Sitting of 9 July 1940

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
MID-WESSEX WATER BILL [Lords].
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.
    Colonel Arthur Evansasked the Secretary of State for War whether the services of officers experienced with the British Expeditionary Force in the present war are being utilised in the branch of the War Office and on general headquarters, home forces, responsible for the administration of the Local Defence Volunteers?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the recent appointment of an Inspector-General of the Local Defence Volunteers, every endeavour will be made to ensure that the subordinate staff working under him are selected from those who have special knowledge of the requirements of the Local Defence Volunteers in country areas, since many areas have special problems occasioned by their geographical position?
    Mr. Eden: The principle advocated by my hon. Friend has been applied, and General Pownall has now appointed on his staff a liaison officer in each command with local knowledge. This will, I trust, result in the smooth working which my hon. Friend and I both desire.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the possibility that this subject has been approached from the wrong angle and that still more is required? I
    1054
    welcome what he said, but would he see that the right men with local knowledge are given every opportunity of utilising that local knowledge?
    Mr. Eden: I had that fact in mind when making these arrangements, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.
    Mr. De la Bère: Would my right hon. Friend look at the Opinion column in the "Daily Express" this morning, in which there are some very apt suggestions?
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is not military knowledge useful as well as local knowledge?
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the best men are the men of the International Brigade, but that attempts have been made to keep them out?
    Mr. Cocks: Will the liaison officers get in touch with the county surveyors who have knowledge of the districts?
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for War whether, whilst recognising that the requirements of the Army and the Local Defence Volunteers must first be satisfied, he will consider issuing arms, as they become available, to ex-service men between the ages of 40 and 55 years, and to the inhabitants of lonely farmhouses and isolated residences?
    Mr. Eden: It is open to all men between the ages of 17 and 65 to apply to join the Local Defence Volunteers to whom arms are being issued.
    Mr. Cocks: But the Secretary of State is surely aware that many ex-servicemen are not able to do that, and would the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my Question?
    Mr. Eden: The arms which are available should clearly in the first instance be made available for the organised bodies.
    Mr. Cocks: While I realise that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to deal with the others when the arms are available?
    Mr. Eden: I cannot give any undertaking about that at this stage.
    Mr. Ammonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that

    1055
    Mr. Jack White, British-born Jew and holder of the Victoria Cross, was expelled from the Manchester Local Defence Volunteers on the grounds that his father, who came to this country from Russia 50 years ago, was not naturalised; and whether he will take steps to prevent such discrimination, which is calculated to prevent the best qualified recruits being obtained?
    Mr. Eden: Under present rules, a man whose father was foreign, and did not become a naturalised British subject, is ineligible to join the Local Defence Volunteers, but I agree that this rule should be relaxed in cases such as that referred to in the Question, and I am giving instructions in this sense.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that even in cases where a person has not won the V.C. the anomaly exists?
    Mr. Eden: I do realise it; that is why I am issuing the instruction.
    Mr. G. Strauss: Can the Minister issue an instruction that any man who served in the last war should be eligible?
    Mr. Eden: That is the basis I have in mind; but, clearly, I must look into the matter carefully.
    Sir Richard Aclandasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give such instructions, through the chief signal officers or otherwise, as will result in all available Post Office resources being used to equip all Local Defence Volunteers observation posts with permanent telephone connection with main telephone exchanges at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Robert Morganasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Local Defence Volunteer force was informed by the county commander at Stafford that they could arrange to have a telephone fixed in their headquarters, but that when they did so the Post Office officials came and took it away on instructions from the War Office that such telephones were not to be fixed; what is the policy of the Department with regard to the use of telephones under these circumstances; and whether he will state the objections to the installation of such a telephone at this headquarters?
    Mr. Eden: I am making inquiries as to what took place at Stafford, but I have already received a report that the telephone has now been restored. Arrangements are being made generally for the necessary telephone facilities.
    Sir R. Acland: Would it be possible to give instructions to members of the Local Defence Volunteer Force as to what procedure they should follow if they want to get a telephone? I have a feeling that they do not know what to do.
    Mr. Eden: Arrangements are being made.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the official announcement of Government policy in the broadcast made by the Lord President of the Council, that in case of an invasion it is intended to fight the Germans in every village and in every home, he will take steps to place every village in a state of defence?
    Mr. Eden: As my hon. Friend has already been informed, local defences must be organised in relation to the defence of the country as a whole.
    Mr. Cocks: If it is a fact that we are to fight in every village, should not every village be fortified?
    Mr. Eden: Not necessarily. We can fight without fortifications. My hon. Friend may remember that Sparta had no wall.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Is not the Minister aware that there are thousands of volunteers all over the country who are getting disheartened because they have nothing to fight with?
    Mr. Eden: The fact that there is nobody to fight against is not my responsibility.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Prime Minister whether he contemplates requiring civil servants, municipal clerks and employés, etc., to take their share of Local Defence Volunteer and unpaid air-raid precautions work?
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): In view of the very satisfactory response for Local Defence Volunteers, no measure of compulsion is contemplated. As regards the Civil Defence services, I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply

    1057
    given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 4th July.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Did that reply refer specifically to the Civil Service, because if there is a lack of men for the A.R.P. services, might they not draw on civil servants?
    Mr. Attlee: My reply dealt with the question of compulsion. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to put a further Question, he should put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Home Security.

    COAL STOCKS.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War whether his Department is complying with the request of the Mines Department that maximum stocks of coal should be laid in forthwith?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

    ACCOMMODATION, LIME STREET STATION, LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. Loganasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Young Men's Christian Association has taken a suite of rooms in the North Western Hotel, Lime Street, as a canteen and hostel for men of His Majesty's Services, and that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company are charging £200 per year rental; and, in view of the need for this amenity for the troops, whether he will take steps to get this service free of rental?
    Mr. Eden: The Young Men's Christian Association is occupying part of the hotel as a canteen and hostel for men of His Majesty's Forces, but the question of rent is not yet settled. The general question of rent for railway premises used for welfare purposes is now under discussion.
    Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as far as my information goes, the question of renting is settled and that two other bodies in Liverpool are giving accommodation free? Is it not possible to make an arrangement whereby the soldiers can get free access to these places?
    Mr. Eden: I have made inquiries, and information may be given shortly. When I receive any further information I will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the rental is fixed, and that the question under consideration is the exemption of rates?
    Mr. Eden: I am told that they are still arguing about them.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there should be no argument at all, and should not these men be provided with amenities on the stations?

    WORKS AND DOCKS (SAFEGUARDING).
    Mr. Ralph Ethertonasked the Secretary of State for War whether, to safeguard vital works and docks, he will take steps to require persons, including casual labour, employed at such places to produce national registration identity cards marked by the police vouching as far as possible their bona fides for employment as such vital places?
    Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not in the national interest to make a public statement on this subject.
    Mr. Etherton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of excluding certain Communist elements from this kind of work?

    APPOINTMENTS, WAR OFFICE.
    Captain Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of officers holding appointments at the War Office have experience gained in the present war of serving overseas with one of the Expeditionary Forces; and what proportion of these have had actual experience in active operations?
    Mr. Eden: It is impossible for me without a considerable inquiry, which would not be justified, to give the percentages. But the House may be assured that full use is being made at the War Office and in Home Commands generally of officers who have had recent experience in active operations.

    FIELD-MARSHAL LORD MILNE.
    Captain Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War what is the purpose of the appointment of Field-Marshal Lord Milne as Colonel-Commandant, Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps; and whether this appointment entitles the holder to any additional pay or allowances?
    Mr. Eden: The appointment of a Colonel-Commandant to the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps follows the precedent of similar appointments in other corps, and I am sure that all ranks of the corps are much encouraged and gratified by the appointment of such a distinguished officer as Lord Milne. The appointment is honorary and carries no emoluments other than a limited entitlement to travelling allowances.
    Captain Bellenger: While I have no wish to under-rate the distinguished services of this officer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the age limit of recruitment of the lower ranks in that corps, he will give an opportunity for those of a humbler station in life to offer their services in the corps?
    Mr. Eden: Everybody in the Army, I am sure, knows that these appointments of Colonel-Commandant are honorary positions. Lord Milne is already the Commandant of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, and I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that one telegram, received since the announcement, reads as follows:
    "On behalf of all ranks of the 14th Corps A.M.P.C. I thank you for your most inspiring and encouraging message. I assure you we are all behind you to pull our weight on British soil as we did in France."
    Sir Percy Harris: Is it not a fact that although Lord Milne is old in years, he is young in spirit?

    BRASSARDS.
    Captain Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that staff brassards were not universally adopted by headquarters of formations serving overseas; and whether he will give orders to discontinue the present practice of wearing these insignia in public places?
    Mr. Eden: I am aware that brassards were not worn on all occasions by staff officers in formations overseas. Arm bands, however, serve a very useful purpose when staff officers visit other headquarters or troops on duty. I am examining the question whether they should be worn in public places by officers when not on duty.
    Captain Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there should be any attempted landings either from the air or from the sea, these staff officers
    1060
    showing their staff insignia would probably be the first to be attacked by the enemy?

    HOSPITAL-DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (TRAVELLING).
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers discharged from hospital have to report to their depôts in distant places before going on leave to their homes in London or Liverpool; that this entails loss of time and unnecessary expense; and whether other arrangements will be made to obviate so much travelling for the men affected?
    Mr. Eden: I am having this matter examined with a view to the elimination of avoidable travelling.
    Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that when the soldiers are discharged from hospital they are not sent to a convalescent home?
    Mr. Eden: I imagine that my hon. Friend means a later stage, when they have finished with the convalescent home.

    WOUNDED MEN (RELATIVES' TRAVELLING PASSES).
    Sir R. Youngasked the Secretary of State for War whether the relatives of seriously wounded men in distant hospitals receive free travelling passes and whether the relatives of less seriously wounded men receive passes at a reduced rate; if so, what is the percentage reduction on railway fares; and whether all regimental pay offices, or the authorities dealing with this matter, make the same percentage reductions?
    Mr. Eden: When a man is reported dangerously ill in hospital, two persons, one of whom must be a relative, may travel to visit him on free warrants. If the man is in hospital but not reported dangerously ill, his wife and children under 16 years of age, or, if he is unmarried, his parents, brothers and sisters, may use concession vouchers which enable them to make the return journey at single fare, whatever the distance.
    Sir R. Young: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these reduced fares are entirely beyond the power of the soldier's wife to pay?
    Mr. Sorensen: Would it not be possible to provide that when the distance from home is over a certain length these free passes might be granted?
    Mr. Eden: They are, of course, granted in all cases when a man is dangerously ill. I think that limit would be rather a difficult one to draw.

    WOUNDED AND MISSING SOLDIERS.
    Mr. Joelasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in announcing to relatives those soldiers who are missing, he will consider subsequently supplying them with a leaflet explaining the procedure for tracing wounded and missing?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. In order that relatives of missing Service men may receive an assurance that everything possible is being done, I am having a leaflet prepared explaining the steps that are taken to trace them. It is being drafted with the assistance of the Wounded, Missing and Relatives Department of the War Organisation of the British Red Cross Society and Order of St. John, to whose devoted and patient labours in this field I should like to pay tribute. Copies of this leaflet, which will shortly be ready, will be sent to the next of kin of officers and men reported missing in future. The contents of it will also be issued to the Press.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for War whether the arrangements whereby members of the public may obtain special information regarding missing and wounded soldiers by applying to Room 09, War Office, are now in operation; and can he make a statement about this matter?
    Mr. Eden: The War Office casualty branch has been moved to the Bluecoat School, Wavertree, Liverpool. There is a Room 09 at the War Office in Whitehall where inquirers who call personally can furnish particulars of officers or soldiers with a view to their inquiries being sent to the office at Liverpool, where all the records of casualties are kept. No information about individuals other than that already communicated to the next of kin is available in Room 09.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Gunner
    1062
    Raymond Cornelius, who, following a refusal to continue his Army training, has been recommended by the Conscientious Objectors' Appellate Tribunal in London for discharge from the Army; and whether he will consider the effect of such action on the discipline of the Army, and take the appropriate action?
    Mr. Eden: This case was dealt with as prescribed in Section 13 of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. The tribunal have decided that, on discharge from the Army, the man must do full-time ambulance work under civil control, or land work.
    Sir A. Knox: Did this man apply for registration as a conscientious objector before he joined up? Surely it is rather late for him, when he is given an order that he does not wish to obey, to say that he has a conscientious objection?
    Mr. Eden: This type of case is covered by the National Service (Armed Forces) Act. My only task, as my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, is to administer that Act.
    Sir A. Knox: Surely it is rather late for a man to say that he has conscientious objections when he gets an order that he does not wish to obey? All discipline would be at an end if that sort of thing continued.
    Mr. Eden: This man was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, without hard labour, for refusing to go on parade. Therefore, the Act applies in the sense that I have mentioned. I have no discretion whatever but to administer the Act.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Has the man served his sentence?
    Mr. Eden: Not yet. The earliest date for his release is 18th July.
    Sir R. Youngasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has completed his inquiries into the statement of a conscientious objector to the Bristol tribunal that he was paid nine weeks' wages for which he had done no work; and, if so, what action has been taken regarding the man, the foreman and the contracting firm concerned?
    Mr. Eden: I have been unable to check the accuracy of the statement, as neither the man nor his foreman is now in the

    1063
    employment of the contractor's firm in question. I am endeavouring to obtain particulars.

    ROYAL ARMY PAY CORPS (COMMISSIONS).
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary of State for War whether the principle of promotion to officers' rank only after service in non-commissioned ranks, applies to the Royal Army Pay Corps; and why almost all commissions in this corps have been granted to persons with no previous experience of the work, and, with few exceptions, no promotions to officers' rank have been given to noncommissioned officers, and none to fully qualified Territorials?
    Mr. Eden: The majority of emergency commissions in the Royal Army Pay Corps have been granted to members of the Army Officers Emergency Reserve who were earmarked before or early in the war as suitable by reason of their civil occupations for commissions in the Royal Army Pay Corps. A high proportion of these officers did service in the last war, but commissions from the ranks are now being granted to suitable men, including Territorials, who are recommended by their commanding officers. Instructions have recently been issued calling specially for such recommendations.

    OFFICERS EMERGENCY RESERVE.
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary of State for War whether the services of all competent applicants to join the Army under the Army Officers Emergency Reserve are being accepted for the training of the new Army and of the Local Defence Volunteers?
    Mr. Eden: Enrolment of suitable candidates in the Army Officers Emergency Reserve is still proceeding, and its members are being commissioned for duty as and when their services are required. A member of the Army Officers Emergency Reserve is free to join the Local Defence Volunteers until his services are required elsewhere.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the Secretary for War aware that there are men in the Army Officers Emergency Reserve, aged between 40 and 50, who long ago volunteered to do any service they could be
    1064
    given, and so far have not been called upon to do anything?
    Mr. Eden: A very large number of these officers have recently been called upon. If my hon. Friend would like me to give the figures, I will gladly do so if he will put a Question down.

  INTERNED JEWS.
  Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take urgent steps to remedy the conditions and bad feeling prevailing in the places where the interned Jews, men and women, are now imprisoned, in view of the effect upon American opinion of this bad example?
  Mr. Eden: Any deficiencies which exist at present are due to the difficulties caused by the recent intakes of internees, but every effort is being made to effect improvement at the earliest possible moment. In view of the importance of securing the best conditions possible in the circumstances for internees for whose custody the War Office has responsibility, I have asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to make a full investigation of the matter so far as it affects my Department. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he is not aware of any complaints so far as women are concerned.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the lurid accounts in the American Press of the women internees' camps? Are those in his charge or under another Department?
  Mr. Eden: The women are under the Home Office.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate that to the Home Office?
  Mr. Graham White: Will the right hon. Gentleman give to the House and the country the assurance that the conditions in these camps in no way fall below the standard of the International Prisoners of War Convention, and, if not, will he be prepared to answer a Question on this day week?
  Mr. Eden: I am very anxious that there should be no doubts that we are doing all we can and should in this

  1065
  matter. I have asked my hon. Friend to make a special investigation, and I am confident that I can give the hon. Member that assurance.
  Mr. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that mortal injury is being done to our good name?
  Mr. Eden: I hope that no injury will be done to our good name by rumours. I am trying to ascertain the facts. I can give the House my personal assurance that everything possible will be done to put the situation right.
  Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very important that this matter should be debated in the House?
  Mr. Eden: That, of course, is not a matter for me, but it seems to me that the most vital matter is to see that it is put right.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Perhaps America would like to take some of these people?
  Mr. Silverman: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there is anything wrong, it arises as much out of the indiscriminate internment of people who happen to be born in particular countries?

  FRENCH LEGION.
  Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet taken any action in connection with the French Legion and other troops; whether such members of the Legion as decide to continue to fight for us under British officers will be given the option of taking up British citizenship, as in the case of the French Navy; and what action he proposes to take in connection with Major Ruding Bryan?
  Mr. Eden: General de Gaulle has been officially recognised, and French troops are being organised under his command. As was stated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in reply to a Question on 4th July last, it has been declded in principle to afford special facilities for naturalisation to French citizens who continue to support the Allied cause, and this would, of course, apply to any who might serve under British officers. As regards the last part of the Question, I am informed that the officer mentioned has rendered good
  1066
  service in a difficult position, and has earned the thanks of the French authorities concerned.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the report that I made to the Under-Secretary about this officer, and about the affairs of the camp in question? Is he seeing that the promise to hold an inquiry is carried out?
  Mr. Eden: I did not know about that. I have heard that this officer has been specially asked by the Foreign Legion where he was situated to stay there, because they get on so well with him.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this officer has been persuading the troops to go back to France, that he is a Fascist, that he is refusing to allow the circulation of the speeches of the Prime Minister and of the terms of the Armistice signed by the French Government, and that he has obviously destroyed our chance of getting over 10,000 men into the British Army? Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
  Mr. Eden: Of course, I will. But I think it hardly likely that this man would have been thanked by the French officers, and particularly by the Commander of the French Foreign Legion, if that had been the position.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, after trying to see him, I was asked to see the Under-Secretary, that I gave the whole facts to the Under-Secretary, that he promised that an inquiry would be held, and that nothing further has been done about it?
  Mr. Eden: I apologise; I did not know that. But I am quite sure that if my hon. Friend promised an inquiry, an inquiry is taking place. As soon as I receive the results I will communicate with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

  ARMED FORCES.

    INTOXICANTS AND TREATING.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the representations of the Business Committee of the Church of Scotland Women's Guild Council of Kirkcaldy, representing 43 branches of the council, calling for legislation on the subject of

    1067
    the supply of intoxicants to members of the Armed Forces; and whether he proposes to take any action on the lines of the council's recommendations?
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a resolution of the Church of Scotland Women's Guild Council, of Greenock Presbytery, representing 4,500 women, asking that a no treating order for the duration of the war be promulgated immediately; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have received no representations on this subject from the local councils referred to, but I am aware of the terms of the resolution recently passed by the Central Guild. On my present information I cannot find that there is a case for a prohibition of treating, but I am keeping the situation under careful review.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the women mentioned in Question No. 31 are impressed with the fact that treating is a favourite and potent weapon in the hands of Fifth Columnists, alias traitors, and will he consider the matter from that point of view?
    Mr. Brown: I have all points of view in mind, including the point of view that the number of persons apprehended in the four large cities in Scotland for offences involving drunkenness during the period from September, 1939, to June, 1940, was 13,420, against 13,666 for the corresponding period 12 months before.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of drunkenness does not enter into this matter at all, and that it is a matter of loosening the tongue and giving away information on the principle of in vino veritas?
    Mr. Brown: That may be so, but my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate the facts I have given.
    Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no treating is an old Scottish custom?

    POSTAGE FACILITIES.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the free postage to their homes now granted to Dominion troops in this coun-
    1068
    try, he will secure the same privilege to British troops whose pay is substantially lower and who therefore are in greater need of that concession?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir, and my right hon. Friend has already explained in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) on 18th June some of the objections to the grant of free postage to members of His Majesty's Forces serving in this country. The position is in no way affected by any arrangements made by the Dominions authorities at their own expense in regard to letters home from Dominions forces serving away from their own country.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that numbers of our troops feel rather hurt that Dominion soldiers, who have bigger pay, have this facility, whereas our troops have not?
    Captain Bellenger: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give further consideration to this matter, seeing that if this concession could be granted, it would be very well received by the soldiers, many of whom have already enjoyed the facility while serving overseas, whereas now that they are in the front line here, they do not have it?
    Captain Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the reasons which my right hon. Friend gave as preventing him from accepting this suggestion. With regard to the hon. and gallant Member's second point, the troops have enjoyed the facility when overseas for the reason that when they are serving overseas there are no normal postal facilities. Those postal facilities exist in this country.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the same argument apply to Dominion soldiers as applies to British soldiers?
    Captain Crookshank: Whether it does or not, it has nothing to do with me, because the Dominions make their own arrangements.
    Mr. Sorensen: Why not follow suit?

    PARCELS (EGYPT).
    Mr. W. H. Greenasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the hardship felt by relatives of men serving in His

    1069
    Majesty's Forces in Egypt, by reason of the very high duty imposed by the Egyptian Government on small parcels sent to these men; and will he consider again raising the matter with the Egyptian Government, with a view to a lowering of these duties?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The Egyptian postal authorities admit free of duty all parcels for British troops in Egypt up to five kilogrammes in weight, except those containing tobacco, cigarettes and spirits. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Green: Is the Minister aware that relatives of hundreds of serving men in Egypt are still feeling a grievance because when they send parcels the duty at present in many cases exceeds the value of the parcel sent?
    Mr. Butler: That aspect is receiving my Noble Friend's consideration.

  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT (TRAINING, MINE WORKERS).
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the unemployment in the coalfields, he is establishing training schemes for mine workers to enable them to aid the national endeavour in other spheres of industry?
  The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I am afraid that I have no powers to initiate such schemes. If it should prove necessary to transfer workers out of the mining industry, training for other work would be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
  Mr. Adams: Is not my hon. Friend aw are that there is great discontent in the minefields on the part of those who are in enforced unemployment?
  Mr. Grenfell: I am aware that there is rather a serious and I hope only temporary measure of unemployment in the coalfields just now, but it does not throw responsibility on me for the transfer of labour.
  Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say why there should be unemployment in the minefields when we in Cheltenham can get no household coal?
  Mr. Grenfell: There are other factors in the distribution of coal which I can explain to the hon. Gentleman and probably to the House when the opportunity comes.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    AIR-RAID WARNINGS (MINERS' WAGES).
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Bedlington Coal Company, Northumberland, in deducting from datal men Is. 4d., in other cases Is. 4d., from minimum wages Is. 4d., and in the case of coal producers Id. from the 6d. special advance, on account of being delayed in commencing work owing to an air-raid alarm, as such actions are likely to lead to industrial unrest; and will he take steps to prevent a recurrence of the injustice?
    Mr. Grenfell: I have made inquiries and have been informed by the colliery company that they made deductions from the daily rate of pay to datallers for the alleged reason that the men were not present for work at the commencement of the shift and for the period which corresponds to the deductions made from the wages of the men in question.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that the local association has made every endeavour to get a settlement of this question arising out of the peculiar difficulties of the case?
    Mr. Grenfell: I think it is a most appropriate question for the district association to settle, and I would suggest that this matter should be referred back once again to both sides. It must be settled by agreement at some time or other, and now that the matter has been raised I think the district committees should take it up.
    Mr. Taylor: Would the Minister exert and use his influence to have this matter amicably settled between the two associations?
    Mr. Grenfell: I think the two associations have full and sufficient power to settle this dispute.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that the district association have repeatedly and exhaustively endeavoured to settle the question?
    Mr. Grenfell: I should be disappointed if a question like this could not be settled amicably during a time of war.

    NORWEGIAN FREIGHTS.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Northumberland coal carried in Norwegian freights involves an extra charge of 2s. 10d. per ton; whether he appreciates the substantially heavier expenditure that this imposes on institutions and other concerns laying in stocks; and whether, in view of this extra charge as compared with British freights, he will take steps to avoid the increase?
    Mr. Grenfell: The quantity of coal carried coastwise in Norwegian ships is small. These ships are on time-charter to His Majesty's Government at rates which call for a freight charge which is 2s. 6d. per ton higher than that charged for carriage by British ships. The surcharge could be avoided only by charging the increased cost to the Exchequer, a course for which I can see no justification.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister suggest that in fact these extra charges have been pooled for these other freights?
    Mr. Grenfell: I do not think that they make a substantial difference, and certainly now the quantity of coal carried by Norwegian ships is too small to affect the general cost.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister appreciate the fact that certain institutions are having to pay more for their coal?
    Mr. Grenfell: I think it is the case that certain institutions whose coal was carried in Norwegian ships were paying 2s. 6d. per ton more for the carriage of coal, but it is inevitable that these conditions should apply at this time.

    OUTPUT.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines what progress has been made towards the appeal he made for an increased output; and whether it has reached the point he anticipated at the present date?
    Mr. Grenfell: With the willing co-operation of all sections of the industry, the campaign for the increased production of coal was proceeding very satisfactorily
    1072
    when the whole position was recently transformed by the complete cessation of the heavy exports to France. Over the country as a whole there is now a surplus of productive capacity, and while the demands on the Midland areas will continue at a very high level, the exporting areas have to face a contraction of output. Every effort is being made to meet this position and to safeguard future supplies by a policy of extensive stocking, limited only by the transport facilities available.
    Mr. Tinker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the feeling among the miners, after the splendid effort that they have made, because they have to be called upon to work short time; and will he go forward with the policy he has in mind to see that no colliery is closed, because every ton of coal is worth its value to the Services?
    Mr. Grenfell: For the reason given by my hon. Friend, and for other reasons which are appreciated in all parts of the House, we are endeavouring not to permit a single pit to close. All pits are wanted to produce coal, and we shall endeavour to keep the pits at work and arrange for the distribution of the orders in the coalfield most affected, and I believe that heavy stoppages of work will be avoided by this means.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Can my hon. Friend say whether any special effort has been made to endeavour to secure export markets in other parts of the world to replace those lost in recent weeks?
    Mr. Grenfell: Without giving figures, I can assure the House that every effort has been made, and we hope that a substantial amount of new trade will be made to compensate in part for the loss of the export to France.
    Captain Strickland: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that surplus coal from the Coventry district is being sent away from that city, while the surplus from South Wales is being imported into the city, and that there is a limit on the registered purchase of coal of 2 cwts., and cannot anything be done to rectify the matter?
    Mr. Grenfell: A great deal has been done to rectify many anomalies existing at the present time. It is not as simple as it seems. All the burden of transporting

    1073
    coal has been thrown on to the railway system, and I would say this for the rail system and those who organise railroad transport, that great things are being done at the present time to ensure that coal is sent where it is needed in this country.

  WOOLLEN AND HOSIERY INDUSTRIES.
  Mr. Woodburnasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether there is any co-ordination between his Department and the Service Departments ordering woollen garments; and whether any arrangements have been made to spread orders over hosiery firms on any principle proportionate to their capacity, with a view to avoiding overloading successful tendering firms at the expense of the collapse of the industry elsewhere;
  (2) whether he is aware of the difficulties being faced by the hosiery industry in Clackmannanshire as a result of the restrictions in the sale of hosiery garments; and whether, in order to avoid unemployment and hardship, he is prepared to make arrangements with the Service Departments that the placing of orders for Service supplies will be done in conjunction with his Department, with a view to obtaining some fairness in the incidence of the legislation preventing normal sales?
  The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): The Board of Trade maintain close touch with the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Labour. All firms affected by restriction of home sales are being invited to furnish particulars of plant or labour available, in order that, wherever possible, use shall be made of them for war purposes. In the case of both English and Scottish hosiery firms, the planning of the Government requirements for all departments of supply is carried out by the Ministry of Supply, with the assistance of an Advisory Trade Panel, and in placing contracts for hosiery and knitwear, due consideration is given to all existing capacity available. So far as Scotland is concerned, alternative patterns to the present specification are now under consideration in the hope that these may be found suitable for economic manufacture there.
  Mr. R. Gibson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there are ample supplies of wool for the orders which are in the hands of Scottish hosiery firms?
  Sir A. Duncan: I believe the wool is available.

  CINEMA CONSTRUCTION (STEEL).
  Mr. Cocksasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the large amount of valuable steel being used in the construction of a large cinema in Westbourne Grove; and whether he will put a stop to the use of steel in non-essential buildings?
  Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir, I am informed that the circumstances in which the erection of this cinema was continued are being investigated. Work on it has now ceased. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has made an Order which came into force yesterday and enables all non-essential building involving the use of steel to be stopped.
  Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister advise his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to remove the metal guarding the useless statue at the top of Whitehall?

  GREEK SHIPS.
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Shipping how many Greek-owned vessels have been purchased by the Ministry since the beginning of the war; how many of those vessels were previously sold to Greek owners by British firms; and whether he can state the difference between the price of sale to the Greeks and the price of resale to the Ministry?
  The Minister of Shipping (Mr. Cross): No vessels under the Greek flag have been purchased since the beginning of the war by my Department.

  LOSS OF "ARANDORA STAR."
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Minister of Shipping whether he has any statement to make about the loss of the "Arandora Star"; whether the ship was convoyed and had ample lifeboat provision; how many of the Germans on board were known to be Nazis and how many came to this country as refugees; when will he

  1075
  be able to provide the friends and relatives in England with the names of the persons drowned; and whether it is proposed to send internees abroad without convoy?
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Shipping whether he will make a statement respecting the loss of the "Arandora Star"; whether the enemy aliens on board or lost included those who had received B or C certificates or were recognised as friendly aliens or enemies from Nazi oppression; whether those in these categories were compelled to sail; whether the available next of kin both of the British crew and the internees who were lost have now been informed; whether, in the event of large numbers of hostile Nazi or Fascist prisoners or internees being transported, he will see that any minority British crew is afforded the protection they deem necessary; and whether he will keep distinct and separate enemy aliens of pro- and anti-Nazi and Fascist sympathies?
  Mr. Cross: In accordance with the usual practice in respect of fast ships, the "Arandora Star" was not convoyed. Lifeboats and life-rafts more than sufficient to accommodate all passengers and crew were provided. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that all the Germans on board were Nazi sympathisers and that none came to this country as refugees. None had Category B or C certificates or were recognised as friendly aliens. The Protecting Powers have been given lists of the missing passengers, in order that the next of kin may be informed. The owners have already taken steps to inform the next of kin of the crew who were lost. I am also informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that adequate military guard was provided in the case of the "Arandora Star" and will be provided in future in other ships similarly used. Every endeavour will be made to separate enemy aliens of Nazi and Fascist sympathies from those of anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist sympathies. The Admiralty apply to these vessels the same rules as regards escort as to other British ships carrying passengers, that is, the faster ones proceed independently and the slower ones in convoy.
  Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask whether, if any other friendly aliens, or those with
  1076
  B and C certificates are sent away, their relatives will be informed?
  Mr. Cross: That question does not apply to my Department.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is the Minister aware of the feeling in the country that the lives of British sailors should not be sacrificed to save the skins of enemy aliens?
  Mr. Logan: As we have had a loss of lives in Liverpool, I would like to ask, having seen this boat go out of the Mersey with troops on board, why lifebelts were given by officers to some refugees while the officers themselves were without life-belts?
  Mr. Cross: I have had no report of that. There were ample lifebelts on board for all.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the call being made to the workers to forego their summer holidays, he proposes to keep the House of Commons in regular session throughout the summer months?
  Mr. Attlee: The work done by Parliament is not necessarily measured by the length or frequency of its sittings. I contemplate that it will be necessary for the House to assemble at regular intervals during the summer months, but I am not in a position to make any further statement at the moment. What is important is that Parliament should be intimately associated with the action of the executive which it sustains and controls.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that much comment was made on the fact that part of the disaster in France arose because their Parliament could not meet and because of the absence of Deputies, and will he see that there is every opportunity for this Parliament to continue?
  Mrs. Tate: Will the right hon. Gentleman please make arrangements whereby Members who have run away from this country on missions invented by themselves should forgo for ever the right of sitting in this House?
  Hon. Members: Name?
  Mrs. Tate: Marylebone.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    DERATED AGRICULTURAL LAND (SALE).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the profit made on the sale of derated agricultural land at a high price for war purposes is regarded as a revenue profit or a capital gain?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): As I have already informed my hon. Friend, the broad distinction in such cases is between the carrying on of a trade or business and the realisation of capital assets. Each case would have to be determined according to the circumstances.
    Mr. Stokes: Can the Chancellor explain why people who sell land of poor value at high prices get away with the huge profits that nobody else is allowed to make?
    Sir K. Wood: This is a matter to be settled on the merits of each case, and so far as the general application is concerned, there is a number of legal cases.

    WAR FINANCING.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will open a national bank for the purpose of financing contracts, thereby avoiding the payment of interest charges to private moneylenders?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I do not accept my hon. Friend's contention. I would refer to the reply I gave to him on 25th June.
    Mr. Stokes: Does the Chancellor not realise what a contribution this policy would make towards the avoidance of hanging another huge war debt around the neck of the nation when the war is over?
    Mr. Shinwell: Why should Government contracts be financed at a fairly high rate of interest by private banks? Surely the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that?
    Sir K. Wood: That is another matter. If the hon. Gentleman will put a question down, I will endeavour to answer him.

    AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (BANKS).
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the advances to agriculturalists by the clearing banks, which amounted in the aggregate to about
    1078
    £53,000,000 in the middle of February, 1940, he has any information as to the average rate of interest that is being charged by the banks for this accommodation?
    Sir K. Wood: I cannot say what is the average rate, but I understand that in most cases the banks' charge is from 4 per cent. to 5 per cent.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that it becomes clearer and clearer that there is not the least possible excuse for charging 5 per cent. to borrowers, especially agricultural borrowers who are being exhorted to obtain the maximum from their land? Why should they give everything and the banks nothing?
    Mr. Stokes: Is not this a complete example of what I have been saying?
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not this the same question as I have already put to the Chancellor? Cannot he understand the point?
    Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend try to get away from this frustration and obstruction and make some genuine endeavour, because if he does not, he will forfeit all right to public confidence?
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the decision which has been communicated to the British Bankers Association by the Governor of the Bank of England, providing for a maximum of 1 per cent. on deposit rates, he will confer with the Governor of the Bank of England with a view to securing that the British Bankers Association should agree to restrict the charges made for loans to agriculturalists and other businesses engaged on work of national importance to 1 per cent. above the existing Bank Rate?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. Such charges must obviously depend upon the conditions of individual cases, and it would not be possible to lay down maximum interest rates in every instance.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not this exactly the same point as I have previously made? Will my right hon. Friend really take this matter seriously? Is he not fully aware that he will lose all public confidence if he sits down and laughs at these serious matters?
    Sir K. Wood: I should like my hon. Friend to realise that I do take the matter

    1079
    seriously, but obviously the rates of interest must depend upon the circumstances of each case.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not this matter long overdue for overhaul? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL.
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give consideration to appointing additional members to his Consultative Council, with a view to giving a more equal balance between orthodox and progressive financial opinion?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The members of the Council I have appointed represent a wide variety of knowledge and experience, and I do not think it desirable to increase the size of the Council.

    STAMP AND ESTATE DUTIES.
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the catastrophic decline in industrial shares during the month of June last; and, in view of the loss to the Treasury through Stamp and Estate Duties, what action does he propose to take?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 4th July to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, South West (Sir G. Mitcheson). The upward movement to which I referred has continued.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it correct that the big insurance companies and other large investors were instructed to keep out of the equity market prior to the National War Loans issue?
    Sir K. Wood: I do not think that arises out of the Question.

  EVACUEES (BED CONTRACTS).
  Mr. Silkinasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what action it is proposed to take on Section VIII of the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure dealing with allega-
  1080
  tions of improper commissions in connection with contracts for beds for evacuees?
  Captain Crookshank: In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I have appointed a Committee of Inquiry into these matters consisting of Sir Thomas Barnes, Treasury Solicitor (Chairman), Sir James Rae and Mr. H. M. Hooke.
  Mr. Silkin: When does the right hon. and Gallant Gentleman expect to get a report from the committee which he has set up?
  Captain Crookshank: I am afraid I cannot say, but as soon as possible.

  FOOD SUPPLIES (BREAD).
  Mr. Stokesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider the compulsory reintroduction of wholemeal bread and the total abolition of white bread for the duration of the war?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): No, Sir; wholemeal bread is available for those who prefer it, and my Noble Friend sees no reason for placing those who would rather eat white bread in a less advantageous position.
  Mr. Stokes: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that if this scheme were introduced it would lead to an immediate reopening of thousands of mills all over the country, thus enabling people to be supplied locally?

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    "HOME DEFENCE MOVEMENT."
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the activities being carried on by the British Union of Fascists under cover of an organisation known as "Home Defence Movement," including the sending of literature to soldiers; and whether he will take steps to watch carefully this development?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My right hon. Friend made an order last May for the detention of the man by whom this literature was produced, and no further specimens of it have since come under

    1081
    notice. If the hon. Member has any information to show that it is still being produced, I shall be glad if he will let me have particulars.
    Mr. Mander: Is my hon. Friend aware that the facts with regard to this person came out in the evidence in a case at Worthing the other day? Has he had that brought to his attention?
    Mr. Peake: I dare say they did, but this man was interned more than seven weeks ago. If the hon. Member has any more recent information on the subject, perhaps he will be kind enough to let me have it.
    Viscountess Actor: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that if this man has a wife, she will go, too? The women are far more dangerous than the men.

    SCHOOL AIR-RAID SHELTERS.
    Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary what steps he is taking with reference to the refusal by the Staffordshire Education Committee to allow the use by the public of school air-raid shelters after school hours; and what is the practice in the country generally?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): Instructions on this subject have recently been issued to all Regional Headquarters, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy of them.
    Mr. Mander: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether it is the Government's policy that these shelters should be available to the general public after school hours?
    Mr. Mabane: I think that if the hon. Member will read the instructions, he will find the reasons, which are very lengthy.
    Mr. Mander: As this is a matter of principle and the hon. Gentleman has given a very short answer, perhaps he will give some further explanation?
    Mr. Mabane: When the shelters are not at a given time being used by school children, then in certain circumstances it is desirable that the public should use them; but it is not desirable, when there is danger of the public getting in the way of the school children.

    CONTROLLED AREA.
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Home Secretary whether the coastal area
    1082
    now under control is to be extended to the westward to include the county of Sussex; and whether he realises that the failure to decide whether or not to extend is producing a disturbed state of mind in the population of the area concerned?
    Mr. Mabane: The Sussex coastal area was declared a Defence Area on 1st July.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can my hon. Friend say who it is who controls movement into and out of this area, and why the borough of Brighton is excluded from it?
    Mr. Mabane: That is a different question. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put it on the Paper.

    CHILDREN (CURFEW).
    Mr. Loganasked the Home Secretary whether, under the Defence Regulations, he will issue a curfew order in regard to children?
    Mr. Mabane: My right hon. Friend does not think there are any sufficient grounds for making a general order of the character suggested. There is a number of local curfews in Defence Areas, but these are not confined to children.
    Mr. Logan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the City of Liverpool a desire has been expressed that this order should come into operation? Will the hon. Gentleman consider that?
    Mr. Mabane: I was not aware of that.
    Viscountess Astor: Will my hon. Friend consider carefully the tremendously good effect which a curfew would have on children, and will he bear in mind that the problem of children is much more important now than it was before the war began?
    Mr. Logan: Will the hon. Gentleman give authority if the City of Liverpool makes an application?
    Mr. Mabane: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

    EVACUATION.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider prohibiting evacuation of any area except under Government control, in view of the fact that any voluntary evacuation must inevitably favour the well-to-do and

    1083
    penalise the poorer sections of the community?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): The Government have made it plain that it is the duty of members of the civilian population to stay where they are and carry on with their work unless they receive orders or advice to the contrary, and I have no evidence hitherto that movements from one area to another are having any marked effect on the operation of the Government's scheme for the evacuation of school children. The local authorities in reception areas have wide powers of obtaining the accommodation they require.
    Mr. Lawson: In the case of adults residing in an area which has previously been safe and has now become dangerous, has there been any marked evacuation, and have the Government any policy for dealing with a situation of this kind?
    Miss Horsbrugh: In certain areas the population has been advised to move from one part to another. In these areas there is a certain amount of control, but in the reception areas the billets are available for the children and property can be requisitioned if necessary.

  DETENTION OF A MEMBER.
  Captain W. T. Shawasked the Home Secretary whether he can give details of the actual hours of association and exercise allowed to the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay) presently detained in Brixton prison?
  Mr. Peake: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving me an opportunity to correct the answer which I gave to his Supplementary Question on 2nd July. The hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles is at present located in hospital and is allowed out for exercise or association from 8.55 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. and from 1.40 p.m. to 3.45 P.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: When the hon. Gentleman says "allowed out," does he mean at large?
  Mr. Peake: He is allowed out within the precincts of the gaol for exercise and association with other internees.

  WORKERS' HOLIDAYS.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that the people who will be called upon to work on August Bank Holiday will be paid special rates of wages if the trade union agreements stipulate extra pay for holidays?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): As stated in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil (Sir G. Davies) on 13th June, it is the view of the Government that questions arising as to the rate of wages for work done on days that would ordinarily be holidays should be settled in accordance with any provisions in agreements relating to this matter. The Order in Council cancelling Monday, 5th August, as a Bank Holiday for statutory purposes, provides expressly that the day shall be deemed to be a Bank Holiday for the purposes of any agreement, whether oral or in writing, relating to the payment of wages for work done on a Bank Holiday.
  Mr. Thorne: Am I to understand from that answer that there is to be no interference with agreements regulating Bank Holiday questions?
  Mr. Assheton: That is so.
  Mr. Banfield: Does the answer apply also to Trade Board regulations regarding Bank Holidays?
  Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that some munitions workers are To-day earning as much as £120 or £30 a week; is he further aware that when Sundays were generally being worked for the first time extra pay was not expected; and does he intend to continue to pay these excessively high wages?
  Mr. Assheton: While I do not accept the premises of my hon. Friend's question, perhaps he will put it on the Paper.
  Mr. Keeling: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to give sailors, soldiers and airmen extra pay for August Bank Holiday?

  MILITARY SERVICE (REGISTRATION AND INTAKE).
  Sir George Broadbridgeasked the Minister of Labour how it arises that large

  1085
  numbers of young men, medically examined, some as long ago as last December, and found to be Grade I, are still waiting to be called up?
  Mr. Assheton: Under current arrangements single men are normally called up for the Army within two months or less of the date of medical examination. The interval may be longer in the case of married men and of men accepted for service in the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines or the Royal Air Force, and considerably longer in the case of men who are earmarked to be called up only to fill vacancies for tradesmen. The longer delay in the latter services is due to the fact that whereas it is essential to have available for these Services an adequate supply of men of the requisite qualifications and ages, the rate of intake, which determines the interval between medical examination and posting, must depend upon the actual requirements of the Services from time to time. If the hon. Baronet is aware of cases in which, in the light of this explanation, delay in calling up still seems unnecessarily long and would care to forward particulars to me I shall be glad to make inquiries into them.
  Mr. Loftus: Is the Minister aware that there are many hundreds of young men in my district who do not come under the categories named, but who are anxious to he called up? Is he further aware that these men registered many months ago and that they are now waiting to be called up? Is there no check to check these men over?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is another question altogether.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

    STEEL.
    Mr. Caryasked the Minister of Supply whether he can give any information about the quantity of steel used up in connection with the construction of the University of London extension building at Bloomsbury; and, as steel requirements for the purposes of national defence have to be covered in part through import from the United States of America and constitute a strain upon our shipping and foreign exchange facilities, will he take steps to stop the construction of the above-named building?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The quantity of steel used in the London University extension was approximately 1,300 tons. The contract was entered into before the war, and such contracts were exempt from the requirement of licence until 1st January last. At that stage the bulk of the steel had been made and despatched to London and the small balance was ready for delivery from the works. In the circumstances, a licence was granted in January for the outstanding balance. My right hon. Friend has made an Order which came into operation yesterday prohibiting the use of steel already in the hands of contractors for building purposes except under licence, and the position of the University extension will be reviewed under this Order.

    MACHINE TOOLS.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Supply what percentage of machine tools in the country is now in full use?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: A census of the hours of working of machine tools in the engineering and allied trades has recently been taken. The statistical results obtained from it in many cases require further investigation before it is possible to say definitely whether a particular machine is already fully used or capable of fuller employment. This investigation is being carried out by the Area Organisation, in order that appropriate action may be taken in each case.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION (LONDON ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  Sir George Mitchesonasked the Minister of Information whether, as the London Regional Advisory Committee does not include any representatives of employers or retail traders, though it includes representatives of the London Trades Council, the Trades Union Congress and the co-operative movement, he will take steps to alter this forthwith?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): It was not possible to complete the membership of the Advisory Committee for the London Region before the pressure of events rendered it necessary that it should meet and commence its duties on a nucleus basis. I can assure

  1087
  the hon. Member that in the completion of the committee the necessity of covering the interests of employers and retail traders will be carefully borne in mind.

  AGRICULTURE (LEAFLET).
  Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered a leaflet, a copy of which has been sent to him, purporting to ask eight questions on behalf of farmers, housewives, service men and others, and mis quoting points from a broadcast of his, on 2nd June, 1940; and whether he will take steps to make it clear that it is without official authority or permission that his name is being used in this propaganda?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): My right hon. Friend has considered this leaflet, in which the opinions of the National Temperance Federation are made to appear as points from his broadcast. He hopes that this reply will make it clear that unauthorised use of his name is being made in this propaganda and that the House will agree that propaganda methods of this sort are most discreditable to the organisation concerned.

FRENCH WARSHIPS (BRITISH ACTION).
Mr. Ammon(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on the naval situation?
The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Yes, Sir. The House will remember that on 4th July the Prime Minister described the painful but very necessary action which we had taken on the previous day to prevent units of the French Fleet, lying in British and North African ports, passing into enemy control. Since that date the Royal Navy have carried out two other operations designed to increase the security of this country against the use of French warships by the enemy. On 6th July a French battle-cruiser of the "Dunkerque" class, which had been damaged and driven ashore at Oran, was attacked by aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, which
1088
obtained six hits. As a result this powerful ship will be incapable of effective use for a very long time to come. Apart from the ships thus dealt with, there lay at Dakar, in French West Africa, the 35,000-ton battleship "Richelieu," which had just been completed, and which was the most modern and formidable capital ship in the world, immediately available for active operations.
In accordance with the decision announced to the House by the Prime Minister, His Majesty's Government decided that steps must also be taken to ensure that this vessel did not fall into enemy hands in a condition in which she could be used against us. A force was accordingly despatched to Dakar with orders to present to the French Admiral there proposals similar to those offered to the French Commander at Oran. On 7th July the Flag Officer entrusted with this operation sent one of his captains ahead in a sloop in order to present the terms in person. On arrival this ship was informed by the French authorities that they would open fire if she approached close to the port, and it was only after an interval that the French consented to receive this communication by signal. In view of the statements which have been made by the French Government concerning the terms offered at Oran, I think it is desirable that I should recapitulate now those put to the Admiral at Dakar.
His Majesty's Government offered four alternatives. Firstly, that the French ships should sail with reduced crews and under escort to a British port with a guarantee that the crews would at once be repatriated, and at the end of the war the ships returned to France; secondly, that they should sail with reduced crews to a French port in the West Indies where they could be demilitarised, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States for safe keeping; thirdly, that the ships should be demilitarised in Dakar within 12 hours; or, fourthly, that they should be sunk within a time limit some hours after the receipt of the signal by the French authorities. No satisfactory reply was received within this limit. Nevertheless, the British Naval Flag Officer in charge waited longer before carrying out his orders to use force. Finally, as it became clear that the French authorities did not propose to accede to any of the British suggestions,

1089
he had no alternative but to carry out his painful duty in the early hours of 8th July.
The attack upon the "Richelieu" was twofold. A ship's boat, under the command of Lieutenant-Commander R. H. Bristowe, R.N., was sent into the harbour carrying depth charges. With great daring the boat successfully passed the boom defences and went alongside the port quarter of the "Richelieu." At the right moment depth charges were dropped close under the stern of the warship as she lay at anchor in the shallow water in order to damage her propellers and steering-gear. The motor-boat began to withdraw immediately after dropping the depth charges, but while still in the harbour broke down and lay helpless for a time. The crew, however, succeeded in getting one engine running just as they were discovered, and the boat, which was pursued, just managed to escape by crossing the harbour defence nets, which held its pursuer. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the gallantry and skill with which this operation was carried out, for it must be obvious that whoever undertook an operation like that ran the risk the whole time of blowing himself up.
The main attack was entrusted to aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm and took place after the attack by the motor-boat. These aircraft were successful with their torpedoes, a number of which hit the "Richelieu." The motor-boat, which was still in the harbour, witnessed the aircraft attack, heard five explosions and then saw smoke issuing from the battleship. Air reconnaissance since carried out has established that the "Richelieu" has a list to port and is down by the stem. A large quantity of oil fuel covers the water around the ship. All our aircraft returned safely, in spite of heavy antiaircraft fire. I would desire, and I am sure the House would desire, to pay tribute to the skill, efficiency and courage with which this action has been carried out by the officers and men concerned.
The House will appreciate the result of the painful action which we have had to take. When the armistice was signed, France had eight capital ships fit to form a line of battle under present conditions. Of these, three of the "Bretagne" and the "Courbet" classes have now passed under our control, one has been sunk, and
1090
one has been badly damaged and immobilised. That makes five of these two classes. Of two modern battle-cruisers, one has been driven ashore at Oran and, as I have already mentioned, will be out of action for a long time to come, if not permanently. The other, as the Prime Minister told the House, managed to escape and is presumed to have reached Toulon, but only after having been hit by a torpedo, which will immobilise her for some time. The state of the "Richelieu," the seventh ship, has been described already this afternoon. There remains, in addition, only the sister ship of the "Richelieu," the "Jean Bart," which will not, however, be completed for operational service for some months to come.
I need not emphasise that the transfer of this powerful modern capital fleet to the enemy might have altered the whole balance of naval strength, with incalculable results to our cause. As a result of the measures we have taken, this grave anxiety is now removed. Perhaps the House will permit me to add a word of thanks to our Naval Staff, who had to plan these recent operations immediately with and following the completion of the evacuation in face of the enemy of troops and refugees totalling not fewer than 600,000, the greatest achievement of its kind in the history of naval operations and a remarkable tribute to the value of our sea power, a power which we do not intend to lose. Rather we intend to prevent the seaborne invasion of this island or the escape of any marauders who dare to set foot here.
Mr. Ammon: I am sure the House will congratulate all those concerned on these very gallant operations. May I ask whether there are any units, other than the capital ships referred to, that can possibly be used against us, such as cruisers and other vessels?
Mr. Alexander: I have no doubt that there are still some cruisers in the control of the French authorities, and they will have to be watched, but I hope the House will not press me at this moment for further particulars.
Sir A. Southby: Can my right hon. Friend give the House the name of the flag officer in command of these operations, and say at what port the "Jean Bart" is now lying?
Mr. Alexander: I think I would prefer not to answer either of those questions, for strategical reasons. I do not wish to reveal, by the name of the officer, which was the unit of the Fleet Air Arm which took part, and I do not want to say at the moment where the other ship is.
Mr. R. C. Morrison: When the four alternative proposals were rejected, did the Admiral of the French battleship make any alternative suggestion?
Mr. Alexander: The French Admiral made no other suggestion at all.
Mr. Gallacher: In view of the traditions of the French people and sailors, was it not possible to make an appeal to the French sailors to take over the ship and immobilise it?
Mr. Alexander: It was made clear by the Prime Minister that His Majesty's Government made an appeal to the people in charge of the Fleet to sail with us and fight with us.
Rear-Admiral Beamish: Could my right hon. Friend say whether there were any other ships similar to the one at Dakar, and what happened to them?
Mr. Alexander: Not at this moment.
Miss Rathbone: What steps have been taken to make known to the French people the terms, because they have been so ingeniously suppressed by the Petain Government?
Mr. Alexander: I believe steps have been taken by the Ministry of Information. Perhaps the hon. Lady will put that question down.
Mr. Hannah: Can we not express sympathy with the relatives of the French sailors?
Viscountess Astor: Is it not very difficult to get the truth to the French sailors in this country? Some of us tried very hard to let them know what was going on, but it was absolutely forbidden.
Mr. Alexander: I think that question should be put on the Paper. Of course, there is no Member of the Government, and certainly no officer or man of the British Fleet, who does not regret to the utmost that this action has been necessary. I may add that the commanding officer in charge of the operations sent a personal signal to the French Admiral
1092
after they were over expressing his regret at having to carry out these painful duties and hoping there were no casualties.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (AIR-RAID WARNINGS).
Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question of which I have given you private notice, namely, whether you can give the House any guidance on the procedure which should be followed in the event of air raids?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this question. I have taken the opportunity of consulting the Palace of Westminster A.R.P. Committee, who are responsible for the scheme which covers the whole of the building. The committee considered whether the suspension of a Sitting should continue to follow automatically on the receipt of an "Air Raid Imminent" warning, or should be left to the discretion of the Chair, and recommended unanimously that no change should be made in the existing procedure. With this recommendation I fully agree. The duty of deciding whether or not to ignore an air-raid warning is not one that can fairly be placed upon the occupant of the Chair—who may be myself, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, or the Deputy-Chairman, or one of the panel of Temporary Chairmen—since he has no means of assessing the degree of risk to which he may be subjecting those present in the Chamber, many of whom are not Members, on any particular occasion.
I think some hon. Members may have forgotten the details of the agreed procedure in connection with air raids; and that it is not generally realised that the arrangements for this House, like those for another place, form part of and must conform to the general scheme for the whole building. I am, accordingly, arranging to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the relevant words of Part V of the general scheme, which deals especially with this House, together with a summary of the grounds upon which the A.R.P. Committee based their recommendation.
Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether, having now received the guidance of Mr. Speaker, he proposes to introduce a new Resolution on the subject?
Mr. Thorne: For the guidance of hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to say what is to be done for the people in the Gallery?
Mr. Speaker: That is all included in the scheme.
Mr. Attlee: I think, in view of what has been said by Mr. Speaker, that the House will now realise the need for some regularisation of the procedure, and I propose to introduce a Resolution.
Following is an extract from Part V of the Air-Raid Precautions Scheme (Palace of Westminster):
"On receipt of the warning 'Air Raid Imminent' the occupant of the Speaker's Chair or the occupant of the Chairman of Ways and Means Chair will thereupon suspend the sitting of the House or of the Committee as the case may be, and the Bar Messengers will call out to the Doorkeeper, 'Air Raid, Sitting Suspended.' The Doorkeeper will then call out 'Air Raid' in the same way as he would call out 'Division,' but he will not ring the Division Bell. 'Air Raid' will be repeated by the Police throughout the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. This warning will be reinforced by sharp blasts on a whistle; these should not be continued unnecessarily. … If an air raid should occur without previous warning, the occupant of the Speaker's or Chairman of Ways and Means Chair will immediately suspend the Sitting. Members of Parliament and other persons will then be instructed by Doorkeepers, Messengers and Police to proceed immediately and quietly to the Refuges as laid down. 'Air Raid Over' will be communicated by the Telephone Exchange to Refuge Headquarters. Five minutes after 'Air Raid Over' the Doorkeeper will ring the bell and on the Speaker resuming the Chair will call 'Speaker in the Chair,' which will be repeated as usual."
Following is a summary of reasons submitted by A.R.P. Committee to Mr. SPEAKER with reference to the suspension of the Sitting during an Air-Raid Warning:
"Under the present arrangements the action to be taken on receipt of an air-raid warning or if an air raid occurs without warning is as indicated above. After careful consideration the Committee unanimously resolved to recommend to the Speaker that this system, which had been decided upon after mature deliberation, should be adhered to, for the following reasons:

(1) To leave to the discretion of the Speaker, or Chairman, or to one of the Temporary Chairmen the decision whether or not to adjourn when a Red Warning had been given and the sirens were sounding outside was to impose upon him an almost impossible task.

(2) On what principle was the Speaker, or the Chairman, to decide exactly at
1094
what moment he would adjourn the House, if he was not guided by the Red Warning?

(3) Practically it would be more than inconvenient—indeed impossible—to have one system for the Chamber and another for the rest of the building. The telephone operators are situated at the top of the building and on a Red Warning immediately vacate these premises and go to the refuge telephone room. In the meanwhile telephonic communication is interrupted. It would appear impossible to order persons not in the Chamber, including Members, kitchen staff, workmen and the public, to remain where they were and not go to the refuges until the Speaker had suspended the Sitting. How are they to be told when he had done so? Many officials have duties to perform in refuges as wardens or sub-wardens and must take up their positions upon the Red Warning being given. If the present arrangements are departed from, there is a grave danger that whilst the House continued to sit some of the Members and some of the staff might be going to the refuge, and general confusion might ensue. In the opinion of the Committee it is vital that there should be a uniform system throughout the building, including both Chambers.

(4) There is no analogy between factories engaged upon urgent war work and the sitting of the Houses of Parliament as some of the speakers on the Lord Privy Seal's Motion appeared to think. These factories, for the most part, work on a 24-hour shift. Any interruption, therefore, in the 24 hours caused by air raids is time lost for ever in the manufacture of essential war production. But the House of Commons does not habitually sit for 24 hours, and any time lost by the suspension of the sitting during an air raid can be made up as was proposed in the Motion.

(5) The principle urged upon all persons during an air raid is to scatter and take cover and is strongly advocated by the Ministry of Home Security, who have expressed the hope that no change will be made in the present proposals as to the action to be taken on an air raid warning.

(6) If the House was to continue to sit after a Red Warning had been given, all in the Chamber would be running a considerable risk because the Chamber is one of the most vulnerable parts of the building. Such a course would also nullify the arrangements now made to eliminate casualties among Ministers and others by dispersal. At present they are distributed among the different refuges. This arrangement has been made on the express request of the Minister of Home Security and ought not lightly to be abandoned."

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
William Nunn, esquire, for the Borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (West Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1940.

      EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and for the Ministry of Supply in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
      4.5 P.m.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): It was on 13th March last that the House passed a Vote of Credit for £700,000,000 as a first instalment of the provision for war expenditure in the present year. That sum is now approaching exhaustion, and it is therefore necessary to ask for a further substantial grant. As regards the Vote of £700,000,000 granted last March, the position is this: Up to Saturday last, 6th July, we had spent some £575,000,000 of that sum, and if expenditure goes on, as it must, at the present or at an increased rate, that Vote will be exhausted in a further two or three weeks. Our present rate of war expenditure is in the neighbourhood of rather more than £50,000,000 a week. Actually, over the last four weeks our average rate of expenditure, directly on the war, has been £54,000,000, which is equivalent to a daily rate of over £7,560,000.
      That rate of £7,500,000 is accounted for in respect of about £6,500,000 each day, by the Navy, Army and Air Force and the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aircraft Production. The remaining £1,000,000 per day is the rate of our expenditure on our other war services, including such outlays as those of the Ministry of Shipping, the Ministry
      1116
      of Food, and the Ministry of Home Security and the cost of such services as evacuation and emergency hospitals. While the other war services which I have mentioned are costing much the same per day as they did in the spring of this year, the cost of the Fighting Services has mounted from £4,000,000 a day, in March last, to £6,500,000 a day, which accounts for the whole of the increase in this total of expenditure.
      I think I can rightly describe these figures as striking. They certainly provide real and visible evidence of the great and rapid increase that is being made in our main war effort. They not only represent no mean achievement, but if anyone still doubts, they are a further proof of our fixed determination to spare no effort in money or in any other way to carry on the war until victory is achieved. As far as the future is concerned, it is, of course, impossible to forecast with precision the rate of our expenditure in the next few months or to say how long a particular sum voted now will last. This certainly can be said, however, that we shall not rest until every effort has been made and every step has been taken to secure that those objects for which we have entered the war are attained.
      I have decided to ask the Committee to approve a further sum of £1,000,000,000. I think this is the largest sum which I could reasonably ask Parliament to grant at one time, and I do so in the belief that it is right that Parliament, in the autumn, should have before it the facts and figures of the position at that time, before further grants are sanctioned. It is true that the Vote which I am asking the House to sanction is the largest Vote which has been taken at one time during this war or during the last war. It is a vast sum, judged even by modern standards, but I believe neither the Committee nor the country will wish to do otherwise than to provide the necessary sums, so that it may be possible for us to continue to forge, with energy and speed, the weapons necessary for the armament and equipment of our growing forces.
      There is one other aspect to which I desire to refer. I feel bound to say this, particularly in my position as Chancellor of the Exchequer. This Vote of Credit is only available for our war services.

      1117
      There are, as we know, other considerable services of the State, and the cost of these must he added in order to obtain the full total of our national expenditure. There is the service of the Debt, and there are the Civil Votes, including the social services. When we add all that expenditure to our outlay on the war, we are faced with the position that we are at present spending at approximately the rate of no less than £9,500,000 a day. Now these are serious figures, and their implications are not, I feel, always sufficiently realised. The gap between revenue and expenditure is widening. The further contribution from taxation towards the cost of the war must clearly be the very highest possible, must cover the widest possible field and must soon be made. There must also be strict curtailment of unnecessary consumption, and in addition there must be a continuous flow of savings from large and small investors to the Exchequer.
      I mention these matters in connection with this Vote, because while we in this country have not failed and never will fail to make full provision for our war effort, it is imperative that we should always keep before us the necessity of maintaining sound financial methods and that we should be ready to make the heavy but necessary sacrifices. This, I am sure, the Committee will feel is vital, not only for the purpose of waging the war, but also because, at the end of it, we want to emerge financially strong and thus ensure some reasonable prospects of decent conditions and tolerable lives for the people of this country.
      Mr. Stokes: Before the Chancellor concludes, will he tell the Committee exactly what is included in that figure of expenditure in respect of the Debt service?
      Sir K. Wood: No, I could not give the hon. Member that figure.
      Mr. Stokes: Is it not of the order of £1,000,000 a day?
      4.14 p.m.
      Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am sure that, in spite of other preoccupations, the Committee has listened with profound interest to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The figures to which he has referred exceed any which this country has ever had to face before. I think I
      1118
      am right in saying that the total of our outgoings on this war at the present time is substantially above anything recorded during the last war. The Committee will have heard with deep attention the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and hon. Members will, I am sure, from now onwards weigh very carefully the grave and important considerations which he has laid before us. I confess I wish he had gone a little further and told us how far the Government have weighed up and balanced the whole economic and financial situation. His concluding words lead one to hope that at a very early date the right hon. Gentleman will make such a summary as I have suggested, and present it to the House of Commons. We want to know what prospect he foresees in connection with the expenditure of the country; to, what extent he thinks we can raise these vast sums out of taxation; how far there will remain borrowings to be made, and in so far as those two methods do not cover the whole field, whether there are any sums which can be raised otherwise, without bringing upon this country a serious condition of inflation.
      When that times comes, and I hope it will be soon, because there is no time to be lost before laying before the country what is required, I believe that the country will respond without hesitation to what is demanded of it. If we are to carry this war to victory, there can be no havering about the means by which it has to he done. I believe that the country will respond, and respond generously, both by meeting the taxation burden which the Government put upon it and by putting aside money from incomes towards loans; but the country does want a whole picture of what it has to face. It wants a picture of how the burden is to be distributed as a whole, and it wants to know how far what is being done now by the lending of money does carry the problem away from the dangerous seas of inflation. I hope that the Chancellor will not delay long before making that statement, and that he will give us the information which the country desires, and give the opportunity to all the people of this country to shoulder the burden which alone can carry us to victory.
      4.17 p.m.
      Mr. Graham White: The Committee have heard with great

      1119
      interest the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and heard it with mixed feelings, but I think that it is satisfactory to know that the war expenditure of the country is now running at the rate of somewhere between £3,000,000,000 and £3,500,000,000 a year at least, which represents a very marked increase in the war effort and in potential production from the time when we last reviewed the finances of this country in this House. The Chancellor reminded us, and quite properly, that the difference between the total expenditure and the revenue, particularly the tax revenue, was increasing, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. PethickLawrence) said the country would like to know the whole position as soon as possible. I am bound to point out that it is not possible on the information now before the country to do more than make an estimate of what our actual requirements and necessities will be.
      As I have said, the expenditure is running at the rate of between £3,000,000,000 and £3,500,000,000 a year, but the tax revenue still remains, as far as we know, at the figure of £1,234,000,000 of the last Budget. We do not know what the total tax revenue will be when the right hon. Gentleman makes an addition for the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax and when he lets us into the secret of the rate at which the Purchase Tax is to be levied. If we adopt what seems to be the general estimate with regard to these two items, it would appear that the total tax revenue for this year is likely to be of the order of £1,400,000,000, and that indicates clearly that the right hon. Gentleman will have to make some proposals of a far-reaching character; and even with the magnificent effort of the War Savings Movement, which seems to be going from strength to strength, it seems that there will have to be a considerable diminution and contraction in the consumption of this country if we are to make both ends meet on the expenditure which he has indicated. But I share the belief which he has just expressed that the country will be quite prepared to shoulder any burden which they are asked to undertake.
      4.20 p.m.
      Sir Irving Albery: The Chancellor has told us how necessary it is that further sums should be subscribed to the National War Loans and has also
      1120
      —not that we needed telling—implied what heavy burdens of taxation we shall have to bear. I cannot help feeling that in some respects our financial policy recently has caused some anxiety and has made some of us wonder whether all the wisdom which we should desire is being brought to bear upon our problems. The national loans of this country are a first mortgage upon all its assets. One of the country's main assets is the industrial asset. By legislation in this House we have declared that to the same extent that all our man-power is to be available to the State in order to win this victory, so all our property is equally available to the State to win this victory, and it seems to me that some better management, some better direction of our financial policy, could have avoided the very severe fall in values which has recently taken place in the City.
      I should like to remark, in passing, that there is sometimes a tendency in this House and outside it to believe that when one speaks of matters in which one is supposed to be interested one is biased. In answer to that, I would say that I have always felt, and still feel, that on many occasions it would be better if criticism came from those persons who are at any rate closely associated with the things they criticise. For example, some people want trade-union reforms. The best people to recommend trade-union reforms are the trade-union leaders. In the same way, I think that if one feels that some different or amended policy is necessary in the City, it is perhaps not to be regretted that those who work there should make that point. At no time in my recollection, within the last 30 years, has there been so small a speculative position—in fact, there practically is none—as there is to-day. So that is not the cause. I also, as I said before, feel convinced that with a policy such as we have to-day, which is definitely a controlled and managed policy, you run a great element of risk if you strictly control one end and take no care to adjust or ease the other end. But that appears to me to be what has happened recently.
      There is one other matter to which I desire to refer. There is at present a great deal of criticism of the banks and of our banking system. It is a matter which I do not wish to enter into to-day—there are obviously two sides to the question—but we have in this country

      1121
      what is regarded in the world at large as probably the best banking system which exists, even if it is not perfect, and it is part, and must be part, of our machinery of victory. Therefore, it is deplorable when one reads in the public Press a most mischievous article which appeared in the "Daily Mirror" on 4th July under the heading of "Cassandra," which was extremely ignorant, extremely ill-informed, and, if one may use that expression with reference to financial matters—and I think one could rightly use it to-day—subversive. I should like to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Information to that article.
      Hon. Members: What did it say?
      Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Mary-hill): It said the banks were not doing their part.
      Sir I. Albery: Read it.
      4.27 p.m
      Mr. Benson: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find the Committee raising any difficulties, about granting this credit of £1,000,000,000, but I think we are entitled to ask on what terms a very considerable portion of that sum is likely to be raised. I am referring now to the rate for Treasury bills. It is a matter which has been raised not once but 20 times in the House since the beginning of the war, and it is a matter upon which the House has never as yet had a satisfactory answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, either the present Chancellor or his predecessor. We are paying slightly over 1 per cent. for our Treasury bills, whereas before the war Treasury bills were discounted at considerably less than 1 per cent. When the point has been raised before, the previous Chancellor, then Sir John Simon, used to give cloudy, misty answers in which he said that a very large number of factors were involved. As a matter of fact, it is not true. There is one factor and one factor alone involved in the rate we have to pay for Treasury bills, and that is the re-discount rate at which the bill market can get its money from the banks, and that in itself is a purely artificial rate. The re-discount rate is a rate agreed upon between the Treasury and the banks, and I want to know why the Treasury, which agreed to
      1122
      a re-discount rate of ½ per cent. before the war, has now agreed with the banks to increase it to 1 per cent.
      In the first six months of the war the cost of that extra ½ per cent., irrespective of any increased borrowings, was more than £3,000,000, and as we shall he borrowing continuously larger and larger sums on Treasury bills, that £3,000,000 in six months, representing £6,000,000 a year, will grow. After some nine months I think we are entitled to a clear and definite explanation from the Chancellor why the Treasury has agreed with the banks that the re-discount rate shall be 1 per cent., because it means a definite present of ½ per cent. to the banks. The money that the banks utilise is not bank money; it is purely artificial money. It is created money, and the Treasury themselves are the controllers of the amount of that money which is available for re-discount. They can put the banks in funds by open market operations to any extent they like.
      The banks are not so much creators of this money as the conduits. The money that we borrow on Treasury bills is, in fact, the credit of the country, and is not a credit of the banks. The banks are merely the machinery that makes it available. The banks themselves can make it available only if the Treasury, by open market operations, puts them in funds. There is no reason at all why the re-discount rate should not go down to A- per cent., or, if our issue of Treasury bills increases beyond a certain point, to ¼ per cent. On this question of Treasury bills, it ought not to be regarded as an interest rate, but as a remuneration for services performed, and that remuneration ought to be cut down to a reasonable limit. We had far fewer Treasury bills before the war, and the banks received only ½ per cent. Now that tender bills amount to between seven and eight hundred million pounds they should not be allowed to charge 1 per cent. We have had no explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer so far, and I hope that he will give us one as to why this indefensible bargain has been struck between the Treasury and the banks.
      4.32 p.m.
      Sir Frank Sanderson: I rise to put two points. I would like to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery).

      1123
      I believe that much of the depreciation on the Stock Exchange, particularly of railway and industrial stocks, could have been prevented, had the policy of the Government been somewhat different. I make a special point of this matter. When my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Sir John Simon, as he then was, raised the proposal of a Purchase Tax, I firmly believed that the beginning of the depreciation in our securities was caused through the suggestion of that tax. It is important that we should not promote unnecessarily depreciation of our securities, because upon those securities we are able to borrow money from the banks and thereby to raise credits to subscribe to Government loans. I say now that I regard the Purchase Tax as a mistake and that I do not believe it will ever see the light of day. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the earliest opportunity of clarifying the position, so that the country may know whether or not the proposed tax is likely to be placed on the Statute Book.
      I come to my second point. My right hon. Friend made reference to the expenditure with which the country is confronted. We are expending to-day approximately £3,500,000,000 per annum. He has already warned the country that still heavier burdens of taxation must be expected. I cannot help feeling that it is unwise to lead the country to believe that it is possible to raise by taxation an amount very much in excess of that which is being raised to-day. How much will it be possible to raise by further direct taxation? One must bear in mind that, if my right hon. Friend taxes the whole of the income of all the people in our land in excess of £2,000 a year, he will raise only £60,000,000, a very small contribution towards that £3,500,000,000 that we are spending to-day. I reiterate that it is not wise to lead the country to believe that this war expenditure can be raised to any great extent by direct taxation. We know full well that it will have to be raised in the main by loans, and on that account it is essential that we should, by all means at our command, keep the cost of our borrowing at the minimum possible rate of interest.
      4.34 p.m.
      Sir Richard Acland: I wish to support the plea put forward by
      1124
      the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and I would impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he really must produce for us a careful and reasoned answer to the case which has been presented so ably, though briefly, by the hon. Member, one which has been presented over and over again in all parts of the House at Question Time. Although it is a complicated question, it seriously troubles the minds of a great many people who will, perhaps, never be able to understand all its intricacies. This is one of the influences which, I believe, are damaging the morale of this country at the present time. This kind of question goes on being asked, and no answer is being given to it, except elusive answers which arouse interest just because they are so cleverly elusive. No serious answer is given to a case which seems to be absolutely irresistible. We have been asked to sacrifice for democracy; if this were really a 100 per cent. democracy, this kind of thing could not happen. You could not have a case of this kind put forward by hon. Members in this House, never answered, and treated as though it were a matter not requiring an answer.
      We are asking that this rate of interest of 1 per cent. should come down to ½ or ¼ per cent. There seems to be no reason why this extraordinary and costly policy should continue, and no serious answer is ever given to us. I believe that one thing is certain; we are determined that in and through this war we shall break the power and the control of the little group of gentlemen who work so harmoniously with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as long as they like him, but over whose comings and goings he expresses himself incompetent to exercise any control; which means that he can arrange anything with them, but that this House and this Committee have no control over the matter at all. It is very strange, but every time a Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "I have no control over them," he is really saying that the people of this country have no control over them. That sort of thing is not to go on at the end of this war. The sooner we show the people of this country that in matters of this kind the policy of this country is to be determined differently after the war, the better it will be for our morale. The longer the arguments which people expect to be

      1125
      answered are left unanswered, the worse it will be for our morale. May I say one thing to Members of the Labour party who are on the Treasury Bench? If the country sees that their presence in high places in this Government has made no difference to the habits of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of other Ministers, and no difference to the answers which these Ministers give, we shall begin to wonder what purpose their presence is serving in the machinery of government. I appeal to them to use their influence in putting these points more forcefully to Ministers.
      4.42 p.m.
      Mr. Tinker: We are asked to vote the biggest credit that has ever been known in the history of this country. I do not think that anybody will complain about that. I remember being told that the Government were not spending enough money on the war effort, but evidently they are now spending more money, and no complaint can be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned that he could not expect revenue to keep up with that expenditure; I want to say a few words on that subject. As I understand it, the revenue is the result of the reasonable taxation of the people to meet the financial state of the country, but a point comes, in modern war finance, when it is almost impossible to raise taxation sufficient to meet expenditure by that means. Therefore, we pass to another question: Where is the money to come from? Hitherto we have taken the line that loans and payment of interest on them should be the way to get the money, but this method should be swept away altogether. The interest on loans has accumulated until we have at the present time a National Debt of over £8,000,000,000.
      We are now proposing to borrow £1,000,000,000. At the end of the war we shall be faced with that enormous mass of debt, and yet, I would remind the Committee, Parliament passed an Emergency Powers Act enabling the Government to conscript, not only all manpower for any purpose, but to conscript wealth. I believe that the Government are afraid to do it. We are going to borrow, and to pay a percentage on the borrowed money to the very rich people who, at the end of a war, are usually far better off than when the war started.
      1126
      [An HON. MEMBER: "How can they be?"] All right, but I say that the time has come when there is no need to create loans. I propose to make a suggestion, which I hope will be carefully considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The suggestion is that he takes all he reasonably can by way of taxation. In regard to the remainder, he should put it on to the banks, with the money that has been created by the war effort, and get the public to pay it back some time or other. In place of the interest, we should only have to meet the actual money expended. That would simply be a book-keeping transaction. We must face up to this issue firmly, because there is no question but that the country is right behind the war effort, and whatever money is expended there will never be any complaint.
      Mr. Wragg: Would the hon. Member allow me—
      Mr. Tinker: No, I want you to listen to me on this matter. The people want to know why we are going on asking for borrowed money. There is no need to borrow this money. The country is behind this war effort. It is not like the last war, when we had to borrow money, buy War Savings Certificates and have different kinds of loans in order to show that the people were behind us. There is no need for that now. The people are behind us 100 per cent. The people are saying that if labour has to be conscripted wealth should be conscripted, and I see no reason why that should not be done. We do not want this silly method of borrowing money with interest, and then paying it all back afterwards, because the burden is on the shoulders of the working class all the time. Mr. Chancellor, you are always orthodox—
      The Chairman: The hon. Member must address the Chair.
      Mr. Tinker: Through you, Sir Dennis, I wish to address the Chancellor. At the moment he is not enjoying a very good reputation in the country. There is a chance for him now of establishing his name if he will follow the example which I am giving him.
      4.47 p.m
      Mr. Loftus: We all realise that we are dealing with a colossal sum. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) said that taxation has

      1127
      nearly reached its limit. That means that an immense sum must be borrowed. The point is, Where is the money to come from? It can only come from genuine savings, and as regards genuine savings I would certainly give 2½ per cent. or even 3 per cent. interest, but I doubt whether any hon. Member thinks that genuine savings would actually bridge the gap. There must be created money to bridge the gap. We know that most of the National Debt consisted of created money lent by the banks to customers, who again subscribed that money to the Exchequer. Last November there was on article in the "Economist," headed "The Technique of Inflation," which warned the country that in this war we must not follow the same technique as was followed in the last war. We must not have bank-created money lent to customers and burdening the country with 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. The "Economist" strongly urged the Government to utilise genuine savings with a fair rate of interest. Will the Government do that with the joint stock banks and charge them ½ per cent., which was the figure mentioned by the "Economist"? Something on those lines will have to be used if we are to refrain from burdening the nation with an intolerable debt in future.
      4.50 p.m.
      Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Mary-hill): I rather hesitated to intervene in this Debate with the financial experts, but I would remind the Committee that there is an old story to the effect that once upon a time the mouse was of assistance to the lion, and if I can place one or two facts before the Chancellor for his consideration, I will have served my purpose. The Chancellor seemed very pleased at being able to state that this was a Vote for £1,000,000,000. He said they were striking figures. But I would say that the Committee and the House in the past have never been so much concerned with how much we were spending on our war effort as to whether that expenditure was wise and safe, whether it was producing the articles necessary for the victory that we all desire. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench suggested, I would have liked the Chancellor to have expatiated on the measures to be taken by the Treasury in the future with regard to this expenditure.
      1128
      I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree that we want to avoid anything in the nature of wasteful expenditure such as those items of wasteful expenditure which have been brought before the House from time to time. I would like to know, with regard to the present circumstances and with regard to this Vote, whether the Treasury are adopting the same methods of control or whether they have in view any new methods of control with regard to the various War Service Departments, so that they can have not only their own advisers but the expert advice of those concerned with the Departments in order that the expenditure of this national finance will not be wasteful. I say that because the point was raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) with regard to an article which appeared in the "Daily Mirror," regretting that certain sections of the community were being asked to make terrific sacrifices and stating that they were questioning what exactly the banks were doing in this respect. I read that article. There is only one reply to it, and that reply must come from the Government. They must make it clear to the public what exactly the banks are doing in this national war effort. It is true that reports, rumours and statements are being spread that the workers are being asked to do this and that, and that certain sections of the community have made contributions, and laudatory comments have come from the Front Bench with regard to the sacrifices that are being made by many sections of the community in handing over their savings completely free of interest. It is, therefore, natural that people in many parts of the country should express the desire that the Chancellor should explain exactly what the banks are doing with regard to the national war effort. As long as the Government and the Chancellor hesitate to make that point perfectly clear, so long shall we have those articles—and rightly so—in the public Press, and those opinions, suspicion and hesitancy in the public mind.
      I listened to the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) when he was dealing with the question of direct taxation, and, as hon. Members know, this party has maintained a particular attitude for many years with regard to the question of indirect taxation. Even now we say that so long as there are sources of taxation

      1129
      among people who have far greater wealth than they require for the normal comforts of life and for the ease and leisure of ordinary life, there ought not to be any further extension of indirect taxation. The hon. Member for Ealing said that this taxation would amount to merely £60,000,000. I would remind him of the words of the last Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord President of the Council when he was Prime Minister, that every penny counts in this war. This is a total war—these are their own words—in which everything that the nation has must be put into the common pool. If this is a total war in which every penny counts, there ought not to be expressions of "merely £60,000,000"; everything—£1,000,000, £500,000, £l0,000,000 or £60,000,000—must be counted as of the utmost importance as a contribution to our effort. Therefore, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any progress has been made upon the lines that I addressed to the last Chancellor and which were answered by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
      We have in this country a system of civil, judicial and hereditary pensions, involving hundreds of thousands of pounds. There are many people, such as ex-judges, who have lived in comfort all their lives, who receive what to us has always seemed an adequate salary, a salary which gave them the benefit of everything that can be provided in the way of comfort, leisure and ease, and those men to-day are drawing from the National Exchequer £5,000 a year pension.
      The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss this matter of judges' pensions now.
      Mr. Davidson: I am not moving anything, Sir Dennis; unfortunately, I cannot. I was suggesting—
      The Chairman: But it is the hon. Member's suggestions which I have ruled cannot be now discussed.
      Mr. Davidson: May I ask you for your guidance, Sir Dennis? Is it out of order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to this question, whether he intends to take any steps on those lines to assist in the expenditure necessary for the Service Departments?
      The Chairman: Yes, it is out of order to discuss pensions which are a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
      Mr. Davidson: If that is the case, I can only regret it, and await another opportunity to raise this particular question. I and many others—I could say the country—feel very strongly on this question.
      The Chairman: I ruled the hon. Member out of order, and he must not pursue that matter.
      Mr. Davidson: Therefore, I will not pursue it. But I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider those points that I have raised.
      The Chairman: I have told the hon. Member that what he has been speaking of is out of order. If he persists, in spite of my warnings, in addressing further remarks on that subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall have to instruct him to resume his seat.
      Mr. Davidson: Sir Dennis, I was not referring to the later words that I used. I was asking the Chancellor to consider the points that I made in the earlier part of my speech, and I trust that I am completely in order with respect to them. I would, therefore, go on to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the people in the country—often termed the common people—the people from my consituency and other constituencies, are whole-heartedly behind the nation, but there is one essential to victory in this war, in regard to our financial position, as in regard to any other effort; that is, complete clarity, a complete statement of the facts, and equality of sacrifice for every section of the nation.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Ellis Smith: We on this side are bound to support this Vote, but there is an aspect about which I and my hon. Friends and other people in the country are much concerned. In order to lead up to the subject, I must remind the Committee that at the beginning of this war this House agreed to forgo a number of Parliamentary rights which vitally affect Private Members' interests. I am not complaining about that; I supported the proposal as strongly as anyone. But we have been made uneasy, on behalf

      1131
      of the people we represent, about one or two points. There is no longer an opportunity for balloting for Private Members' Motions or for the right to submit Motions on the Civil Votes. We are limited, therefore, to an extent that we never anticipated. Seeing that we are prepared to agree to this Vote, I would ask the Leader of the House whether he would give an undertaking on the question of the Royal Warrant—
      The Chairman: If the hon. Member were allowed to pursue that sort of argument, he might introduce almost any subject into the Debate which is not relevant to the Motion before the Committee.
      Mr. Smith: You will see, Sir Dennis, that on that point I am limiting my remarks as narrowly as I can. I have taken advice on the matter, in order to conform to the Standing Orders and the procedure of the House. I have been informed that, providing I limited my remarks to the narrowest limits, I should he in order. All I am asking is that we shall not be forced to express ourselves on this question in a way that we would have—
      The Chairman: The hon. Member must act in these matters according to the direction of the Chair, and not according to any advice he may get elsewhere.
      Mr. Smith: If that is so, Sir Dennis, it shows what should have taken place under the normal procedure. I have read up the "Manual of Procedure" and a number of other publications very carefully this week, and I find that it would have been in order to have raised this question before Mr. Speaker left the Chair. But I will not pursue the matter if the Chair thinks that it is not in order. I am limiting it as narrowly as possible, in order to keep within the Rules of Order. Having read the Rules very carefully, I propose to follow this course, unless I am ruled out of order. All I have done up to now is to paint the background; this is the point I want to raise. This is a serious matter. The Committee is in a difficulty with regard to this question, and if we are doing our duty to the people, we are bound to be concerned about it. We were told that this Royal Warrant had been submitted, and I asked the Prime Minister to give an
      1132
      undertaking that the House would have an opportunity of considering it before it was finally adopted. [HON. MEMBERS: "What Royal Warrant?"]. I asked that before the Royal Warrant submitted to His Majesty by the Minister of Pensions was adopted the House, in view of our past experience, would be given an opportunity of considering it. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would not be so ready to smile if they had had to deal with cases arising out of the last war, such as many of us have had to deal with. I want the Leader of the House to undertake that the Government will submit this Royal Warrant to a vote of the House. I want to dissociate myself from it completely in its present form. Although I support the Vote, I think that the Committee, before agreeing to it, should have an assurance that the Government will be prepared to consider the suggestion made in connection with pensions, under this Vote, to the soldiers who are now serving.
      5.7 p.m.
      Sir K. Wood: I need hardly assure the Committee that I will take very careful note of the suggestions that have been made. I am a little confused by some of the advice I have received, especially from my hon. Friends opposite. Apparently they do not want any further taxation, and they are not so keen on borrowing. What course they want me to follow I do not know, but I will study their speeches. I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) for what he said about the Vote. He urged me to make another statement on the position, as I shall have to do when I bring forward further proposals to meet the present situation. I agree that those proposals should be made soon. There are many reasons for doing that. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) spoke about our general financial policy, and criticised it in some respects. So far as I could gather, the only definite point he desired to make, at any rate this afternoon, was with regard to the position of equities. I have had an opportunity of speaking to him and to others about that position, but. as the Committee will have observed from the reply that I gave to a Question to-day, the position has improved since

      1133
      that matter was first raised; and I hope that it will continue to improve.
      The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) raised again a matter which is very dear to him, and on which he put a number of questions to my predecessor. He put forward, with great force, his argument about the difference between the rate given to the banks before the war and that given now. If he will address a question to me, I will give him a considered reply. I have observed the replies given by my predecessor, and I thought they were explicit, but I will endeavour—not, I am afraid, with much success—to be more explicit still. The fact that ½ per cent. was the rate at which banks lent money to the market before the war does not mean that it would be appropriate now. It does not take into account several other considerations, like the general financial and economic situation, and the fact that the volume of Treasury hills issued to the market is now much greater. The lending rate is, in fact, settled by the banks themselves, but the whole structure of short money rates has to be considered in the light of all present circumstances. That, as I remember it, was the gist of my predecessor's reply. Some statements have been made this afternoon also about the position of the banks in relation to the general financial situation. I will study them, but it is only right that I should say that, at any rate in my belief, the banks have in fact given the fullest assistance, in close cooperation with the Treasury and other Departments, in financing the war effort, and in providing for the needs of the community during the emergency. I do not myself think—and I must testify to what I know—that there is any case for the suggestion that they are not playing their part in the war effort.
      Mr. Davidson: The Chancellor has stated that he believes that the banks are playing their part. Does he mean their full part, and, if so, will he expatiate on whether the banks are giving the Treasury any special facilities with regard to percentage rates?
      Sir K. Wood: No one can say for certain whether a particular institution is playing its full part or not. It is to some extent a matter of opinion. I have given my opinion. That does not mean that
      1134
      the hon. Gentleman need not hold the contrary opinion. He is as much entitled to his opinion as I am to mine. I will only say that I will carefully study all the observations that have been made this afternoon, and I hope that they will bring me some assistance in the very difficult situation which faces us at the present time. It will be my endeavour in any further efforts which I shall ask the House to sanction, and the country to make, to see that all sections of the community are asked to make a fair financial contribution, and I would express the opinion that it obviously must cover the widest field. I am not in a position to pick and choose. Every possible source that is a reasonable one must be open to us, and it is in that spirit that I shall approach my next task.
      Mr. Tinker: When are we likely to have the Chancellor's considered opinion as to how the money should be raised—in a month's time, in a fortnight, or when?
      Sir K. Wood: I used the word "soon."
      5.13 p.m.
      The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) put a question to me. I am bound to say that I do not appreciate its exact relevance to this discussion. It is obvious that there will have to be notice of such a question, as I could not reply to it without notice.
      Question,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000, 000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and for the Ministry of Supply in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war,"
      put, and agreed to.
      Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]
      Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, the sum of £1,000,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidation Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SECRET SESSION.
  5.18 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): Mr. Speaker, I beg to call your attention to the fact that strangers are present.
  Mr. Speaker: The Question is, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Strangers withdrew accordingly.
  [The remainder of the Sitting was in Secret Session.]

  JAMAICA (CENSORSHIP).
  JAMAICA (CENSORSHIP).
  NIGERIA (INCOME TAX).
  NIGERIA (INCOME TAX).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  NATIONAL WAR BONDS.
  NATIONAL WAR BONDS.
  INTEREST-FREE LOANS.
  INTEREST-FREE LOANS.
  EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
  EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
  PURCHASE TAX (AGRICULTURAL REQUISITES).
  PURCHASE TAX (AGRICULTURAL REQUISITES).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  PETROL RATIONING.
  PETROL RATIONING.
  AIR DEFENCE ORDERS (CROPS).
  AIR DEFENCE ORDERS (CROPS).
  BROADCASTING (NEWS BULLETINS).
  BROADCASTING (NEWS BULLETINS).
  FEEDING-STUFFS AND FERTI- LISERS (PURCHASE FACILITIES).
  FEEDING-STUFFS AND FERTI- LISERS (PURCHASE FACILITIES).
POST OFFICE.
  NORTHERN IRELAND (CENSORSHIP).
  NORTHERN IRELAND (CENSORSHIP).
  WIRELESS RECEIVING LICENCES.
  WIRELESS RECEIVING LICENCES.
  ROYAL NAVY (MR. A. J. MUNNINGS, R.A.).
  ROYAL NAVY (MR. A. J. MUNNINGS, R.A.).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (CLERICAL STAFFS).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (CLERICAL STAFFS).
SCOTLAND.
  EVACUEES (PERTHSHIRE).
  EVACUEES (PERTHSHIRE).
  CENTRAL MEDICAL WAR COMMITTEE.
  CENTRAL MEDICAL WAR COMMITTEE.
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.
  GOVERNMENT BUILDING PROGRAMME.
  GOVERNMENT BUILDING PROGRAMME.
  FACTORY WORKERS (WELFARE).
  FACTORY WORKERS (WELFARE).
BRITISH ARMY.
  LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.
  LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.
  DRIVER, ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (DISCHARGE).
  DRIVER, ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (DISCHARGE).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PASSES).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PASSES).
  LEAVE.
  LEAVE.
  INSTRUCTORS.
  INSTRUCTORS.
  SOUTH AFRICA (VACCINATION LAW).
  SOUTH AFRICA (VACCINATION LAW).
  HOTEL AND BOARDING-HOUSE KEEPERS (ASSISTANCE).
  HOTEL AND BOARDING-HOUSE KEEPERS (ASSISTANCE).
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  INJURY ALLOWANCES.
  INJURY ALLOWANCES.
  FIRE-FIGHTING APPLIANCES.
  FIRE-FIGHTING APPLIANCES.
  MAPS (SALE).
  MAPS (SALE).
  UNEMPLOYED (UTILISATION).
  UNEMPLOYED (UTILISATION).
  EVACUATION.
  EVACUATION.
HOME DEFENCE.
  ORGANISATION.
  ORGANISATION.
  CIVIL AND MILITARY POWERS.
  CIVIL AND MILITARY POWERS.
ARMED FORCES.
  VOLUNTARY SERVICE (MEDAL).
  VOLUNTARY SERVICE (MEDAL).
  DOCTORS (PROTECTION OF PRACTICES).
  DOCTORS (PROTECTION OF PRACTICES).
  EIRE IMMIGRANTS (HARVESTERS).
  EIRE IMMIGRANTS (HARVESTERS).
  MILK SCHEME (NEWCASTLE-UPONTYNE).
  MILK SCHEME (NEWCASTLE-UPONTYNE).
  CENTRAL MEDICAL WAR COMMITTEE.
  CENTRAL MEDICAL WAR COMMITTEE.
  TYPHOID FEVER (INOCULATION).
  TYPHOID FEVER (INOCULATION).
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE WAR: THE FRENCH FLEET.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Addison, may I ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the war situation, with particular reference to the naval position?
LORD SNELL: My Lords, you will remember that on July 4 my noble friend the Foreign Secretary described the painful but very necessary action which we had taken on the previous day to prevent units of the French Fleet lying in British and North African ports from passing into enemy control. Since that date the Royal Navy have carried out two other operations designed to increase the security of this country against the use of French warships by the enemy. On July 6 a French battle cruiser of the "Dunkerque" class which had been damaged and driven ashore at Oran was attacked by aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm who obtained six hits. As a result this powerful ship will be incapable of effective use for a very long time to come.
Apart from the ships thus dealt with, there lay at Dakar in French West Africa the 35,000-ton battleship "Richelieu" which had just been completed and was the most modern and formidable capital ship in the world immediately available for active operations. In accordance with the decision announced to your Lordships by the Foreign Secretary, His Majesty's Government decided that steps must also be taken to ensure that this vessel did not fall into enemy hands in a condition in which she could be used against us. A force was accordingly despatched to Dakar with orders to present to the French Admiral there proposals similar to those offered to the French commander at Oran. On July 7 the Flag Officer entrusted with this operation sent one of his captains ahead in a sloop in order to present the terms in person. On arrival, this ship was, however, informed by the French authorities that they would open
804
fire if she approached close to the port, and it was only after an interval that the French consented to receive this communication by signal.
In view of statements which have been made by the French Government concerning the terms offered at Oran it is desirable that I should recapitulate now those put to the Admiral at Dakar. His Majesty's Government offered four alternatives. First, that the French ships should sail with reduced crews and under escort to a British port with a guarantee that the crews would at once be repatriated, and at the end of the war the ships returned to France. Secondly, that they should sail with reduced crews to a French port in the West Indies where they could be demilitarised or perhaps be entrusted to the United States for safe keeping. Thirdly, that the ships should be demilitarised in Dakar within twelve hours; or, fourthly, they should be sunk within a time limit some hours after the receipt of the signal by the French authorities. No satisfactory reply was received within this limit. Nevertheless, the British naval commander waited longer before carrying out his orders to use force. Finally, as it became clear that the French authorities did not propose to accede to any of the British suggestions, he had no alternative but to carry out his painful duty in the early hours of July 8.
The attack upon the "Richelieu" was two-fold. A ship's boat under the command of Lieut.-Commander H. R. Bristowe, R.N., was sent into the harbour carrying depth charges. With great daring the boat successfully passed the boom defences and went alongside the port quarter of the "Richelieu". At the right moment depth charges were dropped close under the stern of the warship as she lay at anchor in the shallow water in order to damage her propellers and steering gear. The motor boat began to withdraw immediately after dropping the depth charges but while still in the harbour broke down and lay helpless for a time. The crew however succeeded in getting one engine running just as they were discovered and the boat, which was pursued, just managed to escape by crossing the harbour defence nets which fouled its pursuer. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in paying tribute to the gallantry and skill with which this operation was carried out.

805
The main attack was entrusted to aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm and took place after the attack by the motor boat. These aircraft were successful with their torpedoes, a number of which hit the "Richelieu". The motor boat which was still in the harbour witnessed the aircraft attack, heard five explosions and then saw smoke issuing from the battleship. Air reconnaissance since carried out has established that the "Richelieu" has a list to port and is down by the stern. A large quantity of oil fuel covers the water around the ship. All our aircraft returned safely in spite of heavy anti-aircraft fire. Your Lordships will desire to pay tribute to the skill, efficiency and courage with which this action has been carried out by the officers and men concerned.
Your Lordships will appreciate the result of the action which we have had to take. When the Armistice was signed, France had eight capital ships fit to form a line of battle under present conditions. Of these, three of the "Bretagne" and "Courbet" classes have now passed under our control, one has been sunk, and one badly damaged and immobilised. Of two modern battle cruisers, one has been driven ashore at Oran and, as I have already mentioned, will be out of action for a long time to come, if not permanently. The other managed, as the Foreign Secretary told your Lordships, to escape, and is presumed to have reached Toulon, but only after having been hit by a torpedo which will demobilise her for some time. The state of the "Richelieu" has already been described. There remains, in addition, the sister ship of the "Richelieu," the "Jean Bart" which will not, however, be completed for many months to come. I need not emphasize that the transfer of this powerful modern fleet to the enemy might have altered the whole balance of naval strength, with incalculable results to our cause. As a result of the measures which we have taken, this grave anxiety is now removed.
Perhaps the House will permit me to add a word of thanks to the Naval Staff who had to plan these recent operations immediately with, and following, the completion of the evacuation, in face of the enemy, of troops and refugees totalling not less than 600,000, the greatest achievement of its kind in the history of naval operations and a remarkable
806
tribute to the value of our sea power, which we do not intend to lose. Rather, we intend to prevent seaborne invasion of this island or the escape of any marauders who dare to set foot here.
4.12 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, it is impossible off-hand adequately to comment upon this thrilling statement. Historically it will become a renowned statement. As a layman, one is filled with admiration of the ingenuity and daring of the men who carried this operation out. I only hope that the result of this exploit will, in fact, be that this powerful ship will be immobilised for a long time. I do not know what the repair facilities at the port in question are, but I imagine that they are not very considerable for a ship of this kind. As one listens to one after the other of these accounts of acts of boldness and ingenuity by the members of His Majesty's Naval Forces, one is filled with a longing for the day when we shall find their exploits extended to the Italian ships which are diligently skulking in their ports. I am not aware what opportunities they present, knowing nothing whatever about the technicalities of this matter, but one cannot but feel that men gifted with the courage and ingenuity which have so far been displayed will be able to discover some means to induce or compel these reluctant war vessels to take the sea, or will be able to deal with them in the places where they have so far skulked in safety.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Schemes for Colonial development and welfare.
1.—(1) The Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Treasury, may make schemes for any purpose likely to promote the development of the resources of any Colony or the welfare of its people, and any sums required by the Secretary of State for

807
the purpose of any such scheme shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament:
Provided that, unless Parliament otherwise determines—

(a) the sums to be so paid for the purposes of any such schemes for promoting research or inquiry shall not in the aggregate exceed five hundred thousand pounds in any financial year; and

(b) the sums to be so paid for the purposes of any other such schemes shall not in the aggregate exceed five million pounds in any financial year, and no such other scheme shall continue in force after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.

(2) Before making any scheme under this section the Secretary of State—

(a) shall satisfy himself that fair conditions of labour will be observed in the execution of all works the cost of which is to be defrayed in whole or in part in pursuance of the scheme, and in particular—

(i) that the wages paid will be at not less than the standard rates; and

(ii) that no children under such age as may be appropriate in the circumstances, but not in any case being less than fourteen years, will be employed on the works; and

(b) shall take into account the desirability of securing so far as possible that the Colony in respect of which the scheme is made shall participate in any increase in values directly attributable to the scheme.

4.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved to add to subsection (1):
"(c) the sums to be paid for the purposes of promoting research or inquiry shall not be applicable to the payment of the salaries of the ordinary scientific or technical staff of any Government Department of the Colony or of or incidental to any continuous advisory or experimental work on which they may be engaged in the course of their normal employment."
The noble Viscount said: I have put down this Amendment in order to make quite certain that the relatively small sum of money which is available under this Bill for the purposes of research shall be applied to research properly defined, and not used for the current expenses of technical advisers or towards the conduct of those routine experiments which are necessarily and invariably carried out by the technical experts of Government Departments. I took the opportunity on the Second Reading of the Bill to point out that there are vast problems which await solution in connection, for example, with such subjects as the tsetse fly, and the serious diseases of both animals and
808
human beings which result from its prevalence, particularly in Central and South Central Africa, and such a problem as malnutrition, a very serious condition which obtains in the case of millions of the native populations of Africa, largely owing to a lack of balance in the food provided for or available to them.
During the same debate on the Second Reading, I illustrated the kind of difficulty which arises when one of these countries happens to run short of revenue sufficient to pay their technical officers, to the very serious disadvantage of those engaged in primary production or in other industries of a somewhat elementary character in a tropical or sub-tropical country. I pointed out that in the course of the inquiry conducted by the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission some two years ago, we found, for instance, that the agricultural chemist employed by the Northern Rhodesia Department of Agriculture ceased to carry on his office altogether for at least three years owing to there being insufficient revenue to pay his salary. That is obviously very bad economy; and what I am hoping is that this new money which is provided ostensibly for research will not be applied towards meeting the ordinary current expenses of the necessary technical staff of any of the essential Government Departments in these countries.
I have not taken the trouble to look up the definition of "research," but my own interests and activities during a somewhat long life having been devoted mainly to agricultural research, I am a little jealous lest the term "research" should be misinterpreted and should not have, in this Bill, the meaning which is usually and properly assigned to it. Research, I think your Lordships will agree, is the process by which new knowledge becomes available to human beings as the result of systematic investigation. It could not properly be interpreted to mean the payment of technical advisers for the conduct of routine experiments based upon already ascertained knowledge, as opposed to new knowledge which is the result of new research experiments or the conduct of new scientific investigations with a view to new technical advice being available. I do not know what my noble friend is going to say with regard to this Amendment, but I do most earnestly venture to hope that, so far as these technical officers and their routine

809
experiments are concerned, whether they be chemical, mycological or veterinary—all of which are most important in subtropical countries—if more money is wanted for those purposes owing to insufficient revenue being available, that money will be found out of the larger fund which is to be provided under this Bill and not from the relatively small amount which is earmarked for the purposes of research. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): I can assure my noble friend that I am in entire sympathy with the purpose which the Amendment moved by him is designed to achieve. Indeed, I can assure your Lordships that it is a very definite intention of His Majesty's Government that the funds which are to be provided by Parliament for the furtherance of research in matters of concern to the Colonial Empire should not be eaten into by using them to relieve Colonial Governments of expenditure which they ought to incur from their own resources. The whole point of the provision which is being made under this Bill is that there are vast fields of research into matters vitally affecting the well-being of the Colonies and their inhabitants which many Colonial Governments are at present unable to undertake because they have not the requisite resources, and it is precisely for the purpose of enabling these vitally important researches to be undertaken that Parliament is now being asked to make provision to enable their cost to be met from the funds of this country.
I know very well from my experience in another field of activity in which I have been engaged for the last two or three years, that there is always a temptation for Colonial Governments when funds are placed at their disposal from an outside source for a specific purpose, to consider whether this outside assistance may not enable them to economise on services for which they themselves have previously been paying, and so really riding off, if I may use the phrase, the very purpose for which the money was given. I have had constant experience of it in dealing with the British Council's affairs where there is a natural temptation for a Colonial Government, on being offered money from
810
outside, to see whether it cannot economise its own revenues. Therefore my noble friend is preaching to the completely converted in this matter. I must confess that I should have been happy if I could have accepted by noble friend's Amendment, or at any rate some modification of it, which would have achieved the purpose which he has in mind. I have, none the less, however, considered the matter very carefully and I have come to the conclusion that no form of words could be devised to achieve this purpose which would not at the same time be so rigid as to rule out assistance in some cases in which I am sure the noble Viscount and your Lordships would agree that it should be rendered. May I give your Lordships an example of what I have in mind?
Let us assume that a most important piece of research work is being carried on by the scientific officers of a prosperous Colony. Even prosperous Colonies sometimes fall upon bad times, and it might be that the only way of ensuring the continuance this work would be for Parliament to come to the rescue and to vote money for the continuance of this work. I submit to your Lordships that it would be very deplorable if words were introduced into this Bill which would make this impossible, as would certainly be the case if your Lordships were to accept the Amendment proposed by my noble friend. I am afraid, therefore, that I must ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment, but at the same time to accept an assurance from me that it is the definite intention of His Majesty's Government—and here I speak for the Treasury as well as for myself—that the funds to be devoted to research under the provisions of this Bill should be spent on schemes which would otherwise be beyond the resources of the Colonies—I think that is a clear enough assurance to my noble friend—and that we shall constantly be on the watch to ensure that these funds are in no way diverted from the purpose for which they are designed by allowing them to be used to relieve Colonies of expenditure which they ought properly to undertake from their own resources. I hope my noble friend, in view of that very categorical assurance, will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: While I remain entirely unconvinced, I can of course, quite realise that as long as my

811
noble friend remains the alert watch-dog at the head of the Colonial Department, I may feel pretty happy in my own mind that this money will not be diverted for a purpose for which Parliament obviously did not intend it. These are grave times and, although entirely unconvinced, I do not want, in the circumstances, to press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.25 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (2), after "section," to insert "as respects any Colony." The noble Lord said: As this is a purely verbal Amendment, consequential on the Amendment which follows, I will, with your Lordships' permission, deal with these two Amendments together. My second Amendment is to move in line 7 on the same page, after "himself," to insert:
"in a case where the scheme provides for the payment of the whole or part of the cost of the execution of any works, that the law of the Colony provides reasonable facilities for the establishment and activities of trade unions, and"
The effect of this Amendment, as your Lordships will see, is to place the Secretary of State under an obligation to satisfy himself, before making any scheme which will involve financial assistance being provided by Parliament under this Bill, that the law of the Colony provides reasonable facilities for the establishment and activities of trade unions. This does not mean that the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that trade unions are actually in existence, and operating, in the Colony concerned; but merely that there are no obstacles, in the laws of that Colony, to the formation, and operation, of trade unions if the workers of that Colony desire to form them. It is therefore not mandatory, but permissive.
An Amendment to this effect was moved on the Committee stage of the Bill in another place but was withdrawn on my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State giving an assurance that the principle of the Amendment was acceptable to His Majesty's Government and that, if a really satisfactory form of words to achieve the purpose of the Amendment could be found, I would introduce the Amendment in your Lordships' House. I am satisfied that the form of words which I am now moving is satisfactory for its purpose, and I may mention that steps
812
have been taken to ascertain that the terms of this Amendment are acceptable not only to the members of the other House who spoke to the Amendment which was introduced there, but also to other honourable members who took part in the debate. Your Lordships can therefore be assured that, if you accept this Amendment, it will equally be acceptable to the House of Commons. It is therefore an agreed Amendment.
In moving it I wish to make it quite clear to your Lordships that it is not intended to introduce a new principle into the administration of our Colonial Empire. In fact, it has for many years been the deliberate policy of every one of my predecessors to encourage Colonial Governments to introduce satisfactory legislation to legalise and regulate the operation of trade unions in the territories under their administration. I am aware that the view is held in many quarters, and was expressed in the course of the debate in another place, that the inhabitants of many of the Colonies, especially in Africa, are not yet ripe for organization in trade unions, and I should like to make it clear that neither in this Amendment nor in the legislation which has already been enacted in a large number of Colonies to legalise the formation of trade unions, is there anything mandatory in that respect. But we have to face modern times, and as your Lordships are aware, while it is the case that in a number of the Colonies large numbers of the inhabitants are in a rudimentary stage of development, there are many other Colonies which have had a long association with Western ideas, and even in the so-called backward Colonies, many of the inhabitants are now increasingly engaged in industrial and other undertakings, organised on Western lines, where they are in daily contact with Western ideas. In such communities it is only natural that the workers should, in this as in many other respects, wish to tread the same path as has been trodden by the workers in this country.
There is another reason why I think this Amendment should commend itself to your Lordships. In spite of this inevitable growth of the trade union movement among the more advanced of the workers in the Colonies, there has been very little legislation regulating their activities. Where that was the case in a large number of Colonies there were forming, under the

813
law then prevailing, illegal societies which were frequently dealt with as such. The inevitable result was that what, if property directed, should have been a perfectly normal and healthy development, was in danger of being driven underground and was getting into the hands of wholly irresponsible and often ill-disposed persons who were only too ready to make use of the unions for their own subversive purposes. It was Lord Passfield who formed the view that, quite apart from any theoretical question of the desirability or otherwise of such organisations, the most effective remedy for the state of affairs which was developing was that all Colonial Governments should be encouraged to introduce legislation to legalise the activities of trades unions and to provide for their proper conduct. In fact, Lord Passfield's anxiety that the movement should develop on the right lines—I mention him because he was keenly interested in this matter—led him to suggest to Colonial Governments that the laws which he was encouraging them to pass should include a provision stipulating that trade unions should be registered, a provision which is not found in the legislation of this country. This policy of encouraging all Colonial Governments to pass legislation of this character has been followed by all Lord Passfield's successors in office with, a view to ensuring, as far as is possible, that as and when workers in the Colonies reach the stage of development when they aspire to the formation of unions to further their legitimate interests, the way shall be clear for them to do so on sound constitutional lines.
I am told that, at the present time, the number of workers' trade unions registered under this legislation in the Colonies is in the neighbourhood of 180. So your Lordships will see that there is nothing new or revolutionary in what I am now proposing. The majority of these unions are in Colonies such as Cyprus, Mauritius, Ceylon and certain of the West Indian Colonies. I have a list here if any noble Lord wishes to look at it. The movement is also developing in West Africa and I understand that in East Africa one or two unions have been formed. It is true that the members of many of the unions which have been formed in the course of the last few years are comparatively unsophisticated and
814
not well versed in Western ways, and their leaders are in need of guidance to ensure that they acquire a due sense of their responsibilities. This is a problem which is actively engaging the attention of all Colonial Governments and of the Colonial Office itself. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that, if properly directed, the trade unions in the Colonies will, in course of time, come to fulfil a most useful function in achieving that happy relationship between employers and employed which is essential to the health of the whole body politic. I need hardly, at this juncture in our affairs, remind your Lordships of the vital part which the trade unions in this country are playing in our united national effort, and I commend this Amendment very confidently to your Lordships as a very right and proper provision to insert in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("section") insert ("as respects any Colony").—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.35 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: The next Amendment is consequential, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("himself") insert ("in a case where the scheme provides for the payment of the whole or part of the cost of the execution of any works, that the law of the Colony provides reasonable facilities for the establishment and activities of trade unions, and").—(Lord Lloyd.)
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: This appears to be a series of Amendments in order to encourage and strengthen the forces of trade unionism so as to ensure proper conditions of labour in our Colonies. Far be it from me, being a convinced advocate of trade unionism in all English-speaking countries, to say any word which would appear to deprecate the desire to ensure proper conditions of labour in any country over which flies the Union Jack, and particularly at this time when we must all agree that during this crisis the attitude of trade unionists and their leaders throughout this country has been nothing short of magnificent.
But I do wish to utter this word of warning. My noble friend the Colonial Secretary did mention that in certain African Colonies this particular provision would not be of very great value until there was a further development of what

815
I may call Western civilisation. I have lately come from a country where, perhaps unfortunately, the very strong trade unionism of the European people, resulting in very high wages and very good conditions of labour, operates as a most unsettling factor in the native mind. After all, in the countries of South-Central Africa, the higher the European wages as the result of strong trade unionism, the more marked by comparison becomes the difference between the remuneration of the European and the remuneration of the native. I fully recognise that where you have got a majority of European population in any Colony, such a provision as this can only operate to the advantage of labour generally, but where you have an enormous preponderance of native people in a highly primitive state, with relatively small remuneration for their labour, you have to be extremely careful, in applying such provisions as this, that you are not indirectly fostering discontent and making the native problem more difficult to solve. I only wish to mention that as a caveat without in any way opposing these Amendments.
LORD STRABOLGI: On behalf of my noble friends, I have much pleasure in thanking my noble friend the Colonial Secretary for implementing the undertaking given in another place and for introducing this very satisfactory Amendment to the Bill. It is an extraordinary thing, and I recommend my noble friend to draw the attention of his colleague the Minister of Information to it, that while in the totalitarian States—now unfortunately joined by a coup d'état Government in France—highly skilled white labour is forbidden to be in trade unions, we in our Colonial Empire are recognising the need for the gradual and orderly development of the trade union system among skilled and manual workers. That point ought to be driven home through every channel we have to the suffering peoples of Europe. In connection with that, while we are passing this provision with the support of the noble Viscount opposite, who has had great Colonial experience, and without opposition, I regret to see in the newspapers that one of the first acts of M. Laval, the Vice-Premier of the Bordeaux Government, has been to arrest 700 prominent French trade union leaders who had been doing their utmost, through
816
the Confédération Générate du Travail, to increase the supply of munitions and help the French war effort. There you have the contrast. That epitomises the great struggle in which we are engaged.
With regard to what fell from my noble friend the Colonial Secretary about the noisy beginnings of some of these trade unions, it is a fact that where you have unorganised labour, and it is desired to organise the workers and bring them gradually to the state of being able to work together for their own good, it is necessary in the first place, usually, that non-manual workers should take the lead; that is people above their ranks, the intellectual labour of the communities perhaps—sometimes as in India in the past by Europeans and in Africa by Eurasians—and men of the professional classes who have had, in the first place, to organise these, in some cases, primitive workers. The charge made against them has been: "Oh, they have nothing to do with the union; what right have they to try and organise the labourers?" These men, very often public-spirited and self-sacrificing men, have incurred the intense hostility of the employers, as was to be expected, human nature being what it is. But that is got over. We had the same thing in this country a hundred years ago. The agricultural labourers in the Eastern counties of England were attempted to be organised in the first place by men of that kind, but as the unions found their feet so their own leaders emerged. And, of course, that happens in all cases.
Before finally thanking the Colonial Secretary, may I draw attention to how useful unions may be in certain difficult cases? In the quieter times in Palestine the transport workers, dock workers and others, consisting of Jews and Arabs, were all brigaded together into the same unions and worked most harmoniously. There was no communal trouble, and it was not until political and religious issues arose that the harmony was in any way disturbed. There you have an example of the use of a union with, of course, a much more educated working class, for smoothing down communal and racial differences. Speaking for my noble friends, I may add that we are very grateful to my noble friend not only for the introduction of this Amendment, but for the way he has explained its necessity and the Government's policy.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (2)(a), to leave out "all works the cost of which has to be defrayed in whole or in part in pursuance of the scheme" and insert "the works." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely verbal and consequential on the wording of my second Amendment, and I need not trouble your Lordships with any long explanation of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, leave out from ("of") to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("the works").—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.43 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (2) (a) (i), to leave out "standard rates" and insert "rates recognised by employers and trade unions in the area where the works are to be executed or, if there are no rates so recognised, at rates approved by the person for the time being administering the Government of the Colony." The noble Lord said: The provision which it is now proposed to amend was taken bodily from the Colonial Development Act of 1929, but it was represented in the debate in the Committee stage in another place, that the words "standard rates" are too ambiguous. They are nowhere defined and indeed seem incapable of definition, especially in relation to some of the more backward Colonies where, quite possibly, work may be undertaken on schemes for which assistance is provided under this Bill of a kind which has perhaps never been undertaken before. It was further argued in the course of that debate that the criterion that ought to be satisfied is that fair rates of wages should be paid to workmen in the Colonies employed on works for which funds will be provided by Parliament under this Bill. This, I am sure, is a principle which will commend itself to their Lordships.
The Amendment which was introduced in another place was withdrawn on an assurance being given by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that if a suitable form of words could be found to give effect to the principle involved, I would introduce an Amendment in your Lordships' House. Since that debate we have gone into this question very carefully with honourable members who spoke in that debate, and we have come to the conclusion that where
818
there is a recognised trade union rate of wages in any area it is right and proper that that should be recognised as the minimum wage for work, on schemes financed under this Bill. But there will be some places, many perhaps, where there is no trade union rate of wages. In such areas we thought that the most satisfactory provision to make should be that the wages to be paid should be at rates approved by the Government. The wording of this Amendment has been agreed with members of the House of Commons who took part in the debate in that House, so that your Lordships can be assured that if you approve this Amendment it will also be acceptable in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("standard rates") and insert he said new words.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out "in respect of which the scheme is made." The noble Lord said: This Amendment also is purely verbal and is consequential on the wording of my first and second Amendments, and I need not therefore trouble your Lordships with any further explanation of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, leave out from ("Colony") to ("shall") in line 20.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Relief in respect of certain loans.
3.—(1) The outstanding amount of the principal of the loans made from time to time out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Governments of the countries specified in the first column of Part I of the Schedule to this Act for the purposes specified in the second column of that Part, amounting to the sums specified in the third column of that Part, shall be extinguished, and all arrears of interest thereon shall be remitted.
(2) The Treasury may agree, on such conditions as they think fit, to extinguish the outstanding amount of the principal (amounting to one million two hundred and fifty-five thousand and twenty-one pounds, fourteen shillings and two pence) of the sums which have been lent from time to time out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Government of Nyasaland for the purpose of enabling it to meet its liabilities arising out of the Trans-Zambesia Railway guarantee, and to remit all arrears of interest thereon.
4.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved to insert at the end of subsection (2): "and the current obligation to apply half its standard revenue in excess of £450,000 per annum towards the repayment to the Treasury of its past loans therefrom." The noble Viscount said: I do not think I need take up your Lordships' time over the two Amendments which I have put down to this clause, because my noble friend has been good enough to allow me to have a conversation with one of his officials and also with a representative of the Treasury, and has made the position in regard to Nyasaland, to which my Amendments refer, much clearer, if I may say so, than on the face of it the Bill itself does. I reminded your Lordships on Second Reading that little Nyasaland, with a very large native population and a very small white population, has had a very heavy capital debt hanging over it in regard to the Trans-Zambesia Railway, and particularly in relation to what is, I think, the longest railway bridge in the world, the bridge crossing the Zambesi and linking up Portuguese East Africa with the Rhodesias and countries to the north of them. This Amendment makes special provision for extinguishing this debt, or at least the greater part of it, and I want very cordially, on behalf, if I may say so, of Nyasaland, to thank my noble friend and the Treasury for taking this very enlightened step. I particularly emphasize it as an enlightened and fair course because this debt has hung like a pall over the whole of the development of what is by far the most fertile part, and the part most capable of development, of this little Protectorate of Nyasaland.
As the Bill stands, it looks as if only a sum of £1,255,000 was now going to be extinguished out of a considerably larger debt, but if we turn, as I have been reminded to do, to the end of subsection (2) of Clause 3, we learn that all the arrears of interest are to be remitted as well as the capital sum upon which those arrears have developed. This remittance amounts to a sum of over £500,000 which puts a very different complexion upon the generosity of the British Treasury in alleviating the Nyasaland burden, and, that being so, I do not want myself to press my second Amendment in which I ask that a further £300,000 should be found in order to make it perfectly clear that
820
this heavy capital debt should no longer hang over Nyasaland in regard to the Trans-Zambesia Railway and its bridge.
As regards the first of these two Amendments I want to ask my noble friend a question. The current obligation is to pay half its standard revenue—that is half of the standard revenue of the Nyasaland Government—in excess of £450,000 per annum towards the repayment to the Treasury of its past loans therefrom. As matters stand to-day, the Nyasaland Government are bound to apply one moiety of any excess over £450,000 in repaying to the British Treasury part of its old debts. Those old debts are referable to various developments and incidents, one of them being the last war. What I want to be quite sure about is this: First of all, whether that provision is going to continue in the future, because it does act as a restrictive factor in the industrial development of the country; and secondly, whether it continues or not, whether Government control on the part of the British Treasury is going to be exercised in the future in regard to the finance of Nyasaland, because it is this Government control which operates so largely in preventing enterprising white men providing capital and further developing many industries which are awaiting development, such as the growing of sisal, the production of tung oil and the production on a larger scale of tobacco, which can be grown with exceptional success in Southern Nyasaland and of which we want all we can get now, from countries under British administration. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to reassure me on these matters and in that event I should not press my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, after ("thereon") insert ("and the current obligation to apply half its standard revenue in excess of £450,000 per annum towards the repayment to the Treasury of its past loans therefrom.")—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
LORD LLOYD: I am very glad that my noble friend has been good enough to say he will not press the second Amendment and to have been able to assure him behind the scenes that his fears—which I should have shared had I not known the facts—are really not necessary. As regards the Amendment which has just been moved, the position I understand, is this. The arrangement by which one half

821
of the excess of ordinary revenue over "standard" revenue is earmarked for reducing the Nyasaland Government's debt to His Majesty's Government in connection with the Trans-Zambesia Railway Guarantee is an administrative arrangement, and has not been embodied in any Statute. It would accordingly be inappropriate to modify the arrangement by statutory means. Moreover, since 1929 the arrangement has in fact been inoperative since ordinary revenue has always been below "standard" revenue. Really the answer to my noble friend's point is that if it became necessary there would be a grant in aid. I hope therefore he will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Am I to understand from my noble friend's answer that in fact the Nyasaland Government will not be bound to apply half the excess of its standard revenue to these purposes, the main debt having been wiped out?
LORD LLOYD: As I understand the position, that is the case, and I would like to repeat that the position would be met by a grant in aid.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: But Treasury control would continue?
LORD LLOYD: I think so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

TRUCK BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, this is a little Bill, but perhaps your Lordships may think it of some interest and some importance. Our industrial code contains, as your Lordships know, provision for prohibiting truck, that is to say, prohibiting arrangements with workmen by which they are remunerated otherwise than in coin of the realm. This Bill arises from a decision, given in your Lordships' House judicially, after much difference of opinion at every stage of litigation, in a case that was tried last February called "Pratt versus
822
Cook." Mr. Pratt was a packer and he brought his action against his employers, Messrs. Cook, who, I think, are wholesale drapers in St. Paul's Churchyard. His point was that for many years he had served his employers under a written contract by which he was paid 53s. per week and in addition received daily his dinner and his tea which were agreed to be of the weekly value of 10s. That particular form of arrangement exists in many businesses and it has generally been supposed to be lawful, but Mr. Pratt had the satisfaction, after going through three Courts, of getting, after a great deal of argument, a decision that it was not lawful.
As a consequence, he recovered the sum of £400, representing the dinners and teas valued at 10s. weekly which in the nature of things he could not return, but which, as it has turned out, he received under the contract unlawfully instead of wages. In fact, this is one of the very rare instances where one may say a man keeps his cake and eats it. It would be intolerable that a large number of persons should follow Mr. Pratt's example and similarly recover sums of money in respect of meals they have already eaten. If the agreement in Mr. Pratt's case, instead of saying he was to be paid 53s. in addition to getting dinner and tea worth 10s., had said he was to be paid 63s. but that there was to be deducted from that 63s. a sum of 10s. which represented his dinner and tea, there would have been nothing to dispute about in the Courts of Law. It seemed, therefore, reasonable to the Government—not indeed that we should correct the decision given, for unquestionably it is for the Judges to declare what the law is and for the Legislature to consider whether the law needs to be altered. It is not proposed to alter the law for the future, but to ensure that there should not be any imitator of Mr. Pratt in respect of agreements already entered into. Therefore, the Bill provides that no action can be brought in respect of agreements already entered into of this kind, provided they would have been perfectly lawful agreements if they had been put into the alternative form which I have explained.
The only other provision in the Bill is put in for caution. If it happens that there is any proceeding now already started in which it is sought to secure the same result, then it is provided that the

823
proceedings shall be dismissed, but the Court shall consider what is the appropriate thing to do in reference to costs. Mr. Pratt himself retains the results of his ingenuity but will remain a solitary example of what can be done by an ingenious and persevering litigant. Before the Bill was introduced in another place its terms were the subject of discussion with representatives of the Trades Union Congress and they agreed that this was a reasonable provision to make. The Bill therefore comes before your Lordships' House not only with the support of the Government, but with the approval of those who naturally would take care to protest if it were proposed to do anything unreasonable. I think your Lordships will approve the Bill and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has intimated, one has heard this Bill discussed at considerable length by those who are intimately familiar with trade union procedure, and I should like to support the correctness of the statement which has been made by the Lord Chancellor in respect of the feeling about the Bill. I believe, however, that it was not arrived at without substantial misgiving, because, of course, they are very anxious that there should be no extension of facilities for payment by truck; but I am assured that nothing of that kind can occur as a result of the passage of this Bill. It appears that if there had been as good relations between the employees and employers in this particular case as there are in a good many others where this kind of thing happens habitually and has happened for a long time, this ingenious litigant would never have emerged. It also appears that you can do the same thing legally if you word it one way and quite illegally if you word it another way, although the Act is identical in both cases. Such however, are the ingenuities and mysteries of the law. In the circumstances, I only have to say on behalf of those for whom I speak that we concur in the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
5.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 3, after Clause 3 insert the following new Clause:
"Provisions as to mortgages.
(1) Where an application is made by the mortgagee of a dwelling-house for leave to exercise in relation to the mortgage or the dwelling-house any of the rights or remedies mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) of Section one of the principal Act, and the mortgagor is a person serving in the armed forces of His Majesty or mainly dependent on a person so serving, the appropriate Court, unless it is satisfied that the mortgagor is able immediately to pay the debt or to perform the obligation in question or that his inability to do so does not arise by reason of circumstances directly or indirectly attributable to any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, may in its absolute discretion refuse leave for the exercise of that right or remedy or give leave therefor subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Court thinks proper.
(2) Where at the hearing of any such application as aforesaid the mortgagor is not present or is not represented he shall, unless the contrary is proved by the applicant, be deemed for the purposes of the foregoing subsection to be a person serving in the armed forces of His Majesty or mainly dependent on a person so serving.
(3) Rules made under the principal Act may provide that, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the rules, the leave of the appropriate Court to appoint a receiver of the rents and profits of any mortgaged dwelling-house may be given on the ex-parte application of the mortgagee.
(4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that subsection (1) of Section one of the Possession of Mortgaged Land (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939 (which restricts the right of mortgagees to obtain possession of land mortgaged before the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine) applies to any right to obtain possession conferred on the mortgagee by virtue of any attornment or other provision contained in the mortgage or in any agreement collateral thereto; and accordingly the said subsection shall have effect and be deemed always to have effect as if after the words 'obtain possession of the land' there were inserted the

825
words 'whether by virtue of his estate or interest as mortgagee or of any attornment or other provision contained in the mortgage or in any agreement collateral thereto.'")
Page 3, after Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
("Restriction on delivery of goods.
(1) Subsection (3) of Section one of the principal Act (which prevents persons proceeding without the leave of the Court to execution on judgments and orders for the recovery of possession of land) shall have effect as if after tie words payment of money there were inserted the words 'or for the delivery of any property other than land by reason of a default in the payment of money.'
(2) Where the appropriate Court refuses leave under subsection (4) of Section one of the principal Act to take possession of goods let under a hire-purchase agreement or to execute any judgment or order for the delivery of such goods, or gives such leave, subject to restrictions and conditions, and the hirer, before possession is taken or the judgment or order is executed, pays the hire-purchase price, the owner's title to the goods shall, notwithstanding any failure to pay the hire-purchase price at the times required by the agreement, vest in the hirer.")
Clause 5, page 4, line 28, at end insert—
("'armed forces of His Majesty' does not include the Local Defence Volunteers; 'hire-purchase agreement,' 'hire-purchase price,' 'owner' and 'hirer' have the meanings respectively assigned to them by Section twenty-one of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1938.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are altogether three Amendments. They are rather technical, they are rather long, and I think your Lordships will feel that the best course for me to take is to state briefly the effect of the changes that have been made in another place. The first Amendment is a new clause which should be inserted between Clause 2 and what is now Clause 3 of the Bill, and it arises in this way. The Courts, under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act of last year, have felt bound to authorise the enforcement of a judgment in respect of nonpayment of rent or instalments on a mortgage of a dwelling-house unless the debtor—the person who is being sued—actually appears in the litigation. If he does not appear, his absence has the effect of bringing about the judgment automatically. That is manifestly most undesirable. Suppose the tenant or mortgagor is a serving soldier and that is the reason why he has been unable to keep up his payments of rent or instalments on a mortgage. The very fact that he is a serving soldier may be the reason why he cannot appear or instruct anybody to put his case. The
826
situation is made still more serious when one remembers that the actual serving of the process on the debtor may in many cases be by a method which is called substituted service—that is to say, you do not actually find the man and serve him with the process, but, owing perhaps to the fact that the house has been deserted, you get leave to affix the notice on the house. Consequently, you may easily have cases in which a man would, if he were able to appear, give a good reason why he should not be turned out of his house, but the very fact that he is serving in the Army and has perhaps never heard of the proceedings results, or may result, in his losing his home.
The object of this first Amendment—and I have no doubt your Lordships will approve of it—is therefore to provide that:
"Where an application is made by the mortgagee of a dwelling-house for leave to exercise in relation to the mortgage or the dwelling-house any of the rights or remedies mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) of Section one of the principal Act, and the mortgagor is a person serving in the armed forces of His Majesty or mainly dependent on a person so serving,"—
it may be his wife—
"the appropriate Court, unless it is satisfied that the mortgagor is able immediately to pay the debt or to perform the obligation in question or that his inability to do so does not arise by reason of circumstances directly or indirectly attributable to any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, may in its absolute discretion refuse leave for the exercise of that right or remedy or give leave therefor subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Court thinks proper."
The result, as your Lordships see, will be that we shall no longer have the manifestly undesirable situation in which the fact that the mortgagor under a building society arrangement is not able to appear, and indeed in some cases has never heard of the process, will mean that he loses his house automatically. The remaining subsections are really a matter of machinery, and I doubt whether your Lordships will wish me to read them. I beg to move that the new clause which I have just described—"Provisions as to Mortgages"—which has come from another place, be added to the Bill.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me now to state also what the second new clause provides, because I do not think we shall be in difference about it at all. It has been decided by the Court of Appeal that under the principal Act—the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act—it

827
is not possible, for example, in a hire-purchase agreement, merely because there has been a failure to pay instalments, for the company which is hiring the article out to go in and seize it. The principal Act will provide restraints upon that. But it has also been decided that there is no objection if, instead of going in to seize the property because the instalments have not been paid, the company takes legal proceedings in due form under the agreement, as a result of which it gets a judgment which it will be able to enforce as of right. There can be no justification for that difference. In cases where it is right to protect the hirer even though he has not been able to keep up the instalments, it really cannot make any difference, in common sense or justice, whether the proceedings which are taken against him are proceedings in the way of going to law, or are those which can be taken simply because in ordinary times the company letting out the article is entitled in default of payment to go in and seize it. This Amendment provides that neither in the one case nor in the other can a remedy be enforced without leave of the Court.
That is the second of the Amendments. The third is a very simple one, really hardly more than a definition consequential on the two clauses which I have already indicated. Lastly there is a definition of "armed forces of His Majesty," which is really necessary because, when we speak of protecting the armed forces of His Majesty, we are thinking of the soldier who, because he has joined up and is a serving soldier, is living away from home. The provision ought not to apply, for example, to a Local Defence Volunteer, who is presumably living at home. That is, therefore, a definition to put that matter right. I have ventured to put these matters together in this way, I hope not to the inconvenience of the House, because they are really things about which there cannot be two opinions, and I therefore take it that your Lordships will wish to agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EVACUATION: MAINTENANCE OF CHILDREN.
5.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government to state the total charge to the Exchequer from September, 1939, to June, 1940, for the maintenance of children evacuated from vulnerable to non-vulnerable areas, and what percentage of such charge is borne by the parents of the children evacuated; and move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name is, I think, practically self-explanatory; nevertheless it is appropriate that I should give your Lordships some indication of the reasons which prompted me to ask this question. Some months ago I communicated by letter with my right honourable friend the then Minister of Health, and asked him whether His Majesty's Government had any scheme in contemplation by which either the whole or a portion of the expenditure incurred in the maintenance of children evacuated from vulnerable to non-vulnerable areas should be borne by the State, by the parents or by both. In his reply, my right honourable friend assured me that his Department, in consultation with the Treasury, had drawn up some such scheme. My object to-day, therefore, is to ascertain from His Majesty's Government whether that scheme is now working, whether it is voluntary or compulsory, and whether it is retrospective from the date of the original evacuation. It would also be of interest to know from the noble Duke who is, I understand, to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government, whether any means test is employed in order to ascertain whether the parents are capable of paying a portion, or the whole, of the cost of the maintenance of their children.
I may add, as I have received a certain number of letters and inquiries as to whether this Motion is concerned with the evacuation of children to British Dominions and Possessions overseas, that that subject is one on which I do not propose to touch. There are many things which I could say strongly deprecating such a course, and no doubt a future opportunity will be given to me to make my beliefs public. The question which I have asked is one to which I believe my noble friend can give a reply

829
in a very few words, and I feel that it cannot cause embarrassment to His Majesty's Government in any possible way.
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I am very glad that this question has been raised by the noble Karl, because I feel that there are many people in this country who will be grateful to him for showing that sometimes, when in these stormy days we have a few quiet moments in which we can think, we give attention to these matters. He has struck a note of anxiety which is in many minds today, as to the cost of this huge scheme and whether this scheme, which is absolutely necessary, is being managed with due regard to economy and with a just regard for the incidence of the expenses. I came across a case not long ago where a man in a good position in life gave up that position and became a paid air-raid warden. He then sent his child into the country, evacuating the child himself, and he fully expected to receive the full Government grant towards the maintenance of that child. I think that he did receive it for a time, but subsequently, because he did not get as much as he expected, he brought the child back again. I do not know what has happened to the child now. That goes to show the way in which advantage has been taken of what I will not call Government prodigality, because this is a very difficult time for any Government; but advantage has been taken of this scheme in a way which was probably never intended.
In these days, when we are spending enormous sums of money and when we can scarcely think except in terms of millions, it is most important that we should obtain the best possible results for our money and that we should see that the expense of this scheme is equitably divided between the local authorities, the Government and the parents of the evacuated children. I can assure your Lordships that the County Councils Association, which represents the county councils of this country, has had considerable anxiety about the charges connected with evacuation. As an instance of what is happening, there is a case where a large number of children were sent into a reception area by an evacuating authority and arrived in a disgraceful condition. Their boots were very bad and their clothing was very bad; everything
830
they had wanted mending or replacing. The people in the reception area did what they could out of their own pockets, but it was obviously the duty of the evacuating authority to see that such expense did not fall on the reception area. That is really a question between reception and evacuation areas, but there is still the question to which the noble Earl referred, as to the proportion of the expenditure which should fall upon the parents. It is often said, "Oh, let the Government pay," but in these days, when taxation has reached such heights, I hope that the noble Duke will be able to assure us that as far as possible strict attention will be given to economy so far as this evacuation scheme is concerned.
I should also like to ask whether there is a proper means test, and what is the standard which is used to decide what parents are to contribute towards the cost of maintaining their children. We must always bear in mind that it is probably more expensive for the parent of an evacuated child to keep him away from home, because he will have to maintain a home for himself and his wife and also to keep his child in another part of the country. I am sorry, in a sense, that this matter was not discussed in Secret Session, because it would have been possible to say more had that been the case, and it might have been desirable to discuss the character of vulnerable and non-vulnerable areas. That, of course, cannot be done now; but I know a reception area very well indeed in which large numbers of children have been received but which is now a defence area; and so the children are moved backwards and forwards from one area to another, and this is going to add very considerably to the cost of the evacuation scheme. I hope that I have made my point quite clear to the noble Duke, and I am sure that we are very grateful to the noble Earl for raising this question.
5.20 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I can answer my noble and gallant friend in a very few words. He asks what the total cost of the evacuation scheme has been to the Exchequer and what proportion is borne by the parents. The cost of billeting alone has been £9,750,000. There has to be added

831
to that various other charges, such as the cost of whole schools and institutions which have had special arrangements made for them, the cost of the care of handicapped and difficult children, such as obstreperous lads, and others of that sort, and that brings the total to £11,200,000. The proportion of this very large sum which it is estimated will be recoverable from parents up to the end of June is £1,390,000, or 12·4 per cent. of the cost to the Exchequer. When parents are in a position to do so it is compulsory for them to pay an appropriate proportion of the cost of billeting their children. My noble friend asked whether it was voluntary or compulsory. It is compulsory by Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Acts. Sums paid by the Ministry in respect of the billeting of children are recoverable summarily as civil debts, and a circular to that effect was issued to all local authorities.
At the same time it was felt that it was not right that the whole cost of billeting should be put on the parents. The cost has gone up, but in the early days of evacuation the cost per child in normal cases was estimated at 9s. a week. It is now, for children of ten and over, 10s. 6d. But 9s. a week was originally fixed as the ordinary figure, and of this it was thought that 6s. a week was the amount which should be payable by the parents, the reason being that in most cases the parent did not escape his liability to rent and rates owing to his family having been evacuated, and that 6s. was the amount which he saved by his child being away. Therefore, while there are parents who pay more than 6s. any parent who pays 6s. is looked upon as fulfilling his full legal responsibility. The figures are rather interesting in a way, in that, while only the comparatively small proportion of 12 per cent. of the total cost is recovered, 53 per cent. of the parents are paying the full 6s. or over, and this affects 45 per cent. of the children. But in many cases it is the very poor, who are not asked to pay, who have the largest families, and that accounts for the fact that although 53 per cent. of the parents pay the full amount, only 12 per cent. of the amount recoverable is recovered.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: IS that 53 per cent. of the children evacuated, or 53 per cent of the parents?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is 53 per cent. of the parents: Then, parents receiving public assistance are not asked to make any payment at all, for the reason that the absence of their children, which affects their means test, diminishes their family income; therefore payment is automatically recovered from them. There is a scale of family means laid down by the Ministry, and when parents consider that they cannot afford to pay 6s. they are asked to give a statement of their net income, and their liability is assessed according to a scale laid down by the Department. In cases where they feel aggrieved or where they disagree with their assessment, they can refer to referees, and some 11,000 cases have been thus referred. I am told that in many cases parents are unpunctual and casual about making these payments but that on the whole, when the local authorities ask for them, they do succeed in recovering the sums due. I am told also that it is reasonable to hope, in view of the rapid diminution in the numbers of the unemployed, that the proportion of parents who pay will probably tend to increase as the number of people on public assistance diminishes. I hope that answer will satisfy my noble friend. I have been able to assure him that payments by parents are compulsory, not voluntary, and that the local authorities have been instructed as from October 28, when payments first began to be made, to recover these payments when they can possibly do so.
5.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, it is quite true that the figures that have been given are extremely interesting. From my own knowledge I know that there is a distinct opinion among those on whom children are billeted that the money paid does not necessarily cover all their expenses. Apparently the parents often cannot afford more than they are asked to pay now, a very large number of them apparently cannot afford to pay anything, and the unfortunate taxpayer consequently is saddled with the very large balance. It seems to me that there is a lack of balance about the Government's scheme, a scheme whereby, apparently, everybody loses—not only the persons on whom children are billeted, not only the taxpayer, but also the parents of the children, who apparently are very hard hit.

833
Surely there ought to be some closer investigation into the ability of parents to pay. I know that many of those on whom children are billeted have been rather upset by the fact that the parents come down quite frequently and rather expensively, to see their children in their billets. Surely those people might be expected to pay rather more towards the upkeep of their children and spend less on the pleasure of travelling to see them.
5.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I was interested in what the noble Duke said about the parents who do not pay. In my own house I have 24 children, and the parents who pay nothing at all are under 20 per cent. A certain number pay rather less than 4s. But those who pay nothing at all are not those who come down; they very seldom come down. I think there is little doubt that those who contribute nothing are the very poor ones. I would like to ask the noble Duke to say a word about a matter which I mentioned to him just now: I refer to the complaints that were made six or seven months ago about parents coming down to quite small cottages on the Sundays and expecting a full meal for themselves and their friends. It was mentioned to Mr. Elliot some time ago, and he tried to put a stop to it.
5.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, it appears to me that the two noble Lords who have spoken were somewhat out of order, and have extended the Motion to much wider ground than it was meant to cover. While I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire for his statement, I do not consider that it can be regarded in any way as satisfactory by any of your Lordships, or indeed by many people outside. Day by day, week by week, we see taxation continuing to mount to a figure at which it has never stood before, and we are asked to pay a sum of no less than £12,000,000 per annum for the maintenance of children who have been evacuated to these non-vulnerable areas and whose responsibility is really that of nobody else bat their own parents. I cannot help thinking that if the local authorities had not been so dilatory in their methods, and His Majesty's Government had not indulged in so much wishful thinking, a good deal more money could have been obtained from these parents than the sorrowful
834
figure my noble friend has just given. He mentioned that 53 per cent. of the parents were paying 6s. a week or over. I happen to know of two children, young girls, daughters of a London policeman, who up to certainly a month ago had made no contribution whatever to the maintenance of his family in an evacuated area.
I think it would be worth while if His Majesty's Government again examined most carefully and closely to ascertain whether the parents are paying the normal sums which are properly due from them for the maintenance of their children. I might add one word by way of request to the noble Duke, and that is to ask whether he would be kind enough to send me the scale of the means test which the Department have drawn up. At the same time I should like to ask whether he would be good enough, at the end of the twelve months' period, to communicate with me again informing me in his letter whether in the last two months of the twelve, any better figure has been received from the parents of children who have been evacuated. Finally, I would say this, should His Majesty's Government at some time agree to a scheme of evacuation to the Dominions and the Colonies, I trust that the story the noble Duke will have to tell, as regards finance, will be considerably happier than that which he has given to-day. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Fourth Report, by the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1. CIVIL SERVICE WAR BONUS.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Circular No. 6/40 for payment of War Bonus to the Staff of the House of Lords to whom it applies.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTODIANS.
The Committee sanctioned a special payment to Superintendent H. J. Martin, M.B.E., in connection with his work for the A.R.P. services of the Houses of Parliament.
5.33 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on House of Lords' Offices be considered and adopted. I do

835
not think I have anything to explain to your Lordships on this Report. It is purely formal. The Committee sanctioned the application of the Treasury Circular No. 6/40 for the payment of war bonus to the staff, and a special payment was sanctioned to the Superintendent, Mr. H. J. Martin, in connection with his work as A.R.P. warden in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be now considered and agreed to.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.
5.34 p.m.
LORD PORTSEA LORD PORTSEA rose to call attention to the financial position of persons evacuated from Jersey and Guernsey whose money and bonds were deposited in the banks of those islands and transferred to the head offices of those banks in London, but who are at present unable to draw on those moneys; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move for Papers, perhaps I ought very briefly to explain the matter to your Lordships' House. The islands mentioned in my question have, up to this, always defended themselves, and have done so for many centuries, although they are in the jaws of a very powerful nation which has generally been hostile to us. Very frequent attacks have been made on them. The island that interests me more than the rest of the archipelago is Jersey. Jersey has never been occupied by a foe except in the case of Cromwell, who sent Admiral Blake and 81 ships and 5,000 men to subdue it. It was only after a great fight and many weeks that the island commander surrendered on the most honourable terms possible. This gave the islanders an idea, which is one that is, fortunately, difficult to shake, that they could, with assistance, at any rate, defend their land. They had in those days, and even in my day, a Militia in which service was universal, obligatory, and unpaid, between the ages of 16 and 65. I am one of those who served at the age of 16, though I regret I cannot now pass myself off as being under 65.
Their drill, if it would not have altogether satisfied the Brigade of Guards,
836
would, at any rate, have reached the standard of a well-known person, and that is Brother Boer, because they were all trained in the use of a rifle, and there were 3,500 of them. They believed they were safe, and they sent all their young men to the war, just as they did in 1914. This morning we were much relieved to read the gracious words of His Majesty, and we derive a great deal of comfort from these words and from that promise. It is a promise that I can say no effort of ours will fail to supplement with all that we have and hold.
The islanders, as I say, thought themselves safe, and, protected by even a small portion of the greatest Fleet in the world, they believed they could have held the islands because, they said, "If we—England—cannot defend these islands, how can the Germans hold them?" That is a difficult question to answer. Guernsey is further away from the French coast than Hythe or Dover, but one of the reasons given for the evacuation is that they were only a few miles from France. That kind of reason or excuse did not satisfy the islanders. They paid no attention to it. They gave their money and their men to the war. One islander, a rich man, has given £125,000 of his own money to the British Government—not lent it, but given it. They have given their all in blood and treasure. Troops were poured into Jersey from France, and two days later they were all evacuated. The policy was reversed, and the chance was given—and it was only a chance because there were very few ships—of the population being evacuated. I am glad to say there were very few islanders, comparatively, who were prepared to leave their country at the mercy of the Germans.
The islanders at once understood the full meaning of demilitarisation. They found it was a very near relative of abandonment, a breaking of ties that were more than 800 years old, a breaking of ties with the Crown of over a thousand years. Then the people more or less grew alarmed. They went to the local branches of the five great London banks. These London banks in Jersey accepted the bonds and the money of the islanders, telling them that they would be safer deposited in London, and that money and these bonds are in London now. My question and my trouble is largely this.

837
Now all who fled from the island and all who stayed in the island find that they cannot withdraw these bonds and cannot draw on that money, and the reason given them is that the territory from which they came is in the hands of the enemy. What are these poor people to do? It is no fault of theirs. In the case of the poorer people, there is no "dole," there are no guardians, and they must beg from the Public Assistance Committee. The others who have placed their trust in this country, in their own kinsmen, what can they do? They have literally no money, and they cannot get any very great credit.
These people are penniless in the midst of plenty, and plenty which is available in the banks that have accepted their money and their bonds. But the Government apparently—and I have it on the best authority—say that these moneys shall not be drawn on and these bonds shall not be withdrawn because they came from a country which is now in the occupation of His Majesty's enemies. Well, I think, and it seems reasonable to think, that something can be done for these poor people who have trusted us, who have trusted the great nation that we represent, and I ask the Government—and I think the Government can, in some way or another—to help these people to get at any rate a percentage of the money which they have trusted to the London banks and to the honour of England. I beg to move.
5.42 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I do not happen to have the close personal connection with these islands which is possessed by the noble Lord who has just addressed you, but these islands have been for 400 years in the diocese of Winchester. I believe they were originally put in that diocese because at that time the Bishop of Winchester, as Chancellor, was in command of the Fleet. Unfortunately the Bishops did not visit these islands for about 300 years.
LORD PORTSEA: IS it permissible to interrupt? The islands were in the Diocese of Dol and Coutance and when the islands became Protestant, Church of England, they had to change.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I think the House probably
838
would not be interested if I went into mediaeval history to that extent, but I have visited these islands frequently. I have been over twice this year and should have gone over again next week, so I am anxious to support the noble Lord in the appeal which he has made to the Government. The evacuation and the demilitarisation of the islands came as a tremendous blow to the islanders. It was followed by very considerable evacuation. The island of Alderney was completely evacuated. From Guernsey about 20,000 or 25,000 left out of a population of, I think, 45,000, and from Jersey about 5,000 or 6,000 left out of the population of, I suppose, 50,000. I have not the exact figures, but the evacuation has been on a large scale, and it has meant that those who have left have found themselves in a condition which can be described as penniless. I am not thinking only of those who have bonds and credits in various banks. There are a large number, I suppose the majority of those who have left the islands, who have no money in any bank, who have lived for years, or all their lives in these islands as their forefathers before them did, and they find themselves suddenly uprooted and here, in what is for them a strange land, penniless. It has been a very great trial to them, and I do hope that the Government will do everything in their power to help these people. Many of them are farmers of very great specialised experience, and I understand that at this moment a large number of these are in big towns. I hope it will be possible to find work for some of them on the land where they can be most profitably employed, but wherever they go I do hope these people will not be treated as aliens but will be welcomed as our own fellow-citizens who are passing through a time of terrible trial and stress.
There is just one other point I should like to make. I hope that it may be possible for the Government some time to give us some information about the people who are left in the islands. I know it would be unreasonable to ask for this at the present moment, for all communications have been cut, but there is very great anxiety. I have had scores and scores of letters from all parts of England during these last few days from relations and friends asking me what has happened to the people in these islands. They know that I am the Bishop, and they imagine

839
that in some way or other I am able to obtain information for them, but, of course, it is quite out of the question for me to do so. Sooner or later I hope the Government may be able to make some general statement about the condition of the people in the islands, and that they will do that whenever it is possible to do so. I am quite certain of this, that during all times the islanders will be loyal to the Crown, and I take comfort in thinking that they have some men of first-rate ability who are remaining at their posts and who are in charge of the islands and will do everything that is possible for the islanders. I think we can look forward with confidence to the day when these islands, with the rest of Europe, will regain their freedom.
5.48 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Portsea, was going to touch on these strategical aspects of this lamentable affair. I have not, therefore, had an opportunity of discussing with my noble friends the attitude we ought to take and I am speaking entirely for myself. I would like very respectfully to support what my noble friend Lord Portsea has said with regard to help being given to the successfully evacuated islanders, and if I might I would respectfully support the plea of the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, who has just spoken. I hope that we will take all the steps we can to do what we can for the people who are left in the islands. The right reverend Prelate spoke of these skilled farmers who have reached this country. If he will take his episcopalian motor car a drive along the Western Avenue, which is one way of getting to his diocese, he will see hundreds of acres of absolutely idle land which has been bought up by speculators for building purposes, has not been so used and is growing thistles to-day. I drove along it yesterday and was horrified at what I saw.
With regard to the question of the evacuation of the Channel Islands it is only a very few weeks ago that we passed with acclamation through your Lordships' House a Bill dealing with the defence of the islands and tributes were paid to the great services rendered to the Empire by those gallant seafaring people. Now
840
they have been evacuated and abandoned to the enemy. We are living in times of great events. In ordinary times the abandonment of the Channel Islands would not have passed without challenge. There have been in recent times two extraordinary evacuations. One was the evacuation of Narvik after 26,000 British, French, Polish and Norwegian troops had fought for weeks to overcome a German garrison of some 3,000 under most difficult conditions. Narvik was then evacuated almost immediately under most extraordinary circumstances. The other is this evacuation of the Channel Islands. I cannot believe that your Lordships' House will allow these two evacuations to pass unchallenged. I find myself in a most difficult position. With others of your Lordships I am pledged to support the present Government in the prosecution of the war and I intend to do that, but when this sort of event occurs I become most uneasy. I throw out this suggestion for your Lordships' consideration. Would it not be possible for us to have some committee of inquiry into these events? After the Dardanelles evacuation there was a Select Committee, I think I am right in saying, which sat in secret and took evidence in secret. I would like to see a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament appointed to look into these things.
I am really not satisfied. This is not a question of the higher command only. I can quite see what happened. Their attention was taken up by the tremendous events in France, by the question of the French Fleet and by other events. But there are certain explanations required. Would it not have been better to have moved a little more quickly in regard to the Channel Islands, to take away the helpless people, but to leave the fighting men, reinforce them and let them stand a siege? I do not know the answer. But I do know that the abandonment, without firing a shot, of a fief of the Crown held for 800 years as part of His Majesty's Dominions does really require explanation. I warn the Government—and I ask my noble friends who represent the Government here to take note—that if other episodes of this kind happen, Parliament will not be silent. We are fighting for our lives and we intend to do our duty, but this episode following on the evacuation of Narvik has disturbed many of us.
5.52 p.m.
LoRD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I desire to support the suggestion made that due care should be taken of the Channel Islanders for two reasons, one domestic and one military. The domestic reason is that as Chairman of the National Savings Committee I have visited the Channel Islands. The Channel Islanders have contributed a large amount of savings, so I know something of the islanders in that respect. It is to me unthinkable that they should be treated in any other way than with quite exceptional consideration, and I trust it will be realised that they are placed in a predicament in which no other part of the Empire has been placed owing to mysterious strategical considerations which we need not inquire into—I think that is the way to put it.
The Channel Islanders are our chosen children in every matter. I ventured to ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, the other day, whether he would give an assurance that nothing of the sort should ever occur again and he gave that assurance. But believe me, it did indeed come as a shock to every man I have spoken to, and to every woman too, that without firing a shot—that is what hurts, without firing a shot!—we surrendered a place where the flag of Britain has flown for 800 years. It is peculiarly cruel because these people rightly say that they are the oldest of us all. I have sat at a table with the High Bailiff when he proposed, solemnly, first the health of the Duke of Normandy, and then the health of Jersey's oldest Colony. That is indeed historically an accurate description. William of Normandy annexed this country when he was already Lord of Jersey. That we should have surrendered without firing a shot a place of such traditions is to me a mysterious thing. We have acquiesced because we presumed there must be some mysterious reason for this extraordinary happening, but for my part I cannot imagine what possible justification there can be for surrendering part of our possessions without firing a shot.
Since I last addressed your Lordships I have spoken to a distinguished officer who won the Victoria Cross in the last war. He said, sadly, "To think that we sacrificed, more than once, 10,000 men to save one line of trenches in France and yet did not fire a shot to save the Channel Islands." I do not want the
842
Government to think that this does not matter, for it matters enormously. I do not know whether it would be wise to adopt the proposal of the noble Lord, to have a Committee sitting in secret to inquire why these things should happen, or whether we should pursue some other course, but I am sure of this, that the sooner His Majesty's Government say that this mysterious happening was due to causes which will probably not occur elsewhere, is unique and that never again will such a thing happen, the better it will be for all concerned.
5.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I am rather glad that the two noble Lords who have spoken from the opposite Benches have spoken as they did, because they have strayed so far from the substance of the Motion that any humbler efforts on my part in the same direction may be excused. My interest in the Channel Islands is far narrower than those of the other speakers. They lie in the fact that I have under my command, in my battery, 60 or 70 Channel Islanders between the ages of 30 and 50 who voluntarily enlisted early in the war. Another battery is composed almost entirely of Channel Islanders. Of course the evacuation of the islands has caused them the very greatest distress of mind. In many cases, in fact in practically every case, they are extremely worried about the condition of their dependants, whether they are now in this country or whether they remained in the islands. So far as I know the facts of the case, the method by which demilitarisation and evacuation of the Channel Islands was effected by His Majesty's Government was the one best calculated to produce alarm and despondency. There are many prosecutions going on in this country for that reason. I have seen nothing in newspapers comparable to what has been done in the Channel Islands to cause alarm and despondency to the people concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Portsea, mentioned the fact that at one moment the islands were militarised and then they were as quickly demilitarised. That showed a certain indecision and led to a certain delay in carrying out the evacuation. When the islands were demilitarised an announcement was made, I believe at six o'clock in the evening, that a voluntary evacuation would take place and that those who wished to be evacuated

843
had to register by nine o'clock the same evening. If anything was calculated to cause consternation among a population of something like 90,000 people, that was bound to do so. There was a seething mass, I believe, outside the various offices where you could register for evacuation, and naturally the wildest rumours and everything which goes with such disorder. The voluntary evacuation was conducted in that great hurry; it lasted, as far as I can ascertain, for about two days. Very little explanation was given to any of the people concerned. Parents were told that they would not necessarily be allowed to go with their children, wives—the wives of the men under my command—that they would be separated and be a long way from their husbands. Time was very short, and they were in fact separated from the only persons whom they could consult on whether they should evacuate or not.
At the end of two days, voluntary evacuation finished, and the railway companies were asked by the Government to carry on, and did carry on, a commercial service thereafter at a risk which ultimately involved the fact that most of their staff in the islands are still there. But the people with whom I am concerned, when they had their second thought and decided to evacuate, could not afford the fare back to England. An instance was brought to my notice of a woman with three children whom it would have cost £4 to come to this country. All that she had to live on was the family allowance which she received because her husband was serving in the Army. It was not fair on that woman, first of all to make her take a hurried decision, and secondly, when she failed to do so, to expect her to pay the fare back. Perhaps that is an indictment of the Government, and I may be accused in my turn of causing alarm and despondency; but I cannot see that these facts are going to help the enemy in any way, and my statement of them may stir the Government to take some steps to rectify the wrong that they have done by their unnecessarily hasty action.
To come to the immediate problem dealt with in the Motion before your Lordships' House, that of the finance of these people: so far as those in whom I am immediately interested are concerned—the wives and dependants of those who
844
are in this country—they should reasonably be all right, because their family allowances and dependants' allowances can be paid to them. But they have this difficulty in front of them: they have to find lodgings somewhere in this country and lodging is not too easy to find and is often very expensive. I know of one woman who is now paying 23s. a week board and lodging and her family allowance amounts only to 27s. a week, so she has 4s. for all purposes other than merely living. That problem should, I think, be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, as well as the more immediate problem of the conditions under which they are living to-day. It is credibly reported to me that there are twenty-seven or more living all together, higgledy-piggledy, in either a church hall or a church—I am not certain which—in Glasgow, with no proper conveniences of any sort or any privacy.
But the other problem is that of the wives and families of those left in Jersey and Guernsey to-day. The majority of those unfortunate people with whom I am concerned are dependent entirely on the money they get from their family and dependants' allowances. That is, of course, cut off, and what they are going to live on nobody knows. They have no resources themselves; they are dependent, presumably, on the charity of those who occupy the islands to-day—that is, the Germans. I do not know that I have great faith in their charity, but I can recognise that there are very grave difficulties, and it is presumably almost impossible to send money to these people and ensure that they live, or at least are kept from complete want. I might add that another thing which is worrying the men who are serving their country—I want your Lordships to remember that: serving their country voluntarily—is what is going to happen in the winter. Those islands are dependent for a great many necessities of life on supplies from outside, and there will not, unless their German masters so wish, be even the necessities of life available, even if they have the money to pay for them. Their position is very serious. I must say once again that I feel that considerable blame is to be laid on the Government for not explaining the situation to these people and, if it were possible, making the evacuation compulsory, whether they

845
wished it or not, so that they should not have been left in the really dreadful condition in which they are now.
I recognise the difficulties. I do not quarrel with the decision to evacuate the islands, because, contrary to what was said by the noble Lords opposite, I think that in these days of air warfare they were probably indefensible, and even if they had been defensible, the destruction of life and property would have been such as to devastate the islands completely. But I do beg His Majesty's Government to take note of the right reverend Prelate's appeal to try everything they can to get news of these people. Any news, even bad news, is better than nothing.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would the noble Earl permit me to interrupt? Is he aware that what he is saying now about evacuating because of the air menace would justify us in evacuating Malta or Chatham?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I fancy it is rather difficult to answer that question.
LORD STRABOLGI: Very difficult; exactly!
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I fancy that Malta is rather better defended than the islands and has rather more in the way of shelter for the people. As to evacuating Chatham, you may say that of the whole of England; but surely you do not want to disperse our Forces by defending an almost indefensible area which has from our point of view great sentimental value but, I should imagine, extraordinarily little strategical value. I do not want to enter into a strategical argument, however. I am not capable of doing so, and it is outside this Motion. But I do appeal to His Majesty's Government, first of all to try to get some news of these people, however meagre, and of conditions in the islands; and also to give us something which we can pass on to these men and women in this country, so that we can try to give them some comfort in their very great distress of mind.
6.9 p.m.
LORD WARDINGTON: My Lords, I beg to support the appeal of the Earl of Radnor, and shall not wander into any questions of strategy, military or naval, about which I know nothing. The noble Lord who moved this Motion pointed out that what he had to say was in relation to the financial condition of the people
846
who have been affected by the overrunning of the islands by the Germans. He referred to the banking actions which have taken place, or might take place. I am not authorised to speak on behalf of the banks as a whole. All the "Big Five" banks have branches in Guernsey and Jersey, and I think in some cases in Alderney. They have the greatest sympathy with their clients in the hardships to which they have been subjected owing to the occupation of the islands by Germany, and they would like to minimise those hardships as far as they possibly can. The position is very complicated and difficult. It would have been a good deal more difficult and more complicated if the banks had not taken some precautionary measures before the actual occupation. In fact, they have had duplicate records of the accounts of their customers kept on the mainland, and in a short time it is to be hoped that those accounts will be reconstituted and that we may have some fairly up-to-date information as to the position of each one. Noble Lords will easily understand that both banks and customers would have been put in a very difficult position if an unknown man could present himself at a bank with the statement—which he could not confirm in any way—that he was a customer with a large sum of money standing to his credit in Guernsey or Jersey, and that he would like to draw some of it out, when the bank had no information as to his identity and no specimen of his signature. Those difficulties have been foreseen, and I hope that in a short time the accounts of these people will be fairly fully reconstituted.
There are, however, considerable difficulties of a legal nature. Under the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order all residents still in the Channel Islands, including companies constituted in the islands for carrying on business there, are to be regarded as enemies within the Trading with the Enemy Act; and of course banks, like everyone else, have to obey the law. So far as residents who are still in the islands are concerned, there is no means of communicating or dealing with them in any way. Those who are affected by this very unfortunate happening can be divided into three categories. There are, first of all, those who are still resident in the islands, about whom we have very little news and for whom we really cannot do anything, even if their banking accounts have been

847
transferred to the mainland. The only point of hope that I have for them, as far as banking is concerned, is that the Trading-with-the-Enemy branch have authorised the collection by bankers on this side of cheques and sight drafts in their hands drawn by non-enemies and payable for the benefit of persons, firms and companies in the Channel Islands, provided that the proceeds thereof will be retained by the Custodian of Enemy Property for their benefit. That is very cold comfort to them!
The conditions in the islands are matters of conjecture. I have seen a copy to-day of a Proclamation by the German Commandant which appeared in the Guernsey paper on July 1. That set forth the various regulations. No one was to be allowed out after eleven o'clock at night or before six o'clock in the morning. If any trouble arose in the island there was a threat that it would be bombed. The sale and consumption of spirits were not to be allowed. All rifles, revolvers, shotguns and ammunition were to be declared and handed over. No boat was allowed to leave without permission. The sale of motor spirit was prohibited except for doctors and for essential purposes after permission had been obtained. The previous black-out in the island was to be continued as before. And—this is a point which specially concerns what I want to say—banks and shops were to be kept open; and to continue to function. Under what conditions that can be done, I do not know. As your Lordships may know, the currency in the islands has been sterling, and Guernsey has issued its own notes with a sterling denomination. Whether a new mark currency is going to be established, and what the relation between that mark currency and the old currency will be in the future, I have no means of knowing.
The second category of those concerned in this catastrophe consists of those who escaped from the islands but who have left their houses and all their non-transferable possessions there, and whose banking accounts have not been transferred from the islands to this country. The great bulk of their securities, investments and documents of that kind—not big safe-custody boxes of plate, and so on—have been transferred. In the case of these people, who have themselves escaped but
848
whose accounts are still in the islands, it is only a matter of time—I hope a short time—before their banking accounts are reconstituted; and, as we have their specimen signatures and records in regard to them, we hope that they will be able to draw on their accounts in the ordinary, normal course of business in the future. In the meantime, in order to meet their special difficulties, we have been buying Guernsey notes and have given them currency notes which are legal tender here, and we have been making them small advances to help them to carry on for the moment. That, of course, cannot be a permanent arrangement; but, as I say, I hope that in a short time their accounts will be largely reconstituted, that all these securities which have been transferred will be gone through and sorted out, and that we shall be able to let them deal with those securities, if they like, subject, of course, to the Defence Regulations in regard to such matters. One point there is that if their securities are in foreign currencies the Government have the power to commandeer them. Subject, however, to any legal restrictions of that kind, the securities will be at their disposal.
Then the last category consists of those who are resident in this country and who have their accounts transferred here. That presents the simplest problem of the three. I hope, that as time goes on, the difficulties from which they are suffering at present will be largely overcome. But I do not know anything about all those poor people who have no banking accounts, who have no local money, have indeed nothing except what they stand up in. What their plight is I grieve to think. I have great sympathy therefore with the noble Lord who moved this Motion, and if anything can possibly be done for these people I shall be as grateful as all the rest of your Lordships.
6.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, any of your Lordships who were present when my noble friend Lord Portsea made his speech at the beginning of this debate must I am sure have felt, as I felt, deeply and sincerely moved by what he said. He was speaking as one with very special associations with these islands, and it occurred to me that what he said was bound to stir in all hearts

849
a very great deal of sympathy and interest. I have become myself by degrees accustomed to the practice of your Lordships' House, and it is not a matter of surprise that the debate should branch out and range over some matters which are certainly not within the terms of the Motion. Of course, I do not offer a word of criticism on that account. But still it is just as well that your Lordships should be reminded that what my noble friend Lord Portsea wished to do was to call attention to the financial position of persons evacuated from Jersey and Guernsey, and to ask some questions on that subject, and it was, I apprehend, because that was the nature of the question which he wished to raise that I was entrusted with the task of saying a few words for the Government at the end of the debate. I think the noble Lord may have gathered a considerable measure of comfort, and certainly much useful information, from the speech that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wardington—a most practical speech, dealing with the very matters which he wished to have ventilated.
But in the course of the debate we have had speeches dealing with the strategic and tactical questions raised by this lamentable event, and also, from the noble Earl opposite, some observations both on the manner of the evacuation and on the sad lot of the people whose cases have specially come before him. As regards the strategic question, I certainly should not regard this as a suitable occasion on which to have it discussed. I gathered from the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench that in his view, speaking as a student of strategy and military tactics, the evacuation of the Channel Islands is strictly parallel to the evacuation of Malta or the evacuation of Chatham. I can only say, with my less instructed mind on the subject, that I should have thought that, strategically speaking, there could hardly be a more obvious difference.
LORD STRABOLGI: Will the noble and learned Viscount forgive me? I hope he will not father on me arguments that I have not used in some remarks made in an interruption to another noble Lord.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not fathering anything on anybody. I merely make an observation urbi et orbi. Malta, as I apprehend, is one of the strongest
850
fortresses in the British Empire. Chatham is, I suppose, one of the best defended places—certainly ought to be—both from air attack and from other attack, in the British Isles. Unfortunately the Channel Islands are not at all in a comparable position from a defensive point of view. I was a little surprised at the observations made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Mottistone, because I gathered that he also felt greatly troubled and deeply concerned that the authorities should have thought it necessary not to maintain the defence of these unfortunately situated islands. The noble Lord mentioned this matter in the debate a few days ago and drew on his great experience of the War Office in past time. He said:
"I know very well from my own service as Secretary of State that the Channel Islands stand in a peculiar position, tactically and strategically, because they are practically a part of the French continent. We never, in those days"—
that is, when he was Secretary of State—
"nor have we in these days, envisaged the fortification of the Channel Islands as an outpost. They are right under the guns of part of France.…"
It may be that that is his view to-day, but at any rate he surprised me. But I do not really think that this strategical problem can be thrashed out in a debate in this House this evening.
I apprehend humbly, though I have no claim to be a strategist, that the collapse of the French Army and the subsequent withdrawal of the British Expeditionary Force from Northern France may possibly have made a good deal of difference, strategically speaking. I apprehend that, with the French coast in German hands, with Coutances, Avranches and St. Malo and all those little ports in that corner of France, the peculiar geographical position of the islands at least raises a very serious question as to whether it is not necessary to recognise that it would be a wholly uneconomic use of our military forces to endeavour to supplement the small garrison there. But it is not for me to say. It is undoubtedly a proper subject to raise on a proper occasion, and no doubt if it were duly raised the authorities would be those who represent the War Office and the War Cabinet rather than myself.
I was very much impressed also with the observations made by the noble Earl, who felt that the way in which the evacuation had taken place was in some respects unfortunate. It may be so; I do not wish

851
to do more than furnish the House with such information as I can give. Of course there can be no question that the British Government were facing a sudden collapse which had never been assumed as possible—namely, the collapse of this magnificent French Army, the sudden surrender on the part of a great democratic Power, our Ally through all this business up till now, which completely overwhelmed and overturned the calculations which had been made beforehand. For my part I will surrender to nobody in my concern for the case of these ancient islands, these Iles Normandes as they were called. At the same time, I think it only reasonable that we should recognise, all of us, what was the overwhelming character of the problems which faced His Majesty's Government at that moment.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone reminded the House how in the earlier debate he had raised the question whether this lamentable and distressing event of withdrawal should be regarded as an isolated case and entirely by itself, or whether it could possibly betoken the beginning of a policy. I am glad that the noble Lord referred to that, because he will recall the answer he then received. He did not get a qualified answer—he got an absolute answer, and I repeat it now. This incident, lamentable and distressing as it undoubtedly is, is a totally isolated case. It is due, rightly or wrongly, to the geographical position of these islands near to the shores of France.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is what gives them their value.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must leave the noble Lord to argue the high points of strategy with those who are equal to the matter; but your Lordships will realise that the British Government are also advised by competent stategists. This does not, therefore, form any sort of precedent for any part of the United Kingdom. As the Leader of the House observed in a recent debate, His Majesty's Government have not the least intention of abandoning any possession in any part of His Majesty's Dominions, because here we are fighting for our own fortress and our own homes, and we will carry that through, whatever befall, until we have vanquished the foe.
Now I must refer to the matter which really started this debate. It is not a
852
mere form of words to say that we feel sympathetically for the state in which these gallant and loyal islanders find themselves. It is a deeply and sincerely felt sentiment, and it is right I should remind the House of how His Majesty the King expressed this sentiment in the message he sent to the two Bailiffs yesterday. His Majesty sent this message to the Bailiffs of Guernsey and Jersey:
"For strategic reasons it has been found necessary to withdraw the armed forces from the Channel Islands.
I deeply regret this necessity, and I wish to assure my people in the islands that in taking this decision my Government have not been unmindful of their position. It is in their interest that this step should be taken in present circumstances.
The long association of the islands with the Crown and the long service the people of the islands have rendered to my ancestors and myself are guarantees that the link between us will remain unbroken, and I know that my people in the islands will look forward with the same confidence as I do to the day when the resolute fortitude with which we face our present difficulties will reap the reward of victory."
May I just say one or two words on the specific financial matter the noble Lord raised in his Motion? I have had inquiries made, and am glad to find that what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wardington, confirms the information given to me. Perhaps I can state the position in a slightly different way. As regards joint stock banks, I understand that these banks in this country are treating the deposits which were made in their Channel Islands branches, and which belong to persons who have come here from the Channel Islands, as accounts which have been transferred to this country. That is the principle. Although an islander may have banked in a branch in Jersey, when he comes here his bank will do its best—and Lord Wardington has described the method already adopted—to see to it that he has an account here. That is a very valuable arrangement. The result is, as the House will see, that depositors should have little difficulty in being able to draw their money. Of course, as Lord Wardington pointed out, in the case of credit balances on current accounts, it will be necessary to satisfy the banks that the person who makes the claim is the person entitled to the money, and to satisfy them also that the credit balance has not been already drawn upon before the claim is made. These are mechanical difficulties which arise out of

853
the evacuation. The main thing is that bank accounts which would normally be regarded as solely for the islands are being treated by the joint stock banks as bank accounts in this country and are being drawn upon as far as islanders who have come here are concerned.
In the case of securities, where securities were deposited for safe keeping and the local branch has been able to bring them away—and that is so in a great many cases—there should be no difficulty in the true owners of these securities making good their claims, although here again satisfactory proof of ownership may be necessary. The main thing is that banks in this country which have branches in the Channel Islands are prepared to treat refugees from the islands who have come over here as their customers in this country. Such difficulties as remain must be met as best they can in view of the necessity of proof and the like.
I should add a word, if I may, not about ordinary banks but about savings banks—a very important subject. Similar arrangements are, I am informed, being made to enable depositors in the Jersey and Guernsey Savings Banks who are now in this country to draw on their deposit accounts and to deal with the Government Securities Section of the Post Office Register kept at those banks so long as the depositors are in this country and so long as they have brought with them, as they probably have, their passbooks and other evidence of title. This applies both to trustee savings banks and to accounts in the Post office Savings Bank. I may add that an Order in Council is being made which will clear up this position as far as Jersey and Guernsey Trustee Savings Bank are concerned. The proposed regulation will enable the National Debt Commissioners to make arrangements with the Trustee Savings Banks in this country to conduct business, in effect, as agents of the Channel Islands Banks. No special arrangements are, of course, necessary in the case of Post Office Savings Bank depositors, because the Post Office Saving Bank is situated in this country and can operate through any of its branches. I hope this detailed information may give some measure of comfort to those deeply concerned with the practical side of this matter, and I wish to assure my noble friend Lord
854
Portsea and everyone in the House that we shall continue to do, in co-operation with the banks in this country, everything that can be done to solve the difficulties which have arisen.
I should like, if I may be allowed, to add two or three words on this very moving as well as distressing occasion. I share most completely, as do all your Lordships, the feeling of concern and distress that there should have been this withdrawal from these islands. After all, they are not only possessions of the British Crown, but they are actually older than the Battle of Hastings itself. "1066 and all that" came after the time when these islands first became attached to the ancestors of the King, and throughout all that time they have shown themselves not only industrious but chivalrous. They have contributed, both in peace and in war, most significantly to the service and to the strength of our country. I am glad to recall that at this moment, as I understand, the two Bailiffs—the Bailiff of Jersey, Mr. Alexander Moncrieff Coutanche, and the Bailiff of Guernsey, Mr. Victor Gosselin Carey—are continuing to carry on in the islands, to the best of their power, the civil administration for which they are responsible. I think it is a splendid tribute to the courage and loyalty of this distressed people. If it be the case that, by withdrawing the small garrison from these islands these people are saved, as I think they may be, very terrible and continuous bombardment from the air, I think people of that spirit and courage will regard that as a small compensation for the loss and distress which they feel at this temporary separation from their homes. I venture humbly to echo the words of His Majesty, repeated as they have been by many of your Lordships to-day, and I trust the day is not far distant when, by persevering in our purpose, as we are determined come what may, we may have among our triumphs the supreme satisfaction of seeing these good people returned to their homes.
LORD PORTSEA: My Lords, I beg to withdraw the Motion which stands in my name, and, if I may, to offer my thanks to the Lord Chancellor for his most sympathetic and kind reply, which we will feel very much in our islands.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before seven o'clock.