directed to establishing that, in deed and in truth, the woman was actually dependent upon the man who was serving in the Forces. The other condition laid down was that no allowance could be made to such a woman unless the soldier who was maintaining her was willing to pay an allowance to her out of his own money.
These were the main recommendations of that Committee. It cannot be said that the Government in this case acted lightly. They had the conclusions of that Committee before them. My own predecessor, who had given, as I say, immense care to the whole matter, was satisfied that if these two distinctions could be made, then he was not prepared to raise any objection to what was done. I have been in constant communication both with public opinion outside, represented by many societies, and with the Secretary of State. With regard to the title of these women, I claim no particular

99
satisfaction in having mentioned a particular title less objectionable than "unmarried wife" to the Secretary of State. I do not think much advantage would be gained by asking the Secretary of State to receive a deputation or to appoint a committee to consider an alternative title. I went through an immense number of alternative titles with him, and, for one reason or another, there seemed to be none that was really satisfactory. The title which he ultimately adopted lays it down that these women cannot be described as wives, but that they are unmarried dependants, only dependants in such reality that they have been living practically as wives with the soldiers in question.
It cannot be fairly said that no distinction is made between the legal wife and these irregular dependants, for in the first place there must be the most careful investigation as to the reality and justice of their claim to be really dependent upon the men who are serving in the Forces. I have a letter from the late Secretary of State, with whom I communicated at the beginning of the war, in which he gave me the most emphatic assurances that an allowance would not be granted from the public funds unless and until the officers dealing with the application were genuinely satisfied that the case was of the type for which we had intended to provide, and that the woman has in fact been in a relationship corresponding with that of the marital relationship, even although she has not been legally married to the man. I should like the noble Viscount, who I presume will reply on this matter, to inform us if he can as to the reality and thoroughness of this investigation made in such a case.
After the beginning of the war in 1914, I understand that investigations were made by the local pensions officers, but in this case I think some special arrangement has been made. I should like, however, to be reassured again, as I was assured by the late Secretary of State for War, that in point of fact there is in every case a most thorough and careful investigation so as to prevent the possibility of any woman claiming to have these rights as against a man, or to prevent the man having casually entered into some kind of relationship with a woman and thereby feeling it right that she should have some allowance. Then
100
again, with regard to the necessity that in this case the man must make some allowance from his own money, I think it is not very likely that a man casually or without very careful thought would enter into these relations with a woman if it meant in his case that he would be obliged to pay out a certain amount of his own money for her maintenance. Therefore I wish it to be understood that it cannot he said, as I think the noble Earl who has spoken implied, that in this case no distinction is made between a man's wife and a man's mistress. Certainly in the first respect the greatest possible difference is made.
May I come for a moment to the question of pensions? There again I do not think it can fairly be said that no distinction is made between the wife and the mistress. I think that if the warrant for the payment of pensions which I have in my hands is carefully read it will be seen that there is a very clear distinction made in the case of the legal wife because she has her pension by right and for life unless, in certain cases, she remarries. If there is both a legal wife and a mistress, the legal wife has the priority, and is entitled to her pension in any case. The mistress, if there be a legal wife, has no such right, and the legal wife has a higher rate of pension. I think it is up to 15s. 6d. a week, with allowances for children. In the case of what I shall call the mistress, she receives only a lower pension of 10s. a week, and that is dependent on whether or not she has a child of whom the soldier is the father. Moreover, the legal wife has her pension secured to her for her life, while in the case of the mistress it is only secured to her in certain conditions which may not materialise. For these reasons I do not think it can be said that there is no real distinction made between the two.
I come now for a moment to the second part of the noble Earl's Resolution, that mentioning a limit of six months. As the noble Earl knows, I have never been able to understand—perhaps it is my obtuseness—why he objects to the mention of six months. It seems to me there must be some limit laid down, otherwise we might have a man taking up with a woman a few weeks before he joins the Colours and then claiming that she was his dependant. There must be some limit, and it must be clearly laid down. Certainly no case should be considered

101
as entitling a woman to an allowance unless for at least six months she has been practically looking to the man for her maintenance and support. Therefore, for that reason alone, I should find myself unable to vote for the noble Earl's Resolution if he presses it to a Division. I find it exceedingly distasteful to me to be apparently attempting to mitigate the lot or defend the position of these irregularly allied women with men in His Majesty's Forces. Nothing could be more distasteful to me, but I think your Lordships will all agree—indeed both noble Lords who have spoken have agreed—that you cannot penalise a woman who has been genuinely dependent on a man and may have children by him because that man is serving in His Majesty's Forces. I think all your Lordships would agree that that is a case which must in all equity be met. The point of importance is the necessity that in such cases, where it is common agreement that some provision must be made for the maintenance and support of these women, it should be made quite clear that their position is not the same as that of a man's properly married wife. Profoundly as I dislike the whole business, I must in honesty say that I think the Secretary of State has secured that there is the vital distinction made between the two classes of women.
Therefore, as I have paid attention to what was said by this very important Committee in 1914, I feel that I cannot support the Resolution of the noble Earl. I think he has done a good service by bringing it forward, because I hope it will give the noble Viscount the opportunity of clearing up many points which have been perhaps misunderstood by the public outside. I would particularly ask him, if he would, to reinforce what I have said about the necessity of careful investigation in every case, and that he would make plain the difference in position with regard to the pension. If that is done, then I repeat, much as I dislike the whole business and much as I resent even appearing to be speaking on behalf of a relationship which I thoroughly deplore, I cannot support what the noble Earl has said in the words in which he has put his Resolution before your Lordships.
4.58 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, as a Party, we have no opinion on the merits of this
102
Motion. My noble friends present have asked me to say just one or two things upon one particular aspect of it. First of all, I think the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, need not apologise for having asked your Lordships to consider what is a very important matter. Our experience tells us that moral standards are very difficult to develop in the course of a nation's history and that they may very quickly be injured, if not destroyed. At the same time we have to remind ourselves that these illicit unions, however unfortunate they may be, are universal; that is to say, they exist in more or less all countries. The difficulty in the case that we are considering seems to me to be this, that the male partner, if we may so call him, is serving in His Majesty's Forces. He did not know that he was to be conscripted and compelled to leave his companion and his children and his home. He was compelled to serve in His Majesty's Forces. In all probability if serving in the Forces had been a voluntary matter he would have placed his domestic responsibilities first. That is one problem that we have to consider.
The second, which specially interests my noble friends and myself, is this, that in the discussion so far almost no attention has been given to the position of the child. It does not matter from the child's point of view how it was born. The fact is that it is there, and when the child is born it becomes England's child to the extent, that is, that England has some responsibility for it. It may happen in the course of that child's development, if it is a male child, that it will be compelled one day to fight and perhaps die in the defence of the country. It seems to us that the country cannot in the years of that child's infancy stick to the pure legal relationships in those circumstances. The noble Lord did not quite clearly tell us what in the circumstances we were to do. If I understood him aright it was that the paramour and the children of these serving soldiers should become dependent upon the public assistance committee—that the local authority might do what would be wrong for the nation to do.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Supplemented by grants, of course, from the Central Government.
LORD SNELL: My noble friends and I—this is the point which they ask me

103
to emphasize—do not like these children being pauperised, if that is the right word to use, in these circumstances. It is extremely difficult to speak upon this question because one may so easily be misunderstood. Yet I cannot help feeling that my last word must be this, that the moral life of the nation is not necessarily sustained by the strict application of legal enactments but in other ways. Better housing conditions, more security for employment, higher standards of living and other ways will probably do more to sustain the moral life than strict reliance upon these ancient traditions.
5.5 p.m.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT COBHAM): My Lords, there is none of your Lordships present or outside this House that would not very largely agree with the terms of the Motion put forward by my noble friend the Earl of Glasgow. He has put it forward on high moral grounds which no one is inclined to dispute, but what he put forward has been very largely answered by the observations that have fallen from the most reverend Primate. Leaving aside the whole question of the morality of the status of the man, it is a fact that to-day very clear emphasis is laid upon the difference in status between the official wife and the official children, if I may so call them, and the woman who is living with a man and has had children by a man, but whose union with him has not been solemnised by holy matrimony. As the most reverend Primate said, this matter has engaged the most serious attention of practically every member of His Majesty's Government, and not only since the commencement of this war. It was considered not only when the militiamen first began to be called up but also in the years 1914 and 1915, when, I would remind your Lordships, the whole of the Army, Navy and Air Force was being recruited voluntarily. The question of compulsion had not then arisen. When we were asking men to join the Forces and to fight for their country and to jeopardise their lives this matter seriously engaged the attention of the Government of the day, in order that the people normally dependent upon those men in their private lives should not suffer hardship, perhaps starvation. That is the basis upon which the War Office must regard this matter first and
104
foremost—from the point of view of the man, so that he should not have to withdraw himself for training in this country or for service with the Forces overseas constantly harassed by the idea that those with whom he has made a home are left in want and in poverty.
It is stressed in some quarters—it has been referred to by the noble Earl—that these people are necessarily immoral. On the highest standards of ethics perhaps they would be called so, but the noble Earl knows the world as well as I do and he knows that in many parts of this country this condition arises from the sheer poverty of the people. Men have married, the marriage has broken down, they want somebody to look after them and to keep their homes together. Why not get a divorce and so legalise the subsequent union? How many of these men can afford a divorce? Many of them would seek a divorce, but it is a fact that divorce is very often beyond the power of many of these people to obtain. It is also said that you are only taking up the case of men from twenty to twenty-five, and that therefore you are encouraging very young men to live a life of immorality by the course you are adopting. No, it is not only those men. Before the war started we had over 440,000 men in the Territorial Army; there was a very large number of irregulars in the Air Force and in the Navy, and also since the war started we have had over 210,000 volunteers—far greater numbers than have yet been taken up under the Compulsory Service Act. So you are dealing with a body of men who are by no means all in the younger categories. The average age of our Army at present is only just below 26 years.
The most reverend Primate has referred to the question of difference in status, and everything that fell from him, of course, was perfectly true. The normal Army Regulations make no provision whatever for payments in respect of any other persons dependent upon soldiers than their wives and legitimate children. These have a very definite claim on the public funds for family allowance; and certain other dependants are admissible under prescribed conditions. Those people have their very definite status. Then we come to this other class that are referred to in the Motion to-day; and they are brought in under special allowances and have no definite claim at all against public funds

105
until the soldier himself has chosen to allot a stated portion of his pay towards the person to whom he would wish that allotment to be made and subsequent allowances to be given. The normal procedure is that he is called up for registration, he registers himself, and a time that may be as long as three months passes before he gets a notice to report for medical examination. At that medical examination, after which it is always a month at least before he is asked to join the Colours, he is given a form upon which he is asked whether he wishes to make any allotment from his pay to his wife or any other dependant. That is done in order that in the majority of cases, where of course it is a wife who is particularly interested, time will be given for arrangements to be made so that she can begin receiving her family allowance on the day the man joins the Colours.
Arrangements are now being made—they have not been made hitherto—to deal with another most complicated subject: the deserted or separated wife. Hitherto there was no means of knowing, except later on from the wife herself, whether the man had been married. Now he is going to be called upon to state, on the paper that he is given when he is called up for medical examination, whether he is in fact married and separated from a wife. Then, of course, certain arrangements described by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his Budget statement in another place have now been established so that will get at least what she receives under any court order before the unofficial wife receives anything from her allotment. The most reverend Primate asked me a question about pensions. He stated entirely accurately the position with regard to pensions. I only ask him to excuse me elaborating upon it. It was not mentioned in the original Motion, and of course the Royal Warrant is issued by the Ministry of Pensions, so to enable me to give a detailed answer I should have had to refer to the Ministry of Pensions, which I have not had an opportunity of doing.
Then we come to the six months which forms the second portion of the Motion moved by the noble Earl. There is nothing sacrosanct about the six months; it was not put in particularly in relation to this matter. It just so happens that it is the time that is mentioned in the Ministry of Pensions Warrant in regard to pensions;
106
and also the period of six months is that which is taken for all purposes where it is necessary, in connection with the Dependants' Allowances Scheme, to assess the normal pre-enlistment position between the individuals concerned. In the last war the expression was "reasonable period"; but then of course it was understood that a reasonable period might be three months. "Reasonable period" can work both ways, but in this case six months was given as a reasonable time, and I do not think there is any particular reason for its being changed, because it is and remains just a definite minimum. In every single case, however, where, owing to the action of the man himself in making an allotment from his pay to a woman with whom he has been living, public funds are then given to that woman, a most careful investigation will be made by the authorities to satisfy themselves that the union is as genuine as any such union can be. I do not feel that I am able to say any more on that particular point at the moment. It is constantly being watched. We have, of course, received warnings of what might happen when these young men get to know the conditions and young people see their way, perhaps, to receiving public money to which otherwise they would not he entitled; and so a careful watch will be kept and every case will be investigated before any payment is made.
This is one of those deplorable matters which arose in the last war and has arisen again in this. It satisfies nobody, but it has to be dealt with, and it has to be dealt with, I claim, on the basis which I have described. We shall not fail to continue to give it every and full consideration; but in our imperfect world, to benefit the man, to enable the women and children to live, we do believe that we have adopted the best and sanest policy until we shall again be at peace.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Will the noble Viscount forgive me if I ask him to supplement his answer by telling us by whom these very necessary investigations are conducted?
VISCOUNT COBHAM: I do not think that the arrangements are yet complete; they are being made now. That reminds me, however, that I did not answer the question which was put by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, about the possibility of their being dealt with through the local

107
authorities. They cannot, of course, be dealt with by local authorities; they have to be dealt with by the Army Paymaster. It is an Army matter, not a local authority matter.
THE EARL OF STAIR: May I ask the noble Viscount one more question before he sits down? In the case of a man who deserts his wife and children and lives with another woman, and who then joins up and makes an allotment of his pay to his new mistress, never mentioning his having married before and his having any children, if the deserted wife never mentions the matter who is to find out and cause all this investigation?
VISCOUNT COBHAM: The answer is—nobody. Unless we can get some information from somebody, it is of course quite impossible to find out.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I am talking from a concrete case, where the woman is at present applying for a divorce against the man and thinks that she will lose some form of status by applying for any separation allowance.
VISCOUNT COBHAM: If we know there is a wife whom a man has deserted, we immediately find out whether a court order has been made. If it has, then we deduct three-quarters from the man's pay, and if that does not meet the court order the deficit is made up from public funds. If there is no court order, then it is dealt with by the military authorities—either the officer in charge of records or in some cases the Commanding Officer, whichever is the more convenient. He makes a compulsory deduction from the man's pay up to three-quarters; the man must be left sixpence a day. The Army authorities can then supplement it on the same scale as that laid down for wives at present. But we have to receive the information; if we do not receive information it is very difficult to act.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If the mistress has two children and the wife has two children, does the Army pay in both cases?
VISCOUNT COBHAM: Yes.
5.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Viscount for his courteous reply. If I may be per-
108
mitted to say so, it was like a breath of fresh air to hear one of your Lordships on the Front Bench not making a set speech but speaking from his heart. The noble Viscount said that there was nothing sacrosanct about the period of six months. I hope that when he says that it means that it may be possible to raise it to twelve months; there must be a minimum. I hope that the Government may give consideration to something of that kind, and perhaps the noble Viscount may be able to say that there is a chance of this matter being reconsidered on those lines.
The most reverend Primate said that he did not understand what I was talking about. I thought that it was quite clear, and I shall not go over it again. With the greatest respect to the most reverend Primate, who considered that a distinction was made, I cannot see that there is a distinction made. He says that a distinction is made because before anything is done for these women, there is a committee which goes into the question very thoroughly, and he says that that makes a distinction. I cannot agree with the most reverend Primate on that point, because once the woman is recognised as a dependent mistress she is on a level with a wife, and there is no distinction made between them. I maintain, therefore, that there is no distinction. The noble Viscount said that it was impossible for the question to be dealt with by a local authority because it had to be under the Army Paymaster. That is rather begging the question. Why must it be under the Army Paymaster? Why should it not be put on Public Assistance? If the Government agreed that it should be a Public Assistance matter, it would be.
The noble Lord, Lord Snell, made a very interesting contribution and dealt with a matter which I thought that other noble Lords would bring up, the question of stigma. He said that he did not want these persons and their children to be pauperised. I can see that point of view, but there is a stigma; there is a blot. You cannot take a blot out of a piece of blotting paper. The stigma is there and you cannot get rid of it. I have spoken to many wives of the working classes in Scotland. The working classes are the people who rule us, and I suggest that the working classes of Scotland are the backbone of the working classes of this

109
country. I have spoken to working women on this question. I did not put leading questions to them; I merely gave them the facts, and they said that they were horrified. Some of them were ignorant of these facts, because the matter passed through another place so quickly. They themselves consider that there is a stigma on these people; they look down on them, and they are proud of their own married lives. I have been to these people and have asked them for their opinion, and that is their opinion. It is impossible to get rid of the stigma; the stigma exists, and nothing the Government do will get rid of it. I am advised that it is not the slightest use for me to go to Division on this question, though I very much wanted to, so with much regret I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
5.30 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House if he can make any statement about business.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I propose that on Tuesday we should consider the Commons Amendments to the Special
110
Enactments (Extension of Time) Bill and take the Second Reading of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Amendment Bill and of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. On the same day the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is asking a question as to the date when the report of mutiny on the "Graf Spee" was published, and is moving for Papers. At present there is no business on the Order Paper for Wednesday. On Thursday I propose that we take the Committee stage of the two Bills to which we shall give a Second Reading on Tuesday, that is to say, the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Amendment Bill and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, and that business will be followed by my noble friend Lord Zetland moving to obtain the approval of the House to the continuance in force of Proclamations relating to the war under Section 93 of the Government of India Act issued by the Governors of the Provinces of India and presented to the House.
LORD SNELL: We meet at four o'clock on each day?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes, four o'clock, I think, each day.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before six o'clock