Sitting of 16 July 1941

Preamble
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
NEW WRIT
For the County of York, West Riding (Pontefract Division), in the room of Adam Hills, Esq., deceased.—[Sir Charles Edwards.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SPAIN.

    SENOR SUNER (PRONOUNCEMENT).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to Senor Suner's pronouncement, on 2nd July, that the Falange were taking up arms, together with their German comrades, to reanimate the profound friendship between both countries; and what action he is taking in the matter?
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir; I have seen a summary of an interview given by the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs to a German newspaper on 2nd July recording his views on the outbreak of war between Germany and the Soviet Union. This interview does not represent any development or change in Senor Suner's known views. I have no further statement to make on the subject at present.
    Mr. Parker: Is this not the right time to take a strong line? By doing so, should we not be likely to get greater respect than we do?
    Mr. Shinwell: Does it not seem foolish —to put it no higher—that in the face of these official announcements by Senor Suner we should continue to send British goods to Spain?
    Mr. Eden: I have no further statement to make on the subject at present.

    CAPE SPARTEL LIGHTHOUSE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Spanish Government took over the Cape Spartel lighthouse installation; under what control this has hitherto been; and what action His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?
    Mr. Eden: The Spanish Government assumed control of the Cape Spartel lighthouse at 11 a.m. on 5th July. Hitherto the lighthouse has been administered by an International Commission established under the terms of the Cape Spartel Convention signed on 31st May, 1865. His Majesty's Government have recorded a protest with the Spanish Government and reserved all their rights in connection with the Spanish Government's action. The members of the International Commission, including a British member, have also registered a collective protest and fully reserved the rights of the Commission and of the Governments represented on it.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any information from our representative at Tangier that the decision of the Spanish Government to cease using the Spartel broadcasting station was due to pressure from Germany?
    Mr. Eden: I am not aware of the existence of any broadcasting station at Spartel, but if the hon. Member is referring to the Cape Spartel lighthouse, I would refer him to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore).
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that that is not a full reply? It does not deal with the point I raised with regard to the pressure brought by the German Government on the Spanish Government and the ease with which they accept the decisions of the German Government.
    Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot answer for the Spanish Government whether pressure is brought on them by the German Government. I can only speak for myself; I cannot speak for other Governments.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are we keeping a close eye on the Spanish Government and their manoeuvres?
    Mr. Eden: I hope my answer showed clearly that that is so.

    BRITISH ALLIES.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the treaties of alliance existing between this country and Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Jugoslavia, Free France and Abyssinia?
    Mr. Eden: The only treaty of alliance with any of the countries mentioned is the Anglo-Polish agreement regarding mutual assistance signed in London on 25th August, 1939, and published as Cmd. Paper 6101. It will, however, be recalled that in the resolution unanimously adopted at the Inter-Allied meeting in London on 12th June, the Governments represented were described as being engaged together in the fight against aggression, and they agreed to continue the struggle against German or Italian oppression until victory was won, and mutually to assist each other in this struggle to the utmost of their respective capacities. No formal treaties are, indeed, necessary to express the close ties of friendship which bind the Allied peoples, and which are finding expression in deeds rather than in words.
    Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Information stated last week that we only played the National Anthem of countries with whom we had treaties of alliance? Would he be good enough to look into the matter further and try to give accurate information to the Ministry of Information or to receive the same himself?
    Mr. Eden:I do not think I have any need to look into the matter further. The position is quite clear; we do not need a formal treaty in order to be the Ally of any nation.
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of MR. RILEY:
    "6. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to negotiate with the Russian Soviet Government a complete military alliance in the common struggle against Nazism; and whether such an alliance is now under consideration? "
    Mr. Riley: After the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, I am not sure that this Question is now necessary, and I will leave it to the discretion of the Minster as to whether he gives an answer.
    Mr. Eden: I intended to refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister's statement, to which I have nothing to add.

    ANTI-NAZI GERMANS
    Mr. Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that anti-Nazi Sudeten Germans are apprehensive that a policy of revenge will be carried out against all Germans in Czechoslovakia on the fall of the Nazi régime; and whether, in order to unite the ranks of all anti-Nazis in Europe, he will, by broadcast or any other appropriate method, let it be known that the Allies are determined to punish the Nazis but not all Germans indiscriminately?
    Mr. Eden: I am aware of these apprehensions which are no doubt due to the behaviour of the occupying authorities and in particular of certain local leaders. As regards the second part of the Question, I would remind the hon. Member of the passage in my speech at the Mansion House on 29th May in which I referred to the part that Germany must play in any future system of free co-operation in Europe.
    Mr. Price: While recognising the value of the Foreign Secretary's speech the other day, to which he refers, is it not a fact that Austria and Czechoslovakia are the weak link in the chain of the new order and that nothing should be done to discourage anti-Nazis in these two countries?
    Mr. Eden: I certainly would not say that Czechoslovakia was a weak link. I do not think that is at all a correct interpretation.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with our propaganda in countries in Europe? Is it being based on the speech which he made at the Mansion House?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I understand that that speech is being widely used.

    ICELAND (BRITISH FORCES)
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the pronouncement, made by the Prime Minister of Iceland, that British troops are to leave Iceland when the Americans arrive?
    Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add to the message sent by President Roosevelt to the Prime Minister of Iceland to the effect that he was prepared to send United States troops to Iceland to supplement and eventually replace the British Forces there.
    Mr. Mander: Did not the Prime Minister state the other day that British Forces would remain in Iceland? Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to clear up the doubt that appears to exist as to whether British troops will stay in Iceland or not?
    Mr. Eden: I think the position is really clear. It is a question of time. The position is governed by President Roosevelt's speech.
    Mr. Shinwell:Did not the right hon. Gentleman see the statement made the other day by a very important American Senator, to the effect that it was desirable that British troops should leave for fear of aggression?
    Mr. A. C. Reed: Does not my right hon. Friend think that Herr Hitler would be very glad to have a full answer to the supplementary question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)?

    ALLIED EMBASSIES AND LEGATIONS (MOTOR TRANSPORT).
    Mr. Bossomasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Mechanised Transport Corps who, up to the present, have been providing both motor cars and drivers free for the use of the Polish, Czechoslovak, Free French and Dutch Legations, are now to be re placed by Government motor cars with paid Auxiliary Territorial Service drivers, which are much required for other purposes?
    Mr. Eden: I am not aware of any arrangements to provide foreign Embassies or Legations in this country with Government motor cars or drivers.
    Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Mechanised Transport Corps have been providing them, and they now understand that they will not be required to do this any longer?
    Mr. Eden: I think the answer I have given will inform my hon. Friend of the situation.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    PERSONNEL (RESERVE).
    Mr. Liddallasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will say, so far as is not inconsistent with national interests, what is the reason for the frequent long delay between acceptance and call up for Royal Air Force service of young persons, 20 to 30 years of age, for whom there has been a national news paper and poster appeal for a long time as an immediate need?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to volunteers for aircrew duties, and I would, therefore, refer him to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) on 11th June. In view of the urgent need for aircrews, it is essential at all times to have a reserve of volunteers sufficient to ensure that all training vacancies are filled immediately they occur and that the maximum use is made of all the training facilities available. The amount of training capacity and the number of pupils under instruction are constantly being increased.

    AIR ADVISER, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
    Mr. Brookeasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give the name of the senior officer appointed by him to the Ministry of Information to exercise responsibility for passing Air Ministry news for publication, under the arrangement of 3rd July?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The title of the Royal Air Force officer in question is Air Adviser to the Ministry of Information. I do not consider it desirable to publish the names of officers engaged upon particular duties.
    Mr. Nod-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Air Adviser gives his whole time to the work of publicity and censorship, or has he other duties as well?
    Sir A. Sinclair: He gives his whole time to his duties with the Ministry of Information. I have consulted the Minister of Information on this matter, and he is in complete agreement with me about the appointment of this particular officer.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

    ACTS OF GALLANTRY (PUBLICATION).
    Sir Cooper Rawsonasked the Minister of Information why the name of the gunner on a ship belonging to the local electricity authority of a South Coast town who brought down a German aircraft into the sea should be suppressed, as information such as this increases the morale of the public, and affords satisfaction to the gunner and his parents and to the inhabitants of the town?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): There is no reason why the name of a gunner concerned in such an incident should be suppressed, provided that the story in which he figures is not itself held up for security reasons. In the present case the whole story of the attack was stopped for the time being in order to prevent the enemy getting any accurate report as to its results. The story and the name are now released.
    Sir C. Rawson: Why cannot news about incidents of this sort be released at once instead of having to wait for months? Is it not better to publish good news of this sort rather than to broadcast news of coming events which do not materialise?
    Captain John Dugdale: Will the Minister consider adopting the course followed by our Russian Allies in publishing the names of officers and men who have undertaken acts of gallantry and referring to those specific acts as often as possible, so as to encourage the morale of the troops?
    Mr. Cooper: The name of this man has been published. As I have already explained, the general rule is not to publish information which can be of value to the enemy as long as it can be of value.
    Sir C. Rawson: How could it have been of value to the enemy when the pilot of the Messerschmitt was under the sea? Would it not have been all to our advantage to publish it?

    FOREIGN BROADCASTING SERVICES.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Information whether compulsory powers under the Emergency Powers Act have been used to requisition buildings required for the accommodation of the foreign broadcasting services of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Information what progress has been made in securing the additional buildings which it was announced, on 25th March, 1941, would be required for the accommodation of the foreign broadcasting services of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. Cooper: I am glad to say that additional accommodation in the building to which I referred on 25th March has now been obtained. In order to afford further relief to this building, and to provide room for expansion, we are taking over substantial accommodation in a Government building in the same neighbourhood. The separate large building to which I referred on 25th March has unfortunately been damaged by enemy action on two occasions since that date, but repairs and the provision of the necessary equipment are proceeding as quickly as possible. Another building under construction in a different part of London has been taken over, and its completion is being expedited as much as possible. It will provide a valuable extension of studio and office accommodation, also sleeping and other accommodation for the staff.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Information what is the policy of His Majesty's Government concerning the release from military service of expert personnel required for the foreign broadcasting services of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. Cooper: The policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter is to ensure that the services of every individual may be directed to the channels where they can make the greatest contribution to the national war effort. Many cases must, therefore, be decided upon their merits, and if my hon. Friend is aware of any in which this policy is not being carried out, I shall be grateful if he will give me particulars.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and I will give him the particulars.

    VACANT POST (APPOINTMENT).
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Information whether it is proposed immediately to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Sir Maurice Peterson; from whom applications are being invited and what salary is being offered; by whom will the appointment be made; whether there is to be any board of selection; and whether regard will be had to the names on the Central Register of the Ministry of Labour?
    Mr. Cooper: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, applications are not invited for appointments of this nature. The salary attached to the post is £1,500 a year for a temporary and £1,700 a year for an established officer. The appointment will be made by the Minister of Information.
    Mr. Liddall: Will my right hon. Friend give an answer to the last part of the Question, as to whether regard will be had to the names on the Central Register of the Ministry of Labour?
    Mr. Cooper: It is improbable that the name of the official who takes this post, which was recently occupied by an Ambassador, will be found on the Central Register at the present time.

    ENEMY PROPAGANDA, TANGIER.
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brownasked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that at Tangier the British and other inhabitants live in an atmosphere of Nazi propaganda; and what steps is he taking to counteract this atmosphere?
    Mr. Cooper: All possible steps are being taken to counteract the effect of enemy propaganda in Tangier.
    Brigadier-General Brown: Will my right hon. Friend consider having propaganda broadcasts made to Tangier?
    Mr. Cooper: That is being taken into consideration.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the Minister advise the Spaniards who control Tangier to advise their German friends to clear out?

    HUNGARY (BRITISH BROADCASTS).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Information what action is being taken to see that Magyar opinion is mobilised against Horthy's Government?
    Mr. Cooper: Magyar opinion is being kept informed of British views both on the German exploitation of Hungary and on the British war effort through broadcasts in Hungarian twice a day. These are going out on five transmitters covering short and medium wave bands. No doubt is being left in the minds of the Hungarians as to the responsibility of their Government for the part which their country is being made to play in support of German interests.
    Mr. Parker: Will a special effort be made to appeal to the peasantry in Hungary, as the Hungarian Government have taken land away from the peasantry in areas, such as Transylvania, which have come back to Hungary; and is not this a very important propaganda point?
    Mr. Cooper: This matter is not being lost sight of.
    Mr. Sorensen: May we take it that a distinction is being made and sustained between the Hungarian Government and the Hungarian people?
    Mr. Cooper: Certainly, as far as possible.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister look into this matter again and satisfy himself that in fact the Hungarian people are being told of the way in which their Government are exploiting them for the benefit of Nazi Germany?
    Mr. Cooper: I will look into the matter again, and if the hon. Member has any new facts that he would like to bring to my notice, I should be glad to have them.

    BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION(STAFF).
    Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Minister of Information what percentage of the persons employed by the British Broadcasting Corporation at the station which has been referred to in correspondence with the Minister, who were under 41 years of age, were aged less than 30; and what efforts have been made to replace those under 41 years of age with people over that age?
    Mr. Cooper: I am informed by the B.B.C. that, of the adult male staff under 41 at the centre in question, 37 per cent. are between the ages of 18 and 30. This figure is made up of 16 per cent, who are above the age of reservation appropriate to their occupation, 14 per cent, who are either medically unfit and have been discharged from service or are awaiting calling-up, and 7 per cent, who are key staff in respect of whom the Corporation have applied for deferment, either limited or indefinite. Wherever possible, the Corporation has replaced men under 30 by men over that age or by men unfit for, or discharged from, the Forces, or by women. It is continuing to recruit such persons through such sources as the Central Register and public advertisement.
    Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the position at this centre, to which I have referred in correspondence with him, considering the vast number of young men who are employed there?
    Mr. Cooper: I think the reply I have given shows that the proportion of young men who are fit for military service and are being employed there is very small, and these men are being employed on duties which are of the very first importance from the point of view of our war effort.
    Captain Cobb: Would it not be a good thing to replace the official of the B.B.C. who was responsible; for passing the filthy postcript to the news on Tuesday night?
    Mr. Pickthorn: If those services are of first importance in the war effort, on what grade of importance is fighting?

    PROPAGANDA.
    Major Milnerasked the Minister of Information what recent instructions or guidance he has received from the Foreign Office as to the line to be adopted in propaganda broadcasts to enemy countries; and whether such instructions may be placed in the Library or otherwise made available for the information of Members?
    Mr. Cooper: Co-operation between Government Departments would obviously become impossible if all inter-Departmental communications were to be made public. The answer to the second part of the Question is therefore in the negative.
    Major Milner: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the Lord President of
    582
    the Council indicated in the Debate on propaganda recently that the Foreign Office would in future indicate the target at which the Ministry of Information had to aim, and ought not the House to be informed what that target is?
    Mr. Cooper: No, Sir; I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member. The Foreign Office and the Ministry have consultations on this matter. The foreign policy with regard to the different countries is directed by the Foreign Office, and they give indications from time to time of the line which should be taken with regard to foreign policy, but those indications could not possibly be published.
    Major Milnerasked the Minister of Information whether translations of broadcast propaganda to enemy and other countries and of leaflet or other propaganda matter used in the same countries can be placed in the Library or otherwise made available for the information of Members?
    Mr. Cooper: No, Sir.
    Major Milner: Would it not be possible for the Minister to place a selection from these propaganda broadcasts in the Library, so that Members might have an opportunity of reading them? What objection could there be to that?
    Mr. Cooper: The propaganda broadcasts made by the B.B.C. can be listened to and taken down by anybody, and no doubt the B.B.C. would be prepared to furnish the hon. and gallant Member with copies of any particular one in which he was interested. With regard to other propaganda, such as leaflets, that is not a matter which would be suitable for public discussion.
    Major Milner: Is not the Minister aware that he would be able to avoid a good many Questions of the sort which he has been answering with regard to propaganda to particular countries, if there could be placed in the Library a selection of all propaganda material, which obviously it is impossible for hon. Members to have translated in all cases? It would be very convenient if such a selection could be made available.
    Mr. Cooper: I should be quite ready to consider the possibility of having a short selection each week of translations from these foreign languages.
    Mr. G. Strauss: As we can listen to the propaganda which goes out from the B.B.C., why should we not be able to see the propaganda which goes out in leaflets?
    Mr. Pickthorn: Is there any reason why the Minister should not place in the Library at least a list of the people who give these overseas broadcasts either in English or in foreign languages?
    Major Milnerasked the Minister of Information who is the official of his Ministry now in charge of propaganda to enemy countries; and what are his qualifications for the position?
    Mr. Cooper: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answer I have just given in reply to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall).
    Mr. Liddall: Is not the best propaganda the broadcasts by Mr. Sefton Delmer?

    ALLIED NATIONAL ANTHEMS (BROADCASTS).
    Major Lloydasked the Minister of Information whether he will make representations to the British Broadcasting Corporation with a view to the discontinuance of the playing of the Allied National Anthems on Sunday evenings on the grounds that the playing of these anthems has now largely served its purpose?
    Mr. Cooper: In view of the increase in the number of National Anthems which renders it impossible to do full justice to any of them within the time allotted, I have suggested to the B.B.C. that that period shall, in future, be devoted to the national music of one of the nations whose people are now fighting on our side. A different nation would be selected each week, and perhaps in some cases it may prove possible to combine two or three.
    Mr. Shinwell: Have the Government suddenly become embarrassed by the suggestion that another National Anthem should be played on Sunday evenings? May I further ask the Minister whether he will consider playing the "Internationale" alone, as covering the whole of the countries concerned?
    Mr. Cooper: There has been no sudden decision taken in regard to this matter. The House may remember that in reply to a Supplementary Question put by the hon.
    584
    Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) some three or four weeks ago I suggested that this might prove the right solution, when the hon. Member was pressing for the inclusion of the National Anthem of another country. I said then that I thought the anthems were becoming too many in number, and this decision has been reached as a result of further consideration.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that among the various anthems which are played each Sunday the Russian National Anthem will have its place?
    Mr. Cooper: My hon. Friend did not understand my reply. Instead of that programme, which will be discontinued, we are going to devote the whole period to the national songs of one particular country. We are no longer going to play the National Anthems.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will Russia be included in that programme?
    Mr. Cooper: Certainly, Russia will have her share.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister aware that this is a proletarian class war and that this song calls the workers to revolt against the ruling classes?

    POSTAL FACILITIES (BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR).
    Major Vyvyan Adamsasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now able to issue a light-weight air letter-card for use in correspondence with British prisoners of war?
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Yes, Sir. A light-weight letter card, specially designed for use in writing to British prisoners of war, will be on sale from Monday next, 21st July, at a cost of 3d., including postage. The letter-card has been so printed that it will help correspondents to use the correct addresses. It is also closed by folding and not sealing, thus facilitating censorship. These factors should expedite handling here and abroad. Under the existing arrangements for air mail services with the German authorities, these air letter cards will be carried to Germany all the way by air. Further, I am glad to be able to announce that by virtue of

    585
    a recent agreement with the Italian authorities, air mail letters and air letter cards will be carried by the Italian air service from Lisbon to Rome. Thus they will now travel by air all the way from this country to Italy. The free service by sea to Lisbon and the normal air mail service will still be available.
    Major Adams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these arrangements will be extremely gratefully received? May I ask whether there is any chance of a small fixed proportion in each case going free of any postal charge in future?
    Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I cannot hold out any hope that the air mail service will be free, but free services on surface routes will, of course, be continued.
    Sir William Davison: What is the proportion of Italian prisoners in our hands and British prisoners in Italian hands?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    NAVAL ADVISER, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
    Mr. Brookeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the name of the senior officer appointed by him to the Ministry of Information to exercise responsibility for passing Admiralty news for publication, under the arrangement of 3rd July?
    The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): The official designation of the officer to whom my hon. Friend refers is "Naval Adviser to the Ministry of Information." I do not consider it desirable to give the names of individual officers charged with particular responsibilities.
    Mr. Brooke: Can the Minister say, without disclosing the name of this officer, on what date he took up his duties with the Ministry of Information?
    Sir V. Warrender: Not without notice.

    WOMEN'S ROYAL NAVAL SERVICE.
    Viscountess Davidson(By Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent change of status of the A.T.S. and W.A.A.F., it is the intention of the Admiralty to authorise any comparable change in the status of the W.R.N.S.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): No, Sir. The Board of Admiralty are satisfied that the present status, organisation and system of discipline of the W.R.N.S. are such as to enable that Service fully to meet the obligations laid upon its members. At the same time, I should not like the House to infer from this that the tie between the W.R.N.S. and the Navy is any less close than that between the A.T.S. and Army, or that between the W.A.A.F. and Air Force; or that the W.R.N.S. make a less significant contribution to the war effort of the Royal Navy than the other two women's auxiliary services make to the war effort of the Fighting Services to which they are affiliated. Such an inference would be entirely at variance with the facts. The W.R.N.S. have rendered and are rendering invaluable services by carrying out a variety of duties which would otherwise have to be performed by officers and ratings of the Navy, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the wonderful spirit and fine sense of discipline shown by all ranks in their ever increasing numbers. They are proud to be associated with the Royal Navy, and the Navy is equally ready to acknowledge its obligation to them.
    Captain John Dugdale: Is it not possible for these young ladies to receive a uniform and a hat which would be more becoming to them and set off their beauty to greater advantage?
    Mr. Alexander: I have views about millinery myself, but I must say that the position in regard to the recruitment of the "Wrens" does not seem to indicate that they are not attracted by the uniform.

    SHIPPING LOSSES.
    Mr. Stokesasked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what date he expects to publish the figures of shipping losses for the month of June?
    Sir, V. Warrender: This return was made public yesterday.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the announcement that these returns are not to be published in future, will the Financial Secretary say whether arrangements will be made so that Members of this House

    587
    may receive the information confidentially month by month?
    Sir V. Warrender: I do not think that point is being considered, but I will look into it.
    Mr. Shinwell: Have the Government decided to stop publishing shipping losses?
    Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir, at regular intervals.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the information be imparted confidentially to Members of this House?
    Sir V. Warrender: I do not wish to go beyond the statement attached to the figures published yesterday.
    Mr. Kirkwood: When did the Government make this decision, because this is the first time that I have been made aware of the fact?
    Sir V. Warrender: The decision was announced yesterday.
    Mr. Hannah: Do we not publish far too much?

    TRINIDAD (LEPER COLONY).
    Dr. Morganasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies why the medical secretary of a British organisation has been invited to accept a position temporarily of medical superintendent of the leper colony in Trinidad, especially in view of the fact that adequately qualified and experienced medical men suitable for this appointment were available from the ranks of local medical officers; what are the terms, tenure, salary, etc., of this temporary post; and whether the conditions in this leper colony have been improved in recent months to the satisfaction of the nuns who nurse and care for the diseased inmates?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The Government of Trinidad have been fortunate to secure the services for a period of 18 months of Dr. Edwin Muir, Secretary of the British Empire Leprosy Relief Association, no local candidate of comparable qualifications being available. In addition to his work in Trinidad, it is hoped that Dr. Muir may be able to conduct a survey of leprosy work in neighbouring Colonies, as he has done in East and
    588
    West Africa, and that he will be able to train a successor against his departure. His emoluments are at the rate of £700 a year, with £150 a year travelling allowance, and free passages. No report has as yet been received regarding the leper colony in Trinidad since Dr. Muir's arrival, but my Noble Friend has every confidence that nothing but good can come not only to Trinidad but to neighbouring Colonies from the temporary appointment of this very eminent scientist.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Was not this appointment decided upon as being best, both in the interests of the Colony and in the interests of the campaign against leprosy throughout the British Empire?
    Mr. Riley: While not questioning the wisdom of the appointment referred to, may I ask whether inquiries were made in Trinidad to find out whether some suitably qualified person was available for this position? Will the Minister bear hi mind how much the local population are disturbed when such appointments are made, unless there is clear evidence that no local ability is available?
    Dr. Morgan: Having regard to the very special nature of the appointment and the special character of the person appointed, would it not be better to appoint him under the Welfare Fund, rather than through this particular institution which is really local and for which there are admirable candidates in the Colony?
    Mr. Hall: My Noble Friend considers that we are fortunate; in securing the services of such an eminent person. While it is true there are persons qualified in Trinidad, the fact remains that no one is so well qualified as Dr. Muir.

  JAMAICA.

    VENEREAL DISEASE (CHILDREN).
    Dr. Morganasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a visit of inspection paid to the venereal disease clinic in Kingston, Jamaica, has revealed that, amongst the patients found awaiting appropriate treatment, were two young girls, seven years of age; that these children were diseased not by hereditary infection, but by direct contact; how many such cases

    589
    exist in Jamaica; and what steps have been taken or are being taken to ascertain the perpetrators of such crimes with a view to punishment?
    Mr. George Hall: I have no knowledge of the two particular cases mentioned, but, although no definite figures are available, the medical officer in charge of the Kingston Clinic estimates that 25 per cent, of the children attending the clinic with this disease are infected by direct contact. As regards the last part of the Question, the Governor reports that cases are from time to time reported to the police who press the charge, but that such cases are very difficult to establish. In many instances where a child is infected, the parents are very 10th to give information to the police, owing to the fact that they do not desire any publicity, and feel it may reflect on the child's future. As regards cases admitted to the clinic, but not reported directly to the police, no action is taken. It is very difficult to obtain histories, and in many cases, parents or guardians are reluctant to give information. It is considered to be undesirable to press questions, lest the children fail to return for treatment, as has happened on previous occasions.
    Dr. Morgan: In view of the undesirable state of things in this Colony with regard to this particular disease, would it not be advisable for the Governor to consider introducing a public health campaign for the education of the public, from the point of view of providing both adequate treatment and necessary facilities for such treatment?
    Mr. Hall: From the reply which I gave to a Question last week it will be seen that my Noble Friend is very much concerned about the situation and is taking the matter up with the Governor.
    Mrs. Tate: Is it not a fact that it is unnecessary to go so far as Kingston, Jamaica, to find cases such as those mentioned in this Question, and would it not be better to revise the penal code at present prescribed in this country?

    DETAINEES.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (i) whether he is aware that, in
    590
    May, 1940, the Governor of Jamaica interned all British subjects who were German born and continues to refuse any investigation as to whether the detention is necessary or justified; and, in view of the fact that the Governor upon his return from this country to the Colony was going to review all these cases personally, can he now state whether those against whom nothing is known are now released;
    (2) the number of British subjects of alien or enemy origin, respectively, interned by the Governor of Jamaica since the war: and what number of these have been released following their objection to the advisory committee?
    Mr. George Hall: On the information available in the Colonial Office, the number of British subjects of alien or enemy origin who have been detained by the Governor of Jamaica since the war is 12; none of these persons has yet been released, but a report from the Governor of Jamaica on his review of these cases has been received, and my noble Friend is communicating further with the Governor on the subject.
    Mr. Adams: When are we likely to have this information, in view of the long time that these people have been interned?
    Mr. Hall: I could not say, but we are in telegraphic communication with the Governor on the matter.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Will importance be attached to the question, because of the continued detention of quite a number of people long resident in the Colony who are of very good character and social value in their work there?
    Sir Leonard Lyle: Is it not very undesirable and against the national interest that the actions of our Colonial Governors, very often on the most flimsy pretext, are being called into account?
    Miss Eleanor Rathboneasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many aliens are interned in Jamaica; how many of them have been released or authorised for release; how many times has the committee appointed to advise the Governor on this matter sat; and how many cases has it considered and reported on?
    Mr. Hall: I have asked the Governor to furnish the information required, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend on receipt of his reply.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the fact that Mr. W. A. Domingo, who had borne an excellent reputation and rendered valuable public service, has been under detention in Jamaica for a month, he can now state the result of the appeal to the Governor's advisory committee against his arrest?
    Mr. Hall: The Governor of Jamaica has reported that Mr. Domingo has given notice of his intention to make an objection to the advisory committee as provided in the Regulations, and it now remains for that committee to fix a date for the hearing of Mr. Domingo's case.
    Mr. Adams: Can we have a prompt dealing with the matter?
    Mr. Hall: It is now for the committee to fix the date of the hearing, and Mr. Domingo's case will be heard.
    Mr. Silverman: Is it not the case that Mr. Domingo was not a resident in Jamaica at the time of his internment, and if that is so, under what powers did the Governor act?
    Mr. Hall: It is true that for some time he was a resident in America, but he is a Jamaican. Notwithstanding that fact, the Governor felt that he was justified in talking the action he did.
    Mr. Silverman: What power had the Governor to order this detention, in the case of a man not resident in the territory?
    Mr. Hall: He deemed that he had power under the Defence Regulations.

    MALAYA (WAR TAXATION).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies the total yield from the Malayan war tax on incomes and from the export tax on rubber; and the approximate number of Malayan residents earning incomes, respectively, between £576 and £720, £720 and £3,400, and over £3,400?
    Mr. George Hall: The estimated total yields from the war tax on incomes in the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States for the current year are respectively $10,000,000 and $4,000,000. The yield from the war taxation on rubber exports in 1941 is estimated to be respectively $519,000 and $3,000,000, but since those estimates were made the rates of duty have been doubled in both territories: No information is at present available regarding the approximate number of persons resident in Malaya with incomes in the categories mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question.

    SIERRA LEONE (LABOUR DISPUTE).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether industrial discontent in Sierra Leone among members of the Waterfront Workers Union and the Building Constructional Workers Union respecting rates of pay and the rising cost of living has now been allayed by adjustment satisfactory to the workers concerned?
    Mr. George Hall: Pending the arrival of a report from the Acting Governor of Sierra Leone, which may be expected shortly, I am not in a position to add to my reply to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) on 18th June.

    COLONIES (WOMEN WELFARE OFFICERS).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether a woman welfare officer has been appointed in Nigeria to look after the well-being of the families of colliery labourers at Enugu; and whether women officers have been appointed either for labour or welfare work in any other Colonies?
    Mr. George Hall: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the Question, there are women officers appointed in several Colonies for welfare work, and in certain Eastern territories for inspection work in connection with the employment of children. I am arranging for a complete review to be made of these activities in all the Colonial Dependencies.

    COLONIAL POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (HAILEY COMMITTEE).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what is the composition of the body set up in the Colonial Office under the chairmanship of Lord Hailey; what are its terms of reference; what outside bodies and groups it will work with or consult; and whether such an organisation will be asked for its recommendations on colonial policy and post-war relations, development and future changes?
    Mr. George Hall: The body to which this Question refers is a small committee composed, apart from the Chairman, of senior members of the Colonial Office staff. Its purpose is to prepare a statement of the political, administrative, economic and social questions which are likely to come up for consideration in relation to the Colonies at the end of the war; and to assemble, so far as is practicable, the facts and other material which will be required for the consideration of these questions. The committee will seek the aid of such persons and organisations as may be in a position to supply information of the kind that is required. This committee, as has been stated in another place, is primarily a preliminary fact-finding body; and it will be a matter for consideration at a later date whether it should be invited to submit recommendations on policy, post-war relations, development and future changes.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Will there be any connection between this committee and the research organisation Nuffield College? Also, in the shaping of policy, will there be the fullest consultation with all other types of outside organisations?
    Mr. Hall: That is a matter which will be considered by Lord Hailey and his committee. The committee has only just been set up, and it will take into consideration all the Questions that the hon. Member has put.

    WEST INDIES (PREVENTION OF DISAFFECTION).
    Sir L. Lyleasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the attempts by isolated agitators to stir up disaffection in the British West Indies, whether he can give an assurance that the various Governors possess sufficient
    594
    powers to deal with such attempts on the same lines if necessary as in this country?
    Mr. George Hall: Yes. Sir.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: May we take it that Governors of Colonies are not entitled to detain as isolated agitators persons who are genuinely trying to improve the conditions of the people there?
    Mr. Hall: That statement is quite unfair. I do not know of a single case where the Governor of Jamaica or of any Colony has detained any person without considering that he was justified in doing so.
    Dr. Morgan: Apart from detention, is it not the policy of Governors generally to prevent anyone making any speeches whatever?

    WEST AFRICA (COCOA CONTROL).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to make a statement on the work of the Cocoa Board, and the position in West Africa in respect of arrangements for storage, processing or distinction of crops, and the price to cocoa producers?
    Mr. George Hall: The West African Cocoa Control Board began its work in October, 1940, and will not, therefore, have completed a year's marketing of West African cocoa until 30th September next. In the circumstances I should prefer not to make any statement about the proceedings of the Board until it has completed a full year's programme. The Board has carefully considered arrangements for the storage of any cocoa which it may not be able to ship by the end of the season, and sufficient space is available for any balance of this season's crop which may have to be carried over. Arrangements have been made in the Gold Coast for a small quantity of cocoa to be processed and used for household requirements. As regards manufacturing prepared cocoa in West Africa for export, the general cocoa situation and the practical difficulties involved do not justify serious consideration of this possibility at present. My noble Friend is in communication with the Governors of the Gold Coast and Nigeria in regard to the price to be paid to cocoa producers during the season 1941–42.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give special consideration to the price now being paid to the producer, in view of the fact that a profit is being made by the Cocoa Board in this country which is virtually subsidising the cost of living here?
    Mr. Hall: I indicated in replying to a previous Question that that is being done.

  WAR TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY AGREEMENT (MODIFICATION).
    Mr. Silkinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Trans port whether the terms of the railway agreement have now been settled and agreed; and whether he will cause such terms to be published and made available to the public?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): No, Sir. When the terms of the modified agreement have been settled, a statement will "be made to the House.
    Mr. Silkin: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these negotiations have been going on for nearly two years? Is it not time that an agreement was concluded?
    Colonel Llewellin: That is not quite accurate. There was one agreement, but in virtue of the Government's decision not to allow an increase of railway fares and freight rates, a modified agreement has now become necessary. Negotiations have not been going on for two years.
    Mr. Silkin: There never has been a final agreement. Is it not time that the country knew the terms on which they have taken over the railways?
    Mr. Watkins: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration the urgent necessity, in order to promote the war effort, of co-ordinating road and rail transport under a single national authority?
    Colonel Llewellin: That, of course, is quite a different matter.

    THROUGH BOOKING FACILITIES, LONDON.
    Mr. Silkinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Trans port whether he has considered the
    596
    London Passenger Transport Board's application to him for authority to withdraw, as from 1st July last, existing through booking facilities between certain road points on the omnibus, tramcar and trolley-omnibus services of the Board, and a number of underground stations; and whether, seeing that the withdrawal of these facilities is equivalent to an increase in charges to the travelling public, he will refuse permission?
    Colonel Llewellin: Through season tickets are not affected by these proposals. They apply to ordinary single through bookings, but these are only available at relatively few points. The proposed withdrawal will ease the work of conductors, many of whom are now inexperienced, and will not, I think, cause any real hardship.
    Mr. Silkin: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a considerable number of passengers use these facilities daily and that the result of withdrawing them will mean increased charges?
    Colonel Llewellin: I have gone into the matter. The increased revenue likely to be secured from this source over a whole year is only £6,000 out of the takings of some £40,000,000 of the L.P.T.B.

    WATER FOR WHISKY MAKING (RAIL TRANSPOERT).
    Mr. John Wilmotasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that some hundreds of gallons of water from Loch Katrine in Scotland is brought to London by rail each week for whisky making; and whether he will give priority to more important traffic?
    Colonel Llewellin: The first part of my hon. Friend's Question is substantially correct. I have been in touch with the firm concerned, and they have readily agreed to suspend this arrangement for the duration of the war.
    Mr. Wilmot: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that great satisfaction will be felt for that answer in many cases where commodities are in short supply owing to lack of transport?
    Mr. Leslie: Does the reply mean that we shall get whisky stronger than before?
    Colonel Llewellin: I understand that that is not the case. London water is to be used instead of loch water.
    Mr. Lawson: Will people who want special whisky have to go to Loch Katrine?
    Colonel Llewellin: We cannot encourage holiday transport for that purpose.
    Mr. McGovern: Would it not save transport if they brought the whisky to Scotland instead of taking the water to England?

    ARTERIAL ROADS (PETROL DEPOTS).
    Captain Profumoasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in view of the shortage of petrol, as well as the necessity for speeding up delivery, distribution and transport of so many important commoditits, he will consider establishing common depots at various points on our main arterial routes at which vehicles of all types, both service and civilian, could call in order to reload, so that the return journey, so often made empty, could be fully utilised?
    Colonel Llewellin: Even if it were possible to gives effect to it, I am by no means sure that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would have the results which he anticipates, but I will be glad to discuss it with him.

    AERODROMES (PROTECTION).
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been reached as to the respective responsibilities of the War Office and Air Ministry for the protection of aerodromes; and whether he is satisfied with the present position in that respect?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Yes, Sir.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

    SALVAGE.
    Mr. Dolandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether he will indicate the result of salvage work for each Metropolitan borough and for the large cities outside London, respectively, for the month of May?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Doland: Will my hon. Friend include the June figures if they are available?
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.
    Following is the answer:
    The following table shows for each of the Metropolitan Boroughs, and the larger cities outside London, the value of the sales of salvaged material for the month of May, 1941. These figures do not include material collected and sold by voluntary organisations or merchants.

    Metropolitan Boroughs.

    Value.

    £

    Battersea

    277

    Bermondsey

    220

    Bethnal Green

    190

    Camberwell

    269

    Chelsea

    215

    Deptford

    193

    Finsbury

    232

    Fulham

    565

    Greenwich

    204

    Hackney

    518

    Hammersmith

    136

    Hampstead

    339

    Holborn

    158

    Islington and Stoke Newington

    1,009

    Kensington

    490

    Lambeth

    307

    Lewisham

    301

    London, City of

    95

    Paddington

    672

    Poplar

    1,064

    St. Marylebone

    428

    St. Pancras

    707

    Shoreditch

    126

    Southwark

    372

    Stepney

    109

    Wandsworth

    327

    Westminster, City of

    852

    Woolwich

    266

    Total

    £10,641

    The corresponding totals for previous months were: —

    £

    March

    11,968

    April

    10,679

    Large Cities Outside London.

    Value.

    £

    Birmingham

    6,665

    Bristol

    3,358

    Edinburgh

    5.555

    Glasgow

    10,004

    Leeds

    3,276

    Liverpool

    3,141

    Manchester

    4,801

    Sheffield

    3,743

    Total

    £40543

    The corresponding totals for previous months were: —

    £

    March

    41,036

    April

    41,661

    TANKS.
    Mr. Hammersleyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether in respect to tanks now being supplied to the Army, he has furnished the War Office with such data as will enable them to work out the radius of action within which reasonable reliability may be expected?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: Before a new type of tank is approved for operational use, tests are carried out under conditions approximating as closely as possible to service conditions. The War Office are given full reports of these tests, upon which an estimate can be made of the expected useful life of the various parts. An accurate estimate of the reliability of tanks can only be obtained by experience gained during the training period, when the closest liaison is maintained between the Ministry of Supply and the War Office.
    Mr. Hammersley: Will every effort be made to endeavour to improve the reliability of tanks through the designs department in order that larger areas of effective action will be available?
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

    WAR PRIORITIES.
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Prime Minister whether there is any member of the War Cabinet charged with the responsibility of deciding between the conflicting priorities issued by the supply and service departments; and whether he he is satisfied with the present position in regard to the whole question of priorities?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part pf the Question is: "The Minister of Labour as Chairman, and on behalf of the Production Executive." The answer to the second part is in the affirmative. I shall hope to be dealing more fully with these questions on a future occasion.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    SYNTHETIC VITAMINS.
    Mr. Manderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food into what form of food the minimum daily requirements of the most important vitamins and minerals are being introduced; whether he is aware that the United States
    600
    of America are anxious to send us synthetic vitamins occupying negligible shipping space; and whether advantage will be taken of this?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): Steps are being taken to obtain from the United States of America such quantities of vitamin as my Noble Friend is advised are desirable to supplement the amounts available in the form of natural foods. Medical and scientific advisers consider that the only mineral deficiency which is to be feared under war-time conditions is in respect to calcium. Recommendations for dealing with this possible deficiency are now under consideration.

    ROADSIDE CATERERS.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether special consideration can be given to small roadside caterers supplying food to long-distance lorry drivers, as the present allocations of essential foods makes catering on highland roads practically impossible?
    Major Lloyd George: Roadside caterers providing meals for long distance lorry drivers are granted allowances of rationed foods in common with all other catering establishments on the basis of the number of meals they serve. They should experience no difficulty in obtaining supplies of rationed foods therefore if they furnish the local food office with full particulars of the number of meals they serve. Difficulties have been experienced in some cases in obtaining supplies of unrationed foods in short supply and measures for improving the distribution of these commodities are now under consideration.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that in one case that I know of the caterer gets only 8d. worth of meat above his own ration per week, and that it is impossible for him to carry on in those circumstances; and that only infrequently do these caterers get jam or cheese?
    Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars, I will look into them.

    CORNED BEEF (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AUTHORITIES).
    Mr. Quibellasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of

    601
    Food whether lie is aware that the Lindsey public assistance committee recently purchased two tons of corned beef and that the Wholesale Meat Trades Association insisted on this consignment being invoiced through a retailer, who charged 10 per cent, profit on this transaction and, as a consequence, the meat cost the committee £25 more than was necessary; and if he will consider taking steps to stop this practice?
    Major Lloyd George: I am aware that the Lindsey public assistance committee purchased two tons of corned beef and that this consignment was invoiced through a retailer on the advice of the. Wholesale Meat Supply Association. The Ministry has encouraged caterers, public institutions, etc., who previously purchased their meat supplies through a retail butcher to continue to do so under war conditions. Since the transaction in question, it has been decided that approved purchases of canned corned beef to be held by public assistance authorities for emergency purposes shall be supplied directly from depots of wholesale meat supply associations.

    SMALL SHOPKEEPERS (REMOTE VILLAGES).
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Food whether his Department has considered the case of remote villages where no shop has the necessary 25 customers for rationed commodities; and what steps it is proposed to take to supply the needs of these communities?
    Major Lloyd George: Twenty-five customers represent on the average only six families. I do not therefore consider that cases of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers will occur except in very special circumstances. Food executive officers have however been given discretion to permit a retailer to retain fewer than 25 registrations if they are satisfied that only by this means will certain members of the public be able to obtain supplies.
    Mr. Radford: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise the tremendous hardship which is being caused to the small shopkeepers who are being deprived of this trade?
    Major Lloyd George: That is another question. There is a more general Question down for a future Sitting dealing with the same subject.

    MINERS.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can make a statement on the case presented to the Minister in May and June by the deputation representing miners' organisations and others on the need for improved rations and communal feeding for all employed in the mining industry?
    Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend the Minister of Mines and my Noble Friend are impressed with the need for the improvement of the feeding facilities for miners, and they are doing everything possible to increase the provision of pithead canteens wherever required. Investigation has shown that in most cases snacks such as meat pies, sandwiches, etc., only are required for consumption underground, but in certain areas the men desire facilities to enable them to obtain a full meal on coming up from underground. The Miners' Welfare Commission have undertaken the responsibility for the establishment of additional pithead canteens with the technical assistance of the Ministry of Food. It is estimated that canteens will be required at about 560 pits, in addition to those already in existence. A considerable number are now in course of construction while others, which at present serve only light refreshments, will be expanded. This programme which will ensure a substantial increase in the opportunity of miners obtaining food and meals in close proximity to their work will be completed as soon as possible.
    Mr. Smith: As democratic machinery has been evolved in this country for negotiations and consultations to take place through representative organisations, may I ask whether the Mine-workers' Federation have been consulted in this matter?
    Major Lloyd George: They have been consulted.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, while miners will appreciate an increase in canteen arrangements where practicable.

    603
    there is a tremendous number of pits where there are no pit-head facilities, and in those cases will he give consideration to miners having meat meals in their own homes?
    Major Lloyd George: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate the enormous difficulties in "dealing with a question of that sort. We have already tried to meet the position of miners, and the difficulty is to make any further differentiation in rationing. Surely it is not outside the bounds of possibility to have some kind of building where meals can be provided at the pit-head.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that a large number of mines have wet working conditions underground and that to meet these conditions it is necessary for miners to have their meals at home?
    Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the normal practice and custom of miners who work at the coal face in Durham make it almost impossible to have a meal down the pit? They go from breakfast until dinner-time. Is he also aware that as a result of practically using up the meat ration at the week-end they have no meat at all for the rest of the week?

    RATIONING (INDUSTRIAL CENTRES).
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can make a statement on the prospect of improved rations; and has he recently given consideration to the need for a supplementary rationing scheme or to any other scheme that will enable the people resident in industrial centres to obtain more food?
    Major Lloyd George: Recent increases in food rations have been made in the case of meat and cheese, additional sugar is being released during the present month and an increase in the preserves ration has been announced to come into operation at the end of the present month. The general supply position is kept under constant review with the object of providing additions to or variations in the national dietary. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, a considerable extension in the provision of works canteens and British Restaurants has already been made and this development will be continued so far as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Smith: In cases where municipalities are not carying out their obligations with regard to Ministry of Food policy, what steps are being taken to see that they do?
    Major Lloyd George: I am glad to say that that is not a very usual occurrence, but we have taken further steps to impress the local authorities with the advantages of the system of communal feeding. If that has no effect, other steps may have to be considered.
    Mr. Wilmot: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the great disparity between the amount of food obtained by those who have access to canteens and restaurants and those who have not, and will he take some steps to remedy a very alarming situation?
    Major Lloyd George: We have already taken steps in the British Restaurant system, which is intended to meet this difficulty. It is entirely in the hands of the public whether they will have it or not.

    FISH (PRICE CONTROL).
    Sir L. Lyleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider remodelling the fish-price control scheme in the direction of differentiating between large and small fish, and fresh and frozen fish, respectively; and whether he can state the views of those interested as to how the scheme, as a whole, is working?
    Major Lloyd George: Experience of the working of the scheme of maximum prices for fish during the brief period since it came into operation on 30th June has not indicated that further differentiation on the lines suggested is immediately desirable. The price schedule already differentiates between fresh and frozen fish of a number of varieties. Trade comment on the working of the scheme as a whole is favourable.
    Mr. Loftus: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that over a large area of East Anglia there is almost a famine in the cheaper kinds of fish eaten by the mass of our people, and will he consider representations upon that point?
    Major Lloyd George: Certainly.

    BREAD (CALCIUM CONTENT).
    Mrs. Rathboneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food

    605
    whether, in view of the deficiency in calcium intake throughout the country, he will give speedy consideration to the addition of calcium in both white and whole-meal flour bread?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    LEAVE (TRAVEL FACILITIES).
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the great hardship caused to many soldiers who are granted leave in paying their railway fares home as they have been already granted two free passes in the year; and whether he will consider increasing the number of free passes to four per year?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 18th June last, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. Buchanan: In view of the hardships in these cases, will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter?
    Mr. Law: I think that the existing arrangements are not ungenerous. In addition to the two free leave warrants per year, soldiers have the right to get a return ticket at the cost of a single fare, and I do not think we can go further than that.

    MARRIAGE FACILITIES.
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider so amending the law as to make it possible for soldiers on service to be married by proxy, in cases where special conditions make this desirable?
    Mr. Law: While I have seen no evidence of any general demand for facilities for marriage by proxy, I am aware of the difficulties that frequently face personnel of His Majesty's Forces who have made arrangements to get married and are moved at short notice to another part: of the country or are unable to get leave. Consultations have taken place between the Service Departments and the leaders of the Churches on this question, and it has now been decided to submit to
    606
    Parliament after the Recess a short Bill which it is hoped will help to overcome some of the present difficulties.
    Mr. Hannah: Is not a form of marriage which is good enough for emperors and kings good enough for private soldiers?

    ADVISORY OFFICER, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
    Mr. Brookeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the name of the senior officer appointed by him to the Ministry of Information to exercise responsibility for passing War Office news for publication, under the arrangement of 3rd July?
    Mr. Law: My right hon. Friend does not consider it desirable to give the names of individual officers charged with particular responsibilities.
    Mr. Brooke: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that there has been a substantial change in the system of releasing War Office news, such as the Lord President of the Council led the House to expect in the recent Debate?
    Mr. Law: I can assure my hon. Friend that the officer representing the War Office at the Ministry of Information is fully competent to take the kind of decision which the Lord President of the Council outlined in his speech.

    COLLIERY CLERKS (WAGES).
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether the clerks employed at collieries have been granted the attendance bonus in any part of the country, or have they received increases in wages equivalent; and, if not, what action is to be taken to enable the good-will of the clerks to be maintained?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): The attendance bonus is not, as far as I know, being paid to colliery clerical staff since such staff are normally paid a regular weekly wage. The Mines Department has no authority to determine the wages and conditions of pay for any class of colliery employees and in regard to clerical and similar grades wages are determined by discussion and negotiation directly between the parties concerned.

    ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Mr. Stephenasked the Minister of Pensions when there is a dispute in the initial stage of a claim for compensation for war injuries or war service injuries between the civil defence organisation, the Assistance Board and the public assistance committee as to the responsibility for the case, what steps are taken to see that the applicant is not worried and sent from one to the other while the determination of responsibility is being considered?
    The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): All applications for injury allowances in respect of war or war service injuries under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1941, have to be made in the first instance to the Assistance Board, who act as my agents in the administration of these payments. In view of the considerable publicity given to this fact, I do not understand why doubts should arise as to the authority responsible for dealing with such applications. If, however, the hon. Member has any particular case in mind and will let me know of it, I shall be glad to inquire into it.
    Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister not aware that the Assistance Board may decide that it is a case for the public assistance committee and the public assistance committee decide that it is a case for the Assistance Board, and that the person is kept running between the two?
    Sir W. Womersley: Public assistance committees have no power to deal with any cases concerned with war service and war injuries, and I am surprised to hear that any such cases have been referred to them
    Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister not aware that the Assistance Board say, "It is not a case of war injury, and you will have to go to the public assistance committee," and that when the person goes to the public assistance committee they say, "It is a war injury" and send him back?
    Sir W. Womersley: It is the first I have heard of such cases, and if the hon. Member will let me have particulars, I will have inquiries made. It is not our intention that these people should be dealt with in that way.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Lieutenant-Commander George Ian Clark Hutchison, R.N., for the Burgh of Edinburgh (West Division).
  BILL PRESENTED.
    WAR DAMAGE (EXTENSION OF RISK PERIOD) BILL,
    "to extend the provisions of the War Damage Act, 1941, relating to payments in respect of war damage under Part I of that Act to damage occurring after the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-one," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Attorney-General and Captain Crookshank; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, arid to be printed [Bill 47].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sitting of the House)." [Mr. James Stuart.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAR DAMAGE TO LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  It has fallen to my lot on each of two successive days in this House to propose a Measure to relieve distress among the working classes. Yesterday I proposed a United Kingdom Bill increasing the benefits and widening the classes of beneficiaries in National Health Insurance. To-day—and I propose to be as brief as I was yesterday—the Bill deals with the predicament in which many thousands of people now find themselves as a result of war damage to their dwelling-houses. Before the war is over their number may run into a million. The Bill applies to Scotland only. The counterpart Measure for England and Wales is already well on its way to the Statute Book.
  On 1st September, 1939, Parliament enacted a Measure called the War Damage to Land (Scotland) Act. The main purpose of it was to provide that any interested party might apply to the sheriff court for modification of any agreement as to rent or ground rent because of war damage. That provision obviously did not meet the difficulties of tenants who had taken their houses upon a short let or tenancy, which is the situation of the vast majority of our fellow citizens. When a tenant's house is damaged, he may be told that if he does not pay the full rent, he can beheld to have broken his con tract and that his remedy is to go else where. In these clays, there is really no elsewhere, so that, in effect, the Act of 1939 gives no protection to the small tenant. Generally speaking, rent is not, in practice, exacted in Scotland for any period during which houses cannot be occupied. Landlords and factors' associations in the West of Scotland have circularised their members to that effect. It may be that there are isolated cases where rent has been exacted, but I have made diligent inquiry in Clydeside to find such cases, and I am assured—
  Mr. Buchanan: I am in substantial agreement with what the
  626
  right hon. Gentleman has said. Has he applied to the sheriff clerk who deals with rent cases, more particularly when summonses are taken out?
  Mr. Johnston: I have not done so. Town clerks would know in the area I have mentioned whether instances have been reported in which landlords have exacted rent for periods during which houses were not occupied, and to the best of my knowledge no case has yet been submitted to the Scottish Office. I believe that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has a letter, which in his view tends to prove the contrary. I hope he will give it to me; and, as I said yesterday, I will have immediate inquiry made. My point now is that, as a general practice, no rent has been exacted for periods when no occupancy has taken place. On the other hand, the attitude of the houseowner has generally been that where there has been occupancy, even if the house had been damaged and accommodation had been lessened, full rent should be paid.
  The Bill is on the general lines of the English Measure, but has been drafted to deal with the situation existing under Scottish conditions. It provides that there shall be cover for all houses up to yearly lets, that is, weekly, monthly, quarterly, six-monthly and yearly. The English Bill deals only with quarterly tenancies, both for Rouses and for business premises. Our Bill does not provide for business premises. We believe that houses with rents over £90 and all business premises should continue to go to the sheriff, when there is a dispute between landlord and tenant.
  By Clause 1 of the Bill, where the rent of any dwelinghouse is under £90 and where the tenancy is under a year, and where the house is unfit as a result of war damage and is not occupied, no rent shall be paid. As I have already said, that is the general practice now; and the intention is to make that practice explicit. Where there is an unfit house occupied in whole or in part, or where the accommodation is substantially reduced, then the rent will be reduced either by agreement between the landlord and the tenant or by the machinery which is provided in this Bill.
  The next Sub-section to which I draw attention deals with the recovery of forehanded rent. I think my attention was

  627
  first directed to that problem by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Cases have arisen in which the tenant, having paid his rent in advance, finds that his house is blitzed. We provide that the porportion of the rent which he has paid fore-handed in respect of the period during which he is no longer able to occupy the dwelling, shall be returned. This is set out in Sub-section(3). Subsection (4) defines occupancy or, rather, it defines what is not occupancy. It is not occupancy, for instance, if a tenant merely has some furniture or other goods in the damaged house, or has possession of the key or visits the house occasionally for removing or looking after any furniture. If a tenant sublets and if the subtenant occupies the house or any part of it, that is held to involve an act of tenancy. Sub-section (5) deals with the question of fitness. Supposing a house has been damaged, it is to be regarded as fit only if it is repaired to such an extent as is reasonably practicable, having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the locality and if it can be reasonably regarded as fit for occupancy.
  In the event of disagreement between the landlord and the tenant on whether or not a house is fit for occupancy or on whether or not it has been repaired to such an extent as is reasonably practical in view of the circumstances prevailing in the locality, then, under the following Sub-section (6), the dispute goes not to the law courts but to a man of skill outside. In England it is the local authority which decides in these cases and in the event of a dispute between the local authority and the tenant the matter goes to the law courts. By Sub-section (7) of this Clause—this is not in the English Bill—provision is made whereby a tenant may apply for a review of a certificate that the house is fit. He may apply for cancellation of the original certificate on the ground that his house has again been bombed or blasted. A man might get a certificate on one day and have his house damaged again on the following day. Under this Bill a tenant may apply at once for a review of the certificate, or he may apply for a review of a certificate because the repairs done to the house can no longer be said to make it fit. He may apply on those grounds at any time for a revision of the
  628
  certificate, and he may apply after three months' time for a review of the certificate on the ground that further repairs are now reasonably practicable but have not been carried out. The man of skill, again, may revoke a certificate
  Mr. McGovern: Who is to be the man of skill?
  Mr. Johnston: I will come to that point later. This is a rather complicated Measure to explain and I would prefer to take these points in order. Under Sub-section (8) of Clause 1 general directions may be issued from time to time by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the men of skill must have regard to those general directions. For example, it will be necessary to give directions if there is a shortage of labour or of certain materials in a particular locality. Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the appointment of these men of skill to whom I have referred. It provides that
  "Such number of persons being registered Architects, or Fellows of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution or having other qualifications which the Secretary of State may deem suitable"
  shall be appointed to a panel from which the men of skill are to be drawn. I should mention that all the expenses in connection with these men of skill are to be paid by the Treasury. No expense in this connection falls upon either the tenant or the landlord in having any dispute settled. By this method we think that we avoid any semblance of injustice or unfairness. If the local authority were to decide, it might be held that in some instances it was judging its own cause, because a considerable proportion of houses are owned in Scotland by local authorities, and in some cases sanitary inspectors or surveyors or factors might be considered by the tenants to be prejudiced. On the other hand, we think it is unnecessarily cumberous and costly and in all ways inadvisable to take these disputes to the law courts. The law courts might have difficulty in deciding what degree of habitability a house has achieved. The sheriff might require, in such cases, himself to appoint a man of skill. The tenant would require, possibly, to lead evidence to counter the man of skill; the landlord might be raising questions also and this would all have to be settled in the sheriff court. We think we avoid difficulties and delays by the method pro-

  629
  posed in the Bill. I believe it to be the case that no question of any reduction in rent has, so far, been settled by the sheriff court in Glasgow under the Act of 1939, although it is now some three months ago since there was considerable damage to houses in the West of Scotland. Clause 3 brings in tenants under the Rent Restriction Act who might otherwise be legally held to be outside the protection of this Bill. It might be held that a tenant under the Rent Restriction Act is a tenant with an unlimited let, and therefore not a tenant coming under the Bill. This Clause says that all such tenants are to be protected. Clause 4 provides that relief from occupier's rates, if given to the landlord, must be passed on to the tenant. The remaining Clauses of the Bill are merely machinery and definition Clauses.
  I hope the House has grasped the essential features of this Measure. If I have failed to be sufficiently explicit, I am sure my hight hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will be able to explain with greater clarity and precision any points I have failed to make clear. The essence of this Measure is that we have adopted the principle of the rent court— a rent court worked by a single arbiter and at no cost to the disputants. We believe and hope that the bulk of the arrangements, both as to habitability and as to reductions in rent, will be made by agreement between the landlords and the tenants, and that only a very small proportion of cases will fall to be settled by the arbiter, but we have avoided cluttering up the law courts with disputes as to fitness and degree of habitability upon which we believe they are not best suited to adjudicate. What would the sheriff do if he were asked to decide such a question but appoint a man or men of skill? We have provided both landlord and tenant with the means for expeditious and cheap settlement of disputes as to habitability and reduction of rent, and I therefore commend this Measure to the House.
  Mr. Mathers: The House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland for the clear outline of this Bill which he has given to the House, and I must thank him for it. The only point about which I myself have felt dissatisfied was that he did not seem "to me to justify the Title of
  630
  the Bill. He did produce a precedent for this Title, but he made it clear that the Act of 1939 had features very different from those embodied in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman himself knows something about historical research, and I am quite sure that the historian of the future, trying to find out what was done in respect of war damage to dwelling-houses in Scotland in the war years, will look in vain for some real guide. In looking for Titles of Bills it would never suggest itself to the historian that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, is really concerned with war damage to small dwelling-houses in Scotland. I think we are entitled to have a Scottish Bill in this connection. It is well that Scotland should not be involved in a United Kingdom Measure. We have our differences in Scotland, and do not seek to accentuate them, but it is well that there should be this special provision in a Scottish Act for this particular purpose.
  It does not seem to me to be necessary to say a very great deal on the Bill at this stage. I know that some of my hon. Friends have in their minds Amendments which they would like to move to specific Clauses of the Bill, and I can assure the right hon. Gentlemen that when these Amendments come forward on the Committee stage they will be put forward with the idea of helping him in the task that he has undertaken in providing this protection and method of adjustment for damage to dwelling-house property. In my judgment, therefore, the Committee stage of this Bill will be much more important than the one upon which we are engaged at the present time. I echo the hope expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that the machinery provided by this Bill will not have to be used to any great extent. What I mean by that is that I hope the appeal to the man of skill—and I commend that as something better than the otherwise inevitable appeal to the law courts—will not be necessary in the vast majority of cases. Two alternative methods are provided in the main operative Clause of the Bill: the method of agreement and the method of adjustment through the intervention of a man of skill to decide between landlord and tenant. These might be described as the co-operative method and the competitive method, and I am sure I have my colleagues with me in declaring that we

  631
  stand more for the co-operative than for the competitive method. While that is true, we hope that the arrangements made in this Bill for the bringing in of an independent arbiter will meet the position in a very excellent way.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that up to the present time there has been a tendency—almost universal—not to charge rent for houses which have been rendered uninhabitable by enemy action. That is all to the good, and I hope that that spirit will be carried forward even after this Bill has become an Act of Parliament and has provided for any difference of opinion between landlord and tenant to be adjusted by the man of skill, without any expense to the two parties. I would commend the idea of agreement, because I am certain that with the best will in the world there must be some time occupied in making the necessary adjustments of a difference between landlord and tenant. It is much better that the spirit of goodwill should prevail, and that the parties should get down to their own differences and adjust matters in a proper way by agreement. I hope that when- the right hon. Gentleman comes to appoint his men of skill he will be fortunate in the choice he makes, and that they will enjoy the full confidence of those for whom they have to work. I hope the work they do will be such as to give confidence in them and in their impartiality.
  It seems to me that the explanation we have had of the Bill has been an admirable one. We shall have the opportunity of going into the Bill in more detail when we come to the Committee stage, but in the meantime we welcome the Bill and the principles which my right hon. Friend has laid down. I, for one, do not seek to stress the differences between this Bill and the English Bill. I think this is a Bill admirably suited to meet Scottish requirements, and, that being so, I have pleasure in welcoming the Bill now before the House.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I do not wish to make a speech but to make a single request to the Minister who is to reply to the Debate. This Bill deals with the position of the tenant of damaged property; it deals very fairly and justly with him, and it is right that he should be safeguarded. I am sorry the right hon.
  632
  Gentleman did not complete the picture he gave by saying just a word or two to explain what is being done to safeguard the rights of owners of these houses. I am speaking of a constituency, East Fife, in which there are a good many quite poor people, men and women, who own houses which they have let to other people. We know here that when the house is damaged there is a War Damage Act which gives them compensation, and I feel it would give a balanced picture of what is being done if, when the Minister replies, he would remind Scotland of the privileges, advantages and rights that the Bill secures for the owners of these houses. We here know what they are, but it would be helpful if these people also were made aware of them.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I want to take this opportunity of thanking the Secretary of State for Scotland for this Bill, as it affects my constituency, because if is going to affect thousands of my constituents now. There are thousands of homes destroyed in my constituency, and they are affected at the present time. I will put into the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland not merely one statement proving to the hilt the correctness of my statement that the factors at the present moment are charging rent for houses not yet occupied. In respect of houses that have been blitzed out since March, notice is now being sent to people that they have to pay the rent from March before they get into the houses. I am very glad to welcome this Bill, because it will put a stop to this. It will legalise the statement which has been made for the Secretary of State for Scotland that this will not be tolerated. I do not know what the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to do to the factors. He says he has been in contact with them. The paper I held up to him yesterday from Hacking & Paterson is signed by David Paterson, who is chairman of the Factors' Association. It asks for payment of rent. The Secretary of State for Scotland says in this House that he has been in contact with the Factors' Association and that they assure him they are doing nothing of this kind. I will hand that document to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  I hope he will see to it that instructions he gives to these men of skill are in writing, and I hope these men will be

  633
  architects. All manner of individuals will be negotiating for this job, and I want an architect put on the job. At the present moment, although the Secretary of State for Scotland has given instructions to the architect who is in charge of first-aid repairs in Clydebank, the pressure is so great, both through the lack of labour and the anxiety, which I am encouraging, of the folk to get back to Clydebank— thousands are anxious to get back—that the work is being scamped. I do not know that "scamping" is just the right word, but the regulations which have been laid down by the Secretary of State for Scotland are not being fulfilled. People are being asked to go into houses again that do not comply with the regulations laid down by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The reason I welcome this man of skill, as he describes him, is because I have had bitter experience, particularly in Dumbarton, where the local authority say there is not a house unfit for human habitation, although there are houses that have been condemned by everybody but them. They have been condemned time and time again for years, so, therefore, in my own particular case, I am very glad that it is not being left to the local authority to decide whether the houses are fit or otherwise. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), the opportunity will present itself for us of analysing this Bill more at a later stage and, if necessary, putting down Amendments, but, in the main, I welcome the Bill.
  Mr. BuchananIt would be rather childish if I did not say that this Bill was an attempt to meet a difficult situation. I welcome it as a real attempt to meet a situation which is somewhat difficult and, in many respects, more difficult in Scotland because of the great tenement dwellings than in most parts of England, and difficult because of our systems of tenancy. But I am not going to become lyrical over the proposals, because I think that time and experience will be the test of whether this Bill is all the success claimed. For instance, there is in the Bill a completely new departure in the men of skill. One has got to see how it works, how (the men of skill approach the problem, how human and understanding the)' are in the terribly difficult task they are to undertake. A great deal will depend on the type of men
  634
  they are, their approach to the problem. I do not want to be taken as saying that the courts in the past have been altogether unfavourable. In my experience, taking courts, on the whole, over a long period of years, sheriffs in my own city have, with a fair amount of decency, tried to carry out the law. While I accept the new position, because I think this is a new situation and that a new method has to be tried, I only want to say that I do not always take the view that the courts are the wrong way of settling a problem. This is an experiment well worth trying.
  I wish to refer to two matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), and, with all deference to him, I differ from him on one of them. There are capable working men who have spent all their lives building houses, who might be first-class men to decide whether a house is habitable or not. I trust that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not shut his mind to the appointment of a first-class tradesman who has been used to building and repairing houses. I would agree with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs that in one or two cases the spirit of the agreement made by the house factors has been violated. In one case I myself went to the sheriff court. I know that you, Sir, would rule me out of Order if I criticised the sheriff. I make no criticism, but the sheriff of Glasgow has decided that rent is payable for bombed houses. That, at any rate, is the information which was given to me in the courtitself—it may be wrong. If it be true, I hope that the Bill will be retrospective, so that any decision of that kind may be dealt with. Obviously, it would be unfair, where a judge has given a decision and a tenant has paid, that that tenant should be treated differently from another tenant. The factor in that case is not a member of the House Factors' Association, so it would not be fair to blame the association.
  In this case, I wrote to the sheriff's clerk, who is always reasonable in his dealings with me. For many years it has been my practice not to run to the Minister with every case that comes to my notice, but to try and negotiate with the officials concerned locally. In this case, I wrote about a tenant occupying a bombed house. I would have expected that at least the clerk of the court—I am not referring to

  635
  the sheriff's clerk—would have put my letter to the association and have seen that the point was examined, but in my absence from the court, which was due to the fact that the train from London was late, the case was dealt with. The tenant, a woman, was tongue-tied. Hon. Members know that a person appearing in court for the first time is very often inarticulate. It is a very awe-inspiring thing to appear before a court. The sheriff granted a decree. I had then to make the best arrangement I could, because the decree had been granted. I will furnish the name of the factor and of the tenant if it is necessary. In the main, my own dealings with the organised house factors have not been bad.
  This is a new Measure; time and experience will test its results. I remember that in the old days of the unemployment agitation there was a famous provision, "not genuinely seeking work." That caused more heart-burning, more feeling, than almost anything I have known in this House. On the face of it, the rule was not a bad one. It provided that a person should not get benefit if he was not genuinely seeking work. The trouble arose over the type of person who was employed to approach applicants and to examine their cases. One of the keys to the working of this Act will be the type of person put on to approach those people who are bombed out of their houses, and who sometimes have injury and ever death in their homes. I ask the Secretary of State to see that the people he employs are not merely people who understand what is fair and what is not fair, but people who understand something of the people of the districts in which they work. If he does that, the Bill should be a success, because we want to mitigate the sufferings of these people as much as possible.
  Mr. McKie: I think that the point I wish to raise will be in Order, but I know that you will at once inform me, Sir, if it is not. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) objected to the Title of this Bill. I do not object to it. I agree with nearly everything that has been said by the hon. Members who have already spoken, but I want to put one point, on the rural aspect of the Bill. This is a question of administration. I hope that the Scottish Office intend to
  636
  take steps to meet damage which is likely to be caused to standing crops by incendiary bombs. That is a most important point. It has been raised by way of Question in the House, and I hope hon. Members will continue to press it on every occasion, and that the Scottish Office are giving the matter very serious attention. The farming community are seriously exercised about it. I am told that there will be only a few nights in the year when it will be possible for much damage to be done in this way, but when it is possible the Luftwaffe will undoubtedly try their hardest to "do in" our standing crops, as I hope we shall do our best to destroy theirs.
  Mr. McKinlay: I regret that in this Bill, simple as it is, it has apparently not been found possible to deal with owner-occupiers. Owner-occupiers were encouraged by the actions of this House. Tens of thousands of people are owner-occupiers, not because they desired to be, but because they were compelled to be, when no provision was made for the well-paid artisan or the lower middle class in ordinary housing legislation. They have been provided for in another Act. These persons are not able, during the time that they are not in occupancy of their own houses, to meet the commitments imposed upon them or for which they have contracted and to pay rent for alternative accommodation. Someone may say that they can get billeting allowances, but in the main they are people who would not apply for a billeting allowance. The restoration of property is something which has exercised the mind of the Department in Edinburgh and has presented difficulties to those who own the houses. Possibly the Lord Advocate may say something about that when he replies to the Debate.
  The use of the phrase "reasonably practicable" seems to be becoming a habit in Acts of Parliament. The man who coined that phrase ought to have an honour conferred upon him by the State, because it consists of two of the most elastic words. No two persons can interpret them in the same way. The Secretary of State himself showed that something could happen, even in connection with this simple Bill, that would make the standard of fitness wholly different in Clydebank from that in Glasgow. The Bill says

  637
  "A dwelling-house which has been rendered unit by war damage shall be deemed to be fit if it has been repaired to such an extent as is reasonably practicable having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the locality."
  The circumstances prevailing in Clyde-bank are that slaters are doing plaster work, and they are not as smart at doing plaster work as they are at doing slaters' work. In Glasgow the plasterers are doing the plaster repairs, and 75 per cent, of the blast damage is glass and plaster. It would appear, therefore, that a house would be declared reasonably fit in Clyde-bank because of the peculiar circumstances in relation to the supply of a particular type of labour. The standard would be different in Clydebank from what it would be in Glasgow. I am sure that there is no desire that such should be the case, and I hope that the Department which will deal with the matter when the Bill becomes an Act will be reasonably practical in the attitude they take towards the whole question. I regret that I cannot go into ecstacies on the question of the appointment of an architect to determine when a house is reasonably fit for human habitation. It is rather remarkable that no local authority ever employs an architect to determine whether a house is unfit for human habitation under the ordinary housing legislation. They would never dream of appointing a member of the Chartered Surveyors' Institute. The surveyor is a very clever fellow. He can quantify and measure jobs and determine values, but he could not tell me at first glance whether the angle tiles of a house were broken or not. The surveyor could not tell me whether, where broken angle tiles had been covered up with plaster, a house was damaged or not, and the possibility is that an architect could not do so either. The architect is a very admirable man in his place, but in how many hundreds of cases have those of us who have had practical experience of the building industry had to bring the architects down to ground level when it came to a question of working to the plans they themselves had prepared? That in no way takes away the responsibility of the architect or of the surveyor.
  I admit as the Secretary of State has explained to us, the difficulty about using machinery for determining what constitutes a simple dwelling. Is that any reason why that machinery should be ruled out altogether? I suggest that the
  638
  Secretary of State might find ways and means, in consultation and where desirable, to delegate to the local authority the power to put the persons on to this work of determination who ordinarily do this kind of work. I speak with some experience on this question in Glasgow. As an ex-convener of the Glasgow Housing Committee, I had more trouble with the closed compartments of other departments of the Corporation than I had with outside bodies. Our own town planning sub-committee could give us more pains in the head than any other body. Some of our members sat on both committees, and they hamstrung you on one committee for what they could not do to you on the other. Is the fear at the back of the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, that local authorities who own so many dwelling-houses would be acting as arbiters and owners at the same time? I am not in the least concerned about the authority in Glasgow where the compartments are so watertight and where each department has such a regard for the other that the difficulties which he anticipates would not show upon the surface at all.
  I am frankly disturbed, and I say that without offence either to architects or surveyors, that they should be called in to determine whether a house is habitable or not. One of the paradoxes of the other housing Act is that a house, according to the sanitary authorities, could be a perfectly habitable dwelling, while the city engineer could determine that the building was a dangerous building. You can live inside, but it is dangerous to lie against the outside of the building. I have no desire to make things more difficult for my right hon. Friend, and he knows that, but I am not a bit enthusiastic about the appointment of architects and surveyors as the persons who are to determine whether a house is habitable or not. I believe that if you keep the architect's pencil sharp, he will go on drawing lines and circles and keep you amused until the end of all time, but I would like my right hon. Friend to put words into the Bill—if they are not there already—that will not definitely rule out the bringing in of the sanitary department. When all is said and done, the man who is trained to deal with buildings should determine whether they are habitable or not. He must know something more about them than the man who merely draws the plans.

  639
  He must have practical experience of the building, from the drains to the chimney pots, and he could tell us all about it. With these one or two observations, and the hope that the Secretary of State will keep in mind the points I have made, I want to commend the Department for having produced such a simple Measure to deal with a most difficult problem.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): Since war damage first came to Scotland on an extensive scale there have been many hard cases, and there has been a great deal of loss, but there has also been a very great deal of the spirit of accommodation and willingness to share each other's losses, and accordingly the task of the framer of this Bill has been made all the easier because he started from such a pleasant atmosphere. May I say that I welcome and appreciate what was said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) in regard to the likelihood of that spirit of mutual accommodation continuing? The intention of this Bill is not to supersede mutual agreement in any shape or form, but rather to encourage it, and I hope and believe that mutual agreement will in the future, as in the past, solve almost all the difficulties "which arise from time to time.
  That being the atmosphere, and Members in all parts of the House having welcomed the principles of this Bill as calculated to solve, so far as it is possible to do, all outstanding problems, I think I should be saving the time of the House if I restricted myself to dealing with the specific points which have been raised. Any point which is put down by way of Amendment will, I can assure the House, receive the most careful consideration. One or two Amendments of a drafting character will probably have to be proposed from this bench, and the present Measure is open for consideration in every relevant way. The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised the question of the Title of the Bill. Well, the machinery Clauses are not confined to the particular subject matter of the small dwelling, but have more extensive application, and accordingly the Bill has to be wide in Title although the greater part of it deals with a limited class of property. Questions were raised by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) and the
  640
  hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) with regard to the position of owners. The rights of owners were subject to extensive consideration in connection with the War Damage Act, and elaborate, and in some respects, at least, generous, provision was made for solving their difficulties. I do not think, from what I know of the matter at present, that there is any room here for distinction between the rights of owners of property of the class to which Clause 1 applies and the rights of owners of other property, which has either a higher rental or which is let for a longer period or, indeed, is occupied by the owner himself.
  It would be out of Order now to go into any extensive examination of the rights of those owners, but Acts have been passed to enable local authorities to relieve them of rates in suitable cases; they get their repairs done by the local authority and are paid for proper repairs they do themselves. I do not for a moment see what additional benefit could be properly given to owners within the scope of this Bill. Therefore, I leave the subject of owners and owner-occupiers as one which can hardly be brought within the general purposes of this Bill. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) raised two points. The first was that he feared there might be a number of cases where rent was being demanded for past occupation. I observe, in the instance to which he referred yesterday, that the demand apparently was for fore-hand rent for future occupation. I think there may be some misunderstanding in this matter, and I am not prepared to express any view about it until the hon. Member produces—as he has undertaken to do—the correspondence, so that it can be examined. I can assure him, however, that we shall do our best to clear up the matter when we get the details.
  Mr. Kirkwood: This is the document which was sent from No. 3, Hume Street, Clydebank, on 13th June, 1941, to Mrs. Cecilia Gillespie, c/o O'Donnell, 6, Greenavenue, Kirkintilloch—that is the place to which she has been evacuated— and it reads as follows: —
  "We shall be pleased to have early settlement of rent due by you for house at 5, Bruce Street, Clydebank. The amount due to 28th May, 1941, in advance, is £6 1s.—Yours faithfully. Hacking and Paterson."

  641
  This woman has not been in the house since March, yet she is being asked for rent to be paid up to May.
  The Lord Advocate: I do not want to go into details of cases until I know the particulars, but this case will certainly be inquired into. It may be a case where rent is being asked in advance for the current quarter. I do not know, but, as I have said, we shall look into this question, and if the hon. Member knows of other cases and will give us details, I can assure him that we shall look into them too. Up to date, however, my right hon. Friend has no details of any case of this character.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I have given the information time and time again, and always the answer is that inquiries will be made. The town clerk knows nothing at all about the business.
  The Lord Advocate: We have received one case from the hon. Member, and I have already assured him that there will be inquiries into the case of Mrs. Gillespie. If he has any more cases to bring to our notice, we will make inquiries about them.
  Questions were then asked concerning the instructions or directions which would be given to the man of skill. I think that matter is fully covered in Clause 1, Sub-section (8), where there is provision for my right hon. Friend to give general directions from time to time to the man of skill, although, of course, there will be no attempt to direct the man of skill as to what he is to decide in a particular case.
  Mr. McKinlay: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what will be the directions?
  The Lord Advocate: That question brings me to the other point that was raised by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). He asked questions about the repair standard. If he will look at Clause 1, Sub-section (5), he will see that there is to be a doublebarrelled standard. First of all, the house has to be made reasonably habitable. That is a minimum below which it will not be permissible to go. Over and above that, the directions may provide that, where there are labour and material available, there is to be a somewhat better standard. It is at this point that the directions come in. Nobody is going to permit a direction to lower the general
  642
  standard of habitability, but in certain cases that standard may be able to be improved upon, because there may be available material and labour which enable first-aid repairs to be done rather better than usual. If those factors are present, directions can be given to the man of skill not to be content with the ordinary minimum standard of habitability, because there are material and labour available to do a little better. Directions will be given to that effect if and when those conditions exist. If the hon. Member has any other proposals concerning a different kind of standard that could be applied in the very difficult position following an air attack, I should be glad to consider them, but it seems to me that there must be a minimum standard below which it is not permissible to say that a house is habitable. It would not be right, however, to say that that is to be the universal standard, because it may be possible to do better in particular cases, and therefore, it seems to me that the principle on which the Subsection is drawn is the right one. I shall be glad to consider any suggestions in that respect.
  I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) express his confidence in the Sheriff Court. I should never willingly acquiesce in taking a case away from the court because the court cannot deal with it. That is not the reason these cases are taken away. The court can deal with them, and deal with them well, after a time, but if there were many cases it is clear that, that court having to take evidence in each one of them, the time consumed before one got to the end of the cases might be very long and the expense considerable. There is all the difference in the world between somebody coming in, looking round and seeing whether the place is habitable, water-tight, its roof repaired, and so on, and having evidence from two sides in a court about the condition of the house. The second course would take hours, whereas the first would take minutes. It is for reasons of expedition and cheapness that this new procedure of the man of skill has been adopted.
  There is no attempt to limit the people available as men of skill to those professions mentioned in Clause 2, Sub-section (2), that is to say, architects and surveyors. It is specifically provided that the Secretary of State can accept any

  643
  other qualification which he may deem suitable. He may, if he likes, accept the qualification of the working builder referred to by the hon. Member for Gorbals, or the sanitary inspector or other official referred to by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire. As far as the Bill is concerned, there is no reason why he should not do so, and I am sure he will consider each qualification and each proposal on its merits when he sets up the panel after the Bill becomes law. There is no limit either to the specific qualifications or to the number of people who may be put on the panel. There is, therefore, room to consider all these proposals immediately after the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Lord Advocate tell us why it is that the standard of first-aid repairs which the Secretary of State for Scotland has given, at any rate as far as Clydebank is concerned, has not been put into the Bill?
  The Lord Advocate: It is very difficult to put a standard in the Bill, because the standard may have to be raised at some time and it may need to be modified in the light of experience. I do not think we can tie the hands of my right hon. Friend to specific proposals of that kind. After all, at one time there may be plenty of plasterers and it may be difficult to get joiners, and at another time the position may be the other way round; and it may be necessary to have different arrangements to cope with a given situation concerning men and material which faces one in any area after a particular attack. I should very much deprecate any attempt to lay down a hard-and-fast standard. If the right people are appointed and the right directions given, as I venture to believe they will be, the standard of habitability can be applied from house to house with comparative ease, because it is not a very difficult thing to assess. I think it is, much better that the matter should be left fluid and at the discretion of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. McLean Watson: With regard to the man of skill, will the Lord Advocate tell us a little more about the panel that is to be set up? Will it be drawn from every district in Scotland, or will there be only a small panel drawn from Edinburgh and Glasgow, to which all cases will be submitted? I hope to
  644
  have an assurance that the panel will be drawn from all parts of Scotland, because there are different conditions in different parts of the country, and the local architect or surveyor has a better knowledge of local conditions than a panel drawn from selected areas would have.
  The Lord Advocate: I think my right hon. Friend will make every endeavour to get representatives from all districts and parts of Scotland. At this time, it is not always easy to get qualified men who have time available for work of this character. It may be that in some districts it will be difficult to find the right men, but I assure the hon. Member that every endeavour will be made to select the panel from various areas and not confine it to men from one or two large centres. The hon. Member for Gorbals asked for a decision about rent. I do not know the circumstances of the case, and I could not make any general statement of the present law, which varies very much according to the circumstances. If he will give me particulars about the case, I shall be glad to consult him about it. The hon. Member then raised the question whether the present Bill should be made retrospective. He knows that one gets into immense difficulties as soon as one makes any Act of Parliament retrospective. I need not go into the details, because they are common knowledge. Of course, if the necessity is sufficiently great to require retrospective legislation, it must be made, but I should be very much averse to making a Bill retrospective unless there were an overwhelming necessity for taking that course. So far, I do not think any such necessity has been shown in this instance. If facts put by hon. Members to my right hon. Friend show such a necessity, then no doubt the matter will receive consideration.
  Mr. McKie: As I was allowed during my speech to refer to incendiary attacks, perhaps I may have an assurance on that subject?
  The Lord Advocate: I think I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend, so far as his fire-fighting capacity is concerned, will do everything in his power. I cannot say what the other services may be doing, but I am sure they will also do the same.
  Mr. McKie: It is a very important point.
  The Lord Advocate: I believe that I have now covered every point which has been, raised. I will therefore conclude by saying that careful examination will be made of any proposals which are put forward, either directly to my right hon. Friend or by way of tabled Amendments, but I hope it will be found that few Amendments are required, because I think it has been shown by this Debate that the general principles are sound and that there is, in the details of the proposals, an answer to most of the difficulties which have been raised.
  Mr. Gallacher: I have two points I should like to raise. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asked for someone to be appointed with the maximum of human consideration. I think that is necessary too, but we should start that process at the top. When the Lord Advocate replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirk wood), he said that his attention had been drawn to the case. He picked up a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT and said he would consider the matter when the hon. Member let him have any correspondence in connection with the case. The fact is that the hon. Member gave him the correspondence in a supplementary question he put yesterday. By this time the Lord Advocate ought to have been able to report that action had already been taken against the chairman of the Factors' Association. Why has not the Lord Advocate not been able to report that some action has been taken? The hon. Member did not promise to send any correspondence, but read it out to the House. I am certain the Secretary of State for Scotland will understand what it means to an ordinary housewife to receive a letter of that kind. It means that she will be unable to sleep night after night, and that she will be worried to death as a result of receiving this communication. If the Lord Advocate had understood that, the moment his attention was brought to it he would have sent a wire telling his officials to go immediately to that association and stop this process. Time and again I have known mothers of families who have received particulars of this kind driven almost out of their minds. Just imagine a woman, blitzed out of her house, receiving a demand of this kind. She has not a penny, and yet she believes she has to meet this demand
  646
  for £6. She does not understand the power behind the demand or the authority behind it; it looks like a legal document, and it drives her nearly crazy. And yet the Lord Advocate tells the hon. Member that he will look into the matter when he receives the correspondence, in spite of the fact that my hon. Friend plainly stated it to the House yesterday. I hope the Lord Advocate will immediately instruct the association to withdraw the letters which they have sent to these people.
  My second point is this: According to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs, it appears there is a standard laid down for Clydebank. Why should not that standard be laid down in the Bill in the form of a Schedule? If a minimum standard were laid down, it would not prevent a higher standard being operated at any time, and if there is a standard applied to Clydebank it should be put in the Schedule to the Bill. Clause I states
  "(6) If on the application of the landlord or the tenant a man of skill nominated in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained issues a certificate that the dwelling-house has been repaired to the extent mentioned in the last foregoing subsection the certificate shall while it remains in force be conclusive evidence that the dwelling-house is fit.
  (7) It shall be competent for the tenant to apply for a review of the certificate on the ground that either—

  (a)the dwelling-house has again become unfit either by reason of war damage or because the works of repair carried out before the issue of the certificate are no longer effective; or

  (b)further repairs have been reasonably practicable since the issue of the certificate and have not been carried out; "

  It is stated quite definitely and categorically that "it is fit." That should be amended. A house should be deemed fit only when repairs had been carried out in accordance with the minimum standards set down in the Schedule. I earnestly request the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland to give consideration to these two points. The Bill appears to express a good intention on the part of those responsible for the Scottish Office, and I hope that that good intention will be made as effective as is possible by accepting the suggestions which we have put forward to-day.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.— [Mr. A. Young.]

  WAR DAMAGE TO LAND (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with regard to the rights of landlords and tenants of lands and heritages in Scotland which have sustained war damage and to obligations to insure against war damage to such lands and heritages and to amend the War Damage to Land (Scotland) Act, 1939, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of remuneration of such amount as may be fixed by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury, to persons nominated for any purpose of the said Act."— (King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. T. Johnston.]
  Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

  COLONIAL WAR RISKS INSURANCE (GUARANTEES) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported.
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Secretary of State to agree to make good any deficiencies in funds established by colonies and certain other countries for insuring commodities against war risks, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, or the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of any agreement made in pursuance of the said Act; and

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sum received by the Secretary of State in pursuance of any such agreement."

  Resolution agreed to.

  COLONIAL WAR RISKS INSURANCE (GUARANTEES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. David Adams: There is one comment that I should like to make before the Bill passes. I am in cordial agreement with it and regard it as imperatively necessary that this protection should be accorded against enemy action, but it will be noted that the United Kingdom is undertaking to meet the liabilities under this Measure where the Colonies concerned appear to be unable to meet those liabilities themselves. It is very well known that by no means has the limit of reasonable taxation been reached in certain of those Colonies, and it would appear to be inequitable that taxpayers in the United Kingdom, who are already burdened to the limit, should be called upon in such contingencies to meet the liabilities that I have indicated. I desire, therefore, that the Colonial Office should indicate to the respective Colonial Governors the view of this House that, where taxation is not at present reasonable, steps ought to be and shall be taken to see that a reasonable limit is imposed.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension with regard to the scope of the Bill. A Colony that is likely to be affected as the result of war operations will have a scheme which will provide for premiums to be charged and put into the Colonial Fund as a guarantee covering any money that may be advanced out of the Fund to meet any temporary emergency. The premiums will continue to be paid until such time as the money advanced by the Colonial Office or the Exchequer is refunded, and by that means we are hoping that there will be no charge at all on the British taxpayer. The scheme is such that it should be self-supporting and is only to tide over some liability which the Fund is not sufficiently large to discharge.
  Mr. Adams: That somewhat clears up the position, but it is a fact that again and again, as far as the Colonial Empire is concerned, moneys which have been advanced and which were intended to be repaid have in fact been written off and not repaid.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  PHARMACY AND MEDICINES BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 15th July].
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

  PHARMACY AND MEDICINES BILL.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Disclosure of composition of medicines.)
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I beg to move, in page 7, line 4, after "medicine," to insert:
    "or supply any such article as a sample for the purpose of inducing persons to buy by retail the substance of which it consists or which it comprises."
    This Amendment deals with a point which was mentioned on the Second Reading. It deals with medicines which are sent as samples.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move, in page 7, line 6, to leave out "any wrapper or," and to insert "a."
    This Amendment is in order to see that the disclosure is on the actual container of the medicine. This and the following two Amendments ensure that it is on the container and not merely on the superficial wrapper.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 7, line 6, leave out the second "wrapper or"
    In line 7, at the end, insert:
    "or, if the article is sold in more than one container, on the inner container or a label affixed thereto."—[Miss Horsbrugh.]
    Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, after "statement," to insert" in English."
    The Deputy-Chairman: There are several Amendments to line 8, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if all were discussed on this Amendment.
    Mr. Griffiths: I agree. I think that will meet the convenience of the Committee and of the Minister. The purpose of this Clause is to prevent people being defrauded. If people are to be protected against fraud, it is essential that when they buy medicine they shall be told in a language which they understand what is the composition of the medicine. They can understand the composition only if
    650
    they are told it in language which they understand. If it is written in medical jargon, or in Latin, what protection is there for the average man? Ordinary people do not know that "aqua" means "water" or the meaning of any of the terms usually used, and the Clause will aid rather than prevent fraud unless there is a protection of this kind. Without this Amendment, I do not see how the Minister is to achieve the object he has in this Bill, which is to prevent people being exploited and defrauded.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether in the Welsh language there is equivalent teminology for the Latin terms which are used in these matters?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am not claiming in this connection that it should be in Welsh, although I see no reason why Welsh should not have the same status as English. I am not asking English people to learn Welsh—although they might do worse—but I am saying that these compositions, since they are to be stated with the object of preventing people being defrauded or exploited, should be stated clearly in the English language. I cannot see any objection to the Amendment and I am sure that it will commend itself to the Committee and the Minister.
    Dr. Russell Thomas: I support the Amendment. If the prescriptions were stated in scientific language as proposed by the Minister, they would add to the mystery of the patent medicines. We all know how people are impressed when they get prescriptions written in Latin terms, and if remedies are described in Latin, or in scientific language, they will be the more impressive to those who buy them. There is a famous pill which I will not name, and I will not say whether it is worth a guinea or any other sum. If its composition were written in Latin or scientific language it would go something like this:
    "Sap. moll, Ext. Aloin, Zingiberis."
    That is not gibberish, as indeed it sounds, but if that were written on the wrapper in plain English it would discredit the status of the pills, for the plain English would be:
    "Soap, Aloes, and Ginger."
    If these plain words were put on the wrapper this particular product would probably not flourish quite as much as it does.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): We have had two interesting and amusing speeches on an important subject. I have shown by my Amendment on the Order Paper that the object that my hon. Friends and other Members have in view, namely, that the disclosure should be made in the clearest possible terms, is also mine. It is desirable that the disclosure should be made in the clearest possible terms to all those concerned, that is, those who have scientific knowledge of what the description of the composition means and, so far as possible, those who buy. What we call English may be not merely everyday English, but also foreign words adapted to the English language. There are some fairly common words of this sort such as sassafras, julep and quassia. My problem, therefore, is not quite so simple as that stated by my two hon. Friends. If I adopted the simple Amendment of my hon. Friend, I should not secure as effectively what he and I want to do, namely, the disclosure of the composition in the clearest possible terms. May I call attention to my own attempt to improve the position? I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "composition" and to insert
    "accepted scientific name, or other name descriptive of the true nature."
    That makes the matter more precise. That is a sincere attempt on our part to meet the real point, which is to let the public know what is in the preparation. I think it is quite impossible to describe every single preparation sold as a medicine in such simple English as is used in my hon. Friend's illustrations because it cannot be so expressed. We have tried to express the desire of the Committee in this Amendment, in view of the impracticability of expressing it otherwise, except among a nation of pharmacologists. If every one of our people was a pharmacologist it might be done, but they are not, and I have done my best in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. What we want to do is to prevent any evasion of the spirit of the Clause by an attempt to disguise the composition of the preparation in deliberately obscure phraseology. What I have done is to replace the rather vague word "composition" by the plain statement that it must be
    "the accepted scientific name, or other name descriptive of the true nature "
    652
    of the preparation. If we said the names were to be "in English," though some of them were in English it might be English of a kind which is not easily recognisable. For example, the scientific name sulphopyridin, for M. and B. 693 would be unintelligible to most people. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the desire to make the disclosure to the public as wide as possible, and I think I have gone as far as a practical man can, since for many substances, no simple English term exists. I could give the Committee a whole list of illustrations which would prove that point. The ideal would be that every single thing used in the making up of the medicine should be described in such simple English terms that Shakespeare might make a poem out of them. We have seen in the case of modern poets such as Ezra Pound attempts to turn into poetry the jargon which experts use to make simple things sound mysterious. The great poets who lived in simpler pre-scientific days were able to describe things by using the kind of language which my hon. Friends desire to see under the simple heading of "English."
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The Minister's Amendment speaks of "accepted scientific name." Accepted by whom? Does the Minister reserve to himself the right to accept that scientific description as being satisfactory to him, or has it to be accepted by somebody else?
    Sir P. Hannon: Will the accepted scientific name and the other name, descriptive of the true nature of the medicine, both appear?
    Mr. E. Brown: I must not anticipate a discussion upon that point, which will come later. The Committee will notice that later there are certain Amendments dealing with the enforcement of the provisions of the Measure and I would prefer to deal with that point when it arises.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The Minister suggests an Amendment which speaks of the "accepted scientific name," and he is the authority who is to decide whether it is to be accepted or not.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is wrong. At the moment, under the Act of 1852, an authority for this purpose would be the Pharmaceutical Society, and it is that body I have in mind; but I shall have

    653
    something to say on the point later, when we come to discuss the question of enforcement.
    Mr. Watkins: The Minister's Amendment talks about
    "the accepted scientific name or other name descriptive of the true nature."
    I should like to know whether in the case of the pills referred to they will be described under that Amendment as being made of soap, aloes, and ginger or be described by the scientific alternative, which would be very mystifying to people buying them. Which will operate?
    Mr. Brown: I could not be expected to give a ruling in a hypothetical case. It occurs to me, for example, that there might be several kinds of soap. As far as I am concerned, the pills could have either the general description or the scientific description, but the enforcement of the law and the interpretation of this provision must lie with the courts, which would have regard, I suppose, to the generally-accepted meaning of words as denned in some standard dictionary.
    Mr. David Adams: Will the names mentioned be abbreviated, or will they be given in full? If they are to be abbreviated probably the public will not be any wiser.
    Mr. Brown: And if they are given in full people may not be any wiser. There is a well-known proprietary preparation which bears the name of Pentothal Sodium, the full name being "the sodium salt of five-ethyl-five (alpha-methylbutyl) —thiobarbituric acid." That is the answer to my hon. Friend.
    Sir Robert Bird: The Committee will have welcomed the declaration of the Minister that he is doing his best to provide a method of disclosure of these medicines which will be complete and clear. Both he and the Parliamentary Secretary said a good deal to show that they have in mind disclosure for a double purpose. The first purpose is something in the nature of a caution. The purchaser should be able to make himself acquainted with the composition of the remedy concerned so that, either on his own judgment or with advice from a medical man or chemist, he can decide whether to employ that remedy or not. The second purpose is the need to counter-
    654
    act tendentious, sometimes misleading and sometimes lying advertisements. The Parliamentary Secretary, meeting objections which had been raised, said it was impossible to adapt the Bill to control those undesirable advertisements, but she advanced an argument that they would be largely counteracted by the proposed method of disclosure. She said:
    "The very fact that disclosure is being insisted upon will go a long way in this direction. How long will the public continue to pay money for a particular cure, if they are informed on the bottle or on the packet what are the contents? If as a result of disclosure the public are not attracted to buy these things, we shall see a gradual disappearance of these advertisements. I do not think hon. Members realise the extent to which most of us believe disclosure will go towards stopping what, in a great many cases, may be a racket. We cannot say for certain, but it is my own opinion, and the opinion of those who advise us, that this step will go a long way towards attaining this object. Suppose the ingredients in one particular mixture were very ordinary, such as salt, bicarbonate of soda, dandelions or cloves, and a few things like that. Gullible as the public may be, how long would anyone go on buying such mixtures?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th" July, 1941; col. 125, Vol. 373.]
    I must point out that acceptance of the Amendment will make impossible the practical application of the view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary.
    The original wording of the Bill gave pretty general satisfaction. We felt the need only for some Amendment to make clear the scope of the Clause and for extending the scope a little. The proposed Amendment takes out the key word "composition," a good English word, perfectly understandable, and replaces it with a string of words which are tangled in their meaning, vague and elastic. The wording should be made comprehensive and capable of adaptation to each case, but if it is in general terms it lays itself open to serious abuse and invites ingenious minds to devise methods of evading the purpose of the Clause. I have ventured to apply my mind to this question and tried to put myself into the position of a proprietor of one of these remedies, in order to see what I could do to apply the Clause with the least inconvenience to myself and prejudice to my remedy. We have heard about the composition of a well-known and widely advertised pill. I suggest to the Minister that the provisions of the Clause would be met, under his Amendment, by some such wording as this:

    655
    "The ingredients of this pill, except in quantity, are identical with those of the compound rhubarb pill of the British pharmacopoeia."
    That is only one example of a very easy ingenuity, but I maintain that such a declaration would entirely defeat the purpose of the Clause. Such a statement would also entirely defeat the second purpose of the Clause, that of counteracting misleading advertisements, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. Would it be permitted to the proprietor of the remedy under the Minister's Amendment to select which of the two methods would be more convenient, and whether he should use the accepted scientific name, or the alternative provided for by the Amendment? The Minister said nothing on the point of the quantitative disclosure of ingredients. It is obvious that unless the disclosure is quantitative it is not possible for anyone to ascertain the dose of the active constituent or constituents among the ingredients. What is the objection to a quantitative disclosure? It is generally known that a group of reputable remedies has, for many years past, made a quantitative disclosure of their composition, and many of these medicines are not advertised except in the medical and pharmaceutical Press. But there are several remedies, including one particularly widely-sold eye lotion which is advertised on a big scale in the public Press, and if, therefore, the voluntary practice of the proprietors of these reputable medicines is to disclose the quantities of the ingredients, what objection can there be to making it a statutory obligation in respect of all medicines? I feel that these medicines should be sold on their merits and not because of their advertising, and I believe that with a complete and clear disclosure, as the Parliamentary Secretary herself said in her speech, that object can be attained.
    Professor A. V. Hill: The Minister, I am sure, has exactly the same object as we have. But I am not sure that the method he proposes will be successful. Firstly, dealing with the quantitative side, his Amendment does not suggest that a quantitative description of the substance should be given at all. To take a reductio ad absurdum, if one had a substance containing, in every 100 grammes, one
    656
    gramme of hydrochloric acid and 10 grammes of sodium hydroxide, that would be very different from one containing 10 grammes of hydrochloric acid and one gramme of sodium hydroxide. One would be strongly acid and the other strongly alkaline, and without a quantitative description the names of the constituents would give a perfectly meaningless formula. This of course applies also to other things besides these simple substances. There is another point, namely, that it would be perfectly possible for the manufacturer to vary the composition of his remedy from week to week unless he was tied down to some quantitative description of it. Unless the word "quantitative" can be, somehow, inserted in the proposed Amendment, I feel that we shall fail in our purpose of making clear what we are doing.
    Mrs. Tate: I am sorry to interrupt, but in view of this wish to have a quantitative description, who is to verify whether the quantities are rightly stated on the label? Does my hon. Friend suggest that there should be a large number of inspectors going around to find out whether the contents are as described? That might, of course, be a good way of giving employment after the war.
    Professor Hill: It was suggested by the Select Committee in 1914 that the analyses should be controlled by the Government chemist, and there is no reason why that should not be done today. You would not need to take every bottle and analyse it; an occasional sample, as in the inspection of stores of all kinds, ought to be sufficient. As regards the description of substances in intelligible language, the danger is that in my right hon. Friend's Amendment the preference is expressed for the "accepted scientific name," which may after all be difficult for the ordinary man to understand. The manufacturer may use some "other name descriptive of the true nature," but if the accepted scientific name is the less intelligible, he will presumably choose that. The art of writing descriptions of contents in unintelligible terms has been very highly developed, and it should not, therefore, be permissive to express the substance in intelligible terms, but rather should it be regarded as necessary. I know, of course, that the constitution of a great many products cannot be simply expressed, and in

    657
    that case we have to put up with the scientific terms, but there are other things, for example, soap. It has a perfectly good description, which does not make the thing seem so mysterious. Therefore, the Amendment which we suggest to line 8, which say" so far as possible in common terms," would cover our general purpose of making it possible to express it in scientific terms where necessary, but otherwise to express it in common language. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend would include those terms in his Amendment, or whether he could, for example, omit the words "or other name descriptive of the true nature," inserting in their stead" so far as possible in common terms comprehensible to the general public." The accepted scientific name could be in terms comprehensible to the general public when possible. I see no reason why that should not be done.
    Mr. E. Brown: As I have made it clear from the beginning, I have no desire except to serve the purposes of the Committee. I have based my draft on expert legal advice. The Committee knows perfectly well that, often, ideas have to be put in legislation in different terms from those in which they are commonly expressed, because of questions of legal draftsmanship. After listening to my hon. Friends I am still of the opinion that my Amendment does what the Committee desires. There are the two alternatives: you can use the accepted scientific term or, if not that, other terms which are descriptive of the true nature. I would ask my hon. Friends to look at the whole Amendment. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Professor Hill) has said that there are people who have made a fine art of mystification. There are also people who have made a fine art of simplification. Both are jargons, and the short, headline may mislead even more than a long terminology. I will however make this offer to the Committee. If they will now accept the words I have suggested—for I am quite sure, that they are drafted to do what we all intend.—I will look at the matter again, in the light of this discussion, before the Report stage, and will discuss it with my hon. Friends with the intention of introducing at that stage, a phrase which will fit in with the Bill, will be legally construable, and which will do what we want. My hon.
    658
    Friend has put his name to an Amendment requiring a quantitative disclosure. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir R. Bird) has said, that a large number of firms now disclose quantities as well as qualities, but the first thing to be realised is that this Bill marks a very great advance. My advice is that it is far less important to know the quantities, than it is to know the qualities of the substances
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered that if the quantities are not put in, the objects of this Bill may be defeated, by people who will say, "Now we have to put a prescription on the packets. Let us put an attractive looking prescription"? They may put 12 ingredients, but the quantities of the ingredients will be so small, that the cost will be minute and they will have no value to the patient at all. The whole purpose will be to defraud the public.
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Lady will pardon me, I was just coming to that very point. The hon. Lady always makes a succinct, and from her own point of view, effective, intervention in debate. I was coming to that point. It is one of the things that have given me some trouble. My inquiries lead me to believe that there is disclosure of quantity in about 75 per cent, of cases. I will go into the matter again before the Report stage to see if I can meet the points put before me, on this as on the other point. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment. Our aim is to see that disclosure is accurate on the one hand, and as comprehensible to the public as we can get it on the other.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remark, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will feel the sense of the Committee that something should be done fully to protect the public under this Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made:
    In page 7, line 8, leave out "composition," and insert:
    "accepted scientific name, or other name descriptive of the true nature."
    In line 8, after "or," insert "of each." — [Mr. E. Brown.]
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "or
    (c) in a case where the substance is composed of a non-poisonous plant or plants or any part thereof a statement to that effect without describing the particular plant or part used in the preparation of the substance."
    I feel that I should express, after listening to the Debate, my appreciation of the Sanity, if I might so put it, the amiability and the receptivity of the two Ministers responsible for handling this Bill. I want to disclose my position fully to the Committee. I am moving this Amendment on behalf of all the reputable herbalists, but particularly on behalf of that very highly respectable body known as the Society of Herbalists. I am not myself a patient of any herbalist and have very little contact with them, except that I have many friends who have been helped and have even had their lives preserved by the knowledge, capacity and beneficient activities of these herbalists. I have a list here of people whose happiness in life has been intensified and who have obtained relief by methods employed by the herbalists. To justify my arguments, I have a pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, and so fully alive are they to the value of these excellent people that the only advertisement published in this brochure is on behalf of the Society of Herbalists. That is a very striking testimonial to their work, and yet the Parliamentary Secretary, in her Second Reading speech, certainly gave the inference, maybe quite unintentionally, that there would be fraud in selling mixtures in which dandelion formed a part. In this brochure by the Ministry of Agriculture it is said that the dandelion is considerably used by many practising chemists. It seems to me there has been some lack of co-operation between the Ministry of Agriculture and my hon. Friend if it is suggested that, when used by a chemist dandelion seems to be good, but when used by a herbalist it seems to be bad. There is something wrong about that to my mind.
    The object of this Amendment is to render it unnecessary for herbalists to define on the label the component parts of their preparations. My right hon. Friend thinks that he has met this point. I
    660
    believe he is satisfied that he has met it. But I have discussed the matter, as I know he has, with leading herbalists, and they are equally definite in the view that their work will be made practically impossible under the existing Bill plus my right hon. Friend's Amendment. The reason why they regard this necessity to define each component part as impracticable is, I think, obvious. They say that many herbs are seasonal, and that when they are out of season others, which have the same result, must be used in their place. Also, certain herbs have to be imported and in these days it is not always possible to obtain some of them, and therefore, other herbs with a similar effect have to be used. It would, therefore, they say be impossible to keep changing the specification on every label. They would have to keep running round like scalded cats following up their bottles all the time to fit the labels to the contents, of they would be open to a charge of fraud. I know that my right hon. Friend has expressed, and feels, a friendly attitude towards the work which herbalists have done, and that he does not seek to deprive them of the opportunity of continuing their work and benefiting humanity.
    Many of us have been accustomed to waste money on drugs. In fact, I often think that but for the number of diseases which I thought I had, and on the sup posed cure of which I wasted money in drugs, I would have had many an easy moment where I have had painful moments. Once in India when travelling in the bush I got a dose of fever. I could not ascertain the trouble, I had no drugs with me, and so was completely deprived of any method of curing, or killing, my self. But a local witch doctor was called in and said, "All right." He had a look at me—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot conceive what witch doctors have to do with this Bill.
    Sir T. Moore: I was coming to the point about herbs. He gave me a concoction which reduced my temperature, and I was as fit as a fiddle next morning. I do think that these are points not fully understood by people accustomed all their lives to having chemist's prescriptions.
    Sir P. Hannon: I associate myself with this Amendment. All I want to know is whether my right hon. Friend the Minister is satisfied, after the discussions which have taken place with the Society of Herbalists, that protection will be given to those people, who have done so much beneficent work for so many years. I have had a great many letters from all sorts of people, just as my hon. and gallant Friend has had, about the wonderful work accomplished by this society and by individual herbalists. While I will never be a party to anything in the nature of wayside remedies or of interference with the profession of medicine, I think that these people should not be deprived of the opportunity of continuing to render service to humanity. If my right hon. Friend will tell us that in cases where a non-poisonous plant is not part of a prescription, these people will not be deprived of the privilege of presenting their remedies without having to disclose the ingredients, I think that will be satisfactory. If my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Society of Herbalists are protected in connection with the work they have been doing, I am satisfied. But I have had communications from people in very responsible positions in the social life of this country assuring me that they have seen work of the highest quality by herbalists, and I hope that this work will not be interfered with.
    Dr. Summerskill: I should like to oppose this Amendment. I agree that then; are reputable herbalists. It was unfortunate that witch-doctors should have been mentioned in the same speech as herbalists—I feel that the herbalists will not be too pleased about that. But I appeal to the mover of the Amendment. The reputable herbalists should be only too pleased to disclose all the ingredients of the mixtures which they are selling to the public, in order that people may differentiate between them and the un scrupulous herbalists. I must say that the argument already put up by the non- scientific nominees of the herbalists—
    Sir T. Moore: I am not a nominee of anyone except my constituents.
    Dr. Summerskill: I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon, but I understood that he said he was speaking for the Society of Herbalists.
    Sir T. Moore: On behalf of the Society of Herbalists.
    Dr. Summerskill: I fear that that is rather a quibble, like the quibble over the word "alliance."
    Sir P. Hannon: I was not speaking on behalf of the herbalists, but on behalf of the people who have written to me saying that they have received magnificent help from herbalists.
    Dr. Summerskill: I withdraw anything I have said about the supporters of this Amendment. But anyone who calls himself a herbalist or who, under some other description, sells mixtures should be only too pleased to disclose the prescription. I might illustrate this by what my medical colleague has said with reference to the first Amendment. He reminded the House that there was a pill on the market, known to most of us, of which one of the chief constituents is soap. He said that if you put a prescription in English on the packet you will put "soap," instead of "saponis." Are the herbalists to put themselves in the position of selling pills without any prescription on them because they are afraid of doing so? If their rivals, the people who sell these pills, put "saponis" on the label, the people who buy the pills will soon know that it is soap. If the herbalist puts the whole prescription on his packet, he will soon be in an advantageous position if his concoction is more efficacious than the pill which contains only soap.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I can reassure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) that the position of anyone who sells any mixture which he has sold before will be no different, except that he will be bound to put on the label a disclosure of its contents. There is no distinction between herbalists and anybody else.
    Sir T. Moore: That is the whole point. It is difficult for the herbalists.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am coming to that. The Committee have made it very clear, in the discussion of the last Amendment, that what they want is the clearest possible disclosure of the contents of these mixtures. It has been suggested that herbalists will find it more difficult,

    663
    because they may not be able to get a particular ingredient. My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that the ingredients were seasonal, or might have to be imported, but other people also may have to put into their remedies imported ingredients, and it is not always easy to get exactly what they want, especially during war-time. If these mixtures are made up to be sold, those making them up must know at the time what they contain, and the label must bear the names of the ingredients. If, at a later date, a further amount is to be made, and those ingredients are not available but others are used, there seems to be no reason why the other ingredients should not be named. This is no attack on herbalists. Many of us think that the more these herbs are known, the better it will be for the people of this country. They might find a difficulty, but the difficulty is for all and not for one particular class. Hon. Members would agree that it would be unfair to take one class of people who make these mixtures and leave them out of this provision for disclosure. Why should no disclosure be demanded in respect of a remedial pill made by a herbalist, or a blood pill, or a pill for boils because it was made up by one set of people, while a disclosure was demanded in respect of a pill for, say, anæmia made up by another set of people?
    I cannot see any reason for this Amendment. I cannot see, if non-poisonous plants have been used, what difficulty there can be in stating the names of such plants. All we ask in the Bill is that the name of the non-poisonous plant or plants should be given. It is exactly the same for everybody. There is no distinction between one set of people and another. There is no need whatever for herbalists to go out of business simply because they have to state that certain bottles or tablets contain herbs, the names of which have to be given. They, like other people, may from time to time have difficulty in getting some of the things they require, and it is absolutely essential that the ingredients should be stated, whether they have been obtained with difficulty or not. I am sure that it is the opinion of this Committee that there should always be a disclosure of contents.
    Sir P. Hannon: Does my hon. Friend realise the difficulty in which this would place some of the smaller herbalists throughout the country? I agree entirely with the Parliamentary Secretary that she has made a very fair statement of the case as far as the Society of Herbalists are concerned, but there are numbers of small people throughout the country who sell herbal preparations many of whom perhaps do not know the scientific description of the medicine. What is to become of these people?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think that there will be no difficulty for these little people. They make up substances from certain herbs of which they know the names, and, if they do not know the ingredients, the very fact that they will have in future to state the ingredients will cause them to make the necessary inquiries. There is nothing against prescribing for a particular patient. Preparations can still be prescribed for a particular patient without the contents having to be stated, whether they are in the form of tablets or medicine.
    Sir T. Moore: In the circumstances, and as we have had an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the position of the herbalist will be protected, I can see no reason for pressing the Amendment, but I would like to know whether, if I withdraw the Amendment, I shall be in any way prejudiced with regard to moving further Amendments in my name on Clause 7, which have some slight bearing on the position.
    The Deputy-Chairman: If this Amendment is negatived, I do not propose to call the other Amendments.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Denville (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "or to pastilles, lozenges, gums or tablets containing medicinal flavourings or other articles of confectionery not sold or recommended as a medicine."
    The object of the Amendment is to make clear beyond all doubt the position of the confectionery trade. It is felt that the wording of the Bill is not sufficiently strong to make it clear that the confectionery trade will not be affected in any shape or form. I have had certain information conveyed to me that the Ministry are firmly convinced that the confectionery trade will not be affected. I take it that that is what the Minister

    665
    has in his mind, and, that the confectionery trade will be left in the same position as before. If that is so, I think that the confectionery trade will be delighted to accept the position, and on such an assurance I would not propose to press the Amendment.
    Mr. E. Brown: My hon. Friend's Amendment speaks of
    "articles of confectionery not sold or recommended as a medicine,"
    and I can give him a full assurance on that point. His Amendment is unnecessary, because the Bill makes no change in this respect. There is a clear and precise description of what the Bill covers, and it is made perfectly plain that the whole of these Amendments are unnecessary.
    Mr. Denville: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I take it that it will not be necessary to move a similar Amendment in my name on Clause 7. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made:
    In page 7, line 18, at the end, insert:
    "(2) In the preceding Sub-section the expression 'container,' includes a wrapper."
    In line 19, after "sells," insert "or supplies."—[Miss Horsbrugh.]
    Captain Elliston: I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, to leave out "January," and to insert "July."
    The Amendment requires very little explanation. It was hoped that this Bill would come into operation in January next, but it has been found that there are large stocks which cannot be disposed of by that time. I propose that the date be postponed from January until July of next year, in order to give a sufficient period for the disposal of goods.
    Mr. E. Brown: My hon. Friend's Amendment will make the period before the Bill comes into operation just under one year. I have pleasure in accepting it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Restriction of sale of medicines by unauthorised persons.)
    Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, after "Act," to insert:
    666
    "not being premises required to be registered by paragraph (g) of sub-section (1) of Section one of this Act."
    This Amendment is necessary to make it clear that premises registered, are premises registered under the old registration and not the new registration. It is practically a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain Elliston: I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, to leave out "or of a registered pharmacist."
    The inclusion of the words "or of a registered pharmacist" in the Bill seems to be due to a misunderstanding of the present situation. They contemplate a class of shop in which a full chemist's business is not carried on, but in which there is a pharmacy. There are some shops which, in the public interest, should not exist. A shop should either be an approved chemist's shop or not. Therefore, I move to omit these words. I trust that my right hon. Friend will meet me on this point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move, in page 8, line 23, after "(1)," to insert" or Subsection (2)."
    This Amendment is designed to give apprentices and authorised sellers of poisons exactly the same rights as unqualified vendors in regard to the sale of herbal remedies and mineral waters, and is in the nature of a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, after "thereof," to insert:
    "or of a mixture the sole ingredients whereof are two or more such substances."
    This Amendment is consequent on our recent discussions with those who speak on behalf of the genuine herbalist. We found that there was one point of difficulty, and that was that the original Bill did not allow for two or more substances. I promised to meet them and this Amendment will, I think, show that I have understood their point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 31, after "(1)," to insert" or Subsection (2)."—[Mr. E. Brown.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Woods: There seems to be an impression that the specialist in herbalism will not be allowed to charge for prescribing. He has no objection to giving full details of what he prescribes but unless at the same time he has a shop, and sells through the ordinary channels, then he will be liable to prosecution. Some assurance is wanted that the better type of herbalist, who has built up a practice, should have an opportunity of getting remuneration other than what he receives for supplying herbs. Not having a shop, as is required by this Clause, he is afraid he will be excluded from practising. I do not think it is the intention that he should be excluded but I would like to know whether his fears are justified or not.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam(: I have had a good many letters from people who are actually receiving benefit from certain special medicines and who are afraid that if this Bill is passed into law, they will no longer be able to get those medicines in future. I would like an assurance from the Minister that people who are having treatment of this kind can continue to get it when this Bill is passed.
    Mr. E. Brown: I have no doubt about it, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will discuss the precise point with me later. If I see anything that ought to be put right, it will be put right, because it is not our intention at all to restrict the legitimate practice of herbalism, except in so far as it is affected by the disclosure Clause.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: The Amendments which have been inserted do make the Clause far more acceptable to herbalists. Have these Amendments been inserted after consultation with herbalists?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, we have had long consultations in order to meet the points which have been put to me, as very many interests and people are affected by this Bill. We have no desire whatever to interfere with the genuine operations of genuine herbalists. As the Committee knows, the Ministry is well aware of the value of herbs; an expert committee has just reported on herbs as medicines and drugs and has recommended in the strongest possible terms that the collection of herbs should be encouraged as much as possible.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Defence to charges under two preceding sections.)
    Amendment made: In page 9, line 15, after "selling" insert "or supplying."—[Mr. E Brown.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Repeal of medicine duties.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Tinker: In opening the Second Reading Debate, the Minister said that this Clause was the heart of the Bill. The duties which are to be repealed by the Clause are the Medicine Stamp Duty, which involves £800,000, and the Licence Duty, which involves £40,000. I take it that this money will go somewhere. Probably the manufacturer expects to get some of it by means of enhanced sales, probably the retailer expects to do well out of it for the same reason, and probably the consumers are expecting to get cheaper articles. I wonder whether this will be so or not? Information has been given to me that there may be some arrangement made between the manufacturers and those who buy the things from them that the value represented by the stamp duties should not go to the buyers or consumers, and that the whole thing will be so manipulated that the prices of the articles will not fall by the amount which the duties represent. I do not know whether I am correct in saying that or not, but if that be so, I want the Minister to make it known to the public and to the manufacturers that the repeal of these duties is meant largely to benefit the ordinary man in the street. People have had many burdens put upon their shoulders by way of the Purchase Tax, and so on, and as the Treasury have seen their way to repeal the stamp duties, the whole benefit ought to go to those why buy these medicines.
    I hope the manufacturers are not looking forward to making something out of this repeal, because they did enough shouting, when the duties were imposed, about the fall there would be in the sale of the articles, and so on. I know how human nature goes. I am afraid they will put forward a number of excuses of

    669
    this sort, "We have not reduced the price because we are giving you a little more of the article." I am afraid that in these ways they will pretend that they are giving back to the consumers the value involved when they are not doing so. I want to have a definite understanding from those who will benefit from this provision that they will see that the ordinary person gets back this value. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) is concerned with this business. He is connected with a very big firm in the town in which I live. I had the honour of receiving an invitation to visit the works, and I went there, and was very pleased with what I saw. I hope the hon. Member will take the opportunity of giving me some assurance in this matter, because I would not put it beyond him to take advantage of a thing like this. Business men have an easy way of saying, "We are giving you a little more in each bottle or packet." I want an assurance from the Minister that he is watching this matter, and if he has no power to control it, I want him at any rate to appeal to the vendors of these things to realise that Parliament is doing them a good turn in this matter, and that it is up to them to see that the public gets the benefit.
    Mr. Holmes: In acknowledging the tribute which the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) paid to me, I should like to give him an assurance with regard to the manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. At the present time, under the Prices of Goods Act, neither the manufacturer, wholesaler nor retailer can make more profit on any article than he made in August, 1939. Therefore, if the manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of medicines are to keep within the Act, they will have to pass on any saving they make as a result of tile repeal of these duties.
    Mr. Benson: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is asking for something that is possible, or that the Prices of Goods Act gives any real protection in this matter. Normally, articles which are sold in a shop are sold at prices which bear some relationship to their value and to the cost of production, but as everybody knows, patent medicines, which are so widely advertised, do not come within the cate-
    670
    gory. The cost of production of patent medicines is a minute fraction of the selling price, and stuff that is sold at 1s. a bottle may contain material which probably cost one farthing a bottle to produce. There is an appalling discrepancy between the cost of production or value of the article and the selling price, and no guarantee that is made can give any adequate protection to the community. People buy patent medicines because they are widely advertised, and the price and the value have no relationship to their sale. How can any protection be given?
    Sir Francis Fremantle: I want only to say a few words to express the view of those who, for many years, have pressed for the repeal of these Medicine Stamp Duties. We now come to the climax of this campaign, and I think all those who have worked with me will agree that we see the end of this anomalous legislation with great relief. In its place there is to be a series of measures of control which will be capable of stopping the iniquitous proceedings that have accumulated around those who have exploited a gullible public. That being so, I want to say that we agree to the passing of Clause 9 only on condition that other conditions are laid down for the complete and effective control of advertisements and the disclosure of the ingredients of medicines in order to give the public the truth, on which they can act or not act as they please. Our agreement to the passing of Clause 9 depends also on the effective carrying out of the scheme, and in connection with that there are certain additional Clauses yet to be discussed.
    It is because of our confidence in the Minister acceding to our general wishes, in so far as that is practicable, that we agree to the passing of this Clause. However, this is a very serious provision to make, and we feel that, as we have said all along, the patent medicine business is one that is properly the subject for taxation. At the present time, this business is taxed under the Purchase Tax far more heavily than it was under the Medicine Stamp Duties, but we feel that, when the Purchase Tax is removed, as presumably it will be removed to a large extent when the war is over, there will still be a case for the continued taxation of medicines, as originally intended by

    671
    the Medicine Stamp Duties, not in the form of Medicine Stamp Duties, but in some other way, and perhaps by means of a partial remission only of the Purchase Tax. After the war, if we are still in the House, we shall support any Measure which has for its purpose the proper taxation of this business. Under these conditions, those for whom I speak, both inside and outside this Committee, would, I think, support the passing of Clause 9.
    Mr. E. Brown: Of course, when the repeal becomes effective it will be for the trade to justify themselves to the public. I have no doubt whatever that the very powerful intervention by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) will make the public aware of the effects of the repeal of the Stamp Duty.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Do I gather from the Minister that it is for the trade to justify themselves to the public? Surely if taxation is remitted the trade should satisfy the Government that they are not still charging to the extent of that taxation?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait a little while, as I can only deal with one point at a time. It is fundamental when Parliament passes legislation which has a certain effect, that those concerned should take action and justify their action in public. I would point out to the hon. Member that, whereas the Revenue loses about £800,000 on this repeal the Chancellor has already clapped on £3,000,000 by way of Purchase Tax. My hon. Friend will see that the £3,000,000 which the trade have to bear is almost four times as much as they paid in Medicine Stamp Duties. The Government will keep in mind the views of the Committee, but the Minister of Health cannot be expected to express a view on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer may or may not do in any particular Budget. The bulk of the representations made to me since it became my duty to go into this vast and formidable subject, have not been on the same lines as the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh. It has been the other way round, namely that unless some measure of control was introduced the country might be flooded with cheaper medicines, not that medicines might be dearer. I have noted
    672
    my hon. Friend's point, and I have no doubt that the Chancellor will watch the position with due regard to the state of the Exchequer and to the public interest.
    Mr. Tinker: In the course of his remarks the Minister mentioned the figure of £3,000,000 borne by the trade. If the trade has had to bear that figure I will give them all credit, but have they had to bear it?
    Mr. Brown: I should not like that to be taken too literally.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: It has been passed on.
    Mr. Brown: The whole of the industry, from the manufacturer downwards, has been affected by it.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Interpretation.)
    Amendment made: In page 11, line 32, at the end, add:
    "(3) In this section references to the sale of an article include references to the supply of an article as a sample for the purpose of inducing persons to buy by retail the substance of which the article consists or which it comprises."—[Mr. E. Brown.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Enforcement by food and drugs authorities.)
    A food and drugs authority within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 19.58, shall have power to enforce the provisions of sections three, four and six of this Act and, subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of section five of this Act, to institute proceedings for a contravention of any of the provisions of those sections.—[Mr. E. Brown.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee will see that there are two new Clauses dealing with enforcement, the first standing in my name, and the second in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). Perhaps the Committee will allow me to say a little more than is suggested by my own new Clause. There are two aspects of this matter. Part of the Bill would naturally fall to be enforced by the food and drug authorities, and the other part relates more to

    673
    the professional and technical enforcement of the Bill. My hon. Friend's new Clause deals with the second aspect, while my new Clause deals with the former.
    The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think the right hon. Gentleman will be able to confine himself to his own Clause and refer to the other. The probability is that I shall not call the other Clause.
    Mr. Brown: I want to be perfectly fair to my hon. Friend, and I shall do my beat to keep in Order. I paid particular attention to what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston) during the Second Reading Debate. It is quite clear that when you come to the agreement which is the substance of Clause 7, between all the parties concerned, the enforcement must rest upon their shoulders. When it comes to a question of enforcing the rest of the Bill, there are two issues. First, there is the simpler one—that which would naturally fall to be enforced by those who have to deal with food and drugs. I think we ought to give power to these authorities to deal with issues of this nature, and therefore I move this new Clause. The Pharmaceutical Society, who have given some help in this matter, is a Statutory authority for certain purposes under the Act of 1852. They suggested they would be willing, in certain circumstances, to undertake the enforcement of their side of the Bill. I am discussing the question with those concerned, and I hope to be able to make a statement on the matter during the Report stage. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not seek to move his new Clause.
    Sir F. Fremantle: I am very grateful to the Minister of Health for meeting us to the extent he has. I understand that if the conference with the Pharmaceutical Society is effective, then, by his new Clause, within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act their inspectors, of whom there is a good supply, will be able to carry on duties which would otherwise fall upon a common informer. Inspectors under the Food and Drugs Acts do not act under the ordinary health authority, but, under the authority of the Standing Joint Committee of the Magistracy and the county councils, through the police. The health officers take note of their work and have it reported to them as it affects their work very considerably as regards
    674
    adulteration of food, drugs, milk and so on. Consequently the inspectors in the different divisions of the country are doing work which will naturally enable them to carry on the work of this Measure. At the same time there is a great deal to be said for the work of inspection being carried on by the voluntary work of the Pharmaceutical Society, but I hope there will be some effective division, so that we shall not have each side leaving it to the other. I would therefore ask the Minister to keep a very careful eye himself upon the administration of the Act, because it is no use passing Acts which sound good on paper if they are not to be effectively enforced. It is no good supplying the machinery of enforcement if there is to be duplicate machinery and you fall between two stools. I was rather surprised that the Minister has not included in his Clause the supervision of Section 7. He mentioned it, but I did not understand his allusion to it. The inspectors are the kind of people who are most likely to realise that unauthorised persons are selling these medicines and contravening the Act. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give an explanation why he leaves out Section 7 from the provisions of his Clause. Otherwise the explanation that he has given enables us warmly to support it.
    Captain Elliston: The Minister moderated his tone to such an extent that I am not quite sure whether I fully understood the explanation he gave. I hope I was right in believing that he intends between now and the Report stage to see whether he can so arrange that the enforcement of the Act shall be delegated to the Pharmaceutical Society. That seems to be very desirable. You have there an expert body with inspectors and all the machinery for proper and efficient enforcement of the Act. Should that scheme prove difficult or impossible, I appeal to him to amend his Clause by making it a duty to enforce the Act, and not merely giving the power. We know that some enterprising authorities in the great cities and counties will enforce it, but there is a large number of local authorities with neither the staff nor the inclination to enforce the provisions of the Bill.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-on-Tyne North): Am I not right in supposing that this is the usual form and that, when you say an authority

    675
    has power to enforce the provisions of the Section, it means that a duty is imposed upon the authority?
    Mr. Woods: I hope the Minister will adhere to his Clause, and if he contemplates any modification, I hope he will consult all the bodies that are involved. The other Clause would introduce an anomaly. You would be asking a voluntary organisation which is doing very good work and looking after the interests of a vast body of people—
    The Chairman: I do not think we can discuss that.
    Mr. Woods: I suggest that we have had a sort of promise by the Minister that we might be able to discuss what the arrangements should be.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member can discuss anything that the Minister has said, but he was definitely discussing another new Clause.
    Mr. Woods: My point is that, if it is retained as in the Clause that is before the Committee, there is the whole machinery. The inspectors are doing their work very efficiently indeed under the Food and Drugs Acts. There is very little suspicion attaching to them; they are ex parte, and they are not associated with any interest. They are doing their job, I believe, to the satisfaction of the consuming public, and, on the whole, there is a satisfactory machinery functioning. I hope we shall adhere to the proposal to put any additional work on to the machine that is already there.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I gather that what the Minister said was that he hoped that hon. Members who have further new Clauses would not move them, as there would be consultations, and that if necessary he would bring something forward on Report. If there are to be consultations, I hope they will be with bodies which have been consulted hitherto on the Measure. The other point that I would urge is that in his own new Clause he should confer these new powers upon local authorities. A suggestion has been put forward that they may in certain circumstances be dispensed with and some other authority may be brought into being to replace them. I only want to urge upon the Minister that
    676
    we on this side shall watch very carefully to see that the powers of local authorities in matters of public health are not taken from them and given to anybody else, however good and beneficent they may be. I hope that the Minister of Health, who is responsible to the country and the local authorities, will bear that in mind.
    Mr. E. Brown: I will certainly bear that in mind. My new Clause shows that that was the line of my approach. If we are to have legal enforcement it cannot be left to voluntary bodies. It must involve the kind of machinery envisaged in my new Clause. There are several kinds of enforcement wanted here. The first is of a scientific nature akin to that in the present Poisons Act which has been entrusted by law to the Pharmaceutical Society. That will not conflict with the protection of the public under the Food and Drugs Act. The other kind of enforcement is not quite so simple. I left out Section 7 deliberately. That Section, as I explained on Second Reading, embodies the terms of an agreement. There has been a change of front recently on the part of one party, and it would not be right to leave to the Pharmaceutical Society the supervision of co-operative societies, trade organisations and chemists. We shall therefore rely for the protection of the public on the machinery of the Food arid Drugs Act and, for the enforcement of the rest of the Bill on the machinery of the other Acts.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    The Chairman: I cannot call the next two new Clauses (Enforcement), in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), and (General Control Scheme), in the name of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. A. Duckworth)— because they would involve a charge on public funds.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on proprietary names.)
    No person shall sell or advertise under a fancy proprietary name any preparation having essentially the same composition as preparations listed in the current editions of the British Pharmacopoeia or of the British Pharmaceutical Codex.—[Sir E. Graham-Little.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This new Clause follows a recommendation made in the report of the Select Committe of 1914
    "that fancy names for recognised drugs be subject to regulation."
    The origin of that recommendation was the mischief which has followed the circulation of names, which the committee call fancy names, but which are really trade names for simple drugs. These drugs are sold under fancy names to the public at prices very much in excess of the charges made for the drugs when sold under their proper names. Let me give instances. The drug known widely as aspirin is a chemical composition which has a well-defined and chemical name, acetylsalicylic acid. That is the proper name for the drug. The term "aspirin" has gained a wider acceptance, because it is much more simple to use. Its cost is 2½d. an ounce, but it is sold to the public under two widely advertised trade names at 2s. 6d. and 2s. 2d. an ounce respectively. Another widely used and advertised product is the drug known as phenobarbitome. The technical name for the substance which forms the basis of the drug is diethylmalonylurea. The cost of that drug in the British Pharmacopoeia is 2s. 6d. It is sold under the names of "Luminal" and "Gardenal" at 10s. 4d. and 9s. 6d. respectively. The drug sold under the fancy name, therefore, costs nearly four times as much as the drug which is supplied in the ordinary way by properly qualified chemists.
    An important consideration is that drugs prescribed in the British Pharmacopoeia have to obey strict regulations defining composition, purity, and so on, but no such guarantee is required for products sold under fancy names. The extent of this abuse may be judged by one simple fact. The thick book which I hold in my hand, "The Pharmaceutical Codex," contains 800 items of proprietary medicines which have the same composition as the official preparations of the British Pharmacopoeia. The preamble to the list points out that owing to consideration of space only a small fraction of the patent medicines is included. Eight hundred substances are thus sold under fancy names at prices which are very
    678
    much greater than the cost of production justifies.
    The reason for the delay which has taken place in carrying out the recommendation of the 1914 Committee may be found in the fact that large profits are made in the sale of these products with fancy names. Efforts have been made to instruct the public by simple literature on this point, and about two years ago a small book was produced by the Professor of Pharmacology in Edinburgh University. It was one of a series of shall booklets sold for 6d. which were an exposéof the constitution of some of these medicines. The first result of the publication of that pamphlet was a libel action which was set in motion against the author and publisher. The publishers were forced out of business by the action, and the book has now gone out of print. I do not think that the sums which are spent on advertising by the companies which sell these medicines are realised. Statements have been made recently that one big combine dealing with nervous medicines spent £1,000,000 in 1938 on Press advertisements. I am sorry to say that the medical Press is guilty of imprudent and improper behaviour by accepting that kind of advertisment.
    The statement is made also that in a year the "British Medical Journal" receives many thousand pounds for advertisements of proprietary medicines. Both the public and medical practitioners are affected in this connection. A general medical practitioner, who is a very busy man, sees these advertisements in the journals of his profession as well as in the daily Press and is unintentionally influenced in choosing one of these preparations, which may be four times as expensive as the ordinary drugs of which it is composed. Some few years ago the National Medical Association compiled a formulary for the use of panel practitioners in which they made a selection, not by any means complete, of drugs which were identical with patent medicines, and the practitioner was urged to read that little list and to choose the pharmacopoeia preparation in preference to the fancy preparation.
    Let the Committee consider what that would mean in the saving of expense. The drug fund of the National Health Insurance scheme is a very important fund. If the practitioner uses drug A, which costs

    679
    2½d., while another practitioner uses preparation B, which costs 2s. 6d., and the use of B is multiplied many times, it is obvious that that important fund is being misused. There are no means of censoring, or even effective measures for dealing with, the practitioner who uses the proprietary medicines. I think that is one important reason for accepting this new Clause. It was hoped at the beginning of this year that a new formulary for war would be prepared for the use of practitioners, and the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health was engaged with a committee in preparing such a formulary, but nothing has happened up to the present so far as I know, though the committee saw no difficulty in regulating this very great abuse of which I have spoken. I am not a skilled Parliamentary draftsman, and I do not know whether the terms of this new Clause meet with the approval of the Minister, but it would be open to him to amend them in any way he thinks fit, and I hope that he will take advantage of this effort to remedy what has been a great abuse.
    Mr. Benson: I am not quite certain about the scope of this new Clause. The hon. Member mentioned aspirin. I think I am right in saying that aspirin was the name given to the drug by those who developed aspirin. What I wish to know is how far his Clause would go in preventing a manufacturing chemist who developed a new drug from giving it a name.
    Sir E. Graham-Little: My point is that when a drug is included in the Pharmaceutical Index it is a very well-known drug, and it is the misnaming of well known drugs which I wish to prevent. As regards aspirin, it is true that aspirin was the trade name given to a German patent some years ago, but that patent has long expired, and the word "aspirin" has made a fancy appeal to the public and pharmacists, who prefer it to the long chemical name which I have mentioned.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: I wish to support this Clause, and though I do so with some diffidence as regards technical points, I have no diffidence as regards the principle of the Clause. I presume the reason why the principle of this Clause has not been applied before is that it would have had such a serious effect upon the profits of the patent medicine trade,
    680
    but that does not seem to be any sufficient reason for not taking action. The public have a right to be enlightened on these matters, they have a right to be educated about them, and above all they have a right to the protection which this House can provide. I realise that the power of suggestion is tremendous, and that, whatever we may do, when the cheaper medicine is placed alongside a proprietary preparation the acute salesmen will still manage to sell the more expensive article. None the less, I stick to the point that the public have a right to expect enlightenment and protection from this House. Having read this Clause I took the trouble to inquire into some of the proprietary medicines which are being sold. Two of the things which I looked up were disinfectants of a very simple kind, no doubt based upon carbolic acid in some form or another. They are sold under special proprietary names. Their description is, to my mind, intolerable. In one case there are no fewer than thirty-two letters in a single word describing the disinfectant.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that we discussed this question at length on Clause 6, and that this new Clause is somewhat limited in its scope.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: I agree that I was getting outside the terms of the Clause, and will say no more except to point out that the object of the Clause is the protection and enlightenment of the public and that I support it for those reasons.
    Captain Sir Ian Fraser: I would beg the Committee to consider the consequences of this new Clause, but before I do that may I try to answer one pf the points made by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir E. Graham-Little)? He spoke of remedies in the Pharmacopoeia being worth 2½d. an ounce and of similar remedies being sold as proprietary medicines at 2s. 6d. an ounce, but I think he was comparing the wholesale price of the drug, unprepared, perhaps even unpacked, with the retail price of the drug as packed or made up in a manner which suits the public taste. If allowance is made for the cost of preparation, for the cost of packing and for the cost of advertising, the figures are not so unreasonable as he would make them appear to be by taking the two extremes.

    681
    May I elaborate the point brought out about aspirin? This medicine k properly called acetyl-salicylic acid. Before the last war, a German firm advertised it under the name "aspirin," and they made the name well known. In some parts of the world the word "aspirin" is still a free name and may be used by anybody, while in other parts of the world it may be protected in some way. Until 1932, aspirin was, in fact, a fancy name, the very thing which my hon. Friend says we must not allow. In 1932 the authorities who compose the Pharmacopoeia realised that this fancy name had been adopted into the language, and they recognised the name. Overnight, a name which the hon. Gentleman thinks should not have been fit for anyone to use became something which he, as a medical man, would laud and approve, because it is in the book.
    How can one possibly say which names, invented by manufacturers, it is true, in order to attract public custom, may or may not come to stand in the public mind for well-known articles, if they are appropriate names? Why should they be ruled out in favour of some unknown and unpronounceable names? I suggest that, however good the motive of my hon. Friend, his proposed new Clause is impracticable.
    Mr. Spens: I would draw the attention of the Committee to my view that the proposed new Clause, as drafted, would go a very long way to repeal the Trade Marks Act. People who market drugs and medicines in some way that has not been thought of before are entitled to give them a fancy name, to register them under that name and to adopt a trade mark in respect of them, so that they and they alone are allowed to sell them. If the editor of the British Pharmacopoeia should put a description of a particular compound into that very valuable book, the proposed new Clause would declare that the persons who had the right to sell that drug under the fancy name should, thereafter, no longer be allowed to sell it under that name. That may or may not be the right thing to do, but it raises a very big question of principle which, I respectfully submit, cannot be made part of the law of the land by a small Clause added to a Bill at the end of the Committee stage.
    Mr. E. Brown: I had proposed to point out to the Committee that this Clause went a very long way. I told the House on Second Reading that one of my difficulties was not that people wanted the Bill to do less, but that they wanted it to do a great deal more. This innocent looking proposal would make this Measure into a new Bill. It would permit certain things to be done which are entirely against Clause 7, to which the Committee has already agreed and which embodies the agreement arrived at, after long consultation and as a result of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. I advise the Committee not to accept the proposed new Clause. Not only does it not do what has been suggested, but it would be extremely difficult to enforce in its present technical terms. Take, for example, the expression "essentially the same composition." I would ask medical men how much argument there would have to be before they could reach an agreed meaning of those words.
    I appreciate the desire of my two hon. Friends to promote education and enlightenment, but I would ask their consideration of what we are trying to do by the Bill. I would remind the Committee that we are nearing the end of the Committee stage of what has been one of the most contentious issues in our public life for 25 years, and has been argued inside and outside this House. We have reached a very large measure of agreement upon it. One of my hon. Friends based his argument upon a recommendation of the Select Committee of 1912–14. It is true there was a proposal to ban fancy proprietary names, but that Committee did not recommend disclosure. This has only now become possible, and it has altered the whole outlook on this question. I appreciate the point put by my hon. Friends, but I regard the Bill as a first step, and I want it to be a sound step. I do not want to accept any proposal which might make the Bill unworkable. I hope, in view of my statement, that my hon. Friend who moved this Motion will be ready to withdraw it.
    Sir E. Graham-Little: I suppose I must withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on distribution of new proprietary medicines.)
    No person other than a person authorised under Sub-section (1) of Section seven shall sell any article comprising a substance recommended as a medicine under a proprietary designation unless it was, at the time of the passing of this Act, being sold under that designation.—[Sit Dymoke White.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir Dymoke White: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I should like to explain my position in this matter. I have been asked to represent the views of the organised retail chemists, both independent and company chemists, numbering over 10,000 men. I occupy no official position in any business connected therewith, although, like other hon. Members possibly, I may hold shares in some public companies connected with company chemists.
    I wonder whether the Committee appreciate that the repeal of the Medicine Duties widened the channels of distribution by the reduction in the price, at least by the amount of the duty, and I daresay by very much more by the making up of what are known as small packs. This practice will make available in the small shops and in chain stores a vast deal more patent medicine stocks than have been available in the past. I happen to know that manufacturers are ready to flood these chain stores with smaller packs. This is sure to lead to an increase in self-medication on the part of the public—call it self-doctoring, if you like—which must militate against the public health. This proposed new Clause seeks to narrow the channels of distribution of new proprietary medicines. We are not concerned with proprietary medicines in existence at the moment. It would do so by restricting the sale by retail to persons authorised under Sub-section (1) of Clause 7 of the Bill.
    The proposal does not interfere in any way with the existing interests of manufacturers or distributors of proprietary medicines on the market at the present time. I want to make that quite clear. The Committee will appreciate that the widening of the distribution under this Bill, which I mentioned just now, will cause a certain loss to the chemist which in some small way will be offset by this
    684
    new Clause. However, my main point is not that, but is that by limiting the sale of these new patent medicines to chemists only, the public will benefit by the advice of the chemist, who will know all about the ingredients, because they will be stated on the label, and who may be in a position to help the customer. You may ask why. The answer is because the chemist undergoes a long training of apprenticeship, he passes a stiff examination, both a practical one and a viva voce—and the latter is a very severe form of examination, as I know from experience myself, having been through it—and he is constantly handling the drugs from day to day in the ordinary course of his work. So by his knowledge, gained by training and experience, I suggest that he is in a far better position to act as an efficient guide to a prospective buyer than the man behind any other counter in the world. This point, I feel, has been largely lost sight of in the past. A lawyer advises the public on legal matters, the architects and dentists likewise in their respective spheres, so without trespassing on the domain of the members of the medical profession—who in my experience are only too ready to acknowledge the useful functions of the chemist, even if some only admit to the deciphering of the doctor's prescriptions—I ask the Committee to support this new Clause, and I ask the Minister to give it his blessing.
    Mr. Spens: I must, of course, inform the Committee that of late months I have been advising some of the trade interests concerned in the arrangements which have resulted in this Bill, and I think everybody in the country is satisfied that we have got rid of the extremely confused situation arising out of the old Medicine Stamp Duty. The arrangements have been, I should have thought, quite definitely a bargain between certain trade interests, and I was absolutely amazed when I received a circular and later saw this Clause on the Order Paper. I have never said this in public, but I am going to say it now, because I think it is as well that the public should hear it. I personally have always felt that if there be any deception of the public in the sale of patent medicines, that deception is made all the greater and all the easier when they are sold from chemists' shops, because I think a great many of the public believe, when they see a medi-

    685
    cine in a chemist's shop, that it must be perfectly all right because the chemist puts it in his window. A chemist is like every other human being. I am perfectly certain he does not sell stuff which he believes is injurious to the public, but I am equally certain that when he gets something which is innocent and will do no harm—and may do some people good —and on which, in addition, he gets a good profit, he will sell it, as anybody else in the country would. I say quite frankly to the Committee that if this Clause or any other like it is accepted, the whole of the trouble which we know has been going on for all these years over the Medicine Stamp Duty, and which we hoped had at last been done away with by means of a settlement reasonable to everybody concerned, will simply break out again. I hope the Committee will not have- anything to do with this Clause.
    Sir I. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman who moved this new Clause made the point that chemists have to go through a most elaborate training under the body which rules the conduct of the chemist as a professional man, the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the body which conducts the elaborate written and viva voce examinations to which my hon. Friend referred, the body which has statutory powers under the Food and Drugs Act, which is the guiding body in the chemists' profession and which is a party to this agreement. They do not associate themselves with my hon. Friend opposite. They are not with him, nor is he speaking for them. It is, on the other hand, the other society, the National Pharmaceutical Union, a business interests society, for which he speaks. He will not mind my making that quite clear. All those groups were together in the agreement which has been explained to the House; all the interested bodies disclosed to the House what their interest was, and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has pointed out, this new Clause, far from being necessary to compensate the chemists, is now put forward by some of the chemists as if they had had no compensation at all. The truth is this: The Select Committee of 1936 proposed no compensation to the chemists; let them remember that; it was upon that basis that the first proposal was brought to
    686
    this House and that the Select Committee said:
    "We are not impressed with the view that the chemist in his shop protects the public when he sells them a drug "—
    a proprietary medicine.
    "We are not impressed "—
    says the Committee—
    "and we do not think this long-standing privilege of the chemist should be maintained in the public interest."
    That is what the Select Committee said. In spite of that, the Chancellor, the Minister of Health, this House and all the trade interests concerned sat down at a table with the chemists and have come to an arrangement under Clause 7 which does in fact compensate them, and which they, until the eleventh hour, agreed did 'compensate them. Then my hon. Friend comes here—no doubt he has been misinformed in the matter—and says, "There is no compensation, so let us put this innocent little Clause in at the end, and all will be well." The fact is that this is a last-minute attempt to avoid the consequence of an agreement properly and honourably entered into by all these people, and I hope the Committee will recognise it as such and will reject this new Clause.
    May I add one other small but very practical point? If the Clause was incorporated in the Bill, the manufacturer, whenever he made up packages for his customers, would have to take care that medicines which were in existence before this Act was passed were put into, one parcel, and medicines which were brought out after this Act was passed into another parcel, and there are 150,000 licensed sellers of medicines in this country. It would be impracticable for the manufacturer to do this. Far be it from me to say that the manufacturers would not welcome this. Does the Committee realise what it proposes? It proposes to give a monopoly to the present manufacturers, who, many Members of the House think, have got very good businesses, to go on trading without any possibility of competition whatever in the general market. There may be many manufacturers who would welcome it, but speaking for them, as I indicated to the Committee that I was, we would not dare to come to the House and ask for such a monopoly. It would be contrary to

    687
    British tradition and contrary to the public interest to grant it.
    Sir D. White: On a point of personal explanation. I wish to make it quite clear—I thought I had done so—that I was covering new ground. I said that this suggestion applied to new medicines entirely, and that it has nothing to do with the agreement in the past. I maintain that that suggestion was made in good faith, and also to emphasise to the Committee and the country as a whole my opinion, and the opinion of those whom I represent, that chemists have a function to perform and that some of those functions have been taken away from them over a series of years. I have said nothing about this deal around the table. I was speaking of the future entirely.
    Mr. Mander: One would almost think, from some of the speeches in the last few minutes, that this was a Measure from the Church Assembly, which we must either accept or reject, but must not amend, that it is a bargain which is sacrosanct. As an entirely free Member, I know of no bargain. We ought to look at this Measure on its merits, regardless of what any interests outside have had to do, and see whether particular Clauses are required by the public interest, which is the one and only test which could be applied. We have heard quite enough about bargains between interests. It is a matter for the House of Commons to decide. On the merits of the Clause itself, I have had a number of representations during the last day or so from chemists in my constituency who are very much interested in favour of this proposal. I confess I have not made any profound study of the situation myself, but I certainly feel, in view of what my hon. Friend has said, and in the light of the obvious demand from certain sections of the public, that the matter ought to be carefully considered by the Ministry of Health. The Minister ought to give effective reasons why this new Clause should not be adopted. Up to the present I do not feel satisfied merely to be told that this is all agreed and that nothing can be done.
    Sir I. Fraser: Would the hon. Member pardon me? Quite obviously no one putting a case would be so foolish as to seek to deny the absolute right of the House to do exactly what it wishes, in
    688
    its legislation. If any of my words implied any question of that, I must make it clear that I would not be so foolish as to have done so. I pointed out that the Mover of this Clause came here and said he spoke for the chemists, and I said that they were a party to the arrangements. That is all I said.
    Mr. Mander: I was not really thinking of my hon. and gallant Friend at all; it was the rather strong language of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) which I had in mind. I ask the Minister to give this his serious consideration and tell the Committee whether he thinks it is a wise proposal or not before we can come to a considered judgment.
    Mr. E. Brown: I can say at once that I cannot ask the Committee to accept this new Clause. If accepted, it would destroy what has been very hard, detailed and successful work to bring to fruition agreement on one of the most contentious of all subjects raised in the last quarter of a century. [Interruption.] We must leave the future to itself. When we are asked to link the future with the present and the past, we cannot take that view.
    Mr. Mander: The future starts to-day.
    Mr. Brown: The future is related to today, but if the hon. Member had given that long and detailed study to the subject which he says he has not given, he would understand why I say at once that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the new Clause. What does it do? It enlarges what is the privilege under the Bill to the chemists. Over so wide a range of interests, so large a measure of agreement had been reached on the basis that the privilege that the chemists had had without tax in legislation should be continued by that 'agreement, and by the assent of Parliament. The first effect of this Clause would be greatly to enlarge that privilege. That is the first major argument I give to the House. When people talk about the National Pharmaceutical Union it might be assumed that they speak for the whole of the chemists. That is not so. There are two bodies, one of them a great professional body, the Pharmaceutical Society, who were a party to all the discussions, professional discussions. There has been no last minute going back on their agreement on their part. I wish to make that clear. Perhaps when this Debate is over the hon.

    689
    Member will read a very able article in the "Economist" in which the issue is very clearly stated in the last paragraph. This writer of 12th July says:
    "There is, of course, no reason why a clash of professional and business interests should come at all. Many chemists have to struggle hard to make both ends meet, and so long as they are mainly dependent for their livelihood on having things to sell, they are forced to have a business as well as a professional outlook—though the extension of compulsory Health Insurance to incomes up to £420 a year will put the dispensing of medicines more and more on a salary basis. What the public interest demands is, not that chemists should withdraw completely from the business arena, but that they should not use their professional status merely to further their business ends—that in claiming to protect the public they should not really be seeking protection for themselves."
    That was said by a careful writer in a very balanced article. This Clause would widen the privilege and, I have no doubt whatever, would destroy what was the agreed basis of this Measure, on which the Bill has, with amity, proceeded so far with the good will of the House. There is one other thing. Hon. Members who look at this issue will realise that we are making a very big move in this contentious subject. We have done it because Members have regard to the past.
    With regard to the future, we shall have to tee how this Act works out and, in the light of that, see what other steps are required for the public health. I explained, on Second Reading, that Clause 7 of the Bill could be justified on the ground that on the whole it was better to maintain the privilege the chemists had. I cannot add to that.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 48].

  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1939.
  "Resolutions reported:
  "I Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1940, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Navy Votes for that year are as follows:

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  2,335.074

  8

  9

  Total Deficits

  30,896,285

  19

  0

  Net Deficit (charged against the Vote of Credit)

  £28,561,211

  10

  3

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of realised surpluses towards making good the said deficits.
  That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."
  [For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1941; cols. 547–8, Vol. 373.]
  "II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1940, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Army Votes for that year are as follows: —

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  80,607,098

  4

  4

  Total Deficits

  86,920,739

  5

  7

  Net Deficit (charged against the Vote of Credit)

  £6,313,061

  1

  3

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of realised surpluses towards making good the said deficits.
  That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."
  [For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1941; cols. 549–50, Vol. 373.]
  "III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1940, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Air Votes for that year arc as follows: —

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  7,911,217

  12

  9

  Total Deficits

  47,052,507

  5

  7

  Net Deficit (charged against the Vote of Credit)

  £39,141,289

  12

  10

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of realised surpluses towards making good the said deficits.
  That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."
  [For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1941; cols. 551–2, Vol. 373.]
  Resolutions agreed to.

  DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ACT, 1934.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move,
  "That the Clearing Office (Spain) Amendment Order, 1941, dated 30th June. 1941, made

  691
  by the Treasury under Sections 1 and 3 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934 (24 and 25 Geo. 5, c. 31), a copy of which was presented to this House on 8th July, be approved."
  This Motion relates to a Treasury Order made on 30th of last month, to amend the previous Orders. It was required for two reasons, which are purely technical. The first Clause deals with the point that certain difficulties have been encountered up to now by the Anglo-Spanish Clearing Office concerning rates of exchange for the conversion into sterling of debts in Spanish or other foreign currencies, but only in cases where process of recovery of the debt is issued on behalf of the Clearing Office. In the case of an action for that purpose in the county court, the rate of exchange under the Order shall be that ruling on the date on which the process is issued; but if the action is in the High Court, the rate of exchange shall be that ruling on the date on which the judgment is delivered or the date on which payment is made, whichever is the earlier. The second purpose of the Order is to make the necessary modifications in the previous Order as a result of the Supplementary Loan Agreement recently concluded. It is necessary to make certain variations in order to carry out what is intended by that Agreement, namely, the provision of the service of the loan; and it is provided in the Supplementary Agreement that the service of the loan shall be made through the Anglo-Spanish Clearing Office. This Clause authorises the execution of the provision that a certain amount received by the Treasury shall be devoted, in half-yearly instalments, to the service and amortisation of the advances made under the Supplementary Agreement.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: This question of a loan to Spain has, of course, very wide ramifications, and very large issues of policy are involved in the main question. This particular Order deals only with certain facets, and I do not think it is necessary for us to go into any of the larger issues on this occasion. So far as the particular points dealt with in the Order are concerned, I see no reason why we should not agree to the Order.
  Mr. Mander: I quite agree that this is only a very small side of a big subject. One cannot on this
  692
  occasion enter into a general Debate on the subject of our foreign policy towards Spain. I should like to ask whether any difficulty has so far been experienced in working this agreement as between the British and Spanish Governments, and whether the proposal now before the House has resulted in any discussions taking place between the two Governments. I should also like to know whether this Order has been made necessary by the original agreement, and the amount of finance already involved in the transactions.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member has brought his remarks within Order by asking whether this Order was made necessary by difficulties in working" the original agreement. But I do not think I can let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the Government in this matter answer all the questions which the hon. Member put, about the working of the original agreement.
  Captain Crookshank: That helps me, Sir. I was going to say—
  Mr. Mander: You said, Sir, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could not answer all my questions. There was no objection to his answering some of them.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I shall stop him if he goes too far.
  Captain Crookshank: In rising to answer a selected number of questions, I was going to say that I should like notice of the points which the hon. Member raised, which could be dealt with in the form of question and answer. This particular Order arose out of the Supplementary Agreement made on 7th April this year.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That the Clearing Office (Spain) Amendment Order, 1941, dated 30th June, 1941, made by the Treasury under Sections 1 and 3 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934 (24 and 25 Geo. 5, c. 31), a copy of which was presented to this House on 8th July, be approved."

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extend-

  693
  ing section one of that Act to the Urban District of Haltemprice, a copy of which was presented to this House on 9th July, be approved.—[Mr. Peake.]

  PENSIONS (APPEALS TRIBUNALS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn "— [Major Dugdale].
  Captain Sir Ian Fraser: I ask the indulgence of the House, that I should be heard more than once to-day. It was not my fault that the business came as it did. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions has shewn himself wise and, if I may say so, statesmanlike in his handling of some of our big problems of pensions administration. It surprises me, therefore, that he should take the view he does about appeals tribunals. I have had in my constituency, and I am sure other Members have had in theirs, cases of men who have come out of the Army, the Navy or the Air Force disabled or sick, or have died, and they or their widows have been granted no pensions. None of us individually can judge whether these cases ought to receive pensions. We may advocate and believe in the cause of one of our constituents, but we would not claim to judge of the facts. We are entitled to see, however, that our constituents get a fair judgment.
  The Minister of Pensions will say that he judges fairly according to his lights, that he gets the best advice he can, that he even takes the advice of outside medical men to corroborate and correct the advice of his own medical men. He says that to the best of his knowledge the Ministry of Pensions judge these matters fairly. I believe that to be true, and that the Minister himself, personally and officially, does the best he can to sort out the evidence and choose either for the State, on the one hand, or for the claimant on the other whether a claimant should have a life pension. But it is hardly credible that the Ministry can be wholly without bias, and even if it is, it is hardly credible that the public will believe it. It is most essential in these matters that working-class people—and it is mainly they who are concerned—should have what is, and what appears to them to be, an absolutely fair chance of stating their case. They cannot have that as long as they have to go to the Ministry, which watches its own interests and that of the taxpayers and others.
  694
  We cannot get what will be fair or seem to be fair unless we have some kind of independent appeal tribunal. It is not that this is a new idea unfamiliar in this country. The House will be aware that there have been appeal tribunals for this purpose for 20 years. It was in 1919 that the very feelings that are here indicated and are now beginning to occur in our constituencies compelled the Government of that day to set up independent tribunals. The Lord Chancellor was made responsible for them. He paid for them, so that they were not under the financial control of, or selected by, the Minister of Pensions. They were set up separately so as to be really impartial, and a final court of appeal. The ordinary ex-service men called it the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal because it was under the Lord Chancellor, and he felt that he was going to the highest court and to an independent court. These tribunals consisted of an ex-service man, a lawyer of more than seven years' standing, and a doctor. They worked for 20 years, and they worked well. I have the figures of the cases that came before these tribunals. There were 53,000 cases that were allowed by these tribunals from 1919 until the outbreak of the present war, and 113,000 cases that were turned down, so that one in three, practically, of those who went before the tribunals won their case. At the moment there will be a few hundred, or a few thousand ex-service men who feel that they have a claim to be heard. On the evidence before us, one third of these cases would ultimately be found to be deserving of a pension. The Minister would have turned them down. The Minister has done his best with the evidence at his disposal, but an independent court would find differently. It is, however, manifest that there is already some injustice. It is hard to measure how much it is, but it rises day by clay as the numbers increase.
  We have raised this matter before with the Minister, both privately and publicly, and he has told us that he cannot support these tribunals, and that it would be impossible at the present time, with travelling as it is and with the shortage of professional and other men, to get the personnel together to start these tribunals. I believe that I am quoting him fairly when I say that he based his refusal on travel-

  695
  ling and personnel. We all travel; we travel freely. I cannot believe that that is a serious reason. The Minister may think that it would have been so if the war had been different, but it is not different and he must face the fact. There would be three persons on the tribunals, if the old form were followed. 1s it seriously to be said that there are only a small number of lawyers available to take on this job? They get a fee. It is true that it is not large, but this is a sort of labour of love and interest, and I cannot think that there are not solicitors and barristers who would freely do this work. We know that doctors are very difficult to get. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend went to the Ministry of Health he would be told that there were difficulties and a shortage of doctors. But the House must ask him to find them. He must find them for this job.
  I believe that half a dozen or at the most a dozen tribunals would meet the need. I am only asking for these on the ground of expediency. I do not think that he or I or any of us disagree on principle. I think that the first thing that the Minister will say when he gets up is that there ought to be these tribunals. If he does not say so, I shall be astounded. I think he will say it, and also say that it is difficult to do it now. He may say that he will put it off until after the war when he will have many more doctors and lawyers available. If he merely puts it off, the thing will become aggravated, and it will be infinitely more difficult to start dealing with, say, ten times the number of cases in a year's time. If he started now he would obtain various advantages. He would get uniformity of practice in a small number of tribunals operating throughout the country. It would create a feeling among ex-service men that the young fellows were having a fairer crack of the whip than the old ones received, and lastly, he would be avoiding that which is already an injustice to some, and an injustice which must increase as the numbers increase. Some of these men will no doubt die between now and the end of the war without the opportunity of their having had an opportunity of going before a tribunal and stating their case. Their widows will be left with the sure feeling in their minds that their husbands died as a result of
  696
  the war but without the advantage of having been able to give evidence in support of their claim. It is clear that some injustice must now be occurring, and it will increasingly occur, and I beg of my right hon. Friend to set up his tribunals now and not try and keep us waiting until after the war, or even waiting for months, thus greatly aggravating his own difficulties. I suggest very humbly to the House, many of the Members of which have told me that they will support me in this matter, that our Minister is a good and clever Minister. He is clever enough to take us to-day on to 101 other subjects, if we let him. May I ask my hon. Friends to stick to him to-day on the question of tribunals?
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: I want to support the appeal of the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), which was made in such forceful and eloquent terms to the House. Those of us who had experience of cases that arose out of the last war take this line to-day rather on the grounds of that experience. I do not want it to be thought that I am making any attack on the Minister in his capacity as a Minister, because I believe—and I think I can speak for many —that we have a very good Minister of Pensions. I have had brought to my notice a considerable number of cases which have been rejected, and they are rankling in people's minds. In the last war people were able to go before a tribunal. Cases were turned down, but the feeling of the people who appeared before the tribunal was that they had had an opportunity to go before an independent impartial body and that they had exhausted every possible channel before their case had been finally rejected. I know that the Minister has reviewed some of these cases himself and that he has taken the exceptionally important step of referring them to independent medical people. So far as my constituents are concerned, the result has been very satisfactory, but that is not sufficient. People say that the Minister is judge in his own cause, although he has submitted it to independent medical men.
  While we may not have a large number of cases, we are bound to recognise that they are accumulating and may reach considerable proportions before the end of the war. By that time there is the possibility of the Minister, or another Minister of

  697
  Pensions, agreeing to tribunals being set up, and if there is an accumulation of cases it will mean delayed decisions, and this will create bad feeling. What I am concerned about—and I would like the Minister to appreciate this—is that every applicant believes he has a genuine case and ought to be granted a pension. The present system will have a bad effect on morale, and if the Minister would agree to tribunals of independent people being set up, it would assure the people that justice to them is appearing to be done.
  Sir Smedley Crooke: I want to add a few words in support of what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), and I want to do so from the point of view of the British Legion, which is the recognised body in the country for looking after the welfare of ex-Service men. The British Legion held its annual conference in London at Whitsuntide, and among the resolutions that were passed was the following:
  "That this conference resolves that immediate pressure be brought on the Ministry of Pensions to establish independent appeals tribunals throughout the country to enable men discharged from the Services who have been denied compensation to appeal independently."
  That resolution was passed unanimously. I was present at the conference as a member of the National Executive Council, and I can vouch for the active interest shown by all members at the conference when that resolution was passed. Yesterday, I received a letter from the chairman of one of the county councils of the Legion in the Midlands, and together with the letter was a copy of the resolution which that council had passed:
  "That in the opinion of this council the deferment of appeals to pensions appeals tribunals until after the war will prejudice the rights of the applicants owing to the dispersal of witnesses and losses of documents."
  The letter added:
  "The resolution explains itself, but I would like to point out that hardship cases arc already piling up, and that quite a small cost to the Treasury would be involved in setting up the few tribunals that would now be needed to deal with the present discharges."
  I submit that that letter gives two substantial reasons why we should ask the Minister to appoint appeals tribunals now. The first is that if we wait until the war is over, witnesses will be dispersed and documents will be lost; and the second is that
  698
  the cost to the Treasury would be very much less if the tribunals were set up now than it would be if we waited until after the war. Hon. Members know that in peace-time, if one goes to an insurance office, one sees on placards, "Do it now." A well-known Minister of the Crown has said, "Go to it." May I say to the Minister of Pensions, "Go to it now"?
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I wish to support the proposal that has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend. As a Member for a naval port, a great many cases of this sort come to my notice, and as a sailor I hear from old shipmates and the widows of old shipmates of a great many fearfully hard cases. When pensioners retire, some perhaps lead fairly easy lives, and then when they are called up in war-time, they have to lead hard and strenuous lives. A great many of these elderly pensioners die as a result of the hard service they have to undergo, but when the cases come up before the medical tribunals, it is said that they died a natural death and that their death cannot be attributed to service. That is not the case. I beg my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions to look into this matter and to make some sort of arrangement to ensure that there may be an appeal in such cases.
  Mr. A. Bevan: It seems to me that hon. Members who have put forward the proposal that there should be pensions appeals tribunals have made out an overwhelming case. I wish to deal with an aspect of the question which, so far, has not been touched upon. A man has the right to appeal to an independent umpire against being taken into the Forces at all. Only on Monday I had a reply from the Ministry of Labour; they appealed to an umpire against the recruitment of a person who had been called up, and the umpire rejected the appeal. That man is in a much more wholesome relationship when he finds out that his case has been fully examined and that he has been called to the war, not by act of the Minister, but by an independent umpire who had considered all the facts of his case. It put me in a much happier position to enable him to have that opportunity. Surely, if it is right for a man to have the right to appeal against the Secretary of State for War and against his recruitment.

  699
  it is reasonable that there should be a right of appeal against a decision of the Minister of Pensions in a case where a man has been wounded in one of the Services.
  There is another consideration. The Minister will say, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) pointed out, that he sometimes has recourse to the advice of independent medical persons. But he does not call in the advice of independent medical persons as a natural course. He only does so if the widow, soldier or serving man has exerted himself against his original decision. In fact, very often it is not until the person concerned has made use of a Member of this House. Normally, the Minister would accept the advice of his own medical advisers. But medical advisers are doing nothing but this sort of work, and they are apt before very long to be guided purely by case decisions and to pile up a whole series of generalisations, of which they themselves become the victims before many years are over. Therefore, a fresh examination of the facts of the case very rarely occurs, unless a man has sufficient influence to bring about such a re-examination.
  There is a third point which, although it is selfish, is overwhelming. Are we, as Members of Parliament, to have no protection? If you do not have appeal tribunals every Member of Parliament will become an appeal tribunal. We shall be overwhelmed with work. Already we are having an enormous amount of work to do—I do not know what other hon. Members have found, but my post-bag is already getting very heavy. It is extremely difficult for Members of Parliament with other duties to perform to go through all the facts microscopically in order to present the case to the Minister in an intelligible form. The Minister ought to protect us against that sort of thing. Certainly he ought to protect himself, because, if we are to become pleaders for cases which arise from our constituents, the position of the Minister is bound to become unhealthy. It also raises a question of constitutional procedure. We ought not to be special pleaders for individuals in the House of Commons. We ought to be laying down the machinery of justice instead of becoming special pleaders for
  700
  this or that man. The Minister, for his own sake and for the sake of his successors, ought not to be put in a position of increasing antagonism towards Members of the House of Commons. All this would be avoided if the Minister would set up these appeal tribunals. The applicant would have recourse to them in the normal course of affairs, and we should be compelled to raise questions only of general principle. For all these reasons, I implore the Minister to establish this machinery now, because, as has been pointed out, the position becomes increasingly accrimonious when we postpone decision. Surely our men serving the country with such courage are entitled not only to have justice, but full justice, done to them.
  Mr. Mander: I should like to say a few words in support of the proposal. It is quite true, whatever is said at the present time, that we have a Minister who is unusually sympathetic and human. I believe that to be so, and that he is doing his very best to look at these things from the point of view of the unfortunate persons concerned. But that may not always be so, and the standard may not be maintained in future. It is vital that we should not have to depend on the personality of an individual, and it is for that reason that we want some permanent machinery to maintain the same standard of conduct in regard to pensions whoever may be in office.
  It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]
  Mr. Mander: One important point about it is that it would undoubtedly give satisfaction to the pensioners concerned. Whether in fact the difference would be as much as is thought, they would certainly feel happier about it if they had gone to a proper tribunal and a decision had been come to—and it would have to be a final decision. There could not be another appeal after that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the appeals which have been made to him from all parts of the House, will seriously consider putting machinery of this kind into operation in the near future.
  Commander Bower: I support the proposal very strongly, and I should particularly like to reinforce what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes),because I myself in this war have personal experience of the kind of thing that he referred to, the question of these elderly men who go to sea and do not stand up to the conditions. Last autumn from 9th September onwards I had command of a small ship and spent 32 out of 40 days at sea. When my ship's company joined, I naturally took a look at them to see what kind of fellows they were, and I was horrified to see among them, in view of the small and lively type of ship, that there were several pensioners who did not look extremely fit, and so it proved. After two trips I turned two or three of them out of the ship. I went to the depot and asked for reliefs but they said they had not any. I said I would go without them; I would not take those men to sea again. They replied that they had all been passed fit in the barracks, and I am sure that is true. I put a question to the First Lord asking if large numbers of men, unfit for sea, had been sent to auxiliary vessels. The answer was that that was not the case and that everyone was passed fit. I am sure they were passed, but they were not fit for the job. They are exactly the kind of men who, some weeks or months afterwards, develop a complaint and die of it and are told it is non-attributable, and their widows get no pension.
  These cases can be dealt with more sympathetically by an independent tribunal without this desperate bogy of the Treasury behind them. I am convinced that, with the best will in the world, civil servants are always thinking of the Treasury. A tribunal would snap its fingers at the Treasury, and rightly so. I have lately had a similar case in my constituency. A battery sergeant-major, a veteran of the last war, was called up in this war, went to Dunkirk, suffered extreme hardships, behaved very gallantly and got the D.C.M., but a few months later developed a tumour of the kidney, had to be operated on, and died. His widow's case was turned down—non-attributable. It might quite well have been non-attributable. I do not deny that, but it is one of those cases where it might have been attributable which the Minister is bound to turn down, and to
  702
  which an independent tribunal would give favourable consideration. That is the kind of case for which we want a tribunal. We are not dealing with facts and figures but with personalities, with human flesh and blood and human material. I assure the Minister that we Members of Parliament are willing to shoulder the burden and that we shall not hesitate to worry him about these cases, but without such a tribunal not only Members but the Minister will continue to be worried. I feel sure that after consideration he will give way to the universal demand which comes from all quarters of the House that these tribunals should be set up.
  The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Let me first deal with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) and the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower). They referred to the question of the older men who had been taken into Service and passed as fit. Then something happened to them and the claims for pensions were rejected. Hon. Members will recollect that only a fortnight ago I announced in the House that I had succeeded in getting these cases dealt with on a special basis. I realised that there were many men taken into the Army, Navy or Air Force and passed as Grade A, that is, fit for service, who afterwards came out, some of them with an aggravation of a constitutional disease, and, therefore, entitled to some consideration. I got the matter put right and all the cases that have been mentioned by the two hon. and gallant Members can be dealt with under the new regulation whereby I can count that aggravation as material and bring them within the ambit of the Royal Warrant. No appeal tribunal could do otherwise than come to decisions on all these cases according to the regulations laid down by Parliament. Until that new regulation came into force, no appeal tribunal could have done anything in the cases I have mentioned. I am now dealing with them rapidly and wiping away a large number of cases that might have come before an appeal tribunal.
  May I refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), because he put forward three potent reasons why a tribunal should be established. One of them appealed to me very much, and I smiled when he mentioned it because he said it would be of great benefit to me. No one is more

  703
  alive to that fact than I am. My responsibility is to decide, and that is a great responsibility which I take very seriously, because I realise the effect on morale, if cases are talked about in the constituencies when men have apparently been treated unjustly. I realise that I have a duty to the man who has served his country and to the widow or dependants of those who have given their lives. I would like to have a good deal of that responsibility removed from my shoulders. When my hon. Friend says it would also relieve Members of Parliament of a difficulty, I cross swords with him, because I say that it will not. My experience on a war pensions committee, in the British Legion and as a Member of this House, has shown me that a constituent with a claim to a pension is not always satisfied with an appeal tribunal. He believes that there is a higher court of appeal in the House of Commons. I get many letters from Members who say, "We know that this case has been to an appeal tribunal, but, in spite of that, will you not reopen it?" I have these appeals regularly. One inquires into such points as to whether there has been a severe attack of a particular disease since the tribunal came to its decision, and I take them into careful consideration. It would be a very nice thing indeed if tribunals would remove all these difficulties.
  Mr. Bevan: It would not remove them all, but it would minimise them to an extraordinary extent. [Interruption.]
  Sir W. Womersley: An hon. Member says that a great deal would depend upon the tribunals. That is so if the tribunals were on the same lines as before, but that is a question with which I have nothing to do. The appointment of the tribunals is in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) for introducing this matter, which has been the subject of much correspondence and of representations from branches of the British Legion and from Members of Parliament. It is rather interesting to have a Debate upon a subject on which we are all agreed, because I am just as much in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend as regards the necessity for tribunals as any Member of this House.
  704
  Let me read what I said on 25th June, 1940:
  "Now we come to the question of appeals, a matter which has aroused a good deal of interest in this House and which has formed the subject of many speeches. I wish here and now to repeat that in my own view some right of appeal to an independent body will be essential after the war. I have made this statement before, and I repeat it, that when the time is ripe for bringing these appeal tribunals into being that shall be done."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1940; col. 322, Vol. 362.]
  That is a pledge given not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of the Government, and whoever succeeds me as Minister of Pensions will have to carry that pledge out as and when it is possible to do it. My hon. and gallant Friend anticipated my reply very cleverly and I must pay tribute to him for that. He knows the difficulties that confront me. Let me say once again that I, personally, am definitely in favour of appeal tribunals for the reasons already stated, first, that they give to those who are claiming pensions a feeling that they have had justice done to them, and, secondly, that they would relieve meand Members of Parliament of a good deal of responsibility. Therefore, there is no question in dispute between us, except as to when these tribunals are to be set up. It has already been stated by my hon. and gallant Friend that in the last war they were not set up until 1919, for exactly the same reason as I shall put forward here today, that we have not available the medical men with sufficient experience to deal with these cases. If they were available we should set up the tribunals to-morrow. To do so would be a great relief to me and would, no doubt, give great satisfaction to other people interested.
  Mr. de Rothschild: Does not the Minister have the assistance of medical men at the present time?
  Sir W. Womersley: Yes, I am coming to that point. My hon. and gallant Friend said that it would require only one or two doctors.
  Sir I. Fraser: I said between 6 and 12.
  Sir W. Womersley: I have gone very carefully into the matter. First of all I had to take into account the estimate made by people like the Scottish Legion as to what they would require; I had to go round the country and find out. This is what I am told is the minimum that would

  705
  be necessary: at least two for each region, and that would necessitate the employment of 26 barristers, 26 doctors and about 200 lay staff. In addition to the staff required for the tribunals themselves I should have to have an additional 25 doctors and 200 lay staff to prepare proper précis of the cases to be given to appellants, so that they should have a fair chance to stale their cases, and I should also expect that the appellants would themselves have to employ doctors. I am informed" that at the moment there is a severe shortage of doctors in all the Services, and, indeed, there is a shortage of general practitioners. Only the other day complaint was made in the House that panel patients were not receiving the attention they ought to have on account of the shortage of doctors. That matter is being considered at the present moment. When we get to know a little more about it, and if it is possible to find the people necessary, we can go ahead with the setting-up of tribunals.
  On top of that, we have been told by those in authority that we have to husband our man-power in all Government Departments. We have not to employ people who might be usefully employed in other Services. My calculation is that I should want at least another 400 people on my staff properly to prepare for these cases and so that the people applying might have a fair and reasonable chance of presenting their cases.
  Mr. Kirkwood: How many cases would there be, that you would require 400 people to deal with them?
  Sir W. Womersley: We cannot tell. Applicants may decide to take a chance, even though they have a poor case.
  Mr. David Adams: Would that 400 include women?
  Sir W. Womersley: Not to deal with these cases. I have a number of women on my staff, but they could not deal with these cases, and if the hon. Member came into my Department, he would know the reason why. The hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale referred to the number of cases that had been rejected by the tribunal, but I think he was wrong in his calculation. The proportion of rejected cases admitted by the Tribunal was 9 per cent.
  Sir I. Fraser: I was referring to the total entitlement claims.
  Sir W. Womersley: The real point a issue is the principle. I can assure hon. Members that I am keeping the point in mind about tribunals and that I am absolutely and wholly in favour of them. A soon as it is practicable, I shall set up those tribunals, and this difficulty will then be at an end.
  Sir I. Fraser: While thanking my right hon. Friend very much for his sympathetic speech, may I ask whether it would be possible for him to invite two or three Members of this House to look at has figures?. Some of us feel that he has been wrongly advised about his calculation, and we should like to be satisfied that his claim for 400 extra staff is justified.
  Sir W. Womersley: I have a very good Advisory Committee representing all parties, and if there is a question of consultation, I should certainly go to that Committee. I should like briefly to explain what we are doing in the meantime. We are not neglecting the claims of these men simply because it is not possible to set up a tribunal. In the first place, I instituted an independent medical referee. I have nothing to do with this appointment, which is absolutely independent. The nomination is by the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians, and I have nothing to do with the way in which the appointment is made. I do not issue instructions to them under any circumstances, or it could be said that they were not perfectly independent. Ninety-odd per cent, of the cases which would go to an appeal tribunal would do so on medical grounds, and we are therefore dealing with a great many of these cases by sending them to an independent medical specialist. There is only one complaint about this. In most cases the decisions of the specialists have been accepted without question, but there has been a grievance because the men say that they were never really examined. But the specialist takes the documentary evidence from my doctors and also from the man's own doctors. In many cases there is no dispute as to what is the matter with the man, and the only question is whether his disability is due to service or not. These cases can be decided on the documentary evidence. I feel, however, that there is a feeling among some people that if they were examined, they would feel better satisfied, so I am issuing

  707
  instructions. The only difficulty I foresee, if a man is appointed as an independent medical specialist and then instructions are issued to him, is the question as to whether we are not trespassing on his independence. I will put it to the bodies appointing these men that there is a strong feeling that the claimants should be seen by the doctors themselves, but I cannot order them to do it. They have the right to do it now if they wish, but if I begin to interfere with their functions I am immediately removing that independence which we are all so anxious to maintain.
  Throughout the country I have what are known as War Pensions Committees. They consist of a chairman, representatives of ex-Service men, of the local authorities, of employers of labour and of trades unions—they are, indeed, very representative bodies. They have many duties to perform, and they willingly give their services voluntarily. Among these duties is one which requires them to inquire into any complaint made with regard to pension matters, to investigate it and report to the Ministry. During the last few weeks I have been travelling around the country, visiting various regions and meeting chairmen of these committees, and we have discussed the matter, because they, like the British Legion and others, felt that the establishment of appeals tribunals would be not only desirable but in the best interests of all concerned. They are willing to assist me to get over our difficulties until it is possible for us to get these tribunals into being. The arrangement I have made with these committees is this: the men— or the widows of men who have been killed—shall go before the committees. They are local committees and will have the benefit of local knowledge, and they will make a full inquiry into the case. I had to tell them that I could not establish them as judicial tribunals, because that would not be right and proper, but I did ask them to investigate these cases in a judicial manner, and report to me. I can assure hon. Members, as I have assured members of these committees, that I shall take great notice of any recommendations they send in. That will help, until such time as we can provide these tribunals, at any rate, to obliterate to a large extent the feeling, which I know exists among these men, that they have not had a fair
  708
  chance to state their case. Now they will be able to go before people they know and are not afraid of; it will not be like going to a court of law, where some people are not very good at stating their case. They will have a real, fair and square chance to state their case to the committees, and I hope that will help us out of the difficulty until I am in a position to set up proper appeals tribunals.
  Mr. Mathers: The Minister has given us a reply which is characteristic of him. He knows that I have dealt with this matter of appeals on a previous occasion when I associated myself with my hon. Friend the Member, for Llanelly (Mr. J.Griffiths). But in spite of the fact that his reply is disappointing on the main point put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for the Lonsdale Division (Sir I. Fraser), I think we should be cheered to some extent by the fact that the Minister is feeling the pressure brought to bear upon him in respect of this particular aspect of pensions administration. Very definitely, he has moved since the last occasion on which this matter was raised. He is making progress. He himself has indicated that he is in favour of these tribunals being set up. I feel certain that those interested, in every quarter, will continue to exert that pressure in order that the Minister himself may be assisted in carrying out his belief in these tribunals by having them established at the earliest possible moment. The fact of the enormous work which, he indicates, would be required now to deal with these appeals, shows clearly how, to allow tribunals not to be set up until after the war, means an accumulation of a tremendous amount of arrears that could not otherwise be dealt with. I think that is unwise, and certainly continues a feeling of frustration, a feeling of injustice, that is in the minds of many people.
  I rose simply because a Scottish voice had not already been raised this evening in pressing this matter, to indicate clearly to the Minister that this grievance is felt in every part of the country which is represented in this House, and to indicate to him that this pressure for something we believe to be absolutely essential will be continued until his desire and our demand are carried out, to have independent tribunals set up.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  MINISTRY OF FOOD.
  MINISTRY OF FOOD.
  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
  MECHANISED TRANSPORT CORPS.
  MECHANISED TRANSPORT CORPS.
  COST OF LIVING.
  COST OF LIVING.
  WAR DAMAGE ACT.
  WAR DAMAGE ACT.
  HOSPITAL CATERING (WASTE PREVENTION).
  HOSPITAL CATERING (WASTE PREVENTION).
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  FIRE SERVICES.
  FIRE SERVICES.
  CAMOUFLAGE (COST).
  CAMOUFLAGE (COST).
  DETAINEES.
  DETAINEES.
  CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.
  CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.
  SHELTERS.
  SHELTERS.
  WIRELESS SETS (ALIEN OWNERSHIP).
  WIRELESS SETS (ALIEN OWNERSHIP).
  AUXILIARY COASTGUARDS.
  AUXILIARY COASTGUARDS.
  STATUES, LONDON (PROTECTION).
  STATUES, LONDON (PROTECTION).
  AIR-RAID WARDENS' SERVICE, LAMBETH.
  AIR-RAID WARDENS' SERVICE, LAMBETH.
  SCRAP METAL SALVAGE (BOMBED SITES).
  SCRAP METAL SALVAGE (BOMBED SITES).
  CLUB, LONDON (PROSECUTION).
  CLUB, LONDON (PROSECUTION).
  MILITARY SERVICE (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
  MILITARY SERVICE (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  ROAD TRANSPORT DRIVERS (MEALS).
  ROAD TRANSPORT DRIVERS (MEALS).
  POSTAGE STAMPS (CANCELLATION).
  POSTAGE STAMPS (CANCELLATION).
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  CIGARETTES (CONTAINERS).
  CIGARETTES (CONTAINERS).
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  SALVAGE.
  SALVAGE.
  INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY.
  INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY.
  ROAD TRAFFIC LIGHTS.
  ROAD TRAFFIC LIGHTS.
  BOMBED PROPERTY (ELECTRICITY CHARGES).
  BOMBED PROPERTY (ELECTRICITY CHARGES).
  ARMED FORCES (PAY).
  ARMED FORCES (PAY).
  NIGERIA (POLL TAX).
  NIGERIA (POLL TAX).
  EDUCATION (BUILDING GRANTS).
  EDUCATION (BUILDING GRANTS).
  POOR PERSONS' LAW SUITS (DELAY).
  POOR PERSONS' LAW SUITS (DELAY).
  REMAND HOMES, WEST RIDING.
  REMAND HOMES, WEST RIDING.
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD VANSITTART.
The Right Honourable Sir Robert Gilbert Vansittart, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., M.V.O., having been created Baron Vansittart of Denham in the County of Buckingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PROPAGANDA.
LORD DAVIES LORD DAVIES rose to move to resolve, That this House regards the proposals adumbrated by His Majesty's Government for the reorganisation of our information and propaganda services as totally inadequate; and that, in its opinion, the time has come when, in order to secure the most effective prosecution of the war, it is necessary to constitute a single diplomatic front under the direction of a Cabinet Minister.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. About a fortnight ago we had a debate in this House on the subject of propaganda, and in that debate almost all the speakers criticised the arrangements which were in existence at that time. I thought it was only right, therefore, that we should discuss these arrangements again in the light of the proposals which were made in another place by the Lord President of the Council about ten days ago. I am sure that your Lordships will have read an account of that debate, which was a most remarkable one, in that almost all the speeches were directed against the proposals which had been put forward and dissatisfaction was almost unanimously expressed with the compromise which had been suggested. I think that most people will agree that we cannot win a war on compromises. The speeches also referred to the confusion and chaos which culminated in what I believe was described by the Press as "the Battle of Bloomsbury."
There was one remarkable speech, delivered by Captain Plugge, which was an
790
indictment of the broadcasting arrangements which are in vogue at present. I understand that Captain Plugge is an expert on the technical side of broadcasting, because I believe that he was Chairman of the International Broadcasting Company, and therefore one concludes that he is in a position to speak on this subject from the standpoint of the expert. He drew attention to the fact that when the Prime Minister last December made his broadcast appeal to the Italian people, owing to the technical defects in our broadcasting system it was almost impossible for the Italian people to listen in to that broadcast speech. I confess that that came as a shock to me, because I had always imagined that that speech would have percolated into the minds of the Italian people and would have produced, at any rate to some extent, the results for which we all hoped. However, it appears that this was not the case. In The Times of December 27 it was stated:
"There is no public response to Mr. Churchill's broadcast to the Italian people because relatively few people in Italy heard it, apart from foreign diplomatists, journalists, high officials of the Fascist Party and prominent State officials of whose duties wireless listening is an integral part. The proportion of receiving sets in Italy strong enough to pick up London is low."
It appears, therefore, that so far as Italians are concerned and from a practical standpoint that speech did not serve the purpose for which it was intended; and, as Captain Plugge pointed out, the Prime Minister was let down by our technical services.
Captain Plugge also pointed out that so far as the Mediterranean was concerned the Axis Powers had a practical monopoly of broadcasting. It appears that ten months ago he suggested to the authorities here that broadcasting stations should be established in Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus and, if that had been done, the Prime Minister's speech could have been rebroadcast to the Italian people and they would have been able to listen in and hear it. The present position, according to Captain Plugge, is that we do not possess 10 per cent. of the facilities which he regards as a minimum, and we employ the facilities which do exist only to the extent of 50 per cent. of their capacity. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that Captain Plugge's speech is well worth

791
reading. I trust that the Government will consider most carefully the technical proposals which he made and see what can be done to remedy the unfortunate situation in which we apparently find ourselves.
Another impression left by that debate is the apparent inability of the Government to grasp the vital importance of propaganda and broadcasting. We may be sure that that is not lost upon the enemy, for the enemy have for years past attached the greatest importance to propaganda, and especially to broadcasting. In the last war we were the first country to realise the importance of propaganda as a war weapon. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate whether it is true or not that in the Non-aggression Pact of Germany with Turkey a provision was inserted that the Ankara long-wave station should discontinue forthwith its English broadcasts. Ankara was the last long-wave station in Europe, exclusive of Russia, that still gave free English broadcasts. It shows the importance which Hitler, at any rate, attaches to broadcasting if it is true—I do not know whether it is true or not—that such a provision was inserted in this Non-aggression Pact with Turkey.
We are all in agreement as to the inadequacy of the existing arrangements. There seems to be general opinion on that point, because when it was discussed in this House a few days ago most of the speeches expressed dissatisfaction. The same thing happened in the debate in another place, and I gather from the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Elibank has put on the Paper that he is in accord with the first part of my Motion. He wishes to delete the second part, which alludes to what I have described as a "single diplomatic front." Doubtless he has a better plan in his mind, and I hope he will be able to explain that plan to us so that your Lordships may be able to consider by what means we can improve the present arrangement and ensure that the diplomatic campaign is carried on with the utmost vigour. In approaching this question we should try to avoid all personalities and refrain from attacking any particular Department or Minister. After all, I believe that many of the criticisms and complaints levelled against the Departments are due not so much to the
792
fact that the Departments do not try to do their best, but to the fact that they have to work under an impossible system. So long as that system remains they will always be under that handicap. I observe that one of the Directors of the Ministry of Information told someone the other day that it was quite ridiculous that we should be attacking a tank with a pitchfork. That was the way he put it. I cannot help feeling that that is due not so much to the fact that Ministries are not trying to do their best, but to the fact that they have not been co-ordinated into a single diplomatic front.
There are a number of Ministries and Departments involved in this business. First of all, there is the Foreign Office whose job it is, and always has been, to initiate policy and prepare the diplomatic plan of campaign. That is the Ministry which is responsible for outlining, at any rate, and in part executing, the diplomatic campaign. Then we come to the Ministry of Information. Its function appears to be propaganda and the dissemination of our war aims—to carry on a campaign in support of our war aims on the Home Front, on the neutral front, and in enemy country. I need not expatiate on that part of its work. Then, I believe, in some way or other the Ministry of Economic Warfare is also mixed up in propaganda. In the last war this Ministry, under the supervision and direction of my noble friend Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, was an appendage of the Foreign Office. It worked under the general supervision of the Foreign Office.
Then we come to the B.B.C., the most important of all, and the instrument for conveying our propaganda, especially abroad. That is a sort of no-man's-land. Apparently, it does not come under the control, as a good many people are apt to think, of the Ministry of Information. The Minister has no direct control at all over the presentation of the news which is broadcast by the B.B.C. He has a liaison officer who is there to represent him, but he has no real authority in the matter. Then we come to another body which is called the British Council. No doubt, the British Council does most excellent work. In peace-time it was engaged in endeavouring to popularise our points of view, our culture, our literature, our education, and so on, in other countries. That is a most beneficent work in peacetime,

793
but I cannot help feeling that the British Council should be part and parcel of our propaganda machinery. I suggest that they take off the kid gloves and put on knuckle-dusters. Then there are the Public Relations Departments of the Fighting Services, who have a great deal to do with the news which emanates from their Departments. Thus we have all these Ministries and Departments engaged on what I have tried to describe as the diplomatic front, presenting our case and endeavouring to carry on our propaganda both at home and abroad.
What I am trying to do is to stress the need for more coherent organisation and co-ordination between these various Departments. We know very well the importance which the enemy attaches to organisation and co-ordination in all his efforts, both in the field and in the realm of propaganda. Therefore, what I suggest is that these efforts will not be properly organised and co-ordinated until there is one directing head, one Cabinet Minister who is responsible for the operation of all these propaganda services. I do not know that it matters what name is attached to a Department of this kind. I hold no brief for the Foreign Office or for the Ministry of Information, but one does feel that our many efforts on the diplomatic front should be directed from one source, and that that source should come under the direction of a Cabinet Minister who is responsible to the Prime Minister and to the War Cabinet, who obviously have the last say, and, equally obviously, have to approve of any plan or scheme before it can actually be put into operation.
I do not see why there should be any distinction between what is called our foreign policy and our war aims. I cannot help feeling that whatever Department it is that is responsible for producing the powder and shot should be the Department also for executing the plan and for carrying on the campaign. There is no need for me to stress the importance and the value of propaganda as a weapon. Our enemies, as I have said, have realised its importance for many, many years, and we have only to recall the speeches which have been made by our Prime Minister, and broadcast to America and other countries, to realise the enormous value which attaches to propaganda and to the spoken word over the microphone. The Prime Minister's speeches are limited in
794
number because he cannot always be making speeches, and to get the maximum result out of our propaganda it must be persistent, it must be continuous, it must be drip, drip, drip all the time, so that eventually it percolates into the quarters where we want it to go. I cannot help feeling that hitherto we have been more or less on the defensive. The time has now come when we want a vigorous offensive along the whole diplomatic front, and when, especially, we want to drive in a wedge between the Nazi Party in Germany and the mass of the German people. This was alluded to in a speech delivered by the Prime Minister, the day before yesterday, in which he said:
"We have now intensified for a month past our systematic, scientific, methodical bombing on a large scale of the German cities, seaports, industries and other military objectives. We believe it to be in our power to keep this process going on on a steadily rising tide month after month, year after year, until the Nazi régime is either extirpated by us or, better still, torn to pieces by the German people themselves."
In order to expedite that process I cannot help feeling that everything possible should be done to drive in a wedge between the Nazi Party and the great mass of the German people. I believe the population of Germany is about 80,000,000, and of that 80,000,000 3,000,000 are official members of the Nazi Party. We want to stimulate unrest and disappointment and other feelings amongst the 77,000,000 in order that they may rid themselves of this incubus of grizly gangsters (as I think the Prime Minister described them) who have brought all these calamities upon them.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer, because I understand that a number of Peers are anxious to speak on this subject. May I suggest that the matter is one which demands our most careful consideration? We presume that the Government have drawn up a strategic plan in which both diplomatic and military measures are included. I infer that is so from what the Prime Minister said in the speech from which I have just quoted. The former—the diplomatic measures—are concerned with morale, the latter with the physical forces engaged in this life and death struggle. One is employed to attack the mind of the enemy, the other his body. War is a supreme act of violence, but the violence

795
is not confined to the military, naval, and air operations; it is also a resounding clash between spiritual forces, between conflicting and opposing conceptions of right and wrong. When we embark upon war it is, therefore, imperative that we should employ all our moral and material resources so that the act of violence may develop into such intensity of volume that nothing can withstand it. I venture to think that it is the combination of spiritual and physical strength that ultimately decides the issue. Therefore, both should be organised on a war footing and coordinated in preparation for the grand onslaught upon the enemy which will hasten our victory and the triumph of our cause. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House regards the proposals adumbrated by His Majesty's Government for the reorganisation of our information and propaganda services as totally inadequate; and that, in its opinion, the time has come when, in order to secure the most effective prosecution of the war, it is necessary to constitute a single diplomatic front under the direction of a Cabinet Minister.—(Lord Davies.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK, who had given Notice of an Amendment to the Motion—namely, to leave out all words after "inadequate"—said: My Lords, as my noble friend has stated, I have put down an Amendment to his Motion, and in doing so I was influenced by the fact that I felt that in any matters which we discuss in Parliament to-day—as occasional critics, may I say—it is only right that, where there is a difference of opinion even in pursuit of the same object which I and my noble friend have got, that difference should be aired so that at least the Government may know what is in our minds, and can come to the best and right conclusion about it. The noble Lord has put his Motion in two parts. With the first part I have little but agreement, and also with the arguments that he advanced for it. With the second part, as I have shown by my Amendment, I am entirely in disagreement.
The noble Lord, in putting down the second part of his Motion and in the case which he stated in its favour, has indicated that in his opinion both the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Information
796
should be placed under one Cabinet Minister. That is the effect, indeed, not only of his Motion, but of what he stated—that is to say, that this new Ministry (because we must call it a new Ministry) would have under its care our foreign policy, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Information, which includes propaganda and all the news services, and indirect association with the Service Departments, with the B.B.C. and all the paraphernalia supposed to go with the Ministry of Information to-day. That would be a gargantuan task. I cannot for a moment foresee the present Foreign Secretary, Mr. Eden, being prepared to assume such immense duties. In fact, to be the head of a Department of that nature would require not only the wisdom of a Sophocles but the endurance and physical strength of a Hercules.
On the last occasion when we debated this subject in your Lordships' House, I advanced arguments with regard to the projection of propaganda, if I may put it in that way, showing that in my belief at least—and it has not been contradicted since in any quarter, except by inference by the noble Lord to-day—the Foreign Office trained official was not competent by his training or by his experience to send out propaganda or to promote propaganda in any way or in any circumstances. All his training and his experience have been, as I said on that occasion, in connection with the making of agreements, with negotiations and with diplomatic arrangements between this country and the foreign Government with whom he is in relation. Everywhere it has been admitted that Foreign Office trained officials are not the proper channels through whom propaganda ought to be made; but the noble Lord has suggested by the Motion which he has on the Paper that Foreign Office officials are capable and competent propagandists. The Foreign Secretary must be responsible for foreign policy, subject of course to the approval of the Cabinet, and consequently it must be the Foreign Secretary who is to be put in charge of this gigantic composite Department.
I venture to suggest that that is not practical. There are two main features connected with the subject which we are discussing, and those are foreign policy and propaganda. As I have just stated, the Foreign Secretary is responsible for foreign policy, and the Ministry of Information

797
is responsible for propaganda and all that pertains to that particular subject. I cannot agree, and I can hardly see the Government agreeing with the suggestion of the noble Lord, or indeed with any suggestion which is going to bring those two Departments together under one roof and as a composite body. I noticed that my noble friend, when I made that suggestion, shook his head as if I had misinterpreted his intention in the words he has spoken, but I have in my hands a book which my noble friend very kindly sent to me called The Foundation of Victory which I recommend every noble Lord to read because there is a great deal of interest and a great deal of truth in it. If I take one paragraph out of a chapter entitled "The Diplomatic Front," I think it will be agreed that I have not misinterpreted or misunderstood the noble Lord's intention. That paragraph reads:
"For these reasons it is suggested that the time has arrived when the distinction which apparently exists between our foreign policy and our war aims should be abolished. Both should be merged and placed under the direction of one Minister instead of two, This can be achieved by amalgamating the Foreign Office with the Ministry of Information. The combined Ministry would then be responsible for the duties now performed by each of these Departments."
I think it is perfectly clear from that statement in his book that that is what the noble Lord was conveying to us to-day. I would like to add that I hope that the noble Lord will not regard this book as Hitler regards Mein Kampf and that he will not periodically produce resolutions out of this book for debate in your Lordships' House, because, if so, your Lordships' debates may be lengthened somewhat by the Amendments which I may find myself forced to move on those occasions.
The noble Lord in the course of his remarks said that he had given his views as to how this was to be done and that he hoped the noble Viscount who had put clown an Amendment would give his views as to how it ought to be accomplished. I will give as shortly as I can my views upon that matter. First I would like to say that the noble Lord, in a number of matters on which he touched in the earlier part of his speech, has shown up the weakness of the present system under which the Ministry of Information is operated. In order further to disclose
798
those weaknesses, I am bound to refer to the only authoritative speech from the Government which has been made upon this subject, and that was the speech made in another place a fortnight ago by the Lord President of the Council. I had the privilege of listening to that speech, and I must confess, as one who urged in this House a little over a fortnight ago the reform of the Ministry of Information and the basis upon which it was resting, that I was extremely disappointed by that speech and by the proposals contained in it. I was not alone in that. There was hardly a single member in another place who did not condemn the small amount of advance which has been made from the existing conditions in the improvement of that Department.
There were several points which particularly arose in that debate. One, of course, was the question of the relationship of the Minister of Information with the Service Departments. Another was the speed in the handling of news. Another was the question of the relationship wth the B.B.C. And a fourth was the question of the standing and status of the present Minister of Information in his relationship to the War Cabinet. The Lord President of the Council, so far as these various points were concerned, gave the House very little hope indeed. What was extremely interesting was that he emphasized, and emphasized two or three times in his speech, that speed was the essence of the whole situation. Yet, when it came to adumbrating the proposals which he set before the House, every suggestion that was made by the members of the House to that end was rejected by the Lord President of the Council as not being feasible. He hoped to get better and greater efficiency by a certain rearrangement of the relationship between the Service Departments and the Ministry of Information, under which the officials of the Service Departments should serve in the Ministry of Information. But he cut the ground from right under that arrangement in a few sentences afterwards, because he said that
"Each Service Minister has agreed that important issues of policy which cannot be decided by his representative on the spot—that is, in the Ministry of Information—may be referred for immediate decision to him or, if he is not available, to an official of the highest standing in his Department specially designated to give decisions on his behalf."
Not only had this to be referred back to the Service Department, but the unconstitutional procedure was outlined whereby an official of the Department was to override the Minister of Information, who is a Cabinet Minister. I see my noble friend the Leader of the House shakes his head, but I am actually quoting from the Official Report. It says here that if important issues of policy "cannot be decided by his representative on the spot—that is, in the Ministry of Information—" it "may be referred for immediate decision to him, or, if he is not available, to an official of high standing in his Department specially designated to give decisions. …" If that means to the Minister of Information himself and not to the Service Minister, then I admit that I have not given a proper interpretation. If it means that that must be referred back to the Service Minister or to a high official in his Department, then I have not misinterpreted what the Lord President stated. A Member asked: Why not appoint the Minister of Information immediately as a member of the War Cabinet so that he has all the powers to take decisions and to enforce decisions where he considers that no harm could be done from the point of view of the enemy? The Lord President of the Council, after saying that the time factor necessitated making special arrangements, went on to say:
"I do not think we should make any advance along those lines of making the Minister of Information a member of the War Cabinet."
The noble Lord asked me, what is the plan which I should substitute for the one he has given in his Motion? First of all, as I stated in my speech a fortnight ago in your Lordships' House, I should ensure that propaganda was more journalistically minded and of a more practical character from that point of view than it is to-day. Secondly, I should form a Ministry of Information which would be responsible for propaganda of all kinds in this country and in Europe, and I should make the Minister of Information sufficiently powerful in his position to enable him to enforce that. I should, in addition, appoint him head of the B.B.C. in this country, at any rate so long as the war lasted, for all matters connected with propaganda. I am not talking about musical programmes, talks, or anything of
800
that nature, but anything which appertains to news of a war nature or of a propaganda nature to foreign countries, the Minister of Information should be appointed to supreme command. So far as the British Council is concerned, if it is to have propaganda activities—up to now its activities have been almost purely cultural—it should likewise come under the Minister of Information. Then, alongside that, I should have the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who must be responsible for foreign policy, subject, of course, to the approval of the War Cabinet, together with an official—Mr. Bruce Lockhart, if you like—who will be responsible to him to see that that foreign policy, or those war aims, shall be passed to the Ministry of Information to be embodied in the propaganda they send out. I think the noble Lord will agree that that is a scheme, in any case, but it has one lacking quality in my mind; that is, that unless you make the Minister of Information a member of the War Cabinet, as the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, proposed in his speech a fortnight ago, he will not be clothed with adequate authority to carry out all those duties.
I am going to suggest that to-day we are too much inclined to think in terms of the last war. Actually the conditions of this war are indicating every day that they are assuming a different character and a different nature from anything that happened in the last war. In the last war we had not the speed; we had a different kind of fighting, a different kind of equipment. In the last war we were fighting on nine fronts. In this war we are fighting on eighteen fronts. That includes the three oceans on both occasions. I have taken the trouble to add up these fronts to see whether it is correct, and if that is correct, need we, for instance, stick to the idea which I advocated in this House myself a year ago that we necessarily must have a very small War Cabinet? I am not so sure that a small War Cabinet is for the best to-day, in view of all the problems with which the Cabinet have to deal. I venture to suggest to the Prime Minister that he should consider whether the time has not come when the basis of the War Cabinet should be broadened, so as to make it include several Ministers who, as the result of the debates and of the knowledge and light which has been thrown upon the various subjects with which they

801
deal, should be members of the War Cabinet. Whilst that basis is being broadened, it might be possible, and I think it would be a good thing, to have places reserved for representatives of the Dominions, of India and of the United States of America, who will very soon be nearer to us in the war than they are today. Then, having regard to the problems with which this country has to deal, and the problems with which the Prime Minister has to deal and the various difficulties and trials that there are in every direction, I cannot conceive that even a War Cabinet with nine or ten members would be too large in the circumstances.
I wish to conclude by thanking the noble Lord for having raised this Motion. I thank him, too, for putting down the second part of his Motion on the Paper, so as to enable at least myself to combat it, to say what one member of your Lordships' House thinks about it, and to express the nope that if the noble Lord wishes to go to a Division, your Lordships will not support it. I think I ought, in a final word, to say that I do not propose to press my Amendment to a Division—I have the right, first, to do so I believe—unless the noble Lord intends to press his Motion, and I think it is only fair to say that to your Lordships now, so that you know, at any rate, exactly where I stand. With these few words I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("inadequate").—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, you have listened to two very able speeches, if I may be allowed to say so. I did not find that there was very much in conflict between the two noble Lords: the one who moved the Motion, and the one who moved the Amendment. They both joined with everyone else outside the narrow ranks of the Ministerial hierarchy in condemning the present arrangements. It is an extraordinary thing that in the debate in another place there was no support for them; not even the Minister of Information showed any sort of enthusiasm for the arrangements outlined by the Lord President of the Council. All the non-official speakers condemned them. Most remarkable of all is that no newspaper that I have seen has had a good word
802
to say about the new scheme—least of all The Times, of all papers, which wholeheartedly condemns it. Sir Walter Monckton, the right hand man of the Minister of Information at the Ministry, has described his powers as "a pitchfork with which to fight a tank."
Now that everyone condemns the Ministry of Information, there must be something good about it, and that, of course, is true as your Lordships who know the Ministry are aware. Those of your Lordships who do know the Ministry and its work will agree that many of its sections are very well managed and organised, and that also applies to some parts of our foreign broadcasting. For example, take the Overseas Press Section of the Ministry. I believe it will be agreed by those who know that its work is admirably organised and it does very valuable service in the national cause. With regard to foreign broadcasts, there is general agreement, I find, that the French broadcasts are excellent. They are given by Frenchmen in touch with the best opinion in France, and they have a fairly free hand. I am told that the results are very good indeed. On the other hand, everyone with knowledge condemns the broadcasts in German to the German-speaking countries. I am sure that my noble friend has had the same experience in talking to people who know that subject.
While I do not think, therefore, that it is quite fair to blame the whole organisation of the Ministry, I say that certainly the present system is not showing the best results, and it cannot show the best results. May I in a few words—I do not intend to detain you long—give an example of the sort of neglect which does so much harm at the present time? Before the war, Dr. Goebbels had organised a world news service, called Trans-Ocean, which distributed news by radio all over the world. This news is not too plainly propagandist. Good stories are sent out, and the news is "hot," as journalists say. The service is free to second-rank newspapers all over the world, and the country newspapers and the provincial newspapers are of great importance in many countries—South America, for example. Any newspaper in any part of the world can use Trans-Ocean free of copyright fee provided that they pay the

803
pick-up charges of their local radio station. You have this constant outpouring of German news by radio and we have done precisely nothing to counter it. There is no equivalent service to Trans-Ocean sent out from this country. That this should be so after many months of war I think is very scandalous.
One other example. We have in this country, and in London in particular, a very fine body of men in the American newspaper correspondents. I believe that they have done very great service to the cause for which we are fighting in sending out all the information they can about the great struggle in which we are engaged. Every newspaper correspondent from America whom I have heard of, or spoken to, complains that he cannot get news, cannot get information, and is not allowed to release stories which he has obtained and which are afterwards passed, after hopeless delay, while the Germans are continually getting out their versions of events in front of our own. These complaints have been going on for a very long time. They are known, I am sure, to my noble friends Lord Southwood and Lord Camrose, and these noble Lords will be aware that these complaints are made by people who are friendly to us and who wish well to our cause.
I understand that what my noble friend Lord Davies has in mind is that the Ministry of Information should have more autonomy and that its news and work should not be so completely subject to the veto of the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, the Air Ministry and the War Office. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, is shocked at the idea that there should be an amalgamation of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Information, but in actual practice the Foreign Office to-day controls the propaganda abroad of the Ministry of Information; as regards its overseas service, the Ministry of Information is a handmaid of the Foreign Office. Moreover, the Service Departments control its news output. When my noble friend Lord Davies suggests that there should be one Minister who should be a member of the War Cabinet, I will agree with him if he will put it in such a way that the Minister of Information should himself be a member of the War Cabinet with full powers.
804
If he is a man who cannot be trusted to know what can and what cannot be released, he is not fit to be Minister of Information and somebody else must be found; but, until we have one man who can act quickly with full knowledge of everything that is going on, there is not a fair chance of counteracting German propaganda, which is very able and very efficient, as put out by the propaganda machine in that country. It is a great mistake to underrate the effects of enemy propaganda.
The complaints regarding broadcasting to Germany constitute, I think, the most serious indictment. The explanation is that the Department is understaffed, has miserable accommodation, and is much hampered by the dead hand of the Foreign Office. I suggest, however, that there is a deeper cause for the trouble. I am speaking now of our propaganda to enemy countries, which is an altogether different subject from our propaganda and information to neutral and friendly countries. I think the trouble is that we have never quite made up our minds whether the whole German people are past praying for and are so soaked in original sin as to be beyond redemption, or whether there is a large or considerable section in Germany who will one day see the errors of their present Government and overthrow it. Those two conflicting views about the German nation have never, as far as I know, been resolved. There is what I may call without offence the Vansittart view, and there is what I may call, also without offence, the Liberal view, which is that there is a large section in Germany who will one day substitute a better form of Government for their present one and with whom we shall be able to live in peace.
I do not suggest which view is right; but if the view is that all Germans—or at any rate the present generation—are incorrigible, then we are merely wasting our time in attempting to influence them at all by the only two means open to us—leaflets and radio propaganda. It is a waste of time to attempt to influence them, if we take that view. On the other hand, if we take the other view, then our propaganda should be much more effective. For example, the New Order adumbrated by Herr Hitler is attractive to very many Germans. It puts them in a dominating position and

805
it promises them peace and employment We must put something definite before the masses of the German people as an alternative, and an attractive alternative to this New Order; but as far as I know that has never been attempted.
Let me give an actual example of the bad handling of news to Germany. On the evening of June 22, after the German Army had been ordered to march against Russia, the Prime Minister made a very important speech which was, of course, rebroadcast in all languages immediately afterwards. The German version, which was the most important of all, was, however, so muddled and jumbled as to be almost unintelligible, the reason being that those responsible were not given the text in time and had not a fair chance to trans-late it into good German. People with a real knowledge of the German language who heard the version of the speech given in that language were appalled at the bad translation which had been made. I suggest to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, that that is an example of bad staff work. The text of the Prime Minister's speech—which, of course, was ready well beforehand; it was the sort of speech which he had to have written out—should have been given out in plenty of time, especially to the section which had to rebroadcast it to Germany. Lapses in staff work of that kind should not occur at this late period in the war.
The other suggestion which I should like to m make to my noble friend the Leader of the House, if I may, is with regard to our facilities for broadcasting in the Near and Middle East and in the Far East. My noble friend Lord Davies referred to the loss to us of the long-wave station at Ankara tinder the recent agreement between Germany and Turkey. I believe that we suffer very much from a lack of broadcasting facilities to the Arabic, Persian and other Asiatic countries. The entry of Russia into the war should give us the use, if we can make the necessary arrangements, of a number of very efficient broadcasting stations which are geographically nearer to these countries than are the Italian and German stations. We have suffered from a geographical disadvantage in our propaganda to these Eastern countries, but, if we could now get the loan of the Russian stations for so many hours a week, we could react the very important populations
806
of those countries much more easily. I do not know whether it is possible to arrange that, but I suggest that the possibility of doing so should be explored. I hope that one of the missions we shall send very shortly to Russia will be a mission from the Ministry of Information and the British Broadcasting Corporation, to explore the possibilities of joint propaganda through the Russian broadcasting stations in the Near and Middle East. Incidentally, it is an extraordinary thing that until the eighth of this month—I do not know whether it has been altered since—we were attempting no news broadcast to Russia at all on the short-wave length. I do not know what the reason for that was, but I hope that that has been attended to.
I am afraid that I cannot, on behalf of my noble friends, congratulate the Government on their latest arrangements. The Labour Party have had to find the same faults with them as have speakers from other Parties. It is very sad that the Government seem to have missed the importance of this Fourth Arm, and not to have appreciated the defects in out-present machinery. If I may refer to one more example, of which I have given notice to my noble friend, Turkey is a very important country, and the British Information Office was most ably directed in Istanbul by the late Sir Denison Ross: but since his unfortunate death last November, no Director of that office has been appointed. Here we are in the middle of July and the office in Istanbul is still without a Director. I cannot imagine either the Germans or the Italians, if they had an office in Istanbul, leaving it without a head for all these months. I know the difficulty of finding the right man, but there must be somebody who could be sent to take charge of this very important office. It is easy to become very pessimistic when one considers the apparent muddle which still continues in our whole system of foreign information and broadcasting. I can only hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will, as a result of this debate and of what he has already heard, use his great influence to try to bring about some improvement.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I shall try to condense what I have to say to the House, although I do not often address your Lordships, because I know

807
that there are many noble Lords who wish to speak. I shall certainly proceed on the assumption that all your Lordships have read the debates which have taken place in both Houses, and I do not propose to quote from the Official Report of either House. In the debate in both Houses there has been a great deal of criticism both of propaganda, as in the case of the last speech to which we have listened, and of the machine; but I think that the critics and the Government have really the same aim, and that is to make full use of propaganda and to get the machine right. If I did not feel that that was true, I should take a much more gloomy view than I do of the position, and I should feel that the rift between the Government and their critics was a great deal deeper than in fact I believe it to be. Indeed, if one were to take that view it would mean assuming that the Prime Minister, who is a master of the art of war in all its dimensions, was attributing inadequate importance to one of the arms of war of which he is himself perhaps the greatest living exponent.
To arrive at a right solution in this matter, it is important to differentiate between policy and the machine to give effect to policy. Both the policy and the machine have got to be right, but policy is the more important. If the policy be not right, if the importance of propaganda policy be not appreciated, then, given the best machine in the whole world, you will not be able to put it across because the essential strategy behind the machine will be wrong. In policy I would include the importance attached to propaganda and the part which propaganda has to play in this war. I am not going to elaborate that by examples. It is enough for me to say that I share to the full the views which have been expressed on the importance of propaganda. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that, while I am certain we will never be beaten in this war, we cannot win it quickly unless we make full use of propaganda. Therefore, I include in policy the importance of propaganda—propaganda itself, the text and the sermon—and in the machine of propaganda, the powers and functions of the Ministry of Information.
I would say this in passing—and I do not wish to delay in arguing it, but I wish
808
to refer to it because in a speech delivered by my noble friend Lord Camrose on the last occasion it is the only thing from which I differ—if we are to get the full results from propaganda, I do not believe we can separate propaganda and news. I know that he said that in the last war we did. I am not sure that great use was not, in fact, made of news by the people then responsible for propaganda. It is quite true that it would simplify the job of the Minister for Information if he had no responsibility for news, but I should be very sorry to see him divorced from that responsibility because I want the responsibility for getting news and for putting news out to be in the hands of a man, a machine, a Ministry that realises the importance of getting the most comprehensive news possible and getting it quickly.
Now let me try to explain in a very few words what I mean when I say I regard policy as being more important than the machine. Whatever powers you may give to a Minister of Information, you cannot make him a Super-Minister over-riding all other Ministers. You can only have one Prime Minister at a time. Policy cannot originate simply in the Minister of Information. Policy must originate in the Cabinet. At the same time we shall not get the right results unless all Departments recognise the importance of propaganda and that it is their duty and their interest to co-operate and to contribute to the full. I see it suggested that communiqués, and whether this or that piece of information should be issued, can be referred to the War Cabinet. That is really a misconception of both the functions of Cabinet government and the way it works. You cannot have a War Cabinet, with its manifold duties and responsibilities, constantly in session as a court of appeal on whether this or that communiqué is to be issued or this or that piece of information is to be given. But what the Cabinet can do is to see that the Departments carry out their general directives in the spirit behind those orders.
I say this without being unduly dogmatic, but there is a tendency, if Departments fail to co-operate completely, to say we ought to vest all the powers in one man. I am a great supporter of coordination, and I have sometimes criticised where it was lacking, and

809
argued for responsibility in Cabinet Ministers to carry co-ordination a little further than they always do. Certainly the general directives have to be given, but I believe that what I may call this one-man complex is unsound. There is a limit to what one man can control. In the business of government—after all, the most important business of all—as in great industrial undertakings, you may make the business too big for effective control and administration. On the other hand you cannot split the work of Departments up into watertight compartments. At least you cannot if you are to get the right results. The strategy and the work of Departments interlock far too much for that. Surely the right solution is team work between Departments properly directed. You may say that all this is rather axiomatic, although they are principles sometimes more honoured in the breach than in their observance.
May I apply these principles to propaganda and the job of the Minister of Information as I see it? In the first place, not only the Ministry of Information which perhaps does realise it—I am sure it does—but all the Ministries have to recognise that propaganda is a Fourth Arm, a fighting service requiring the full co-operation of the other Fighting Services and the Foreign Office. You cannot give the Minister of Information power to over-ride the Fighting Services. That is impossible, but you can ensure—the Cabinet and the Prime Minister can ensure—that the Fighting Services treat the Ministry of Information as another fighting service and as a Fourth Arm with which they must co-operate. That, I am sure, is vital in the release of news. That is why I join issue with my noble friend Lord Camrose. The release of news is even more important—indeed much more important—abroad than it is at home. I said I would not make a quotation, but I shall paraphrase one by a great American publicist who, in adapting the words of our Prime Minister, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job," said, speaking of the need for news all the time, "Give us the ammunition and we will do the job."
You cannot give away secrets; nobody wants to. No one expects the disclosure of plans or of information at the critical stage of a battle, but the important thing
810
is to have more general directives. This does not apply just to the Service Ministers, who are perhaps rather more amenable people than are some of those a little lower down. After all, the art of direction in a Minister is to make sure he agrees with policy and that his Department carries it out.
I should like to see a great deal more of general directives, and a great deal more of responsibility given to the people lower down to carry out those directives when they are stated clearly to them, and when they know what the reasons for them are. The approach of the Service Departments in the matter of news should be this: "I want to release this if I can—why should not I release? Not, why should I release this piece of news?" That really is the secret of the matter. Risks? Well, there always are risks in war. War is a very risky business, and you certainly will not win a war without taking risks, though the risks are apt to be exaggerated. Really there are quite a lot of things that the enemy knows in these days of aerial observation and other means of ascertaining what is occurring, and it is worth while taking some risks, particularly if it is appreciated and realised that propaganda, with its news arm, is itself a fighting service.
I want to deal with one other matter, and that is the suggestion that in order to do his job the Minister of Information must be a member of the War Cabinet. Frankly, I think that suggestion is based on a misconception. The Minister of Information attends the War Cabinet, so we were told the other day. That is perfectly right, because that gives him full information and knowledge of what is going on, and he can get his riding orders, his directions, there. If he does not get them, it is his job to ask for them, and to say when a matter of policy is decided in the Cabinet: "Well now, the General Staff have had their orders as to what they are to do; I want my orders as to what I am to do with your Fourth Arm, Propaganda." That, of course, is what he is sitting in the War Cabinet for. You do not want him to have the other responsibilities and duties of a member of a War Cabinet, and to spend all his time dealing with questions of policy entirely outside his Ministry. He has an enormous departmental job to

811
do, and I think most of your Lordships have had a good deal of sympathy with the view, which I have certainly very often heard expressed here, and which I myself share, that the fewer Ministers with heavy departmental duties you have in the War Cabinet the better it is. Therefore I think it is wholly unnecessary to have the Minister of Information a member of the War Cabinet with all the multifarious duties and responsibilities that are implied, but it is perfectly right to have him there at the Cabinet so that he has all the inside information and can demand, after that has been given to him, his riding orders.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, I think I should like to finish what I have to say. I do not want to keep other noble Lords from speaking. I have not said anything, I think, which contradicts the noble Viscount; at any rate I can read his speech. What is important is that the Cabinet should lay down the directives of propaganda policy, and insist that Ministries co-operate. Now if that be so, what then are the proper powers and functions of the Minister of Information or the Minister of Propaganda? He should insist upon being given clear directives on policy; he should receive the full co-operation of the Services and the other Departments, and then he should be responsible for the machine, the method, the technique. In that I suggest he should cover the whole field and should have as free a hand as possible as to how he does his job, just as it is the business of the Minister of Supply to get the supplies. If he is a good Minister, he will do it well, as I have no doubt the present Minister with his powers does. If he does not do it well, then you must have another Minister who will. But he should as far as possible have the instruments of propaganda under his direction and control. In that, at any rate, I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Camrose said last time.
I do not want to go through all the instruments of propaganda. I only say a sentence on one of them, on the vexed question of the B.B.C. I can see objection to giving the Minister
812
of Propaganda, the Minister of Information, power over the B.B.C. in this country, but that seems to me no reason why the broadcasts which go to foreign countries, the whole object of which is to give effect to the policy and strategy of propaganda in relation to different countries, should not be directly under his control and under his direction. I believe that given the true lines of policy to follow, given the co-operation of other Departments, which he is entitled to demand, and given operational control in his own sphere of action, the Minister of Information can make a great and increasing contribution to victory.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I wish to begin by saying how very generally I am in agreement with what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Swinton. I cannot help feeling that there has been rather too acute a drive against the Ministry of Information, and not against the Ministry of Information only, but against the whole of our machinery for propaganda in the world. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if you compare our reputation abroad now with what it was at the beginning of the war, something at any rate has occurred greatly to improve it. I do not of course for a moment suggest that it is only a question of propaganda. It is not so, but certainly it is very remarkable if you read the Press—and I accept the Press as our best means of information about foreign questions—you find it almost universally true that the general opinion of the peoples of the world is in our favour, and against Germany. There is no doubt about it, we have succeeded in obtaining their support to a very remarkable degree. No doubt that is very largely because they hate and fear Germany. They know, as we do not know by our personal contact with the German machine, how oppressive it is. They do know, and that no doubt has been one of our great assets—indeed our greatest asset—in securing the public opinion of the world. It is no answer to that to say that in point of fact country after country has submitted to Germany. They have submitted to Germany because their Governments are afraid, naturally afraid, rightly afraid, to resist Germany. They do not like her, they hate her, and they hate her more and more, and as the rising tide of public opinion becomes more and more pronounced that will hamper

813
and, I do believe, ultimately destroy, the German power.
Therefore, I do feel that we have got our case across somehow. Not that I know anything special about it. I will take the case of the United States of America. I cannot help feeling, judging from those Americans I have been privileged to talk to, how infinitely better we stand now than we did two years ago in American opinion. I know it was suggested in the last war—how well do I remember it—"You are doing nothing in America, you are not making your case, nobody knows what you are doing," and all the rest of it. It was said with greater vigour in that war than it is said now, and our position, let me remind your Lordships, was far weaker then than it is now. We were the traditional enemies of the United States. That had not worn out at that time. I remember well being advised that if we waited to do something to annoy the United States we had better get it done by France and not do it ourselves. No one is likely to say that now. We were urged strongly then to take much more vigorous action, and the methods and energy of Bernstorff, the principal propagandist of Germany in America, were held up for our admiration. We consulted the Ambassador, probably one of the ablest Ambassadors we ever had, Sir Cecil Spring Rice, who said, "Whatever you do, don't imitate Bernstorff." The result of his rather rigid abstention from any kind of interference resulted in public opinion gradually changing in our favour.
I wanted to say that because if we are to approach this very important question we must do it fairly and recognise, as one of my noble friends has said, that there is a great deal which the Ministry has done which has been extremely valuable and successful. Nobody denies that there have been grave misfortunes—let us put it so—in the way we have dealt particularly with news. I have here notes of several examples, but I will give your Lordships only one as an illustration, because it seems to me to illustrate the kind of way in which news ought not to be presented. I am referring to the extremely familiar communiqué issued by the Minister of Information on behalf of the Air Ministry describing the results of an air-raid in this country. We are told that a certain number of machines
814
came over, that they dropped bombs in a certain part of England—the eastern counties or the south-western counties—and that the result was some damage to buildings and some casualties, some of them being fatal. If you analyse that it it impossible to see how you could more completely conceal essential facts. People want to know how many buildings were damaged, what kind of buildings, and how many people were killed. That kind of communiqué is no doubt due to the direction of the Air Ministry, who no doubt have admirable reasons for issuing it in that way, but I confess I cannot understand how it can be of interest from the point of view of the public to say that a certain number of people were killed in a certain district without saying how many, if your object is to impart information.
I entirely agree with the suggestion my noble friend put forward just now. The Ministries ought to ask themselves what reason there is against issuing any particular piece of news. The onus ought always to be on those who desire to keep information secret. I am certain that that is right in every country, but particularly in ours. We ought not to conceal news because of the idea that it may produce a shock to public opinion or unduly encourage people to make no effort. That is a complete misunderstanding, as I think, of the whole character and nature of the people of this country. Tell them the unvarnished facts and they may be absolutely relied upon not to err by any exaggeration in appreciating the value of those facts. Of course, although technically in a sense the Ministry of Information is responsible for all these things, it is not responsible for military information or indeed information regarding foreign affairs. The decision rests, and as far as I can see it must rest, with the Department, subject, of course, to the Cabinet. I do not see how you can say otherwise. There is, say, a piece of information—I will not attempt to go into any particular case—involving some military proceeding. Thereupon the War Office is consulted—I am not intending to make any attack on the War Office—as to whether its publication will give undue or dangerous information to the enemy. They must be the people to decide that. Who else can decide it? It is the same with the other

815
Fighting Services and with the Foreign Office.
Something has been said about the control of the Government over broadcasting. I am very seldom asked to broadcast, but I have been asked to do so. I know quite well that the manuscript is immediately submitted to the War Department—quite properly—to see if there is anything to which they object and occasionally they say that they object to some passage. Of course, that passage has to be left out. I do not see how you are going to get away from that. I respectfully suggest to those who want to have improvement, that if they try to take this matter out of the hands of the Fighting Services they will simply fail, and there will be a great controversy without any good results. You must let them settle these matters, but you must make quite clear who is responsible for the decision. That seems to me to be the main defect of the present system. It is the old story of the three thimbles and the pea. You never know under which thimble the pea really is, and that is what is so vital.
I should like to see an arrangement by which all these offices entrusted some particular official with the business of dealing with news, and I think that official ought to be a Parliamentary official, a member of one or other House of Parliament, because, as my noble friend Viscount Swinton truly said, this is a very important matter. It is not just a question of what is desirable from the purely technical point of view. You have to consider what is desirable from the public point of view. There ought to be somebody in each Department expert in public opinion, if I may put it in that way. Of course nobody really is quite expert, but he should be the best expert we can get, and he should be a member of Parliament, a member either of this House or the other, somebody who is continually considering public affairs from the point of view of effect on public opinion. I would like to see a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in each of these offices entrusted with the duty of supervising the news, and then if any particular piece of news was withheld or issued in an unsatisfactory way, the public would know who was to blame.
I know it is said that you ought to give to the Ministry of Information some means
816
of making known what kind of news is wanted. Within limits, I quite agree, but after all we have got people who have been trained all their lives to know what news is wanted. I remember that in the last war I had the honour of meeting representatives of the Press continually for a certain period. The same difficulties occurred then as now. When I was at the Foreign Office I had to interview representatives of the Press, particularly of the American Press. They were encouraged to put any questions they liked and I had to give the best answers I could. If I happened to be indiscreet sometimes, I could always say to them "Bless me, if you publish that I shall get into a mess. I ought not to have told you that." They never did publish it. They are absolutely to be trusted. However, that is a little off the point. But that, I venture to think, is the kind of way news should be dealt with, though I agree that the Ministry of Information certainly ought to have the power of urging that some particular line should be taken. I do not believe that that will be very necessary, because the whole machinery of the Press exists for nothing else but to collect news which they think would be of interest to the public.
That is all I wanted to say about news. Something has been said about the other aspect of propaganda—namely, direct advocacy. I do not think there is anything much to be improved there, except that we must see that the speeches of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others are broadcast. Nobody can possibly be better than the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Secretary is quite admirable. We have also another great publicist in President Roosevelt. Those three really do seem to me to cover the pure advocacy side, with the various assistance they have of others in this country and elsewhere. Then, we have also Dr. Goebbels, who is a very great asset in our favour, in my judgment. It is all very well to say we must not despise German propaganda, but I do say that Goebbels's falsehoods really do us infinitely more good than any ingenuity of his does us harm.
Just one word about this question of policy. I think that is the most important thing of all. I am entirely of the opinion of Lord Swinton that in the end it is for the Cabinet to settle both the actual policy and the future policy of the country. I

817
think it is very important, and I admit that this is a point upon which I feel most anxiety. I think we have got the good will of the peoples of Europe. They do not do much; it has not got to an effervescing point, and we want to do more. Then the Germans have certainly issued one attractive item in their policy. Much of the New Order is, I think, very ill-judged from their point of view, but one point is very important, the most important of all; that is the guarantee of peace. I think that is producing a very great effect in some of the smaller countries, when they say: "It is awful to be under German domination; still, if they are prepared to guarantee the peace of Europe for the future, that would be of immense advantage, and we do not know what the other side are going to do about that. They are prepared to beat Hitler, but what are they going to do with their victory? Are they also prepared to guarantee peace?" If not, well, that is a very great item on the German side.
I believe that if one reads with intellgence the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, a complete answer has really been given. I believe they have sketched their policy in that respect, at any rate the main principles of that policy: that it is to rest not on domination, but on some kind of general agreement, and it has to be an agreement freely arrived at. I wish the Government would consider whether they could not have brought together the statements that have already been made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, in an effective, plain, simple statement of what is to be the ultimate way in which we, as the opponents of Germany, look to establish peace, not only for the moment, but for the future. It must be clear. There is the old story: a trumpet that gives an uncertain sound is useless to arouse people to effort. I feel most fully, not only that our victory depends on our being able to get this conception over to those suffering peoples througnout Europe, but that there is more than victory, there is the prospect of peace under which freedom and prosperity may grow up again.
If this war is to finish as a kind of truce lasting for ten or twenty years and then to mean a fresh outbreak of war, no one can contemplate any such thing as that without the most profound horror. If that is to be the only result of victory,
818
to my mind it does not very materially differ from defeat. We must be careful not to drift into that kind of position. We must show that we have got a policy, and we must be perpetually making that policy appreciated by those whom we are addressing. I remember Clemenceau saying some years after the end of the last war: "We have come to the conclusion that peace was a much more difficult job than war." I am afraid that that is true. I am sure we should be very ill advised if we allowed peace to come upon us without having thought out carefully what was to be our peace policy. I do not wish to press the Government to make any detailed statements which they think would be unwise. I recognise most fully the immense difficulties of their position. I do not want them to do anything which they think will do harm rather than good—of course not—but I do ask them if they think it is possible to make any precise statement at this moment, and as soon as they have arrived at even a provisional conclusion I would ask them to give such directions to the Ministry of Information as will enable our propaganda to be carried on with full knowledge of what is the ultimate result at which we are aiming.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me for interposing at this stage, but although the last two speeches have dealt with the issues of propaganda and information from the widest point of view, in the earlier stages of the debate there were certain statements and questions from which I gather there is very considerable misunderstanding of the working of the system which the Government have created to deal with these subjects. The House is, of course, very anxious to get the best possible system of receiving and spreading information and weaving it into propaganda. The criticisms we have had this afternoon have been mainly those of detail, and there certainly has been no agreement as to where the system has fallen short of being satisfactory. If is, I think, essential that these functions should be in the hands of a single Ministry. There is no counterpart in peacetime for the responsibilities which are united in the Ministry of Information. They are to ensure that the war news shall be as full and as quickly issued as

819
is consistent with national security. The Ministry must not only publish, but they must interpret Government policy so as to maintain the public war effort, and put the case at home and throughout the world. Lord Davies and also Viscount Elibank referred to the large number of Government Departments concerned. That is an unavoidable problem, and our duty is to find a system which will co-ordinate all these varying activities in the most efficient way. The problem is not only to issue and to censor news, but also to make known Government activities so as to satisfy the home demand, spread confidence and maintain morale.
The only fundamental change in the system that has been suggested was that outlined by Lord Davies—namely, that these responsibilities should be put into the hands of the Foreign Office. Now, the Foreign Office official is trained to reticence. His work is to present the Government case not to peoples but to other Foreign Offices, and it would not be a question in this matter of merely putting the case to his own people, whom he may know, but of dealing with propaganda to go to many peoples, not a few of them ignorant and illiterate, in many countries. That is a very difficult and special undertaking, and it is not, I think, within the competence of the ordinary Foreign Office official or diplomat. In the last war the problem was considerably less complicated. You still had a foreign Press of varying degrees of freedom, even in Germany. Wireless telegraphy existed, but there was no broadcasting to individual listeners. The war, too, was far less widespread and of much slower tempo. There was not, at that time, the present flood of faked news by enemy wireless which is very difficult to check up quickly.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has just reminded us that there were the same kind of criticisms, perhaps even more fierce, of the activities of those concerned with information and propaganda in the last war. It was, I suppose, largely because of those criticisms that the original expedient of leaving these functions to the Foreign Office had to be abandoned. The Foreign Office was, at the beginning of the last war, helped by the Home Office, but was responsible for the news and propaganda. Propaganda in those days, of
820
course, was in its infancy. By the end of 1914 the news department was set up under the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Mr. Francis Acland was the first of several Under-Secretaries who were in charge of that Department. News officers were placed in the various public offices, to collect information and to try to present it as a consistent whole, but the volume of work was so great that it interfered seriously with other activities of the Foreign Office. Consequently responsibilities were gradually diffused in various directions, and other committees and responsibilities were budded off.
After two years, in February, 1917, the Department of Information was set up under—as he then was—Mr. John Buchan. That was not found to be strong enough, and, after another year, early in 1918, two separate Ministries were instituted, the late Lord Northcliffe being responsible for propaganda in enemy countries, and Lord Beaverbrook for foreign propaganda elsewhere than in enemy countries. It was a very complicated story of alternating dispersal and centralisation, and centralisation must win. It is indispensable to have all these varied war activities under one control. The present arrangement gives to the Minister of Information all the responsibilities which were shared between those two War Departments. It is not, as my noble friend Lord Davies seemed to think, a compromise, but, as I think, the fullest centring of responsibility in one Ministry.
VISCOUNT CAMROSE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment to say that neither of the Ministries which he mentioned had anything to do in 1918 with the issue of news? Neither Lord Beaverbrook nor Lord Northcliffe had anything to do with that.
LORD MOYNE: That is, I am sure, the fact, when so great an authority informs us of it, but I do not think it really disposes of the case. I think that most noble Lords are arguing for centralisation, and it is impossible to separate news from propaganda. You have got to get this-news quickly, in the best form, to the Minister responsible for propaganda, to give him his target and make him responsible for hitting it. That is the purpose of the present organisation.
The most detailed complaints, of course, are aimed at the system of censorship.

821
The object of the Government is to secure the maximum publicity which is consistent with the withholding of dangerous news from the enemy. The issue which has been raised is whether this censorship should be exercised by the experts in the Service Departments, or whether it should be left at the sole discretion of the Minister of Information. There was a letter in The Times the other day from a very well-known publicist, who suggested that really the public interest in getting news was the only matter to be considered, and that, without consulting any other interests, the Minister of Information should be entitled to go to the microphone and tell everything. Experience has shown that that method would sacrifice thousands of lives and would prejudice our war effort. It is better to face complaints of the public going rather short of news than to publish something at the risk of human life. In the last war, as in this war, no practicable alternative was found to leaving the veto on the issue of news with the Service Departments. Naturally it has certain inconveniences. Service officers have no training in publicity; they have no knowledge of newspaper methods; and, although the Army trains people to quick decision in the field, the War Office, at any rate in the public estimation, is characterised by great deliberation. I remember a popular turn in the music halls just after the last war which showed files tied with red tape circulating from one official to another. The officials grew steadily older, the wrinkles grew deeper on their faces, and by the time the files, which by then had grown to gigantic proportions, were finally disposed of, the officials had all grown long white beards.
The new arrangements, however, aim at cutting out all unnecessary delay and at the same time leaving to experts the decision as to what can safely be published. Matters involving large principles are continually brought before the War Cabinet. I have here a good many cases which have arisen in the last few weeks, but I shall not detain the House by giving examples. Many of these matters—such as the way in which the news of the sinking of ships should be given without helping the enemy to replace his submarines, how far it is possible to disclose the names of units without giving away the order of
822
battle, and so on—do lend themselves to broad decisions of principle; and, whether on these larger matters or on matters of detail, the forbidden ground is dealt with by the censorship in the Ministry of Information by producing a constantly changing list of "Stops" which is made available in the news-room. Admirers of German methods may be interested to know that Dr. Goebbels also runs a news-room very much on this principle. He has with him, in close consultation, technical officers of the highest rank, and he yields to their advice. I am assured that far less is published in the German communiqués about military operations and the doings of the German Air Force than is vouchsafed to the British public about ours.
Much of the news, of course, originates in public Departments, and in that case it is censored by the authors at the source. To save time, publication may be direct, but the news is simultaneously sent to the news-room of the Ministry of Information. Some Departments, such as the India Office, the Colonial Office, the Dominions Office, the Ministry of Home Security and the Ministry of Food, carry on a vast amount of publication which goes straight out, but only in close consultation with the officials of the Ministry of Information; and there is a good deal of other information which is sent out by some of these Departments acting as a post office for the Ministry of Information.
I do not think that there is much controversy about that side of the work; the criticism is centred rather on the communiqués of the Fighting Services. There I think that it must be left to the officers in command and to the heads of the Service Departments to publish what they consider safe. This information from the Service Departments is, of course, of much smaller volume than that which is collected by the great organisations of the Press. I sometimes wonder whether we are sufficiently grateful for the wonderful efficiency and performance of the British Press service, which carries on in time of war under difficulties of which perhaps few of us really have an adequate understanding. We must not forget that we alone in the old world still have a free Press, and that no other country now enjoys those advantages of quick information and well-informed comment which the British Press provides. For most of

823
the productions of the Press there is no compulsory censorship; the Press brings for approval only those matters which might raise issues which would be objectionable for security reasons. For news outside the constantly changing list of "Stops" there are Service censors in the Ministry of Information, giving quick decisions.
Ordinarily there is no delay, but there is, of course, the natural risk that the censor may play for safety and sometimes be unnecessarily severe. It is now arranged, however, for officers of high rank of the three Services to be always available at the Ministry of Information to give quick decisions on new issues which may involve doubt. Where these officers wish for the reinforcement of higher authority, or where the Minister of Information is not satisfied with the opinion of the Service censors, it is arranged that the matter may be taken for immediate decision to the Service Minister in charge of the Department concerned. This provision seems to cause some anxiety to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, because it is laid down that in the absence of the Minister from the Department a high official can act on his behalf. I think, however, that there is nothing really alarming about that, because it must be remembered that censorship is a negative action and, if the Minister of Information is not satisfied with the decision of the Service Minister, he attends the War Cabinet at each of its sittings and he is able to challenge the decision and obtain the view of the War Cabinet at the earliest possible moment. There is really no danger, therefore, of the Minister of Information being overridden by anybody but the War Cabinet itself.
There is also, of course, much public anxiety about propaganda. The Germans have the advantage that they can quickly circulate information regardless of its truth, whereas our method of always telling the truth necessitates a check-up and some loss of time. We believe, however, that, apart from other reasons, this method is rewarded by public confidence, and it is now realised that our communiqués can be relied on as accurate. Many of our critics seem to want the best of both worlds. The machinery also includes a close link-up with the Public Relations officers of the various Government
824
Departments. They are not only responsible individually for keeping in the closest touch with the Ministry of Information and for seeing that they know every useful detail of departmental policy, but they have to work as a team and go to the Ministry of Information and sit under the chairmanship of the Minister or whomever he may appoint.
Really, in matters of foreign propaganda, it is not a question of directives from the Foreign Office. The system works by constant touch at many different points. The Foreign Office diplomatic correspondence and telegrams are all sent to the Ministry of Information. The officials are in constant hourly touch with all departments of the Foreign Office, and there is an Assistant Secretary of State charged with seeing that the Foreign Office end is responsive to all demands that may be made upon it. Most important of all, on the bigger issues, the Minister of Information attends all deliberations of the War Cabinet, and is thus kept in closest touch with Government policy. He not only hears what is going on, but, like any other Minister who sits in, he is free to raise any point he thinks it is his duty to bring up. It is of course very necessary that he should have the earliest possible information. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has made an eloquent plea for an early declaration of our peace aims. He has suggested that many of these are already implicit in some of the speeches which have been made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I am sure that this matter is being very carefully watched, and, whenever the occasion is ripe, further information will be given. Meanwhile, it is the duty of the Minister of Information to think widely on these matters and think ahead.
The difficulty about much of this criticism of our propaganda abroad is that many of our activities are necessarily secret, and if they were talked about they would lose all their force. I would only say that it is a great error to assume that nothing is happening because it is impossible to talk about it. Many criticisms which have been made regarding the conduct of propaganda can already be tested by experience. It was said a few months ago that Dr. Goebbels was having a tremendous effect in the United States,

825
and the Ministry of Information were pressed to force the pace in competition. There were strong reasons against that action, and the forecast of the result on American opinion of the then policy has been completely contradicted by events. There is no doubt that the broadcasting methods of Quentin Reynolds and Raymond Gram Swing have been far more effective in the United States than those of Dr. Goebbels. We were told that in this country "Haw-Haw" was doing infinite damage, that all the nation was listening to him. We are no longer worried about that. We realise that, if anything, he has only added to that wonderful morale which has been admitted and admired throughout the world. Of course the B.B.C. offers an entirely new problem in war-time. It was a very efficient organ for peace, but it has to cake on very different activities in war. It has to disseminate news, it has to give publicity to Government policy, and it is the most important engine, perhaps, of propaganda abroad.
VISCOUKT ELIBANK: On the question of the B.B.C, would the noble Lord say what the Government's reaction is to the suggestion I made to-day, that the Minister of Information should take charge of the B.B.C. in so far as all its propaganda and news services are concerned?
LORD MOYNE: I shall come to that. I think I can satisfy the noble Viscount on that point. Lord Davies has mentioned the lack of broadcasting stations. That is, of course, largely due to the accident of geography and the fact that our enemies now control the Continental stations throughout Europe; but we are doing everything possible to increase our resources, though in war-time, with the tremendous demand for every kind of plant, and for telegraphic and wireless plant for other purposes than broadcasting, it is not very easy to supply these wants with great speed. Lord Strabolgi suggested that we might take advantage of our alliance with Russia to get our broadcasts through that country into the neighbouring territories of the Middle East. I will certainly draw the attention of the Minister of Information to this possibility, but we already supply Russia with full information which they can use at their discretion in the various efficient services which they run.
826
Lord Davies asked about Ankara and whether, as a result of the agreement between Turkey and Germany, they have cut out all British programmes. I have made inquiries from the service which checks up all these foreign programmes, and I am assured that the English programme on short wave from Ankara is going out still every day. Lord Strabolgi asked why we did not have some parallel organisation to Trans-Ocean. I am assured we are even better supplied. Firstly, there is Globe-Reuter, which is none the worse for being unofficial. Then there are three daily British news services sent out in Morse, and of course there is the widespread organisation of the B.B.C. overseas programmes. Lord Davies and Lord Elibank were concerned that the Ministry of Information did not have adequate control over the B.B.C. The new arrangement has charged the Minister of Information to take full day-to-day editorial control of the B.B.C. service of news and propaganda, and the Minister of Information is responsible for both initiative and censorship. I hope that assurance may do something to satisfy my noble friends.
All these matters are of course in constant development. It is a matter of trial and error, but I can assure noble Lords that the powers of the Ministry of Information, and the centralisation of the necessary opportunities of presenting the British case, are being steadily improved. The actual control in the Ministry of Information is at present carried out by advisers on home affairs and foreign affairs and the provisions of censorship of the news which falls in there, and the opportunity of quick appeal to high officers is exactly parallel to that which I have described in the news room of the Ministry of Information. My last word on these rather discouraging opinions that have been given about the activities of the B.B.C. is that if its broadcast propaganda is as ineffective as noble Lords have sometimes said, why is it that the Germans have resorted to such extreme penalties to prevent people listening, and have even condemned people to death for passing on information which they have received?
Lord Davies has suggested that the British Council is not adequately controlled. Well, after Lord Lloyd's death the chair of that very active organisation was left vacant for about six months, but

827
it has been filled just lately by Sir Malcolm Robertson, whose great energy and experience in foreign affairs are well known. The relationship of the British Council with the Ministry of Information has been readjusted to secure the greatest possible value from its activities while leaving its cultural and educational work unimpeded.
I would apologise for having been so long, but the Ministry of Information touches us all at so many points that it is naturally the subject of much public controversy and some criticism which is not altogether reasonable. The difficulty is increased by publicity and propaganda nowadays being matters on which many amateurs consider themselves to be experts. I can only assure your Lordships that this matter has received most anxious and careful consideration from the Government, and no practicable alternative in general layout has been found, although constant improvements are being introduced in detail. I believe that where criticisms are well founded the faults are due not to the machinery but to the human element, which can only be improved by effort and experience.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, may I detain you for just one sentence in order to refer to what fell from my noble friend who seemed to suggest, unless I misheard him, that there was some delay during the last war in releasing news from the War Office? I can inform your Lordships that the censorship at the War Office was very closely connected with the issue of the news. They were in the same section and they were under the Director of Military Intelligence and in the same building, and he also was in the same building as the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. I had a great deal to do with it, and I do not remember that there was any delay. The procedure was quite simple, because communication could be made immediately with the department or section concerned, and, if necessary, with the heads of the General Staff.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, this is the second debate we have had within quite recent time, and another place has had at least two debates also on this question
828
of propaganda and information. I think the fact that we have these numerous debates does indicate that there is a very general disquietude. I agree in particular with two points that were made by my noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil—namely, that policy is more important than mere machinery—and I do not want to-day to go into detailed discussion of machinery. At the present time it seems to me that we are trying far too much to kill Hitler's positive creed by a mere negative creed and that the only way in which we can overcome Hitler's very attractive (to the unsophisticated and unthinking) positive creed is by having a positive creed ourselves. I think it was Clausewitz who said every belligerent had both a political and a military objective. If you compare our political objectives in the last war with the policy and aims of the Kaiser, I think everybody must admit that we had an enormous advantage. The Kaiser's war aim, so to speak, was, "Save the Fatherland." It was a nationalist and limited but patriotic appeal, whereas the appeal which was made by Mr. Woodrow Wilson, Mr. Lloyd George and M. Briand was in the nature of an international crusade. It was on a far higher plan than the Kaiser's, and it was much more attractive to neutrals and to the world at large. It captured the imagination in a way in which, up to date, our aims, as stated, have failed to do.
I hope the noble Lord will realise that when the Government are criticised it is not merely on the way in which the news is given, but it is on the inadequacy of the creed as enunciated. I am myself convinced that there is a large amount of potential support in the neutral and enemy occupied countries which can be mobilized in our favour as soon as we define more positively our alternative to the New Order. Hitler understands political strategy all too well, and he combines military and political offensives with extraordinary acuteness. It is only just now, I think, that the Government are beginning to realise—in fact I do not think the Government are as far advanced as the country or large parts of the country—that in order to win the war, we have to have military warfare, economic warfare and also political warfare. In this respect Hitler is a past-master. First of all he started an international movement against

829
Communism and Bolshevism, and got support in several countries. He then started a movement against the Jews, an Anti-Semitic movement, and he got a measure of support in some countries. Then he enunciated the policy that modern Germany, Nazi Germany, represented a young virile State which was preferable to the old democratic plutocracies. And Hitler keeps on hammering at the failure of democratic and Parliamentary government, and far too many people are apt to 1st that challenge go without being answered. There is a far better case to be made for Democracy, for Parliamentary government, than has been made hitherto, or has been made with sufficient frequency.
There is another point which was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil—namely, the appeal of peace. Hitler promises unity and peace through his New Order. Hitler has realised that you can have war aims enunciated in slogans, that it is not necessary to give out a detailed statement on war aims. I think that too often Ministers here have shown a reluctance to enunciate peace aims or war aims, and have failed to realise that that may be done by slogans. It is not necessary to dot all the i's and cross all the t's and give all details. A moment's reflection will show what enormous success Hitler has had through his Fifth Column and his Quislings, in France, Norway, Belgium and Holland. I am convinced that the rapid overrunning of France was not merely a military victory but was assisted enormously by the constant propaganda of Goebbels and others during the preceding winter and autumn months.
There is another thing we have to realize, and that is that Hitler depicts England as waging an Imperialistic war, and that far too many neutral peoples accept this war as being a war between two Imperialistic nations or two Imperialistic peoples. I think that so far our political strategy has concentrated its propaganda far too much on defending our island home and saving our own lives. That is all right as far as it goes, but it is not enough. We started the war by attacking Hitler himself and the Nazis. I regret to say that far too much we have degenerated to abuse of all Germans. Lord Haw-Haw is constantly trying to drive a wedge between the Prime Minister as being a warmonger and many
830
people in England as being more peaceful. I think we ought to take a leaf from his book there. The people of France are not going to rise against Darlan just to save England. It is not enough to appeal to the world to save Britain. We should have a positive policy and a positive creed. There are many down-trodden Germans, Belgians, Dutch and Norwegians who cannot be expected to risk their lives, who cannot be expected to risk being beaten up and put into concentration camps, just to save England. There are millions of people of German descent in the United States of America who are likely to follow the isolationists or Lindbergh unless we can make this an international crusade.
Our immediate aim is quite clear—namely, to defeat Hitler. Our ultimate goal is also clear, namely, to achieve a lasting peace, to increase liberty and allow civilisation to go forward. It is the intermediate action which is not so clear. I repeat what I said just now, that we must have a positive creed of our own. We have got planks in our platform which Hitler does not possess. We must obviously get one—economic security or social security, or whatever you choose to call it. We can give that a far better character than he can, because the social security which he offers is the security of the slave, and what we offer is obviously very much better. In the same way he offers peace by universal conquest, whereas we offer the world peace through collective action.
But there are two other planks of which we have a monopoly—namely, freedom and morality. Mankind, century after century, has had a hankering after liberty and has gone forward with the development of liberty. Hitler has put back the clock to the Dark Ages. The anti-Nazi in Germany who has the largest following is Pastor Niemoller and that shows that in Germany, as elsewhere, people will follow the call of morality. Man prefers the creative instinct of brotherhood to the destructive instinct of hatred and brutality which is associated with the Nazi creed. So I would urge the noble Lord to use his influence to see that we improve our political warfare, that we realise to a greater extent than we have hitherto the value of political warfare, and that we appreciate that there is excellent material at hand for setting up a clear, attractive,

831
world-wide political objective. We can turn what, at the present moment, is far too much a defensive war into a positive world-wide international crusade, and if we do that I am sure that, coupled with our military war and our economic war, it will hasten the overthrow of Hitler.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, may I say a few words as one who has been identified with the British Broadcasting Corporation for eleven years? I want to say that whilst I am sure the Governor and Directors of the British Broadcasting Corporation will do everything they can to carry out the wishes of the Government, it is important that there should be some independence left to the management of the British Broadcasting Corporation in trying to allow the public to express their own views wherever that can be done without detriment to our great war cause. There is another point I want to make, as I have had some experience in connection with propaganda, and that is that propaganda to be effective must not be recognised as propaganda by those whom it is to influence. It is most important that the Press should be able in its own columns to put its own views and the views of correspondents so that they appear to be expressing views which are not necessarily going to be interpreted as propaganda. There is a great danger, if a Minister of Information is alone trusted to supply the news, that propaganda will be recognised, and then it will not have the same kind of influence as if it came from an independent source.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, may I interpose by leave of the House, to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord? The Government fully appreciate the importance of maintaining the independence of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Direction has been issued to the Minister of Information—I have not the exact words—that he is to carry with him as far as possible the Governors who stand as sureties to Parliament and to the public as to the fair and impartial spirit with which the British Broadcasting Corporation has always conducted its operations.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I desire to thank the noble Lord opposite for his reply. There is one point on which I am not quite clear. He said there was no
832
interference in Turkey with British broadcasts over the short wave. Does that also apply to the long wave? It is a rather technical matter.
LORD MOYNE: My information is that the Turkish broadcast in English is issued from Ankara on the short wave. I am afraid I do not know anything about the long wave.
LORD DAVIES: In another place it was stated that there was a long wave, and that it was the only long wave.
LORD MOYNE: I am afraid I have not information upon the technical point.
LORD DAVIES: It is a very technical point. The noble Lord rather implies that all is well with our propaganda, but obviously there must be something radically wrong, otherwise we should not during the last three weeks have had all the Battle of Bloomsbury, and I do not think the responsible Director of the Ministry of Information would have made that observation about pitchforks and tanks. Obviously we want something better than a pitchfork; we want at least an anti-tank gun to defeat the propaganda of the enemy.
The noble Lord said there were large numbers of Ministers and Departments connected with our propaganda and that they presented an unavoidable problem. He also suggested that I wanted to hand it over to the Foreign Office, I tried to make it clear in my speech that I hold no brief for the Foreign Office or for the Minister of Information. What I suggested was the merging of all these Departments and all these Ministries into one single diplomatic front, and that that front should be under the direction of a Commander-in-Chief of the Diplomatic Forces. It should be regarded as we regard our Fighting Forces and organised on much the same lines. If the two Departments were merged, the Minister responsible to the War Cabinet and Parliament would select the Chiefs of Staff from the best men available.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Does the noble Lord propose to abolish the Foreign Secretary? That is the effect of his suggestion.
LORD DAVIES: I am merging them all under one roof. With regard to the supply of broadcasting plant and material, I understand

833
that this is available in America. Perhaps the noble Lord will inquire whether it is possible to secure it from the United States. There are other points I should like to mention, which have been brought up in the course of the debate, but the time has gone. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
VISCOUNT EUBANK: My Lords, I beg leave also to withdraw my Amendment as the: Motion is to be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FRENCH NAVAL BASES IN AFRICA.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what information they have about German activity in Dakar, Casablanca, Mers-el-Kebir and other French naval bases in Africa, and whether enemy submarines are using any of these bases.]
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, German activity at French naval bases in Africa is, so far as is known, confined to those on the North and North-west African coasts. It is concentrated in the Delegations of the German Armistice Commission whose total numbers in Morocco, Algeria and Tunis together amount to about 250 persons. Their functions are nominally to supervise the execution of the Armistice terms, including a close control over all shipping. There is no doubt that their activities are as widely extended as they can induce the French authorities to allow. The largest number is in Morocco where the Delegation amounts to over 200. There is; so far as is known, no Delegation of the Armistice Commission at Dakar. His Majesty's Government have no evidence that enemy submarines are using any of these bases.

PRODUCER GAS FOR TRANSPORT.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps have been taken or are in
834
contemplation with the object of securing greater use of native solid fuel for motor transport vehicles in view of the imperative need for the most rigid economy in imported fuels during the present emergency.]
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL, My Lords, I understand that Lord Barnby, in asking his question, has chiefly in mind the development of producer gas for vehicle propulsion, and I am glad to have this opportunity of letting your Lordships know the present position. Your Lordships will be aware that this gas, which can be used as an alternative to petrol in internal combustion engines, is obtained by burning anthracite or low temperature or other special coke in portable generators. A great deal has already been clone by the Government to encourage gas producers, and research work is still being actively carried on. A year ago a Government Committee, presided over by Sir Harold Hartley, brought out a design of a simplified producer for transport purposes. The work of this Committee has been continued by extensive road trials both of different fuels and also of other types of producer; by further research by the Fuel Research Station, the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, and other organisations; and by carbonisation tests at gas works. Moreover, certain tax and regulation concessions were granted at the end of 1939. The Government had hoped that with these various forms of encouragement, gas producers might have developed commercially on a large scale. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, this has not yet been the case. Nevertheless, encouraging progress has been made with the important technical problems involved such, for example, as the problem of the gas filter, which has a most important bearing upon the amount of cylinder wear in the engine. As the recently imposed restrictions on the use of petrol are now giving additional impetus to the movement, there is reason to anticipate an advance in the number of producer vehicles in use in the comparatively near future.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932: URBAN DISTRICT OF HALTEMPRICE ORDER.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, I beg to move that the Order standing in his name be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

RURAL DISTRICT OF NORTH WEST MORLAND (PARISH OF KIRKBY STEPHEN) ORDER.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, I beg to move that the other Order standing in his name be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday be approved.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPAIR OF WAR DAMAGE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House Adjourned.