Sitting of 4 February 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GRAND UNION CANAL COMPANY.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th December]:
  "That the Grand Union Canal Company be relieved from the obligation to promote not later than the Session of 1946 a Bill to consolidate the Acts relating to the several parts of their undertaking and the obligation to promote not later than the Session of 1944 an Amending Bill with a view to facilitating the task of consolidation, being obligations to which the Company are subject by virtue of a promise given in the proceedings before the Committee to which the Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Grand Junction Canal Purchase) Bill was referred in the year 1928 as varied by resolutions passed by this House on the 12th day of July, 1932, the 27th day of July, 1937, and the 27th day of June, 1940."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Further adjourned till the Second Sitting Day after 15th February.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ANGLO-SOVIET-PERSIAN TREATY OF ALLIANCE.
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to state the position with regard to the Anglo-Russian-Iranian Treaty of Alliance?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that the Anglo-Soviet-Persian Treaty of Alliance, which was approved by the Persian Parliament on Monday, 26th January, was signed in Tehran on behalf of the three Governments on Thursday, 29th January. The Treaty entered into force on signature.
  The large majority by which the Treaty was approved in the Persian Parliament shows that it has gained the free assent of the elected representatives of the Persian nation. It is a justification of
  1156
  the patience with which the long and sometimes difficult negotiations have been conducted by all concerned. I should like to take this opportunity of extending a cordial welcome to our new Ally. The full text of the Treaty is being laid as a White Paper. Copies will be available to hon. Members to-day. It will be seen that the Treaty provides for the grant of those facilities which the British and Soviet authorities have considered necessary for the prosecution of the war. It covers, for example, the facilities to be provided in Persia for the passage of troops and supplies, for the maintenance and improvement of the means of communication, and for censorship control. I should also like to emphasise, as is explicitly laid down in the Treaty, that His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government undertake to respect the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Persia. They have no designs or ambitions which would conflict with this principle.
  Mr. Mander: Will facilities be granted to the Persian Government to sign the declaration made by 26 Sates against the Axis?
  Mr. Eden: It is open to any Power which intends to employ its full resources in the struggle with the Allies to inform the United States Government if it wishes to adhere to the Declaration.

  ENEMY OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (ALLIES' AGREEMENTS).
  Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information in regard to the Agreement made between the Governments of Greece and Yugoslavia, and the Agreement made between the Governments of Poland and Czechoslovakia which, among other matters, involves a common economic policy and the proposal for a Customs union?
  Mr. Eden: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Agreement between Greece and Yugoslavia was signed in the Foreign Office on 15th January, and I am glad to have this opportunity of welcoming an Agreement which cements the friendly relations already existing between two Allied Governments and which affords a basis for a future Balkan Confederation. The text

  1157
  of the Agreement has already been published, and there is nothing that I can add to it.
  The text of the Polish-Czechoslovak Agreement has also been published. In reply to a Question by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Manner) on 26th November, 1940, the Prime Minister said that His Majesty's Government warmly welcomed the original Polish-Czechoslovak Declaration of 11th November, 1940. They equally welcome this new Agreement as marking a further important stage in the development of closer relations between these two Allies.
  Dr. Thomas: Without attempting to make any difficulty for my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he will be good enough, when he has consultations with the Allied Governments, to look at the point of view that economic blocks may be a hindrance to post-war trade and possibly sow the seeds of future European trouble?
  Mr. Eden: It is difficult to pursue a counsel of perfection in these matters. I am convinced that the Greek-Yugoslav Agreement is very much a step in the right direction.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we right in thinking that it is the intention of the Governments which honour the Agreement that it shall be open to all other Balkan countries to adhere to it as soon as they have democratic and peace-loving Govern-meats? Is it their intention that this should be an organisation within a wider framework for the suppression of aggression and the maintenance of peace?
  Mr. Eden: It is difficult to answer for other Governments, but what I can say for sure is that this Greek-Yugoslav Treaty is definitely to form the basis of a Balkan Confederation.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    DIVE BOMBERS.
    Mr. Purbrickasked the Secretary of State for Air whether this country has produced any substantial number of dive-bombing aeroplanes and has them in operation; and whether they equal in performance the Junkers 88 and Stukas?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): Specialised dive bombers are being produced for the Royal Air Force in America. There is good reason to suppose that their performance will be satisfactory, but every new type must be tested in action before comparisons with other types can be safely made.
    Mr. Purbrick: Am I to understand we are not producing any dive-bombing machines for use either by sea or land?
    Sir A. Sinclair: As to the sea, any question about the Fleet Air Arm should be addressed to the Admiralty. Dive bombers for the R.A.F. are now being produced in America.
    Mr. Purbrick: Have we none of them in operation then?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, I think it was clear from my previous answer that they are not yet in Royal Air Force squadrons.

    PILOTS (AGE LIMIT).
    Mr. Bowerasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that an Aviation Candidates Selection Board recently rejected a 29-year-old volunteer for pilots' duties, principally on the ground that in their experience the borderline age was 27, and that the members of the board furthermore expressed the opinion that, in this respect, the Air Ministry's present series of advertisement appeals for pilots up to the age of 31 should be amended; and whether he proposes to take any action to that effect?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir; suitable candidates are accepted for pilot duties up to the age of 31. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of the case referred to, I will have it looked into.

    AERODROMES.
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that all the aerodromes which accept aircraft for shipment overseas are in a comparable condition to first-class operational stations?
    Sir A. Sinclair: While it is not necessary that these aerodromes should be of the same standard as operational aerodromes, I am advised that those used for accepting aircraft for shipment have proved generally satisfactory for this purpose.

    OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES.
    Sir Adam Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that, for childless married officers over 30 years of age in the Royal Air Force, a new scale of allowances has been introduced since 1st January, 1942; that the reductions in some cases amount to 3s. 6d. a day; that, in order to induce officers under 30 to agree to accept the reductions when they reach the age of 30, present allowances have been increased by 1s. a day; that many married officers under 30 have been forced by necessity to undertake to accept the lower scale upon reaching the age of 30; and if he will reconsider this new scale?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The changes recently introduced in the system of officers' allowances which are common to all three Services and the reasons for them were very fully explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in his reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend (Miss Ward) and Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) on 9th September, 1941. There is no intention of amending the new scale which was the subject of most careful consideration before it was adopted.
    Sir A. Maitland: Is it true that in certain cases the effect of the change is to make matters worse than they were before, and, if that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at it?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman will give me any instances in which that is so, I shall be glad to look into them.

    BARRAGE BALLOON SITES (PROTECTION).
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied with the present arrangements for the security of barrage balloon sites; and whether units of the Royal Air Force Regiment will be attached to balloon command for this purpose?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, it would not be in the public interest to discuss the tactical disposition of the Royal Air Force Regiment.
    Mr. Simmonds: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is a well-defined system of liaison between the
    1160
    Royal Air Force and the Home Guard in regard to the protection of these sites?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The relations of the Home Guard are with the Army rather than with the Royal Air Force, but I will look into the point and see whether more help should be obtained from them.

    DISTINCTIVE BADGES (CROWN COLONIES).
    Captain McEwenasked the Secretary of State for Air why it is that Royal Air Force personnel from the Crown Colonies, as distinct from those from the Dominions, are not allowed to wear a distinctive badge bearing the name of the Colony from which they come?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The wearing of a distinguishing badge is restricted to personnel from the overseas Dominions concerned in the Commonwealth Joint Air Training Plan and from Allied countries. I have received no evidence of a general desire on the part of men from the Colonial Dependencies for such badges, and it is desirable to avoid the undue multiplicity of badges.
    Captain McEwen: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that much feeling is caused by the fact that many of these men come here wearing these badges and are told to take them off? Would it not be at least a gracious gesture to permit this distinction?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I understand that there are at least as many men who do not want to be decorated with these badges as there are who do. There are people who are pressing a very great multiplicity of badges upon us. One firm was recently offering for sale badges for Eire, Scotland, Wales, Jersey, and B.I.A.V., which I understand means British Latin American Volunteers.

  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

    AERONAUTICAL INSPECTION DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that delays in the delivery of aircraft are due to the slackness and inefficiency of the Aircraft Inspection Department; what complaints he has received regarding this Department; and what steps he is taking to remedy the position?
    The Minister of Aircraft Production (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I am unable to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion of slackness and inefficiency on the part of the Aeronautical Inspection Department; nor am I aware of any well-founded recent complaints against that Department. If, however, my hon. Friend will let me know what he has in mind, I will look into the matter.
    Mr. Hall-Caine: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that many of the members of the Aeronautical Inspection Department are holding up valuable material through their refusal to work on Saturday afternoons and Sundays? Will he look into it?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I will certainly look into it. Owing to the recent weather the Aeronautical Inspection Department has had a great strain put on it, but on the whole I am very satisfied with it. I know that inspection is a tiresome thing, but it has saved many lives.
    Mr. Graham White: Has the inspection Department been increased to correspond with the increase in the volume of work it has had to do, and has my right hon. and gallant Friend any difficulty in obtaining competent people to carry out the work on the standard that we had in the earlier stages? If he has any difficulty, will he advertise and make every effort to obtain proper personnel?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: We are not dissatisfied with the personnel; indeed, we are extremely pleased with it. We have increased the numbers.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is not the Aeronautical Inspection Department very much overworked, and, taking this into consideration, is it not doing a splendid job of work?

    ENGINE REPAIR FACTORY.
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that a certain aero-engine reconditioning factory has not been working to more than 10 per cent. capacity during the last four weeks; and whether he has any plan whereby these works may be continuously employed up to a reasonable capacity?
    Lieut. -Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am aware that this factory was working below
    1162
    its full capacity during January, but the falling off was nothing like the extent indicated by my hon. Friend. It was due mainly to the drop in the number of engines coming forward for repair. The position at this factory is being rectified by the diversion to it of engines normally repaired by other factories where alternative work is available.
    Mr. Edwards: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the past three months this factory has been working to very low capacity, and that the men have been kept kicking their heels for weeks on end?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The repair situation is always difficult, because I never know what the supply is going to be. In this particular works I am sending engines so as to keep them on full load capacity and changing the supply of engines to factories nearer London. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is the best way to deal with a difficult situation.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is not the rumour prevalent that in this factory the men are going about kicking their heels?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Sometimes it is very nice to think that there are no engines to repair, but I am rather swung between the two positions—wanting to keep the workpeople busy and pleased that there are no crashes and no engines to repair. I am often in that cleft stick. I cannot guarantee that factories that mend anything will be full to capacity. On the other hand, I must keep an efficient repair unit going in case of need.

    MIDLANDS FACTORY.
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he will consider the advisability of instituting an inquiry into the present state of an aircraft factory in the Midlands, particulars of of which have been supplied to him?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Apart from a minor question of the labour complement, I am not aware of anything in the factory referred to which calls for a special inquiry, but if the hon. Member will let me have particulars of what he has in mind, I will have the matter looked into.
    Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend really not aware of the dissatisfaction inside and outside these works about the state of organisation there? Has it not been brought to his attention many times, and will he have an efficient investigation made into the situation?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I will certainly have an investigation. I know this factory, and I am not so dissatisfied as all that. It is going through growing pains and a great deal of improvement can be effected, but on the whole it is producing a good lot of work.
    Sir John Mellor: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the workers in this factory consider their time is being unnecessarily wasted?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: No, Sir.

    AIR TRANSPORT AUXILIARY (MEDICAL XAMINATION).
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether the Air Transport Auxiliary Service has the advantage at its various pools throughout the country of a full-time medical officer; and whether he will arrange for medical officers to examine Air Transport Auxiliary Service pilots each morning before they are allowed to transport aeroplanes, since this procedure would have the effect of diminishing accidents due to the human factor, and be a good investment for his Department in the saving of machines and man-hours, apart from the loss or injury to personnel?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Medical examination is available at all the Pools of the Air Transport Auxiliary, and I have no reason to think that the present accident rate in the Service has been adversely affected by any lack of these facilities. I am, however, having the matter re-examined in the light of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

    B.B.C. (REORGANISATION).
    Mr. Viantasked the Minister of Information the nature of the reorganisation effected in the British Broadcasting Corporation; and the reason for the same?
    Mr. Evelyn Walkdenasked the Minister of Information whether he can make any statement on the resignation of
    1164
    Mr. Ogilvie, the Director General of the British Broadcasting Corporation; whether he was consulted before the Governors decided to appoint two director generals in his place; and whether the changes will involve any extension of the present Government control of the programmes and other activities of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Information whether he w11 make a statement about the recent changes in the directorship of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Hon. Members will have seen the statement which the Governors of the B.B.C. issued to the public on 26th January. A reorganisation of the B.B.C. necessitated by the war-time expansion of its services has been in progress for some time. In order to facilitate the task of the Governors in carrying out this reorganisation, the late Director-General, Mr. F. W. Ogilvie, placed his resignation in their hands. The Governors accepted it and appointed Sir Cecil Graves and Mr. Robert Foot to discharge the duties of Director-General jointly for the duration of the war.
    I was informed beforehand that this joint appointment would be considered. I felt, however, that this was a matter which the Corporation should decide for themselves and upon which I could offer no advice on behalf of the Government. The relations between the Ministry and the B.B.C. are in no way affected by this change. I should like to pay tribute to the arduous work of the retiring Director-General over a period of four years, during the latter half of which the services of the B.B.C. have developed into a most potent weapon of war. I would only add that I have full confidence in the ability of his two successors to fulfil their onerous task.
    Mr. Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend refrain from inflicting on the House the same kind of thing that the B.B.C. does by talking about "In order to facilitate the reorganisation of the B.B.C., Mr. F. W. Ogilvie placed his resignation in the hands of the Governors"? That is really an insult to the intelligence, and the right hon. Gentlemal ought not to treat the House of Commons in the same way as the B.B.C. treat the public.
    Mr. Bracken: I cannot understand that criticism. Mr. Ogilvie placed his resignation in the hands of the Governors.
    Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the resignation of Mr. Ogilvie was made entirely on the initiative of the Governors of the B.B.C. and was not in any sense inspired by sources associated with the Government?
    Mr. Bracken: I have already told the House that the Government expressed no opinion about the resignation of Mr. Ogilvie or the appointment of his successors.
    Mr. E. Walkden: Does this reorganisation mean more dictatorial control of the B.B.C. by the Ministry of Information? Can we have a frank statement whether Mr. Ogilvie was sacked and told to go, or was he asked to put in his cards right away?
    Mr. Bracken: I think that my hon. Friend must not have heard me when I said that no change was involved in the relationship of the B.B.C. to the Ministry of Information. It is not my business to delve into the domestic affairs of the Governors of the B.B.C. They are supposed to be an independent body. Why should I try to elicit from them what arrangements they are making about their staff?
    Mr. Walkden: Are they not responsible to this House?
    Mr. Viant: It not the Minister of Information responsible to this House for giving replies to Questions relating to the B.B.C., and in these circumstances are we not justified in asking that the Minister shall satisfy himself about the relationship between the ex-Governor and the existing B.B.C. controllers, so that he might reply to Questions that are put in the House?
    Mr. Bracken: I am perfectly willing, if the House so desires, to write to the Governors of the B.B.C. and ask them whether they would like to put in writing what exactly happened. I must point oat that I am often asked Questions about too much Government interference in the B.B.C., and great indignation is expressed from time to time that the -Government do interfere. The House cannot have it every way. Either they want the Governors to have a certain
    1166
    amount of independence or they want to make the B.B.C. an appendage of the Ministry of Information which would be a very bad thing.

    PROFESSORS SCHACHT AND MITTWOCH.
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Information on what date the Government passes held by Professor Schacht and Professor Mittwoch were withdrawn?
    Mr. Bracken: The Ministry of Information have never issued passes to Professor Schacht or to Professor Mittwoch. When either of these gentlemen visits the Ministry, he fills up the usual visitor's interview form.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his information and my information apparently do not tally?

    BROADCASTING HOURS (FACTORY WORKERS).
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Minister of Information whether, in view of the monotony of night work in many factories, he will instruct the British Broadcasting Corporation to arrange "Music while you Work" programmes between the hours of 3 a.m. and 5 a.m.?
    Mr. Bracken: I will look into this: but I am bound to say that I should not favour a further extension of broadcasting hours unless there were strong evidence of the demand for and value of such a step.
    Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether it is not the fact that a number of the B.B.C. staff finish at 12 o'clock and remain on the premises until 7 o'clock in the morning, so that there would be no great addition to the work? Will he also draw the attention of the B.B.C. to the fact that recent experiments with an amateur concert party between 2 and 3 a.m. showed that the entertainment was productive of good results in the case of people who are having to work all night long?
    Mr. Bracken: I will look into that point, but I would remind the hon. Member that a committee of this House actually recommended the cutting down of the hours of broadcasting.
    Mr. Morrison: But now there are thousands of people called upon to undertake monotonous work all night long, and

    1167
    surely that point was not taken into consideration when the committee came to that opinion?

    BROADCASTS TO AUSTRIA.
    Captain Alan Grahamasked the Minister of information whether he is aware of the ineffectiveness of the British Broadcasting Corporation talks to Austria; of the despair created amongst 4,000,000 Austrian peasants by never hearing a broadcast with any reference to their religion or to their Austrian patriotism, or to the future independence of their country; and whether he will prevent the British Broadcasting Corporation from concentrating on out-of-date political issues solely interesting to the Viennese urban population in years ago?
    Mr. Bracken: In broadcasts to Austria the British Broadcasting Corporation does not concentrate on the politics of the Viennese urban population. Regular talks of interest are broadcast, usually in peasant dialect. There are at least as many of these as there are talks directly addressed to the urban population. There are peasant, religious and other talks.
    Captain Graham: Is it not the case that according to reports from Austria there is a progressive decline in the number of Austrians who are willing to risk their heads to listen to the B.B.C. talks?
    Mr. Bracken: That is as may be. There is a large number of people in this country who would not risk their heads to listen to B.B.C. talks.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE (BROADCAST SUMMARY).
    Mr. Bernaysasked the Minister of Information why no reference was made in the summary of the House of Commons Debate on the 9 o'clock news of the British Broadcasting Corporation, on Wednesday, 28th January, to the speeches delivered that afternoon by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert)?
    Mr. Bracken: I regret that no reference was made in this broadcast to the speeches of my right hon. Friends. I understand that the B.B.C. found it impossible to compress within the length
    1168
    of their news bulletin summaries of all the speeches made in this House during a Debate which lasted nine hours. The responsibility for reporting speeches rests with the editors of the bulletin, and I think it would be a deplorable development if I were to interfere in any way with their freedom of selection.
    Mr. Bernays: While appreciating the considerations which my right hon. Friend has put before the House, may I ask him whether, in view of the difficult and important nature of Parliamentary reporting, the person responsible for the selection of the speeches—a very difficult task—has had experience in the Lobby and the Gallery?
    Mr. Tinker: Why the speeches of right hon. Members? Should not hon. Members have been mentioned too?
    Mr. Bracken: I quite appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The person responsible for the selection of these speeches is, I understand, an experienced political journalist, but I think the B.B.C. will read my hon. Friend's Question and will take his advice into account.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Is this canvassing?
    Mr. Kirkwood: How about backbenchers?
    Mr. Bracken: I have nothing to do with the matter.

    "PICTURE POST" (EXPORT SUBSIDY).
    Mr. Wilfrid Robertsasked the Minister of Information why the assistance to enable "Picture Post" to circulate in the Middle East on equal terms with other papers has been withdrawn?
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Minister of Information why the export subsidy for the despatch to the Middle East of "Picture Post" was withdrawn?
    Mr. Bracken: The Ministry of Information, on the advice of its representatives in various parts of the world, subsidises the export of newspapers and periodicals which are deemed to be useful for the purpose of informing the peoples of the countries concerned as to the significance of the British war effort. My advisers in the Middle East have reported that "Picture Post" is no longer useful to them. My advisers in Switzerland and Sweden

    1169
    tell me that "Picture Post" is a satisfactory vehicle for British publicity. I have acted on the advice of the Ministry of Information's representatives in the Middle East, and I shall continue to act on the advice given by the Ministry's representatives in Switzerland and Sweden. I must point out that there is nothing to prevent the ordinary commercial export of the magazine to any country if it should be so desired.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is it a fact that a subsidy is given to that elegant journal called "Vogue," and for whose benefit is that journal subsidised?
    Mr. Bracken: I can assure my hon. Friend that "Vogue" is not sent to the Middle East, but some mission abroad said that "Vogue" would be a satisfactory medium for British publicity. When I got to hear of it, I ordered that it should be cancelled at once, because I do not think that is the sort of virile publication which would have an influence on the war effort of the country at the present time.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask what form this subsidy to "Picture Post" takes and what amount is involved? I should like to say that the right hon. Gentleman's reply will give considerable dissatisfaction in the East.
    Mr. Bracken: All I can say is that the origin of this subsidy goes back to the beginning of the war. Our representatives abroad, in their enthusiasm, thought we ought to have a large number of British papers on sale everywhere, but we progressively cut down the subsidies until at the present time not more than four or five papers, I think, are subsidised in the Middle East or other parts of the world. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), I do not know what the cost is, but it is a fairly heavy charge to export these papers to the Middle East, and they arrive three months after they are published.
    Mr. Mander: Has the suspension of the subsidies anything to do with criticism of the Government?
    Mr. Bracken: I can assure the hon. Member—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sorensen.

    GERMANS (IMPRISONMENTS AND DETENTIONS).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Information whether he has any reliable estimate of the approximate total number of Germans who, for racial, religious or political reasons, respectively, were arrested, imprisoned or sent to concentration camps since the establishment of the Nazi Government; and also the estimated number who left or fled from Germany to this and other countries?
    Mr. Bracken: No, Sir. I have no reliable estimates as to the victims of these persecutions.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this indicates that a very considerable section of the German population is actually or potentially hostile to the Nazi Government?
    Mr. Bracken: I should think that is probably true.

  POST OFFICE.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE STAMPS.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to voluntary contributors for National Health Insurance owing to stamps for this purpose not being on sale at the smaller post offices and sub-offices; and whether he will make arrangements to remedy this position?
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Standing rules provide that all post offices shall carry stocks of those denominations of stamps for which there is a regular demand and that if stamps of any denomination not ordinarily stocked are asked for, an offer must be made to obtain them specially. If the hon. Member will let me have the names of any post offices at which these rules are not observed, I will gladly look into the matter.
    Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw attention to this statement, in order that those who require these stamps shall be able to get them at the post offices which are most convenient to them?
    Mr. Morrison: I will look into that point, but this is perfectly well known at post offices. The rules are as I have described them.

    FIRE WATCHERS (MEALS).
    Mr. Viantasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a fire-watcher at the Ludgate Circus branch post office was, on 15th January, summoned at the Mansion House for leaving his post of duty; that the summons was dismissed because the department had made no provision for a meal for this fire-watcher; and will he issue the necessary instructions to ensure that reasonable and proper facilities are provided for those engaged on such duties?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The fire watcher referred to was employed by the Post Office as a full-time paid watcher under a co-operative scheme for the protection of the premises in which the Ludgate Circus post office and other businesses are accommodated. Sleeping accommodation, bedding, and other amenities prescribed under the Fire Prevention Business Premises Order No. 2 were available to this man and, in accordance with normal Post Office practice, cooking facilities were also provided.

    AIR MAIL (ARMED FORCES, FAR EAST).
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Postmaster-General what is the fee for air-mail post to military, naval and air personnel in the Far East?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The air postage rates for correspondence for H.M. Forces in the Far East are 1s. 3d. a half-ounce for letters, and 3d. each for thin postcards. Owing to their weight in relation to the limited aircraft capacity available for mails, the letters have to be conveyed part of the way by surface route, but the thin postcards are normally conveyed by air throughout.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does my right hon. Friend realise the burden that this charge entails upon a large number of relatives who want to correspond with their people in the Far East; and is it not possible to reduce the charge even if it means laying a charge upon the inflated profits of his Department?
    Mr. Morrison: The charge is a high one, but the capacity for carrying air mail is so limited that the charge has to be high. There would be no point in reducing the charge if it led to such a volume of air mail correspondence that it could not be carried by air.
    Mr. Bellenger: Would not an alternative be to set up a similar system to that which is operating for the Middle East, the air-graph sysem?
    Mr. Morrison: The postcard is available now and it is flown the whole way for 3d. The question of setting up an airgraph service is well in hand.

  RAILINGS (REMOVAL).
  Mr. Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether any special exemption is given to the general order for the removal of railings for those surrounding churches, burial grounds, tombstones and statues?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): No special exemption has been given, but appeals in such cases are dealt with by direct discussion between officers of my Department and representatives of the various churches concerned. These arrangements are working; satisfactorily.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will the Minister take special care that railings of artistic design or distinction shall not be removed?
  Mr. Hicks: It has always been the case that we take care in regard to railings of historical or artistic merit.

  POST-WAR PLANNING.
  Mr. Bossomasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings when a Waite Paper will be issued outlining his proposals for the promised Town Planning Bill?
  Mr. Hicks: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio gave to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) on 29th January.
  Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that a number of large municipal authorities feel it is impossible to take any preliminary steps in the matter until they have some idea of what the Government are going to do?
  Mr. Hicks: I can only refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS (DIRECTORS).
  Mr. Bossomasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether the various Directors of his Ministry are paid or unpaid; and, if paid, what are their salaries and does their work in the Ministry occupy their full time?
  Mr. Hicks: Of the nine posts of Departmental Directors created since the Ministry was set up, the following five posts are held by unsalaried Directors: Director of Works, Director of Cement, Director of Labour Requirements and Plant, Director of Roofing and Other Materials, Director of Demolition and Recovery. The remaining four posts are held by salaried Directors: Director of Bricks, £1,400 per annum; Director of Structural Design, £1,000 per annum; Director of Emergency Works, the pay of his military rank; Director of Post-war Building, £1,750 per annum. All the salaried Directors devote their whole time to the work of the Ministry.
  Mr. Bossom: Are any of these Directors holding contracts which are of pecuniary benefit to themselves through this Department or any other Department?
  Mr. Hicks: I am not able to say that. So far as I know, the answer would be in the negative, very definitely.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will these unpaid Directors he entitled to a pension without a means test?
  Sir Irving Albcry: Are any of the unpaid Directors remunerated by their firms while they are employed by the Ministry?
  Mr. Hicks: So far as I am aware, none of them lives on air. I imagine that they are getting a salary from somewhere.

  MESSRS. T. P. BENNETT AND SON (FEES).
  Major Lyonsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings the amount of fees credited or paid to the firm of Messrs. T. P. Bennett and Son from 1st January, 1941, to date?
  Mr. Hicks: Since 1st January, 1941, commissions have been given to the firm of Messrs. T. P. Bennett and Son, under
  1174
  which the fees payable will be between £22,800 and £28,800, in accordance with the services which the firm are required to render. The sum of £6,680 has been paid on account.
  Major Lyons: Is any member of this firm one of the Directors of the Ministry about whom the Minister has been speaking?
  Mr. Hicks: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is asking about Mr. T. P. Bennett. He is one of the unpaid Directors referred to in my previous answer.
  Major Lyons: Do we understand that this gentleman, who is an unpaid Director and a member of this firm, has had this benefit during one year of service?
  Mr. Hicks: Since the outbreak of war, about 200 architects have been employed. I do not know whether the House would like to lay down an instruction that, in the pursuit of the war effort, we should invite men from any walk of life and that immediately they come in to give their advice or assistance the whole work of their firms is to be cut off. If we did so, we should soon be very short of such assistance.

  SCRAP METAL.
  Mr. Viantasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he is satisfied that all iron and steel material made available, as a consequence of the appeal to the public to save such metal, is being directly used for the national war effort and that none of this metal is being resold by merchants for private purposes?
  Mr. Hicks: I have fully realised this possibility, and while being satisfied that the great majority of scrap dealers will carry out any instructions both in the letter and the spirit, I have an assurance that, in the event of it being proved that any merchant has resold any such material otherwise than as scrap, his licence to trade will be revoked.
  Mr. Viant: Has the Minister yet attained the objective he had in view, 40,000 tons a week?
  Mr. Hicks: That is the amount which my Department has undertaken to collect and is the amount necessary to meet the country's needs. It is over and above the

  1175
  metal collected by scrap metal merchants in their normal run of business. I will do my best to collect 40,000 tons per week, and every nook and cranny of the country will be searched in order to get it, but I cannot guarantee that it will be done. The best ability of my Department will be devoted to trying to get 40,000 tons per week.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Is there not a lot of metal uncollected that has remained uncollected for the last two years?
  Mr. Hicks: We have broadcast and circularised, and tried to get in touch with people through the Press, to ask them to advise us where there is metal lying about. We are also making a national survey. We have a plan for collecting the metal, working county by county. We hope that as we go through the counties we shall be able to clear up all the scrap.

  WARSHIP SAVINGS WEEKS.
  Sir Robert Youngasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any special objection to local urban districts throughout the country being permitted to name the war vessels, for the construction of which they have secured large sums of money during the warship savings weeks now becoming popular in many localities?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): In view of the general interest which I know is taken in this matter, I have prepared a detailed answer to my hon. Friend's Question, and since it is rather long I will, with his permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Sir R. Young: Will not this idea help to popularise the Navy in the inland centreis?
  Sir V. Warrender: When the hon. Gentleman sees the answer he will see everything set out very comprehensively.
  Following is the reply:
  The Question has been carefully considered, but it has been found impracticable to name ships after districts which have subscribed certain sums to Government securities, because

  1176

  (a) there are not enough vessels of each type to permit the allocation of a warship of the appropriate size to each town, and to ma ke distinctions would naturally be invidious and undesirable.

  (b) it is necessary, for administrative reasons, to assign distinctive groups of names to each class of warship;

  (c) the practice of naming vessels after towns or localities would ultimately result in the elimination of the use of traditional names with their historical associations and battle honours, on which the Navy sets great store.

  It was for these reasons that the Admiralty sanctioned the scheme under which a town or locality can "adopt" a warship already in service, or about to commission, and of a type commensurate with the sum subscribed.

  WEST INDIES.

    CARIBBEAN COLONIES.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any conversations are in progress between the British and the United States Governments on the question of economic collaboration in the West Indies; and whether any steps are likely to be taken by the two Governments for the promotion of social and economic development throughout the Caribbean region?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) on 21st January. I have nothing to add at present.
    Mr. Creech Jones: What progresss is being made, and is some understanding likely to be reached? May I remind the Minister of the very great importance of obtaining some economic understanding between the West Indies and the United States?
    Mr. Hall: Consultation; are still going on, but, since they commenced, America has come into the war, and no doubt is preoccupied with that very important task at the moment.

    PORT OF SPAIN (CORRUPTION CHARGES).
    Dr. Morganasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give particulars of the charges of corruption made against Alderman A. E. Richards, the mayor of the municipality of Port of Spain, Trinidad, who was arrested recently, and released on bail pending trial; whether the trial has taken place yet, or is proceeding; and whether every attempt will be made to stamp out, by strict impartial judicial inquiry, any growth of corruption in these Colonies?
    Mr. George Hall: No information as to this case has been received from the Governor, but he is being asked for a report, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend on receipt of his reply.

    SCHOOL ATTENDANCE, JAMAICA.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the high percentage of non-attendance at school of 30 to 40 per cent. of children of school age in Jamaica, it is intended to adopt remedial measures, either by compulsion or otherwise, to terminate this situation?
    Mr. George Hall: Non-attendance at school in Jamaica is due not only to social and economic conditions but to inadequate accommodation, and until further accommodation can be provided any extension of the areas in which attendance is already compulsory is inadvisable. A number of steps are being taken to diminish the serious non-attendance factor among children already enrolled, including the framing of proposals for the more effective application of compulsion in the compulsory attendance areas. Schemes for the improvement of the educational system, including the provision of additional accommodation, are at present being considered by the Comptroller for Development and Welfare in the West Indies.
    Mr. Adams: May I take it that the Minister is seriously concerned about the growth of illiteracy in Jamaica?
    Mr. Hall: That is one of the reasons for which the Controller has been appointed, and I can assure my hon. Friend that they are paying special attention to that matter.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is it not a fact that one reason why some children do not go to school is because poverty necessitates their employment?

  NIGERIA (WARNING TO PRESS).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the local Press in Nigeria were recently warned against the publication of critical statements likely to encourage discontent; and why the use of the Governor's power under the General Defence Regulations was threatened?
  Mr. George Hall: The warning given to the Press by the Governor of Nigeria specifically referred to the publication of incorrect and misleading statements. The Governor has special war-time powers under the General Defence Regulations to take action against newspapers publishing such statements when, in view of the present emergency, their publication, in his opinion, is likely to have results which might be inimical to public order. Certain newspapers have, in fact, offended against the Regulations and thus rendered themselves liable to penalties. The Governor has attempted to deal with them by making a personal approach. He reports that this has had no effect, and that he therefore issued a warning in a broadcast speech from Lagos that in future cases action would be taken where necessary under the Regulations.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Will my hon. Friend see that a very liberal discretion is exercised in respect of the administration of those Regulations?
  Mr. Hall: That has been the case, but there are Regulations which must be applied, and if they are constantly evaded, the Governor must take action.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. Gentleman say against what journals action has been taken?
  Mr. Hall: No action has been taken yet.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Is not some of the local Press under German influence?
  Mr. Hall: I do not think so.

  EAST AFRICA.

    NATIVE RECRUITMENT.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason all recruitment for the African military labour, pioneer and transport corps in East Africa has been suspended?
    Mr. George Hall: By agreement between the local civil and military authorities, recruitment for the East African Military Labour Service has been temporarily suspended in Kenya in order to avoid competition from the Forces for the African labour required for the programme of increased production for war purposes.
    Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask my hon. Friend whether this decision can be considered in the light of events in Malaya, where it has been complained that we have not had the full co-operation of the Colonial peoples during the Japanese aggression? May I also ask whether the estimates of the white farmers were taken, and whether in considering those estimates due regard was had to the possibility of effecting economies in regard to the use of black labour?
    Mr. Hall: This matter had better be left to the civil and military authorities, who know all the circumstances. They have decided on the lines set out in the reply.

    HOUSING SCHEME, NAIROBI.
    Major Lyonsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies from what fund the Secretary of State has sanctioned a loan or grant for a rehousing scheme for Africans at Nairobi, and what are the conditions of the loan; to what authority is it made, and what is the total estimated expenditure of the scheme; whether the rents will be economic or sub-economic; and whether the plans provide for reasonable amenities, including tree planting, outdoor and indoor relaxation and a community centre, all with due regard to economy?
    Mr. George Hall: A loan of £30,000 was made in November last year from Kenya Government Funds to the Nairobi Municipal Council for a housing scheme for Africans. The loan is for a period of 40 years and interest is payable at 3 per cent. The rents to be charged by the
    1180
    Council are to be sufficient to cover capital cost and annual maintenance only. The plans provide for a central garden, additional garden sites on the outskirts of the location, and a belt of trees along one side. Details of recreational facilities are not available.
    Major Lyons: Will my hon. Friend keep his mind on the necessity for those recreation facilities in any further plans which are put to him?
    Mr. Hall: I have no doubt that future plans will comply with my hon. Friend's wishes.

  "DAILY WORKER."
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider giving the necessary Parliamentary time to discuss the Notice of Motion standing in the names of the hon. Members for Leigh, Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) and Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) relating to the removal of the ban on the "Daily Worker"?
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir.
  Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ban dates from over 12 months ago, and that since that time the people who controlled the paper have certainly kept their rights of citizenship and have helped the war effort, and further that the trade unions have sent in resolutions calling for an examination of the matter? In view of that, cannot he give time for a discussion?
  Sir I. Albery: As this raises an issue in which the only appeal is to the House of Commons, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that some facility should be given for a discussion on the subject?
  Mr. Attlee: It could be raised on the Adjournment.
  Sir I. Albery: But will the Government give facilities on the Adjournment?
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: Has this matter been considered recently by the Cabinet from the point of view of the unfortunate effect the ban has on war production, and, if so, could he say when?
  Mr. Attlee: Not without notice.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, representing 100,000 engineers, and other unions have appealed for this ban to be removed? Has any consideration been given to that? Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  MINISTER OF PRODUCTION.
  Sir T. Mooreasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the precise functions of the Minister of Production; and what Government Departments his activities will cover?
  Mr. Attlee: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await the further statement on this subject which will be made in due course.
  Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a very widespread feeling in the country that this is essential to victory, and will steps be taken to overcome the difficulty soon?
  Mr. Davidson: In discussing this question, will the Minister keep in mind the very great importance of effecting regional organisation to assist the Ministry?

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

    VALUABLE RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS (RE-PULPING).
    Mr. Hannahasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether, in sending books and papers from libraries and public offices to be pulped for the national effort, care is being exercised not hastily to destroy any records or documents of value?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The desirability of preserving from re-pulping any records or documents of special value has been carefully borne in mind, and the support of the Ministry of Supply has been given to public appeals to that effect by the British Records Association. The Library Association gives special attention to this matter when turning out library books and papers for salvage, and the attention of Government Departments has also been drawn to the subject.
    Mr. Hannah: Can we be assured that what is printed on the new paper produced will be of more value to the world than what is scrapped?
    Mr. Macmillan: After my long experience, I should be the last man to give that assurance.

    FACTORY (COMPLAINTS).
    Mr. Burkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether he will inquire into the corn-plaints of alleged waste of labour and material at a firm on war-work in Lancashire, the name of which has been supplied to him; that men in charge are stated to have had no previous experience of the work; that numerous defective parts are lying about scrapped; that women have to spend their time knitting; and that these complaints were made at a meeting of the employees specially called by a responsible trade union at which two district officials were present?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: Yes, Sir. The meeting of the employees was called as a preliminary to a subsequent joint meeting with the management, at which the complaints were fully discussed and general agreement reached. I am satisfied that the closest co-operation exists between the two sides.
    Mr. Burke: Is the hon. Gentleman, aware that these complaints have been widespread and have caused much concern in the neighbourhood of this factory, and does he think that insurance agents, school teachers, and salesmen are the best type to be put in charge of production of components for aeroplanes and tanks?
    Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend has made a lot of statements to which he will not expect me to reply offhand, but I am very gratified that the matter in dispute has been settled by the operation of the Whitley Council, on which both sides are represented.

    TIMBER WORK (WOMEN'S WAGES).
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply who is responsible for fixing 9½ per hour which is being paid to the women handling timber in the vicinity of Ashington; and, in view of the nature of the work, is he satisfied that this rate of payment is adequate?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: I am informed that women are employed mainly on the work of peeling, light felling and cross cutting in the district referred to, both by the Home Grown Timber Production Department of the Ministry of Supply and by private employers of that Industry. The rates of wages are settled by the Joint Industrial Council for the Home Grown Timber Trade.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me when these rates of pay were settled?
    Mr. Macmillan: I could not say that.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the nature of the work, and will he answer the last part of my Question, as to whether this is an adequate rate of payment?
    Mr. Macmillan: I do not think it would be very proper for me to go behind the original agreement by which the rate was fixed.
    Mr. Stephen: Would the hon. Gentleman himself like to work for that amount?

    NON-FERROUS METALS (SALVAGE).
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether there are effective arrangements at present in force for the salvage and subsequent recovery of nonferrous metals; and, in view of the risk of copper and brass utensils being resold as such to members of the public after having been donated for the national war effort, whether instances of this have occurred and are steps taken to prevent it?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: Non-ferrous metal articles are collected from householders by local authorities and dealers, and disposed of for scrap through waste merchants. The Non-Ferrous Metals Control have appointed experienced representatives in each region to advise upon the best use of salvaged non-ferrous metals. The donor can avoid any possibility of utensils being diverted and resold before they are broken up by himself rendering them unusable for their original purpose.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that although non-ferrous metals are very urgently required, the drive has been chiefly for ferrous metals, and would my
    1184
    hon. Friend consider whether more publicity could be given to the need for nonferrous metals?
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stokes: Would the hon. Gentleman say at approximately what date the experienced people referred to were appointed in the districts? How long ago was it?
    Mr. Macmillan: I could not say.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    FROZEN MEAT (DISTRIBUTION, LONDON).
    Mr. Purbrickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why meat is frequently distributed from the Chester Street, Hyde Park, depôt to the butchers in a hard frozen condition?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): It is impracticable, having regard to the desire for speedy movement in and out of the wholesale meat depôts to thaw out frozen meat there prior to distribution to the butchers. It is distributed in a hard frozen condition throughout all the London depôts and thawed out at the butchers' premises.
    Mr. Purbrick: In view of the fact that retail butchers have no facilities for thawing out frozen meat properly, and consequently meat has reached the public in an inferior condition, could not the meat be thawed out before delivery to the retailers as was done before the distribution came under Government control?
    Major Lloyd George: We are doing a great deal, as my hon. Friend knows. He is no doubt aware that a great proportion of imported meat was chilled, not frozen.

    EGGS (BLACK MARKET).
    Mr. Woodsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that it is impossible to prevent sales of eggs at black-market prices by poultry keepers with up to 50 hens; and whether he is now prepared to compel all producers with 24 hens, and over, to send their eggs to approved packing stations?
    Major Lloyd George: While some producers with less than 50 laying hens may evade the price Orders to which they are

    1185
    subject, I have no evidence that such a practice is widespread. The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question is in the negative.
    Mrs. Hardie: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise the large number of producers kept off the market because of this provision that people with up to 50 hens should not be dealt with under the scheme, and would he reduce this number to bring in more producers under the scheme?
    Major Lloyd George: There are very great difficulties in that into which I can- not enter by question and answer.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the original decision is absolutely right?
    Mr. Thorne: Where the persons are known to the Ministry to be dealing in the black market, will action be taken?
    Major Lloyd George: Anybody known by my Department to be in the black market is dealt with at once.
    Mr. Woods: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries as to the price which eggs of such producers are fetching, and will he consult with the Minister of Agriculture to ascertain the sources of supply? There is evidence that this black market in eggs is creating also a black market in provisions for feeding hens.
    Major Lloyd George: As I said in my reply, I have no evidence of such sales being widespread. If the hon. Member has information I should be grateful if he would pass it on to me.

    BRITISH RESTAURANTS.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any Government decision as to the continued existence of British Restaurants after the war has been come to, and whether, in view of the outstanding public advantages of this experiment, an opportunity will be afforded before a definite decision is taken to debate the matter in the House?
    Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to a Question on this subject which I gave to my hon.
    1186
    Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 22nd January, 1942.
    Mr. Adams: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give some indication as to whether there will be a Debate in the House before the cessation of these British Restaurants?
    Major Lloyd George: Briefly, the answer given was that the function of my Department is to see that the people of this country are adequately fed in war time, and that it would be for Parliament to decide which, if any, of the existing activities of the Ministry should continue when the present temporary powers expire.

    SEED POTATOES (DAMAGE BY RAIL).
    Mr. Colegateasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that his Department have failed to provide protection for seed potatoes distributed by rail by his Department, as required by the Potatoes (1941 Crop) (Control) (No. 2) Order, 1941, and that many hundreds of tons of valuable seed potatoes have in consequence become a total loss; and whether he will take steps to see that in future the Order in question is obeyed by all officials engaged in this work?
    Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. I am not aware that extensive loss of seed potatoes has resulted from failure to provide protection during transit. Inspections have revealed that, of 161 tons 5 cwt. about which complaints were made, 13 tons 3 cwt. were damaged. Instructions have been given to all concerned to ensure that seed potatoes are properly protected.
    Mr. Colegate: Surely my right hon. and gallant Friend is aware that large numbers of railway trucks throughout the country are carrying seed potatoes without any straw or any other adequate protection?
    Major Lloyd George: The obligation to protect potatoes is upon the people engaged in the transaction. Where the Ministry are a party to the consignment we are responsible; otherwise we are not.
    Mr. Colegate: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that I am referring to consignments from Eire for which the Ministry is responsible?
    Major Lloyd George: In the case of consignments from Eire in which the Ministry is concerned instructions have been issued that all wagons must be well protected.
    Sir Ernest Shepperson: Is it not the case that a great deal more damage is done to potatoes coming from Scotland by water than by rail?

    FEEDING OATS, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. Snaddenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that farmers in Scotland are finding it impossible to dispose of their feeding oats; that storage accommodation is overflowing with this commodity; and what steps he proposes to take to meet the position?
    Major Lloyd George: I am aware of the difficulty which is being experienced in certain areas in Scotland in disposing of feeding oats, and steps have already been taken to relieve the position. A considerable quantity of Scottish feeding oats purchased by the Ministry is being moved to localities where they are required for consumption or where storage accommodation is available. I would remind my hon. Friend that increased prices have been provided for growers who are able and willing to hold their oats in stack until March or later, and that large quantities will then be required to provide adequate supplies of milling oats for oatmeal and of feeding oats for horses during the summer months.
    Mr. Snadden: Are not the steps to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers applicable only to milling oats, and is he expecting farmers to get milling oats with coupons which they have not got?
    Major Lloyd George: I will look into that.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
  SHIPYARD CONDITIONS.
  Major Lloyd: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the Conditions in the Shipyards, and move a Resolution.

  HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION.
  Mr. McNeil: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the
  1188
  Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to questions relating to Hospital Administration, and move a Resolution.

  YOUTH REGISTRATION AND SERVICE.
  Mr. T. Smith: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shat call attention to the question of Youth Registration and Service, and move a Resolution.
  ARMY PREVENTION OF WASTE.
  Mr. Woodburn: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates I shall call attention to Reducing and Prevention of Waste, and move a Resolution.
  CIVIL LIBERTIES ("DAILY WORKER").
  Mr. Maxton: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall I call attention to the Ban on the "Daily Worker," and other Infringements of Civil Liberties, and move a Resolution.
  CIVIL AVIATION.
  Mrs. Tate: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of Civil Aviation to this Country and the Empire in Post-war Planning, and move a Resolution.

  FOOD SUPPLY.
  Mr. Sorensen (for Mr. Neil Maclean): I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the Food Supply, and move a Resolution.
  Mr. Speaker: I trust that the hon. Member has been asked to give that notice on behalf of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean).
  Mr. Sorensen: I understood, Sir, that you were asking someone to do so.
  Mr. Speaker: Not unless he had been asked to do so by the hon. Member for Govan.

  PRESERVATION OF INDUSTE IES, SCOTLAND.
  Sir John Graham Kerr: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the Importance of Preserving Industries in Scotland, and move a Resolution.
  NAVAL CONTROL OF AIRCRAFT.
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates. I shall call attention to the need for the Navy to have complete Control over all the Aircraft it requires to fulfil its responsibilities, and move a Resolution.
  SHIPBUILDING.
  Mr. Storey: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to Shipbuilding, and move a Resolution.
  EDUCATIONAL AND PHYSICAL ASSISTANCE (ROYAL AIR FORCE).
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of Educational and Physical Assistance to the members of the Air Force, and move a Resolution.
  SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION (ROYAL AIR FORCE).
  Commander Locker-Lampson: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the lack of Scientific Education, and move a Resolution.
  WELFARE AND EDUCATION OF TROOPS.
  Mr. Mathers: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the Welfare and Education of the Troops, and move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid to the Kitchen Committee."
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): It is only right that I should say a word on this, in order to call specific attention to an extension being made in the travelling facilities provided for Members of this House. Hon. Members know that the practice has been for several years that travelling facilities—either first-class or third-class, as hon. Members may wish—are provided for hon. Members between Westminster and their constituencies. At the beginning of the war the natural extension was made to provide travelling facilities for our hon. and gallant colleagues between Westminster and their military stations. That extension was an cjusdem generis of the previous facilities, and it was not thought necessary to bring it further before the House. There has been this year another extension, which I announced in reply to a Question on 4th September, which makes available to hon. and gallant Members travelling facilities between their military stations and their

    1207
    constituencies. I think it is an extension which will be found agreeable to hon. Members. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to give any estimate of the cost of the extension, but it is obvious that it will be only a very small sum, and it is possible to argue that it will effect an economy. It all depends on whether the military station and the constituency are on the same side of London or not. At present, if a Member is stationed on a different side of London from his constituency, he can get a ticket from his military station to Westminster and then get a ticket from Westminster to his constituency. If his military station is on the same side of London as his constituency, he will have to come up to London from his station, and then go back again to his constituency. Under the new arrangement, that double journey will be avoided. That is why I do not think that the proposal is likely to involve any extra charge. But, as this is an extension of the facilities which hon. Members have in the past voted to themselves, it is only right that their specific attention should be called to it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid to the Kitchen Committee."

    MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £650, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for certain miscellaneous expenses, including certain grants in aid."
    Captain Crookshank: This expenditure is due to another action by this House, in one of its representative capacities. Most of us belong to the Empire Parliamentary Association. That Association decided during the year to invite delegates of the Dominion Parliaments to visit us. We had the pleasure of receiving delegates from Canada and South Africa. Unfortunately Australia and New Zealand were not able to be represented, owing to the recent extension of the war. In order to defray the expenses of that visit, it is necessary to ask for this Supplementary Vote.
    Mr. Tinker: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman go more fully into the matter, and tell us what these expenses cover? Do they cover the passages of the delegates from the Dominions to this country, or are they for entertainment after their arrival in this country?
    Captain Crookshank: The question of the travelling expenses to and from is a matter which is settled in different ways on different occasions. As hon. Members who are versed in the arrangements of the Empire Parliamentary Association know, it is normal for the entertainment to be provided in the country to which the delegates go, whether this country or the Dominions. Whether in this particular case the payment covered any of the actual travelling outside this country I am not certain, but I can let the hon. Member know. He can rest assured that if it was so, it was because it was considered by the Association very important that these visitors should come. It may be that the Dominions did not have the traveling facilities themselves. Of course, when they come here they are entertained by the Association, which provides travelling and hotel fees and arranges such small social gatherings as may be necessary in order that the delegates may achieve the purpose for which they have come, to maintain contact with this country, and, more especially, with both Houses of Parliament.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £650, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for certain miscellaneous expenses, including certain grants in aid."

    GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum not exceeding £10,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."
    Captain Crookshank: This Vote is required because in the main Estimates we did not take any money for this purpose. When the Estimates for the year were being prepared, it was the height of the blitz period, and it did not then seem

    1209
    likely that much Government hospitality would be required, to judge from what it had been in the previous period when the figure had considerably dropped. Since this is a continuing Fund, there was a sufficient balance to cover what we then thought would be required, if those conditions continued. As hon. Gentlemen know, however, not only did those conditions not continue, but a great number of opportunities arose for His Majesty's Government to offer hospitality to distinguished persons, such as representatives of the Dominions and of Allied Governments and other delegations who came to this country. It is for that purpose that I ask the House to vote this money. I give as an example of the very great pleasure which the Government had in being able to show hospitality in this way and through this Fund, the case of the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand. There is also the case of His Majesty the King of Greece and the members of the Greek Government when they came here, and various other delegations.
    Mr. David Adams: This Estimate indicates a decrease on last year's expenditure. Does not that represent too optimistic a view in view of the continued visits to this country of representatives from the Dominions and elsewhere?
    Captain Crookshank: I hope it does not. There is a decrease in the sense that we are taking £10,000 instead of £12,000 but, as I have said, there was a balance in the Fund at the beginning of the year. I would not like hon. Gentlemen to think from this figure that the total for the year is going to be only £10,000. That figure is the estimate plus the balance.
    Mr. Adams: What is the balance?
    Captain Crookshank: It was somewhere in the region of £9,500.
    Mr. Hannah: Does any surplus go back to the general fund, or is this Fund kept altogether separate?
    Captain Crookshank: It is kept separate, otherwise there would not be a balance of £9,500 at the beginning of the year. That does not go back into the general Government fund. It is a Hospitality Fund as such.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."

    SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, &C.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £69,000 be granted to his Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for sundry grants in aid of scientific investigation, etc., and other grants."
    Captain Crookshank: This Vote covers two different points. First, there was the decision by His Majesty's Government to give a new, a more important and an independent status to the Agricultural Research Council and, in fact, to bring it up to the status of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Medical Research Council. The need for research into many agricultural matters is so great, that if a change of status in that way helps to accomplish what is required, I am sure hon. Gentlemen will not see any objection to it. Those recommendations are being put into effect. One of the results of that is to change the source from which this council has been financed—the Development Commissioners have previously found the money—and to put it directly upon the Votes. That does not make much difference because, by and large, Parliament finances the Development Commissioners by grants in aid and this is merely putting this particular expenditure on to another Vote. It is a purely technical matter which arises as a result of raising the status of the Council.
    There is also a deficiency in appropriations-in-aid which appears under sub-Head "Z". Under the first sub-Head "M" there is an increase on the original Estimate of £26,000. That additional sum is required in order to meet the growing needs of the Agricultural Research Council for research stations and administrative expenses and research purposes generally. Therefore, what this Vote really means is, first, that we are raising the status of the Agricultural Research Council and we are for the rest of the year giving it a larger sum than had been anticipated in the

    1211
    main Estimates. In any case, it will be getting those moneys not through the Development Commissioners but directly from the Vote, though that last point, in itself, as I have explained, does not make any real difference.
    Sir Ernest Shepperson: May I ask whether these grants or any part of them will go to the agricultural colleges to assist them in carrying out their functions in connection with agricultural research?
    Captain Crookshank: Of course, there is an enormous number of grants and technically they come under the Department of the Lord President of the Council, as do other scientific grants, and I am merely answering for him at the moment. I do not know whether any of the sum which is dealt with in this Supplementary Estimate is going directly to the colleges. But these are, I understand, largely grants for work done through or by agents of the colleges—for instance, the School of Agriculture at Cambridge, the School of Animal Pathology at Cambridge, the Institute of Agricultural Parasitology, grant to Rothamsted, grant to Reading University and many others. I think this is the normal procedure under which the financing of this work is carried out, and if there are any specific or detailed questions on which hon. Members require information, I think it would be more convenient if they were put down at Question time and dealt with by the Minister concerned.
    Mr. Price: In the Class VI Vote in these Supplementary Estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture I find there are grants for agricultural research purposes involving an additional sum amounting to about £29,000. Do these grants not come under that head also?
    Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member is referring to another Vote, and I am afraid I cannot answer for that. The Minister of Agriculture will deal with that Vote. What I am dealing with now is what is being done directly under the auspices of the Agricultural Research Council and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured, if this is what he has in mind, that these bodies do all work together.
    Mr. Price: Into which class—the Vote we are dealing with now or the other Vote
    1212
    of the Ministry of Agriculture—do the grants to universities or research stations come?
    Captain Crookshank: I think it will be clear from what I have said that they come into both. The instances which I quoted to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) were grants which come out of this Vote. Obviously there are many, other moneys provided for these purposes through the Ministry of Agriculture.
    Mr. David Adams: In view of the growing importance of agricultural development as a result of the war and other causes, is the Minister satisfied that the amount now provided is sufficient to meet all these expanding purposes? I ask this question because, to my knowledge, scientific research generally in this country has been far behind that in other leading countries. That was certainly the case in pre-war days. It is a position which should be rectified and the present may be an opportunity of doing so, as far as agriculture is concerned.
    Captain Crookshank: I think the Agricultural Research Council can be trusted to bring forward any proposals which are within its field and which it considers necessary at the present time. But this is a Supplementary Estimate and I am dealing only with the excess for which the House is being asked. I understand that the matters dealt with in this excess are largely research work on animal diseases, nutrition, and plants and soil.
    Mr. Adams: Have we agreed to the Agricultural Research Council's Estimate?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £69,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for sundry grants in aid of scientific investigation, etc., and other grants."

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and

    1213
    other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I gave a brief explanation of this Supplementary Estimate. The first item is an increase in the contribution of His Majesty's Government towards the funds of the International Red Cross. I do not think that it is really necessary to explain to the Committee the very great value of the work which is being done by the Red Cross. It is of the greatest help in the sending of parcels to prisoners of war and facilitating communications between prisoners and residents at home and a great many other works. I am sure that relatives, and this country generally, are under considerable indebtedness to the International Red Cross Society for the work that they have done. This work has to be financed. It is financed in the main by the International Red Cross itself, but there are contributions also from the various belligerent Governments. The cost of this work does not go down but increases all the time. We have decided to give an additional grant of £12,500 towards this work, and I hope that the Committee will not feel that this is wrong.
    The second item is the grant-in-aid towards the relief of distress in. China. Last year His Majesty's Ambassador in Chungking drew the attention of His Majesty's Government to the very great difficulty which the Chinese Red Cross was experiencing from lack of transport; and in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), my right hon. Friend said that we were going to give the sum of £50,000 to help the Chinese with their transport difficulties. That sum is being administered by the British Fund for the Relief of Distress in China, in co-operation with a Committee set up for the purpose by His Majesty's Ambassador at Chungking for assisting the distress of British and Chinese nationals. The Friends' Ambulance Unit, incidentally, provides the personnel for ambulances.
    The final item is an anticipated saving on the grant-in-aid to the British Council. I think the Committee generally are agreed that the British Council does very valuable work, and the fact that there is this reduction does not mean that that
    1214
    work has become any less valuable or that it is any the less appreciated. It is simply that owing to the developments of the war the activities of the British Council in several parts of the world have been reduced, notably in the Balkans, and the reduction of the work in the Balkans has caused the reduction in the Estimate.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: The Committee will agree with the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the excellent work done by the International Red Cross. He made one remark that intrigued me when he stated that contributions were being made from the various belligerent Governments, and I was wondering what is the basis of contribution. Is it based upon the number of prisoners of war or upon the population of these particular countries?
    Mr. Law: I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Member exactly what the basis is or exactly what are the contributions of the belligerent Governments compared with that of the British Government; but I can assure him that, generally speaking, there is an equality and that our contribution is very much on a level with that of other Governments.
    Mr. Mander: Can my hon. Friend say whether any of the extra contribution will be required in connection with the distribution of food in Greece under the supervision of the International Red Cross, and whether, if that is so, he is satisfied that there will be complete control by the International Red Cross of the food that is distributed by the Red Cross in Greece? I would also like to know whether the International Red Cross is operating in all the countries occupied by the three enemies at the present time.
    Mr. Law: With regard to the first point of my hon. Friend, the grant in aid is specifically directed towards the relief of the distress of prisoners of war, and I do not think it applies to the question of foodstuffs for Greece. The International Red Cross operates in all occupied countries in Europe. The situation is a little obscure with regard to the Far East. The International Red Cross, as my hon. Friend is aware, operates under the Prisoners of War Convention. The Japanese are signatories to the Convention, but they have never ratified it, and we do not yet know, though we have asked

    1215
    them, whether they intend to observe it or not. We cannot really tell, until we know this, what the position will be in the Far East as far as the Japanese are concerned. I can assure him that the International Red Cross are very much alive to the importance of the Far East and that they are doing everything they can to regularise the position there.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

    PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for public education in Scotland, for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including sundry grants in aid, and for grants to approved associations, and other expenses in connection with youth welfare."

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £255,535, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing; fishery organisation, research and development, control of diseases of fish, etc.; and sundry other services, including certain remanet subsidy payments."
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The main items in this sum of £255,000 are £137,000 for salaries, which is accounted for by overtime, bonuses and salary increases to staff owing to the war, and travelling expenses of £28,000, and one of £133,000, which is mainly
    1216
    accounted for by the increased expenditure caused by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and the steps that have had to be taken to conquer that disease. Apart from that, the sums involved are very small, and if hon. Members have any particular points of inquiry, I shall be very glad to reply.
    Mr. Quibell: Would the Minister explain the reason for the £60,000 for losses on redemption of loans, &c., lent by the Commissioners under Section 1 of the Agricultural Credits Act?
    Mr. Hudson: That, I understand, is a figure which can never be anticipated or estimated with any degree of accuracy. It really depends upon whether farmers who, some years ago, bought farms and obtained advances for the purpose of doing so, have a good year or a bad year. If they have a good year they are apt to pay off the money borrowed before it becomes due.
    Mr. T. Smith: There are one or two questions which I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman, in perfectly good faith. Everybody agrees that we need maximum food production, and I think the Department have been doing good work in that direction. In this Estimate we are spending, quite rightly, a good deal of money on research, and I want to ask whether any experiments are taking place, under the aegis of any Department, with what is called hydroponics—that is, soilless cultivation. This is a subject to which in these days it is well worth paying some attention. Some time ago I put down one or two Questions to the Department on this subject. My interest in it was first brought about during a crossing of the Pacific, where, at Wake Island, hydroponics has been practised quite successfully, although, of course, the climatic conditions there are much different from those in this country. But in this country quite a number of separate organisations and people have been paying some attention to this matter, and I would like to know from the Minister whether his Department are co-ordinating or collecting the results of these experiments with a view to seeing whether or not intensive production could be brought about during the war.
    Secondly, I want to raise a question which has been causing some concern in

    1217
    the countryside. I want the Minister to believe me when I say that both sides in the industry are working very well together in trying to obtain maximum food production. I think the Committee would agree that any matter that is likely to cause irritation and any suggestion of hostility ought to receive attention and be removed, if it can be legitimately removed. We have heard, and do hear, especially in war-time, about the need for a prosperous and healthy countryside. Everybody seems to have made up his mind that when this war is over never again will we allow agriculture to go back to the position it was in a few years ago. Quite frankly, I believe that we ought to have, after this war, a healthy and happy countryside and agriculture—
    The Deputy-Chairman: After this war does not come into this Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. Smith: I beg your pardon, Colonel Clifton Brown. That was a slip, but we have at the moment a Committee dealing with rural education. This Committee was appointed by the Minister, and on it there are some men and women who will do their best to think out a good system for rural education. Unfortunately, however, the Minister will not allow on that Committee any representative of the organised agricultural workers. The argument, I am told, is that if he allows any such representative to be on the Committee he must then allow representatives of other organised bodies to be on the Committee, but I would point out that at the present time—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Is the Committee down on the Supplementary Estimate? If it is paid, then maybe it comes under Item 1.
    Mr. Smith: This Committee was appointed by the Minister, and I take it that its expenses must come under his Department. I bow to your ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, but I think I am entitled to raise the matter either on this or the next Vote.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Only if they are paid a salary. Then they will come under Item 1. Otherwise, the expenses of the Committee are not down on the Supplementary Estimates and cannot be raised.
    Mr. Smith: This is a very wide Estimate, and I would like to ask you, Colonel
    1218
    Clifton Brown, how far can one raise this very important question from the point of view of the agricultural workers. I wish to do it with the best intention in the world and in no spirit of hostile criticism. All I want is to see a settlement of a dispute which is causing some irritation.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am bound to say that I think the main Estimate is the real time when this should be raised; otherwise there is always an Adjournment Motion when such matters can be raised.
    Mr. Smith: I bow to your ruling. I think the Committee will agree about the importance of this subject, especially so when the organised agricultural workers have no direct representative in this House. However, I will raise the matter again at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Hudson: May I reply to the hon. Gentleman's question about hydroponics? The Agricultural Research Council naturally deal with a very wide range of subjects, and I make it my business to read their proceedings. Speaking from memory, I believe I have seen something about hydroponics lately, but I would not like to be cross-questioned about it at the moment. I will, however, find out and let the hon. Member know.
    Mr. Price: I see that there is a sum of £133,000 for animal diseases, and I see also that it mainly concerns expenses in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. But important as that disease is, there are others. If this sum covers only foot-and-mouth disease and a little swine fever, I must point out, as the Minister knows, that tuberculosis, Johne's disease and mastitis are very serious diseases of the dairying industry which are causing tremendous losses every year. I know the Minister has a scheme in hand which, owing to certain technical difficulties, cannot for the moment be put into operation, but I hope he will be able to give some assurance that something will be done. Although I do not want to see the sum raised unduly—we must all be careful in these times to see that money is not unnecessarily spent—I would like to see something more than an expenditure on foot-and-mouth disease.
    As regards the amounts for agricultural research, the increases, I see, come to about £27,000. It is not easy in these times to carry on agricultural research, as the universities and research stations are

    1219
    having their staffs very much reduced and the younger people are being called up. But I hope this research work will be carried on. The agricultural industry is faced with special problems in war-time which were not present in peace-time, and it is, therefore, important to keep agricultural research going. For instance, the feeding-stuffs given to cattle now are different from what they were in peace time. Much less is imported, and indeed, very little is imported; much more homegrown feeding-stuffs are used, and in my opinion this is much better for the animals. Further research is needed into the values of feeding-stuffs such as silage and the various home-grown things which we are producing. This research work through the Universities and research stations must be continued, and the Committee must not stint the money necessary for this work.
    Under Item H.3, there is a reduction of £5,290 on the National Stud. Does this mean a general reduction in the work which the Ministry have done hitherto in improving livestock? The farming community has been much concerned because it has not been possible to get fees granted from the Ministry, as they were formerly granted in peace time, to various societies which exist for the purpose of sending round stallions to improve the breed of horses. I do not think we can altogether ignore the horse in these days. It is an age of tractors, but even now the horse has enormous value. It is causing considerable concern to the farming community that nothing is now being done to keep alive the breeding of good cart horses. Does this reduction of £5,290 mean that nothing is to be done in this respect?
    Mr. Hudson: The National Stud has nothing to do with cart horses.
    Mr. Price: That is what I wanted to know. I understand the position. In regard to Item J.5, there is a reduction of £90,000 in respect of land drainage grants. Does this mean that work in this respect is decreasing? As a result of the last Agriculture Act, we were glad to think that there were very considerable facilities for farmers to carry out upland drainage and also grants to local catchment boards, and that these would remove the difficulties which there had been hitherto in carrying out all-round
    1220
    drainage schemes and dealing with waterlogged land. I should like to have some explanations on the points I have raised.
    Mr. David Adams: I should like to ask whether steps are being taken to expend moneys in improving the quality of low-grade farms, of which there are many thousands in the country. It is well known that our great local authorities have for long complained, through their local medical officers of health, of the quality of much of the milk coming into their districts.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Milk does not come under the Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. Adams: Would I not be in Order in asking that money should be expended for the purpose of improving the quality of farms?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That would be out of Order on this Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. Adams: Then I shall have to raise the matter in another way, because it is time it was raised. Diseases in cows are very prevalent indeed, and owing to the poverty of many of the farming community, there is no examination of their cows. The veterinary officers do not attend from one year to the next. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister whether he will schedule tuberculosis as being a liability on the community in such cases, so that herds which are notoriously tubercular can be examined in the public interest
    Sir E. Shepperson: With regard to agricultural research, I understand that generous grants are being made to the various agricultural schools at Cambridge and also to Rothamsted and Fareham. I should like to have an assurance that the results of the activities of these various bodies are co-ordinated and that there is not overlapping in the research work which they are doing. I do not think it is possible to lay too great emphasis upon the value of agricultural research. Recently we have been told of the value of vitamins in order that we may get the greatest possible value out of the food we consume. Similar studies in regard to the values of foods which plants can absorb from the soil and the air are essential. To my mind, it is no good getting theoretical results from research unless

    1221
    those results can be practically applied. I understand that in various parts of the country the Ministry have established experimental farms where these results can be practically applied, and if that be the case, I should think it is the most valuable asset which the Ministry could present to agriculture at the present time.
    Mr. Snadden: With regard to the Item concerning the exportation of pedigree stock, there is an expenditure of £900 in connection with the upkeep of the quarantine station at Glasgow. I am not quite clear what the £900 means, and I should be glad if the Minister would explain it.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): The answer to the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) is that the £900 refers to the Ministry's contribution towards the expenses of the quarantine station at Glasgow, although I am not certain at the moment of the period of time which this Item covers. My hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) referred to diseases of animals—Johne's disease and tuberculosis—and I need hardly say that that is a matter which is receiving active consideration constantly. The amount of money that is made available for research into diseases of animals generally is being increased rather than decreased all the time.
    The second question related to G.4, Agricultural Research Expenses. It is obvious to anyone that this Supplementary Estimate has been increased, but, in spite of the continued increase to the Treasury, I think that the value to agriculture has also been increased. Next comes the question of the National Stud. This matter can be explained away in a few sentences. The National Stud bred two beautiful racehorses which were leased to His Majesty. They both won many races and added materially to the Exchequer. Some of the other horses were sold for good prices, and I am hopeful that we shall be as fortunate again this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) referred to milk. That question is certainly worth consideration. He will remember, of course, that all milk premiums paid to farmers are intended to assist in clearing up tuberculosis and other diseases. It is a slow process, which I should like to see
    1222
    expedited, and I can assure my hon. Friend that no efforts will be spared in trying to safeguard the health of children and others.
    Mr. David Adams: Is it intended to make the tuberculosis examination of cows a public charge?
    Mr. Williams: That matter hardly comes within the scope of this Supplementary Estimate. As my hon. Friend knows, the cost of examination is borne jointly between two bodies, but it is rather a big question, and one can hardly deal with the whole field of animal diseases on this Vote. Agricultural research is co-ordinated by the Agricultural Research Council. Unfortunately, in the past there has been too long a gap between discovery and translation of discovery to the farmer. My right hon. Friend has recently set up an Agricultural Improvement Council, whose duty it is to see that as rapidly as possible the discoveries of scientists are handed on to the farmers. I am convinced that the revision which has taken place will be of inestimable value to agriculture, and that it will ensure that agriculture derives the maximum benefit from the researches of the "backroom boys" of agriculture.
    Mr. Price: Can my hon. Friend state the reasons for the reduction of £90,000?
    Mr. Williams: The apparent saving of £90,000 was due to certain schemes which had to be approved by the Department. Certain land produced crops much more quickly than land for which drainage schemes had hitherto been prepared. At the same time I would point out that drainage work is going on at a much more rapid rate to-day.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £255,535, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and improvement of breeding, &c., of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, &c., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits and marketing; fishery organisation, research and development, control of diseases of fish, &c.; and sundry other services including certain remanet subsidy payments."

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (WAR SERVICES).
    Motion made, and Question Proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries."
    Captain Crookshank: It would save considerable trouble and unnecessary repetition if I explained at this stage that the next six Votes are purely technical Votes, required owing to our accountancy procedure. They have little or nothing to do with the Departments concerned. Ever since 1894 the Annual Appropriation Acts have set specific limits to the Appropriations-in-Aid for each of the Votes. These limits are the amount shown in each of the Estimates under the headings of Appropriations-in-Aid. Of course, in the case of these War Services and Unclassified Services, where we deal in the region of £100 and £10 token Votes, it is quite clear, unless we came and asked for further permission to use Appropriations-in-Aid, that the Department concerned would have to surrender to the Exchequer all sums over £100 and £10. As I say, a £10 Vote is only to be taken as a token Vote. The result would be most inconvenient, since it would mean that you would be unnecessarily swelling both the Exchequer and Budget accounts, because you would have to pour in the large sums which, under present circumstances, are received as Appropriations-in-Aid.
    The more sensible thing to do is for the Department concerned to use what it gets from various sources under these Services as its own Appropriations-in-Aid, and use them as a set-off for its own expenditure. These figures cannot be estimated early in the year, because one does not know the region they will reach. Hon. Members can see that the Appropriations differ very much—one is for £10, one for £3,500,000 and one for £7,000,000. It is to deal with that purely technical point that I rise to make this explanation to the Committee. I am sure Ministers of the Departments concerned will be prepared to answer any questions, but we must bear in mind that these matters are confidential because they deal with war supplies. I think with that explanation I may have put at rest any anxieties hon.
    1224
    Members may have that there is something strange in this procedure.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: We all realise, following the explanation, that this is a matter dealing with the technicalities of accountancy. There are, however, one or two of these Unclassified Votes, and one in particular, to which I would like to refer. Perhaps I would be in Order in asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to reply to my questions which affect her Department.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I shall have to put each Vote separately. I would point out that no questions can be asked except those relating to accountancy.
    Mr. Davies: May I ask a question in relation to accountancy affecting the Ministry of Health Vote?
    The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, when that Vote comes before us.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries."

    MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Aircraft Production."

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WAR SERVICES).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for measures in England and Wales to deal with casualties and disease, for expenses connected with evacuation, for repair of war damage and for other services arising out of the war."
    Mr. Rhys Davies: The. Department of Health for Scotland have issued their annual Report, and I want to know whether we are now passing this sum in order to cover an amount which will meet the expenses of the issue of the annual Report of the Ministry of Health, for which I have asked half a dozen times

    1225
    and of which promises have been made, though the Report has not been issued yet. It has to be paid for. The printer will not print it unless he gets a cheque from the Treasury.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with the Appropriation-in-Aid.
    Mr. Davies: May I put the question thus—whether in this sum there is an amount allotted to cover the expenses of printing the annual Report, which ought to have been printed and published long ago?
    Sir Adam Maitland: I should like to put a question with regard to war damage.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid we cannot discuss any individual subjects. The question is merely whether a sum shall be credited to the Treasury or back to the Department. We cannot discuss individual sections of the expenditure.
    Sir A. Maitland: Before deciding whether or not the sum should be transferred or re-transferred, will provision be made in order that the loss of rates through providing for war damage—
    The Deputy-Chairman: That comes under the general Estimate and not under this.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for measures in England and Wales to deal with casualties and disease, for expenses connected with evacuation, for repair of war damage and for other services arising out of the war."

    MINISTRY OF HOME SECURITY.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Home Security."

    MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses
    1226
    of the Ministry of Supply, including the expenses of the Royal Ordnance Factories."

    MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of War Transport."
    Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (REQUISITIONED LAND) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the disclaimer of leases comprising land of which possession has been taken in the exercise of emergency powers and (among other matters) for requiring the continuance after possession of such land has been taken as aforesaid of certain services provided by the landlord, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of periodical sums in respect of the provision of any such services."
  Resolution agreed to.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (REQUISITIONED LAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (REQUISITIONED LAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Right to disclaim certain leases of requisitioned land.)
    Mr. Rostron Duckworth: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "business," to insert:
    "or on offer to let for any of these purposes."
    The reason for this Amendment is that it should give power to disclaim on requisitioning on the part of leaseholders who have temporarily vacated their premises, a right which is possessed now by occupying tenants. Unless this is altered, it appears to me that another injustice will be added to the very many which are suffered by leaseholders who have had to vacate their premises, owing possibly to enemy action or police advice or sickness, or perhaps for urgent family reasons. In most of these cases they would rather have remained in their premises, but they have been compelled to vacate them, and it seems a little unfair that the benefits of

    1227
    the Bill, which are really rather considerable, should apply only to those in occupation of their premises. It may be said that if the premises are empty, they need not trouble about the requisitioning, but there is always a financial loss where property is requisitioned, the unfortunate leaseholder is not able to sublet it and must continue to hold it as long as the Government remains in possession, and he cannot enter into possession of the property again while it is requisitioned. For all those reasons I think the case is on all fours with that of an occupying tenant.
    Dr. Russell Thomas: I should like to support the Amendment. My hon. Friend has put the matter very clearly. The Amendment appears fair, just and equitable. It seems to me extraordinary that a tenant who is not in possession should be put in a disadvantageous position as compared with a tenant in possession. It may well be that a tenant who is out of possession had to leave the premises for some reason connected with the war, something beyond his control. It may well be that the Government will retain possession for a very considerable time—and the tenant not in possession will have the lease hanging like a mill-stone around his neck, whereas the tenant in possession will be free to disclaim. We do not know how long the war will last—and I feel that Parliament should do everything it can to protect and help people who have suffered by it. It is not always possible to protect everyone but we should do everything we can when opportunity offers. I feel that when it is possible we should do this, and this, in my opinion, is a fair case. I therefore ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to adopt this Amendment, or an Amendment that will do something similar in substance and spirit. In these words I beg to support my hon. Friend.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): I am sorry that we cannot accept the Amendment. This Clause deals only with the case where premises have been requisitioned, and it follows the lines of the report made by Mr. Morris, who investigated this question. We have to hold the scales evenly and fairly, as far as we can, between landlord and tenant. Landlords are not all rich people who need not be considered. The landlords
    1228
    have given voice to some complaints about this matter for the following reason: We are giving the tenant an option, and he will exercise it only where it suits him. Where premises have been requisitioned, they may be, for instance, on the East or South-East coast, where they have gone down considerably in value, or they may be in the suburbs of London, where they have gone up in value. In some cases the tenant will make a good thing out of the requisition, because he will get from the occupying Department more than he is paying to his landlord. In other cases he will do badly for he will get less than he is paying to his landlord. The grievance of the landlords is that the tenant will always exercise the option in cases where it is to his advantage and not in the other cases, and the landlord will be left with the latter cases.
    We have, following Mr. Morris's advice, limited this matter to a strict class of case; that is to say, we have dealt only with cases where tenants are in actual occupation. Short leases where the tenants are in actual occupation seem to us to be cases of special hardship, and we think it right to deal with those cases. If, however, we once go round that and open the door wide and depart from Mr. Morris's recommendation, all the landlords will be saying that this Bill is a monstrous injustice. That is why we do not think it proper to go beyond the narrow limits to which we have deliberately confined the Bill.
    Mr. Rostron Duckworth: I am rather impressed by the explanation given by my right hon. and learned Friend, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out from "the," to "serve," in line 15, and to insert "material date."
    This is a matter of drafting. We have repeatedly in the Bill referred to a long phrase, and I am proposing to take out that phrase and substitute the words "material date," and in the definition Clause to define what the material date is.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 33, leave out from the first "the," to "direct," in line 35, and insert "material date."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Effect of notice of disclaimer.)
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out from "the" to the end of the line, and to insert, "notice shall become effective."
    This is a suggested drafting Amendment. As Sub-section (1) is worded, although the words which I suggest should be struck out are applicable to Sub-section (2), they are not applicable to Subsections (3) and (4). In these circumstances, I suggest that the proper thing to do is to take them out and put in the words I suggest, with the consequential Amendments later on the Paper.
    The Solicitor-General: We are ready to accept this and many of the Amendments, which stand in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), and we are grateful to him for moving them. They have their origin largely in the fact that the Law Society have gone carefully through this Bill and have made many drafting suggestions. I suggested that they should get in touch with the Parliamentary draftsman. They did so, and the large number of Amendments which my hon. and learned Friend is good enough to sponsor are the result of that arrangement. I am very grateful both to the Law Society and to my hon. and learned Friend for taking this trouble about the Bill and suggesting these Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further amendments made:
    In page 3, line 9, at the beginning, insert:
    "Where a notice of disclaimer has become effective."—[Mr. Spens.]
    In page 3, leave out lines 11 to 160, and insert, "as from the material date."
    In line 20, at the beginning, insert:
    "Where notice of disclaimer has become effective."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    In line 26, leave out "landlord such part (if any) of," and insert "person entitled to."
    In line 29, after "1939," insert "such part (if any) of that compensation."
    In line 30, leave out "landlord," and insert "said person."—[Mr. Spens.]
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, at the end, to insert:
    "The person who, at the end of the period for which possession of the land is so retained, is entitled to occupy the land, shall, if the tenant has served on him a notice requesting to be informed when that period comes to an end and specifying the address to which the information is to be sent, serve a notice accordingly giving that information, and the tenant may exercise his right of removing the fixtures at any time after the end of the said period, and not later than one month after the service of the notice by the said person.
    (4) Where any holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, is disclaimed under this Act—

    (a) the tenancy shall, for the purposes of sections nine and ten of that Act, he deemed to terminate at the date on which the notice of disclaimer becomes effective in accordance with subsection (1) of this section:

    (b) nothing in the foregoing subsection shall apply to any of the fixtures mentioned in section twenty-two of that Act, and the reference in that section to a reasonable time after the termination of the tenancy shall be construed as a reference to a reasonable time after possession of the land taken in the exercise of emergency powers has been given up."

    As the Bill is drafted, it apparently applies to the agricultural leases to which the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, is applicable. It appears, however, that there may be some legal difficulties in making the Bill agree with the provisions of that Act. These Amendments are put down in order that it may be quite sure that, although the lease does come to an end under this Act, the tenant shall get the benefit of the provisions in his favour, and vice versa the landlord, under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. This Amendment is put down to make sure that we are not preventing that Act operating.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 33, leave out from "Where to" this "in line 34, and insert "a notice of disclaimer has been served under."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out from "person," to the first "the," in line 36, and to insert "having a mortgage or charge in respect of."
    This is little more than a drafting Amendment. The words in the Bill are somewhat indefinite. They are intended to refer to a person having a mortgage or

    1231
    charge upon the property, and the suggestion is that the Bill should say so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 41, after "modifications," insert "as the court thinks just."—[Mr. Spens.]
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, to leave out "or," and to insert
    "and, in particular, require the tenant to pay such sum as it thinks just in respect of any dilapidations which have already occurred and for which the tenant is liable or would (but for the disclaimer) become liable;
    (c) on the application of the landlord or the tenant, make such adaptations and modifications as it thinks just of any term of the lease."
    This Amendment is little more than a clarification of the Bill. We thought that the words already used did include this liability, but in order to avoid doubt we want to make it plain that the court may, in dealing with a matter as between landlord and tenant, have regard to what I may call accrued dilapidations and make the tenant pay something in respect of the position as it existed at the time.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 3, line 43, leave out "may be effected by," and insert "will take effect on."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    In line 45, leave out from "before," to the end of line 46, and insert "the notice of disclaimer becomes effective."
    In page 4, line 2, leave out "an interest in," and insert "a mortgage or charge in respect of."—[Mr. Spens.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Multiple leases.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 4, line 25, leave out from the second "the" to "apply" in line 28, and insert "material date."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    In page 5, line 11, at the end, insert "to be disclaimed."—[Mr. Spens.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Miscellaneous matters arising in consequence of disclaimer.)
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, after "unless," to insert "before the payment is made."
    1232
    This Amendment and the subsequent one both go to the same point—that in the Bill as drafted there seems doubt as to what authority is referred to, and the two Amendments define the authority which is meant.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 42, leave out "before the payment is made," and insert:
    "by whom possession of the land comprised in the lease has been taken."—[Mr. Spens.]
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, at the end, to insert:
    "The payment of compensation as aforesaid to the said person as agent of the landlord shall not be taken as implying that the landlord is bound by any agreement made between that person and the said authority as to the amount of the compensation."
    We want to make it plain that if there is an agreement between the agent of the landlord and the requisitioning authority to which the landlord is not a party it does not bind the landlord.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, to leave out from "tenant," to the end of line 13, and to insert:
    "any compensation under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, accruing due in respect of the land during the period beginning with the material date and ending with the date on which the notice of disclaimer becomes effective or, as the case may be, is decided by the court to be of no effect shall, for the purposes of section eleven of the said Act (which limits the time for claiming compensation), be deemed only to accrue due at the end of the said period."
    This Amendment is really a clarification, intended to make it plain that during a period of uncertainty when one does not know whether or not a disclaimer is effective or not, there shall be no running of the time against a person who might have a claim under the Compensation Act. In these circumstances the period within which a claim can be made runs from the date when the notice of disclaimer becomes effective or when the notice of disclaimer is found not to be effective.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Special provisions where lease requires landlord to pay rates, provide services, etc.).
    Amendments made:
    In page 6, line 16, leave out from "and," to end of line 18, and insert:
    "by virtue of any term of the lease or of any contract collateral thereto."
    In line 19, leave out "by reason that."
    In line 24, leave out "by reason that."
    In line 26, leave out "by reason that."
    In line 36, leave out "would have been," and insert:
    "might reasonably have been expected to la."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 7, line 13, to leave out "was or."
    This Amendment and the one which follows are intended to define and confine the services which the landlord may be called upon to give to the requisitioning authority, and I think they clarify the position.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 7, line 13, leave out from "required" to "taken," in line 14, and insert:
    "by the tenant if possession of the land had not been."
    In line 26, leave out from "which" to "and," in line 27, and insert:
    "the notice of disclaimer becomes effective"—[Mr. Spens.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Leases to which this Act applies.)
    Amendment made: In page 10, line 11, leave out Sub-section (2).—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Interpretation.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 11, line 9, at the end, insert:
    "'material date,' in relation to any occasion on which possession of the land or any part of the land comprised in a lease has been taken on behalf of His Majesty in the exercise of emergency powers, means—

    1234

    (a) where the occasion was before the passing of this Act, the date of the passing of this Act;

    (b) in any other case, the date on which the land or part of the land was so taken."

    In line 25, at the end, insert:
    "and any reference to the rent payable under a lease shall be construed as including a reference to any such sum as aforesaid."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Provisions as to Scotland and Northern Ireland.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "(c) references to a Government Department shall include references to a Department of the Government of Northern Ireland."
    We make this Amendment at the request of the Government of Northern Ireland, who desire to come into the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision where land is requisitioned by stages.)
    (1) Where—

    (a) possession of part of the land comprised in a lease has been taken and is retained on behalf of His Majesty in the exercise of emergency powers and the lease has not been disclaimed;

    (b) possession of the remainder or part of the remainder of the land is on a subsequent occasion so taken and retained; and

    (c) the tenant cannot, on the subsequent occasion, serve a notice of disclaimer or obtain a direction enabling him to serve such a notice because possession of part of the land has already been taken as aforesaid, and in consequence the necessary conditions cannot be fulfilled;

    the court may, on the application of the tenant made within three months from the date which is the material date in relation to the subsequent occasion, if in all the circumstances of the case it considers it equitable to do so, direct that the tenant shall be at liberty to serve, within such period as may be specified, a notice of disclaimer in respect of the lease, which, in the case of a multiple lease, may either be in respect of the lease as a whole or in respect of one or more of the separate tenements comprised therein.
    (2) Sub-section (3) of Section one of this Act shall not apply to any notice of disclaimer served in pursuance of a direction given under the last foregoing sub-section, but the court shall not give such a direction unless the landlord is a party to the proceedings.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The object of this proposal is to deal with the case where a requisitioning takes place piecemeal, where you have two or more bites at the cherry, so to speak. In the end, the whole of the premises may be requisitioned, yet at any one time it may not be possible to say that the conditions for disclaimer are present. We hope to put this matter right by inserting the proposed new Clause. This is little more than a technicality to prevent certain difficulties arising.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions in case where tenant is abroad at material date.)
    (1) Where possession of land comprised in a lease has been taken on behalf of His Majesty in the exercise of emergency powers and the tenant was outside the United Kingdom for the whole or the greater part of the period of three months from the material date, and the court is satisfied, on an application made by the tenant within a reasonable time after his return to the United Kingdom, that it was not reasonably practicable for him to exercise his rights under the provisions of this Act relating to disclaimer, or to give the necessary authority for the exercise of those rights on his behalf, the court may, if it thinks fit, extend the period for the exercise of those rights.
    (2) Where possession of land comprised in a lease has been taken as aforesaid, and the tenant was outside the United Kingdom at the material date, or left the United Kingdom shortly after the material date without having a reasonable opportunity to exercise or secure the exercise of his rights under the provisions of this Act relating to disclaimer, and the court is satisfied, on an application made by any other person while the tenant remains outside the United Kingdom,—

    (a) that it is not reasonably practicable to obtain instructions from the tenant as to the exercise of the said rights; and

    (b) that the applicant is a proper person to exercise those rights on behalf of the tenant;

    the court may, if it thinks fit, direct that those rights may be exercised by the applicant on behalf of the tenant and may, if necessary, extend the period for the exercise thereof.
    (3) Where the court extends under this section the period for exercising the rights of any tenant, the court may, if it thinks fit, direct that, if the lease is disclaimed, the surrender thereof shall, instead of taking effect as from the material date, take effect as from such later date as the court may direct.—[Mr. Spens.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This proposal should be of real service. It covers the case where a tenant is abroad at the time the requisitioning notice is served, or is about to go abroad, leaving his family in his home or a manager in charge of his business. It is thought likely that he will be ignorant of the option afforded to him by the Bill and therefore would not be able to exercise it in the requisite time. Under the proposed new Clause, arrangements are made for the tenant to be given a further opportunity when he returns of taking advantage of the Bill.
    The Solicitor-General: I have very much pleasure in accepting the proposed new Clause. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that it is necessary to deal with the position of the tenant who is abroad or is about to go abroad and has no time to look around to see what his rights are. The Clause is a real improvement of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 14].

  FINANCE (No. 2) ACT, 1940.
  Resolved,
  "That the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 1) Order, 1942, dated 27th January, 1942, made by the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Captain Crookshank.]

  GOLD COAST (GIN IMPORTS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]
  Mr. Barr: I beg to bring before the House a subject to which I have addressed myself by Question in this House and in other ways for a considerable time. I refer to the permitted allowance of imports of geneva or gin into the Gold Coast, and to the Ordinances connected therewith. In the decade following the close of the Great War, there was a vast increase in the importations of liquor into West Africa generally. In

  1237
  particular, gin importations from 1919 to 1926, seven years, grew by no less an amount than 716 per cent. This general increase of gin imports was particularly large in the Gold Coast where, in 1926, the percentage of imports of gin to all other imports of spirits was no less than 91.34.
  The resultant degradation and misery among the native population came to be generally admitted. When Lord Passfield was Secretary of State for the Colonies, an Ordinance came into operation, after long investigation, a special Commission having sat on the subject, in the beginning of 1931. Under that Ordinance there was to be a gradual decrease of the amount that could be imported, by 10 per cent. each year, until the quantity of geneva or gin was completely eliminated by 1940. While those who had at heart the interests of the natives in this regard were waiting for this promised time, an Ordinance was passed by the Governor of the Gold Coast entirely departing from the old Ordinance, and this was followed in December, 1939, by a Proclamation of the Governor permitting the importation of 150,000 Imperial gallons into the Gold Coast during 1940.
  It was pointed out by deputations, and by other people interested in this matter, that this was a very large amount, especially when it had been expected that the traffic would come to an end. We are grateful to the Ministry and to the Under-Secretary of State, but it was represented to the Governor that he might reopen the question. At any rate, the Under-Secretary of State was able to announce on 5th February, 1941, a year ago, that the quota for 1941 for civilian requirements in the Gold Coast was being fixed at 73,500 gallons. In fixing the former figure of 150,000 gallons, regard had been had particularly to what had been allowed, and admitted in 1937, the highest year of the nine years, and the only year in which the amount consumed exceeded the amount allowed.
  In fixing 73,500 gallons an average was taken over the previous nine years, although regard was not had to the fact that in the last of those nine years the amount imported and consumed had fallen as low as 22,332 gallons. If those responsible took the average importation for the nine years, why should they not
  1238
  now take the average of the two years of the new régime? That would give an allowance, as far as I have the figures, of 8,217 gallons, as the average imported for 1940 and 1941, the amount fixed being about nine times that amount. When the former figure of 150,000 gallons, which however has passed out of our view was fixed, the consumption for that year—1940—was 7,934, and the quota fixed was 19 times that amount. Why are they retaining these inflated figures? Why not take the average of what has been coming in, adding slightly to it perhaps for contingencies? I hope I am doing no injustice in suggesting it, but it seems almost as if a wide open door is being kept for the trade after the war in maintaining the figure at 73,500 gallons when the actual importation is 7,934 gallons in 1940, that for 1941 being some 8,000.
  The Government give two reasons for departing from the former policy. The first reason is that if they carried out the policy of the prohibition of the import of gin, it would be likely to result in a further growth of illicit distillation. The fear of illicit distillation has been brought forward whenever there has been a demand for some drastic restriction on the liquor traffic whether at home or abroad, but we are still left without proof that this illicit distillation has grown on the Gold Coast, or would grow to any extent, as a result of such restriction. I attach considerable importance to the view of those on the spot, and particularly to the mission stations and to the governors of missions in those parts. The secretary of the Scottish Mission of the Church of Scotland in the Gold Coast Colony, writing to me from Accra on 28th May last said this:
  "There has been illicit distillation, although actually, at the moment so far as is known to me, it is less prevalent than it was two or three years ago. The Government, however, bring out this bogy of illicit distillation as an excuse for increasing the quota of gin imported. It is even stated in the 'Gazette,' where the object of the new legislation is fully set down, that this was designed to prevent an increase in illicit distillation, but there is however no proof at all that there has been any such increase; and indeed one of the Governor's own publications states as much."
  The second reason is that the chiefs are now against prohibition and that the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, both European and African, are in favour of the new Ordinance. The

  1239
  latter are elected from provincial councils which, themselves, consist of chiefs representing various native states on the Gold Coast. I believe that is the case, and I am not going to question the representative character of those who have so determined; but I am of opinion that those bodies of chiefs, the legislative councils and others, are subject to changes of policy just as much as political leaders in this country; and that their doctrines, there as here, are often fashioned to the varying hour. At least some of those who support the new Ordinance have spoken strongly against the evils of this traffic, and have declared themselves as much opposed to gin as to geneva. I am not very well versed in these distinctions between geneva and gin, but I understand that geneva is gin manufactured in a pot-still instead of in a patent-still. But going back to the days of Lord Passfield, when the chiefs asked, in the first instance, for the exclusion of geneva, I think I am right in saying that Lord Passfield insisted that the same restrictions should, in fairness, be put upon gin as upon geneva. He also recognised at the time that it was the wish of the Government and of the people of the Gold Coast that gin as well as geneva should not be allowed to enter.
  May I quote what was said by a paramount chief of the Gold Coast, Sir Oforio Atta, when addressing the West African section of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce on 17th July, 1928. He said:
  "Imports of gin had become a serious menace to the prosperity of his people; if the African was to become the right type of man and useful to the Empire, let the export of gin from this country be stopped. If this country stopped, Holland would stop too."
  I would like to ask whether these spirits, gin or geneva, have lost their potency in any way, that there should be such a Change of policy? I want to make it quite clear that I am making no general accusation of drunkenness amongst the natives of the Gold Coast, but there are great excesses in connection with certain customs of that country and particularly in connection with funeral Customs. On the 28th March, 1928, the Bishop of Accra wrote in the "Times" describing his observations of those funeral Customs in a village and he said:
  "For a week at a time every man and woman and not a few children are drunk, some of them in a torpid and some in a raving condition."
  1240
  That is a good way back, but I wanted to give this testimony as near as I could get to the present time, and we have no testimony of the kind during these war years. But the Rev. Kenneth Horne, a Methodist minister in the Gold Coast, and now secretary of the Christian Council of the Gold Coast, speaking in London on 21st October, 1935, said:
  "Drunkenness is not now so common but that at funerals a large amount of liquor is consumed, resulting in much demoralisation and debauchery."
  These funeral ceremonies sometimes go on to the eighth day after the decease and sometimes to the fourteenth or later days. The chiefs have sought, from time to time, to remedy matters, but, so far, with little result. One way in which they tried to remedy it was to prescribe that amounts spent on spirits should not be more than one-third of the total expenditure on the funeral. Another way was by drawing up schedules limiting expenditure according to the rank of the deceased.
  Thus, for the death of a paramount chief, they were allowed to spend from £150 to £200; for the death of a divisional chief, £25; for the death of common persons, £5 to £10; and a labourer was rated from £2 10s. to £6. How much of this quota which the Minister allows is being devoted to the upkeep of these Customs? Would it not be possible for him, along with the chiefs, who have asked, time and again, for the restriction of these practices, to bring about a better state of things? The other occasion on which much liquor is consumed is in connection with the installation and deposition of chiefs. When a chief rises to what we would call Cabinet rank there are great rejoicings, accompanied by much drinking. Also at the deposition of a chief, when he loses his rank, there are similar jollifications and excesses. We can think of what jollifications there might be if some of our Cabinet were to lose their rank.
  How is this matter related to the general policy of the Government? I would pay a tribute to the high ideals that have always inspired the Colonial Office of this country. I refer particularly to the Colonial Development Act of 1929, whereby the spending of up to £1,000,000 a year on colonial development is allowed.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): We can spend up to £5,000,000.
  Mr. Barr: I thank my hon. Friend. It was £1,000,000 in the original Act. I am glad to know that, and what he says still further emphasises my point. In the eleventh and final report of the Colonial Development Advisory Committee, I find that £8,870,000 was spent in the years covered by the first eleven reports. The objects for which these advances were to be made were these:
  "The aiding and development of agriculture and industry in their territories, and the promotion thereby of commerce with, and industry in, the United Kingdom."
  Traffic in gin is not really commerce, nor does it aid industry. The word "trade" is a misnomer, and has been a misnomer in the past in this regard. When the slave traffic existed in this country it proudly bore the name "the trade"; and it was justly said at the time that it was war and not trade. There is a trade in this country which we euphemistically or ironically sometimes call "the trade"; and we might say of it that oft-time it has been more war than trade. As regards policy, I was greatly interested in Lord Moyne's despatch on 5th June last on "Certain Aspects of Colonial Policy in War-time." He said this:
  "The low standards of living of vast populations throughout the Colonial Empire was distressing."
  He further said:
  "It is an imperative duty to do all that is practically possible to raise the standard of living of such people, even during the war period, alike for humanitarian, political, economic and administrative reasons."
  I would say that the quantity of gin imported is in inverse ratio to what you will do in the fulfilment of these high ideals. I would call the attention of this House to the high ideals it has always expressed on this subject. At the end of every war there has been a movement to bring to an end, or greatly restrict, this deluging of the natives of various countries with liquor, be it gin or geneva, or any other form. It is interesting to know that at the close of the Boer War Lord Milner, in promulgating an Ordinance prohibiting, under severe penalties, the supply of liquor to natives in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies said:
  "There is no doubt that the new Administration has before it a severe struggle with
  1242
  one of the most powerful, as it is one of the most degraded, agencies for making money by the corruption of one's fellow-creatures."
  And again, after alluding to the great difficulty of making the law effective, he made use of the following striking words:
  "The whole credit of this Administration is at stake in the matter, and I feel confident that His Majesty's Government will support us in the view that no effort and no expense should be spared in carrying out a policy which, if successful, will mean a tremendous triumph for civilisation in this part of the world."
  So, at the end of the last war the right hon. Walter Long, M.P.—whom no one could accuse of being over-prejudiced in favour of the temperance cause, or in favour of prohibition—as Secretary of State for the Colonies immediately after the Armistice, on 28th December, 1918, declared:
  "It will be my duty to advise the representatives of the British Government at the Peace Conference to take steps on their own initiative for the abolition of the liquor traffic in West Africa. We ought to put an end to it, for it certainly has been conducive to great evil and great misfortune."
  Again, I ask, have these liquors lost their potency, that a much different attitude is now being taken up from the attitude taken by statesmen like the late Walter Long?
  And we must never forget as entirely relevant, and still binding, the exacting doctrine of trusteeship. That doctrine was never better stated than by the Duke of Devonshire as Colonial Secretary, in his historic memorandum on "Indians in Kenya." He gave it as the considered and definite opinion of His Majesty's Government that:
  "The interests of the African natives must be paramount and must prevail."
  He added these words:
  "His Majesty's Government regard themselves as exercising a trust on behalf of the African population, and they are unable to delegate or share that trust, the object of which may be defined as the protection and advancement of the native races."
  I trust that the Noble Lord who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the Under-Secretary will seek to give embodiment to these words, and that the interests of the natives will be paramount, and their advancement and protection the supreme consideration. Let us not forget this high doctrine of trusteeship. Let us not degrade, let us not exploit the natives, but purify and uplift them in all

  1243
  these matters in their forward march to self-government, and in their upward and onward march, as we trust, towards a higher, purer and better life.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): My hon. Friend has waited very patiently for this opportunity of raising a matter in which he is very interested. He has made a speech, as he usually does, of very great eloquence and force. I, like a number of my hon. Friends, have listened with a good deal of pleasure to the speeches of my hon. Friend in the past. There was one thing lacking in his speech to-day. We are always very pleased to hear his quotations from his national poet, but today he did not bring him in to support this request for the suppression of liquor in West Africa.
  Mr. Barr: I should be very sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend or to hold him back in what he was about to say, but I am very jealous for the good name of my national poet. As a matter of fact, he tells about the good resolutions which he made and which, he says,
  "were three times over upset by the savage hospitality of the tavern."
  There is a "savage hospitality" of importation as well as of the tavern. The other thing that he said, in his Commonplace Book was that he adjured:
  "All who in after time shall ever light upon his pages, by a devil's dear-bought experience, to shun his example in this regard."
  Mr. Hall: I am very pleased that I have drawn my hon. Friend into that quotation. I am glad that he made no charge of drunkenness against the people of the Gold Coast. When one discusses this question of the importation of liquor, the general public are inclined to think that there is a good deal of drunkenness or debauchery among the natives of West Africa. My hon. Friend has rightly said that there is no truth in that. When commenting on the recommendation of the local commission of inquiry regarding the consumption of spirits in the Gold Coast—which was referred to by my hon. Friend—the then Secretary of State, Lord Passfield, said that he felt greatly impressed by the diversity of views recorded by the various witnesses, more particularly as to the prevalence of drunkenness. It seems to be generally agreed that the natives of the Gold Coast are not
  1244
  drunkards, although on occasions which were described by my hon. Friend they are liable to drink spirits to excess. Lord Passfield called special attention to the evidence of some of the witnesses, especially Mr. McKay, a member on the Gold Coast Bar and of the Legislative Council. Mr. McKay said:
  "I have always been strongly impressed with the general sobriety of the people of this country. There are occasions no doubt, when a considerable quantity of alcohol is consumed, but at those celebrations which I have attended I have not seen the wild orgies which are alleged to take place at them. There was much noise and excitement, which is natural to the people, and which might be mistaken for drunkenness."
  The commission themselves said:
  "The general impression of the witnesses is that the people of this Colony are temperate, that there is very little drunkenness, and that the situation is better in this respect than before the war."
  That means, before 1914. If the evidence of these witnesses is to be trusted, a good deal of the agitation about the bad effect of the consumption of spirits loses its force. But one should point out that, as I have already mentioned, at these funeral Customs and other ceremonial occasions, a good deal of spirit has been drunk. It is difficult for the Government to deal with many of these native Customs. Ceremonial drinking includes libation, which, to many people, is worse than drinking, because instead of being drunk, the spirit is poured on the ground. The funeral Customs are a deep-rooted tradition on the Gold Coast, which appears to go back before ale importation of any spirit at all, when palm wine and other native drinks were used for the purpose. The idea seems to be the payment of honour to the dead.
  Mr. Tinker: It would be very difficult for people to do that in this country at the present time.
  Mr. Hall: I have never seen drink purposely poured on the ground in this country for any purpose at all. The basis of the speech of my hon. Friend deals with conditions which existed before 1930. I hope to show that there has been a considerable improvement since that date. I agree with my hon. Friend that in 1926–27 a good deal of spirits was drunk. The major portion of the spirits imported or drunk then consisted of gin. A Committee was appointed in 1928, and that

  1245
  Committee went fully into these customs, and made very strong recommendations as to how much of this excessive drinking at these customs could be reduced. They recommended an amendment of the Liquor Licence (Spirits) Ordinance, and this amendment came into effect in 1929. Until 1929, the licensing law of the Gold Coast was substantially the same as when the spirit licences were first introduced, except for the increase made from time to time in the rates of duties paid for licences. Clauses inserted in the amending Ordinance provided for the publication of applications for the issue of new licences and for the lodging of objections thereto. The further amendments which came into force on 1st January, 1929, were of a more drastic nature. The duty payable for the ordinary retail licence to sell spirits, which had hitherto been £40 per annum in towns to which the Town Councils Ordinance extended and £20 elsewhere, was in both cases substantially increased, and the hours of sale were reduced from 15 to eight per day, and confined to hours between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. As my hon. Friend knows, from reading the report of the Commission, the drink obtained for these ceremonials was obtained very largely by indebtedness. On the death of a member of a family, the family came together and decided how much money was to be spent on the celebration. Each member of the family pledged himself to regard it as a debt of the family, the debt being divided between the members. In almost every case, the drink was obtained on credit.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Was the deceased insured?
  Mr. Hall: That I cannot say. Anyhow, that did not account for the celebration at his passing. The right of obtaining drink on credit was abolished as a result of this Ordinance, and in one year, from 1929 to 1930, the number of licences was reduced from 3,245 to 1,547, a reduction almost entirely as the result of the legislation based upon the recommendation of the Newlands Committee. There was a reduction of 52 per cent. in the number of licences issued. It is interesting to note the reduction in the importation of spirits, including gin, into the Gold Coast. My hon. Friend rightly said that in 1927 the total imports of spirit was 1,312,000 gallons, which included 1,181,000 gallons of gin. In 1928 the import of spirit
  1246
  was 1,185,000 gallons, and there again the amount of gin was well over 1,000,000 gallons. Compare the change as a result of the improvement of the new Ordinance. In 1929 the import of spirits was reduced to 736,000 gallons and we could see the downward trend in imports of gin.
  I do not want to weary the House with too many figures but it is very interesting to note that, from 1929 to 1936, the total import of spirits is down to 181,000 gallons. The percentage of gin at that time was 64.2. In 1938 the total import of all spirits amounted to 107,000 gallons, whereas the importation of gin was 49,000 gallons, or 46 per cent. of the total import. In 1939, the total import of spirit was 81,000 gallons and the total import of gin 22,000 gallons, or 27 per cent. In 1940, which are the latest figures, the total import of spirits was down to 45,000 gallons and the import of gin to 7,900 gallons, or 17.3 per cent. of the total import of spirits. From 1929, taking no account of the very bad years referred to by my hon. Friend of 1926–27, when the importation of spirits was up to 1,300,000 gallons, the proportion of gin to the total import of spirit had been reduced from 77.3 per cent. to 17.3 per cent. so that it cannot be said that there has not been any improvement as a result of the agitation which took place from 1927 to 1930.
  My hon. Friend referred to a change of policy which had taken place as compared with 1930. It is true that there was a good deal of agitation against the importation of Geneva and not so much against the importation of, gin. As my hon. Friend rightly said, "geneva" is a term to denote gin manufactured in a pot still, and gin is manufactured in a patent still. What the difference in taste really is, I am not competent to judge, but it is very evident that the complaint and the cause of the difficulty prior to 1930 in the Gold Coast was the question of geneva. There was an agitation for a complete prohibition of geneva. The then Secretary of State said he could not distinguish as between geneva and gin, but there was a very strong recommendation from the Gold Coast by the Governor and by members of the Legislative Council that there should be a prohibition of the importation of gin and geneva by a reduction of 10 per cent. each year for 10 years, completely prohibiting the importation of gin and geneva by 1940–41.

  1247
  It is surprising how those who advocated the total prohibition of gin and geneva in 10 years changed when they saw that there was the possibility of its prohibition coming into operation. My hon. Friend referred to Sir Ofori Atta, who was the leading protagonist in connection with the prohibition of the importation of geneva and who, as a result of his efforts, certainly stirred up a good deal of feeling in respect of this matter. But, in 1935 the Governor expressed his opinion that the policy embodied in the 1931 Ordinance should be reconsidered in a year's time. He himself sent questionnaires which were submitted to native councils, and as a result of these, it was disclosed that a large majority of the State Councils favoured the repeal of the Ordinance. One of the paramount chiefs, the one to whom I have already referred, himself supported a motion for a further investigation into liquor restriction. He with other provincial members of the Legislative Council and members of the Executive Council were fully consulted prior to the enactment of the new Ordinance in 1939, and, with one exception, favoured the continued importation of gin, and that one exception was a member who objected because he wanted legalisation of what is now illicit distillation. Not only the Legislative Council and the chiefs, but the Press of the Gold Coast, who are usually very vocal in voicing opposition to any legislation which the Government may enact if they feel that it is against the wishes and desires of the people of the Colony, in fact every newspaper in the Gold Coast, supported the change which was brought about as a result of this new Ordinance.
  The present position is that the new Ordinance provides for the fixing of a quota by the Governor to be approved by the Secretary of State for a period of three years, and at the end of three years the whole question will be the subject of further review. As far as we can see as a result of the legislation based upon the recommendation of the New-lands Committee, there is a substantial reduction in the importation and in the consumption of liquor. This is so much
  1248
  so, that we are inclined to think that it is very much better to bring about the reduction in the consumption of liquor in the way that is being done in the Gold Coast at the present time, and that is, by an improvement in education. The inconsistency of the case of my hon. Friend is that he wants to prohibit the importation of gin only; he is prepared to allow all other spirits to be imported.
  Mr. Barr: No.
  Mr. Hall: Well, the case which was submitted not only to my Noble Friend but to his predecessor, the late Lord Lloyd, was based entirely on what was regarded as a change of policy in relation to this question of gin. No suggestion has been made that there should be a total prohibition of spirits, even into the Gold Coast, and as far as other West African colonies are concerned, no suggestion has been made that the supply of gin should be interfered with in any way whatsoever.
  Mr. Barr: I apologise for interrupting a second time, but the difficulty at home and abroad is that the white man insists upon having his liquor and, therefore, it becomes impossible, or a matter of great difficulty, in India or Africa to prohibit gin to the native while the white man insists that whisky, brandy and other drinks should go into these countries. It was not for lack of will but for lack of power that I did not ask for the prohibition of these liquors also.
  Mr. Hall: I can assure my hon. Friend that if he studies the figures I have put before the House he will see that the percentage of gin imported into the Gold Coast has dropped from 77 per cent. to 17 per cent. I do not think the distribution of 70,000 gallons of gin among the total population of the Gold Coast will give rise to very much insobriety among those people. However, I want to assure him again that this matter will be reviewed at the end of the next three years, when the term of the Ordinance comes to its conclusion.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn" put, and agreed to.

  COLLIERY EXPLOSION, GLAMORGANSHIRE.
  COLLIERY EXPLOSION, GLAMORGANSHIRE.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EXPORT TRADE.
  EXPORT TRADE.
  RETAIL BUSINESSES (LICENSING).
  RETAIL BUSINESSES (LICENSING).
  SCRAP METAL (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).
  SCRAP METAL (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  CANTEEN, MORECAMBE.
  CANTEEN, MORECAMBE.
  OFFICERS, OVERSEAS SERVICE (INCOME TAX).
  OFFICERS, OVERSEAS SERVICE (INCOME TAX).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  PORT OF HULL TRANSPORT CONTROL (ACCOUNTS).
  PORT OF HULL TRANSPORT CONTROL (ACCOUNTS).
  BLACK MARKET TRANSACTIONS, LEEDS.
  BLACK MARKET TRANSACTIONS, LEEDS.
  HERRING (TRANSPORT DELAYS).
  HERRING (TRANSPORT DELAYS).
  MILK (REGISTRATIONS, GREENOCK).
  MILK (REGISTRATIONS, GREENOCK).
  HOME-GROWN WHEAT (MILLING).
  HOME-GROWN WHEAT (MILLING).
  BRITISH HONDURAS.
  BRITISH HONDURAS.
  KENYA (ROAD CONSTRUCTION).
  KENYA (ROAD CONSTRUCTION).
  CEYLON (FOOD STOCKS).
  CEYLON (FOOD STOCKS).
  MALAY STATES (RULERS).
  MALAY STATES (RULERS).
WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
  REGISTRATION.
  REGISTRATION.
  MAJOR-GENERAL APPLEYARD (RESIGNATION).
  MAJOR-GENERAL APPLEYARD (RESIGNATION).
  REMOVAL OF RAILINGS (DAMAGE).
  REMOVAL OF RAILINGS (DAMAGE).
  PORT OF HULL TRANSPORT CONTROL (ACCOUNTS).
  PORT OF HULL TRANSPORT CONTROL (ACCOUNTS).
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASE (MEDICAL REFEREES, APPEALS).
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASE (MEDICAL REFEREES, APPEALS).
  SHEEP THEFTS, YORKSHIRE.
  SHEEP THEFTS, YORKSHIRE.
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  UNUSED TUBE STATION, LONDON.
  UNUSED TUBE STATION, LONDON.
  POLICE WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  POLICE WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  TIN-MINING INDUSTRY, CORNWALL.
  TIN-MINING INDUSTRY, CORNWALL.
WEST INDIES.
  TRINIDAD (FRANCHISE).
  TRINIDAD (FRANCHISE).
  INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS, TRINIDAD.
  INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS, TRINIDAD.
  DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE SCHEMES (TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO).
  DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE SCHEMES (TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO).
BRITISH ARMY.
  OFFICER (DISMISSAL).
  OFFICER (DISMISSAL).
  BILLETING RATES.
  BILLETING RATES.
AGRICULTURE.
  PULLETS (PRICES).
  PULLETS (PRICES).
  FEEDING-STUFFS (POULTRY).
  FEEDING-STUFFS (POULTRY).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  MEDICAL STAFFS (EMERGENCY HOSPITALS).
  MEDICAL STAFFS (EMERGENCY HOSPITALS).
  HOME GUARD.
  HOME GUARD.
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION.
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION.
  INFECTIOUS DISEASES (EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION).
  INFECTIOUS DISEASES (EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION).
WAR TRANSPORT.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, LONDON.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, LONDON.
  RAILWAYS (RUGS AND PILLOWS, HIRING).
  RAILWAYS (RUGS AND PILLOWS, HIRING).
  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION (SWITCHBOARD ROOM).
  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION (SWITCHBOARD ROOM).
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD GEDDES.
The Right Honourable Sir Auckland Campbell Geddes, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., having been created Baron Geddes of Rolvenden in the County of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD WINSTER.
Reginald Thomas Herbert Fletcher, Esquire, having been created Baron Winster of Witherslack in the County of Westmorland—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

PRIVATE BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) had given Notice that he would move, That the Standing Orders relative to Scottish Orders, etc., be amended as follows: Page 75. After Standing Order 202, insert the following new Standing Order: "A Bill conferring powers in respect of which it is intended to make a representation under subsection (4) of Section I of the Procedure Act, shall not be deposited before the representation has been made to the Secretary of State for Scotland."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move a Standing Order dealing with Scottish Orders. I am going to move it, with your Lordships' permission, in a slightly different form from that in which it appears on the Paper. The last word but one in the second line of the proposed new Standing Order is "before". I suggest that that should be deleted, and the words "earlier than four weeks after" put in. The Scottish Office are anxious that this alteration should be made for the sake of clarity, and I hope your Lordships will permit me to move the Motion in that form.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relative to Scottish Orders, etc., be amended as follows:
Page 75. After Standing Order 202, insert the following new Standing Order:
"A Bill conferring powers in respect of which it is intended to make a representation under subsection (4) of Section 1 of the Procedure Act, shall not be deposited earlier than four weeks after the representation has been made to the Secretary of State for Scotland."—(The Earl Of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly. The said new Standing Order to be printed.

ABYSSINIA.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON LORD NOEL-BUXTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can make a statement on Abyssinia; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, His Majesty's Government have indeed generously responded to my request for information regarding the situation in Abyssinia, and it is very appropriate that your Lordships' House should debate the Agreement which has been announced in the White Paper today. Full as much of that information is, I hope the noble Viscount who represents the Government will add to it in the course of his speech. I desire to express a view which is held by large numbers of people interested in the welfare of the Abyssinian population. I do not claim to speak for the Labour Party, but to be giving my own views.
Public anxiety has been great in regard to this Agreement, so long delayed, and I am very glad that that anxiety is now relieved. I should like to welcome the fact of the Agreement having been achieved, though I doubt whether some of its provisions are fully adequate. I think the period is too short, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us what security we are to look to for good government in the future. As for the main provision for assistance to Abyssinia—namely, the advisers who are proposed—what is to happen if their advice is ignored years hence? Then we find a very generous financial contribution, which is surely on the right lines for such a backward country, but it is in the form

647
of a grant not on the lines such as were used in the case of Austria, for instance, in regard to League loans, involving supervision or control of expenditure. So far as one can see that is not embodied in the terms of the Agreement, and one does not see how the financial aid given can be used as a lever to exercise pressure in the direction of reform. On these points I am sure the noble Viscount will be able to tell us more, but certainly the situation in that in many ways unfortunate country will be greatly improved by the achievement of the Agreement.
Our own conduct of the war will be greatly assisted, because in the absence of a separate Government, and owing to the disordered state of the country, our troops at this day are largely occupied in guarding communications. So far as they can be relieved that will be a great point to the good. Up to now the War Office has been the main factor in the Abyssinian situation. The political factor has been represented by District Commissioners, largely borrowed from the Sudan Government. Some of the very best of the Sudan officials have been combed out for service in Abyssinia. Disorder has not altogether been removed by the departure of the Italians. We must always remember that the normal condition of Abyssinia was a semi-feudal one, in which the Chiefs maintained a very large degree of independence of the Emperor's authority. Now that condition has been rather deteriorated as against the pre-Italian invasion period, because many of the Chiefs—and others who became successful guerilla leaders have now been exercising the functions of Chiefs—are difficult to remove. Even if in the Emperor's opinion they are not ideal as administrators, they are still in the exercise of power, and there is a large amount of disorder in the country largely connected with the stores of munitions which are still not under the control of the Central Government.
The Agreement, I hope, provides for the future more than it appears to do on the face of it. We must recall the conditions which existed before the Italian invasion as an indication of what they would return to if outside influence and help were not provided. Abyssinia was a country of forced labour, of serfdom. It had no efficient police; it had practically
648
no roads, great as the country was; there were even Governors whose administration was more destructive than beneficial; and above all, there was an immense prevalance of slavery. Worse than that, there was kidnapping for slavery together with a slave trade. It would not be unfair to call the conditions chaotic. There was no Budget and there was not a Government in the modern sense of the term. To take another point, I wish the Agreement had some international aspects attached to it, because surely our main duty is to plan for the future order of Africa. International stability is the greatest interest of all, and we must not prejudice the future of Africa by what we do now. We must not prejudice the settlement which, after the war, His Majesty's Government may want to aid. I am very glad that the Agreement indicates the rejection of an Imperial policy. That is very timely, because in South Africa and in East Africa there has been a body of opinion talking about annexation and using such phrases as a "useful addition to the Empire." The Atlantic Declaration ought to have disposed of that, but now the Agreement makes it clear that we are not waging a war of annexation, and that will relieve many minds.
We must always bear in mind that the future African order is of paramount importance. We must trust that whatever is done now will lead to a system in which Africa does not become an incentive to war in the future. The feud of the "haves" and "have-nots" has been a main cause of strife, and I wish that the international factor could find a place in the Abyssinian settlement. The Times expert on Africa, Miss Perham, made an interesting suggestion the other day that a certain part of Abyssinia which is not in any sense Abyssinian—the Danakil country on the eastern side—might be separately constituted under an international regime. Then, of course, the appointment of officials might embody some international element, and it would be a step if we made it easy for many of these officials to be non-British, drawn from Allied countries, international on lines which Lord Lugard, for instance, has advocated in the past.
Some will criticize the Agreement on the ground that it does not merely and com-

649
pletely restore the authority of the Emperor. But in my view that would not be possible. We were faced with a dilemma. On general principles we should wish to withdraw from all participation in the government of the country whatever we might have to do militarily during the war, but particular and definite duties compel us to stay. If Abyssinia were constituted like Norway, or like Greece, it would be a very happy task to retire altogether from concern with its internal government and have the Emperor to resume sovereignty in full. But surety the difficulties of that would have been insuperable. The Emperor is helpless without our protection. We are responsible for his restoration and consequently for the welfare, up to a point, of the population. We must remember that more than half the population of the country is not Abyssinian, but consists of tribes conquered in the past, who have no voice whatever as to the Government and cannot express their wishes—to use the words of the Atlantic Charter.
And there was, above all, this unique factor of slavery. It is provided in connexion with the Agreement that the Emperor shall issue decrees abolishing slavery. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will tell us something of the means by which a real termination of slavery will be secured. The Italians issued a decree abolishing slavery, but we have heard extremely little of any progress having been achieved as a result of that decree. Being responsible for the restoration of the Emperor, we surely must not be responsible in any way for the prolongation of this gigantic evil. We could not ignore the question of slavery without real dereliction. Your Lordships know that this has long been a preoccupation of the Foreign Office in a degree which has not been present in regard to our relations with other countries at all, and I shall be excused if I dwell for a moment on the extent and importance of this factor in the Abyssinian situation. Abyssinian slavery constitutes a unique case. It is supported by long tradition, by religious beliefs and, prominently, by the Abyssinian Church. Lord Lugard who knows the situation well, held it as his view that the Church furnished the strongest opposition of any element to the abolition of the institution of slavery. I equally recall that when I was in Abyssinia the head of the
650
Abyssinian Church, the Abuna, told me that he himself was opposed to the institution, but it is perfectly well known that the vast numbers of priests feel that their position and rights are bound up with it.
It seems, on the face of it, that we are looking to the Emperor, as the power which will bring this scandal, as we rightly call it, to an end. He has shown himself active towards reform, but so were some of his predecessors. The Emperor Theodore abolished slavery, but he was followed by Menelik who greatly extended it. We cannot rely wholly on the factor of the Emperor's personality. While he is on the throne Abyssinia is fortunate—it is a stroke of luck for Abyssinia—because he, among Abyssinians, has quite a unique personality so far as I have seen and have been informed. We are planning now for a long future, and, the Emperor being alone, we must envisage a time when he is not there. Happily he is a youngish man, but we must look upon what may be the normal state of things in the future. I desire to pay my tribute to the work that he has done. In 1932 he invited the Anti-Slavery Society to send out two people to confer with him, and Lord Polwarth and I represented the Society. At the close of our discussions with him, and also with two of his Ministers whom he designated for the purpose of subsidiary discussions, he promised among other things that slavery would be terminated at the most in twenty years. But little progress, unhappily, followed, and it was only two or three years later that the Italian trouble began. We do need some guarantee that abolition will be real. It is not enough to issue a decree, which probably very few slaves would hear of or understand. It is a rather difficult operation to arrive at real manumission, and abolition of slavery means something like a system that we have in the Sudan, where a man before he takes out his evidences of freedom is definitely furnished with papers which prevent his recapture. The same thing applies to Nigeria and to our other African Colonies.
The Emperor has immense forces to contend with, and we cannot hope that there will always be men of the peculiar personality of the Emperor Hailé Selassié. He is opposed by the Church, he is opposed by tradition and by the Kings—because they really are Kings, almost, in

651
their own country, some of them—and the Chiefs in general. He therefore needs very real help, and it will not be enough if advisers are furnished and are no more than the advisers of the past. He asked years ago for a British official and an official of the British Service, Mr. Halpert, was appointed, but so far was the Emperor from carrying out his advice that he felt compelled to resign about the year 1934. Therefore admiration for the Emperor must not be allowed to distract us from the real interests of the slaves and serfs, who are a vast population. And, to remind your Lordships of the magnitude of this obstruction which will confront the Emperor unless we can very vigorously help him, let me recall that the catching of slaves was not only prevalent in Abyssinia, but in default of further tribes to raid, it extended into British territory both in the Sudan and in Kenya. In 1927 a White Paper gave particulars of no fewer than 139 raids into British territory during thirteen years, and Sir John Maffey, who was then Governor-General of the Sudan, said there were no doubt other raids of which he had no definite particulars.
Another fact to remind us what the situation was is this. We have for a very long period maintained two naval vessels in the Red Sea for the purpose of preventing the export of these Abyssinian slaves, kidnapped in Abyssinia, to the markets of Arabia. They very seldom caught the slave-carrying vessels because the dhows, very small dhows as a rule, sneaked out of ports in French territorial waters—generally French territorial waters, but sometimes Italian—and it was extemely difficult to catch them. But we maintained the vessels up to the war. Later on the Emperor had the suggestion made to him that a League Commissioner would be a good guarantee and a help to him, but that proposition was very strongly objected to.
Your Lordships will remember that we opposed the entry of Abyssinia into the League of Nations in view of the magnitude of this factor of slavery. The well-known book of Lady Simon estimated the number of slaves at a minimum of 2,000,000, in a population which may have been 10,000,000, though nobody knows what it was; and more than half that population had been subjected to the rules of the Amhara by the Emperor
652
Menelik with the aid of rifles supplied by France. It is true that slavery is not generally of the industrial kind that we abolished in the West Indies: it is mostly domestic slavery; but any form of slavery is inseparable from atrocious cruelties when the master is an ill-tempered or vicious person. And, more than that, experts have pointed out that the condition of slavery means a total absence of moral sense, because the slave is debarred from the exercise of any free will or responsibility. The world has really been lenient to Abyssinia on account of slavery, and I think there can be no doubt that if the country had been a Mahomedan country a great deal more would have been heard of it.
How are we to be sure—I hope we shall hear this afternoon—that the termination of slavery is real? The main factors in that direction will be the advisers and the financial grants. We must ensure that the advisers are not ignored. Are they to be advisers such as the adviser so-called in Egypt who, under Lord Cromer, could make sure of his advice being carried out, or are they to be no more than the advisers hitherto known in Abyssinia? There is one condition which I very much hope will be attached to them, and that is the right to travel about the country, which was not given in the past, and the right to report to the British Minister as well as to the Abyssinian Government. I do not see how effective pressure can be applied unless financial assistance can be made dependent upon compliance with reasonable suggestions. The lever of finance seems to be difficult to apply in view of the fact that the financial aid is to take the form of grants definitely handed over from quarter to quarter.
I have taken enough of your Lordships' time. We are responsible for the situation. Success will depend very largely on the personal force of the British Minister. We shall need to exercise influence continuously and actively, and to apply the spirit of trusteeship which we have so often proclaimed in regard to our control of native races. Let us hope we shall be able to use Imperial Government experts now in a new manner—use them in aiding a non-British country so that Abyssinia will be put really forward in the path of reform. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, we have listened to a most interesting speech from my noble friend

653
Lord Noel-Buxton. He has very naturally and very rightly availed himself of what may perhaps be called a hereditary claim to address your Lordships on the question of slavery. All the same, deeply as I sympathize with him and having often, I am glad to think, collaborated with him in measures for forwarding the abolition of slavery, I cannot help feeling that he has a little forgotten the circumstances which have given rise to the present situation. May I therefore venture to remind your Lordships of what, I am sure, many of you are quite familiar with—namely, the statement made on November 26, 1940, by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who was at that time Mr. Butler, on the policy of the Government with regard to Abyssinia?
I would remind your Lordships that a statement made by a Minister in answer to a question is in some ways the most authoritative declaration of policy that can be made, because it is not made on the spur of the moment. It is reduced to writing before it is delivered, it is approved always by the head of the Office, by the Secretary of State, as in this case, or by a Minister in a similar position, and if there is any doubt he may take the view of the Cabinet or of the Prime Minister. This was the statement of Mr. Butler, was made at the beginning of the Abyssinian campaign just before the Emperor re-entered Abyssinia, when we were only just beginning to give assistance to the tribes who were rebelling against Italian authority. The statement is very short, and it reads, as follows:
"His Majesty's Government are anxious to see Ethiopia liberated from Italian aggression. They have no territorial ambition in that country, which they would wish to be free and independent. They are, therefore, affording every assistance possible to those Ethiopians who have taken up arms against the common enemy."
It is very important to remember that it was on the faith of that declaration, or a similar declaration made to him, that the Emperor re-entered his country and led his people in the very gallant efforts they made to overthrew the Italian domination.
It seems to me in this matter that our first duty, overriding all other duties, is to see that that obligation and that pledge are fully complied with both in the spirit and in the letter. That seems to me to be the case. When you come to see what has
654
actually happened your Lordships will, I think, agree with me that that has been very successfully accomplished. We have had this White Paper. It consists, as your Lordships are aware, of an Agreement and two Conventions. The Agreement sets out the main constitutional system which is to be established as the result of the present state of affairs. There are two lines in it which seem to me to embody the keynote of the whole policy. It says that
"the Government of the United Kingdom recognize that Ethiopia is now a free and independent State and His Majesty the Emperor, Hailé Selassié I, is its lawful Ruler…"
That is the essential part of the policy of the Government, and I must say, as far as I am individually concerned, that I desire to tender respectfully my warmest congratulations to the Foreign Secretary for the perfectly honourable, straightforward, and effective way in which he has carried out the obligations that rested upon him. It has been my misfortune occasionally, though rarely, to criticize the Government, but in this matter I can do nothing but offer my warmest praise.
It seems to me that this Agreement with Ethiopia is a fitting climax to the policy that was pursued in Syria and in Persia and now again in Ethiopia. We were told yesterday that the Foreign Office had been making incursions into the India Office, for which I was somehow or other held indirectly responsible. I wish I could claim it. For my part I can only hope that the matter will not be only one of bricks and mortar, but that some part of the spirit which has guided the Foreign Office in these matters will extend to the operations of the India Office. Apart from that, which is a matter of minor importance, I do feel most strongly that this Agreement, coming on top of the two other operations, makes a very remarkable and extremely admirable contrast with the policy of the German Government and their New Order. Wherever the Germans have proceeded to occupy a country they have left a trail of outrage and slaughter. I cannot help thinking that all impartial people, who look at the contrast between what we did in Persia and are now doing in Ethiopia, will see that our New Order, at any rate, is founded upon liberty and respect for the populations who are involved. I hope

655
and believe that this will be a great thing for the righteous and legitimate propaganda which we may be issuing to other nations.
In the interesting speech which Lord Noel-Buxton has made, he said over and over again that we were responsible for the government of Ethiopia in some degree. With great respect to him, I really do not think that is right. We have undertaken to make Abyssinia free and independent. If we are going to try and constrain the Government of Abyssinia, she will not be free and independent, and if we meant to do that we ought to have told the Emperor candidly that we could only engage in operations to restore him to the throne if he were prepared to submit to guidance and direction by us. We never said anything of the kind, and personally I should have been very much opposed to any attempt of that description. The greater part of my noble friend's speech was devoted to the question of slavery. There, I quite agree, he is on strong ground when he says that the slavery which has persisted in Abyssinia up to now is a great scandal, a great disgrace, to that country and ought to be removed as soon as possible. I entirely agree. I am also very confidently of opinion that if we made it a condition of the restoration of the Emperor that he was to carry out our wishes with regard to slavery, it would be most improbable that we should succeed in doing anything to diminish slavery, and it is quite certain we should gravely interfere with the authority of the Emperor. In my view by all means let us, when the Emperor is re-established and has become an independent sovereign, make whatever representations we like to him on this question of slavery, but let us in the meantime do everything we can to restore and increase his authority so that when he carries out not only our wishes, but what we know to be his wishes with regard to slavery, he will have the fullest power to do so. The best way of getting rid of slavery is to increase the power of the Emperor in the government of his country.
It seems to me some general propositions arise from this Agreement and on the details of the Agreement itself. I will say a word about the Conventions in a moment, but on the Agreement itself I
656
really have no criticism to make. It seems to me to be an admirable document, and one which is likely to carry out the policy which His Majesty's Government are pledged to in the fullest extent. I would like to put one other question—it is not a criticism—on a minor point. In Article VI it is said:
"His Majesty the Emperor accepts full responsibility for seeing that private enemy property is dealt with in accordance with International Law. His Majesty agrees to consult with the British Diplomatic Representative as to the measures to be taken to this end."
I admit that I do not quite understand what that means. I do not know why we are taking these pains to protect enemy property. It is quite right that enemy property should be protected, and will no doubt be protected by the Emperor so far as it is entitled to be protected by International Law, but why is it a matter of British interest to insist that that should be done? I have a great difficulty in following that, and I hope we shall be told why it is that we have thought it necessary to interfere in the matter at all.
I do not know, but I presume it refers to Italian property created in Abyssinia during the period when, very unhappily I think, we had acknowledged the conquest of Abyssinia by Italy. That, as far as we are concerned, may possibly preclude us from objecting to the existence of such property, but whatever acknowledgment we made, how can that bind the Emperor? The Emperor never made any acknowledgment of the legitimacy or the effectiveness of the conquest by Italy. On the contrary, he always resisted, and as far as he is concerned no such conquest ever took place. There was an engagement, a lawless invasion, and that was all. I do not quite follow, I confess, what that paragraph means, and I hope that my noble friend when he comes to reply will be able to give some explanation of it.
There is another matter to which ray noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton referred, and that is the limits of the territory involved. Not only does he desire to put the Emperor in leading strings, as I understand him, but he wishes to bind him to accept whatever advice any of the British advisers may give him. He proposes that certain territory which belonged to Abyssinia before the Italian invasion

657
should be taken from him and put under some kind of international body. I do not believe that a. policy of that kind would be a good policy on its merits, and I do not think such a policy is open to the British Government in the circumstances in. which it is suggested.
Just one word about the Military Convention which is attached to this Agreement. There is a Judicial Convention about which I do not desire to say anything, but in regard to the Military Convention I confess I should like to ask my noble friend whether really the very stiff provisions that are made in it are necessary from a military point of view. Of course if they are necessary from a military point of view that is the end of it, at any rate as long as this war lasts. But in the first place I should like to know what is the limit of time during which this Military Convention is to last. Is it really necessary to go as far as some of these provisions go? I will not trouble the House with any detailed examination of them. Let me take one of them by way of illustration. Unless I misread the Convention it frees all over Abyssinia all British military officers from Ethiopian law, and it includes among British military officers any British civilians who are in any way attached to the military, and all their wives and children.
If certain conditions are accepted as to the composition of the Judicial Bench, and if we are to accept the authority of the Ethiopian Government generally speaking in the enforcement of Ethiopian law, I cannot at present see why so very drastic a provision is made as to take all people, however indirectly connected with military officers, outside that provision, not in military zones, which would be reasonable enough, but, as I read the Convention, all over Abyssinia, which, as your Lordships know, is an immense place. If it is quite clear that that provision, and other provisions, are only to be enforced during the progress of the war, I should not myself be disposed to make any great objection, because we all suffer, and rightly suffer, considerable limitations of our ordinary rights during the war. How far that ought to be carried in a country like Abyssinia must, I quite agree, be left to the military authorities to say.
But I am a little doubtful as to what is the period in which it is supposed that these provisions are to go on. The preamble
658
of the Military Convention says that they are to last so long as may be necessary for mutual assistance as Allies in the struggle against the common enemy. That means, I suppose, for the duration of the war. That is all right, but then at the end of the Convention there comes a curious provision which says that:
"This Convention shall come into effect with the Agreement signed this day … and shall, subject to any other Agreement between the Parties, continue in force so long as the said Agreement continues in force."
The said Agreement is to continue in force absolutely for two years, and almost certainly for another two years, because the subsidy to be given to the Emperor is to last for four years. It means, so far as I can see, that this Convention is to last for four years. It is a pessimistic view to suppose that that means that the war will go on for at least four more years, and that therefore it will certainly be within the period of the war even if it lasts for four years. I hoped for something better than that myself, and I should like very much to be assured that, whatever may be the actual wording of the Convention, the intention is that it should last only during the period of hostilities.
I have ventured to make these few observations because this is an important document, and it is right for us to criticize anything that is capable of being criticized. But, broadly speaking, leaving aside these matters which compared with the general purpose of the Agreement are minor matters, I can only say that I warmly approve of this Agreement and that I think it is a brilliant close to the somewhat chequered history of our international relations with Abyssinia. Your Lordships will remember how the original aggression of Italy began. I think you may describe it as the Axis at its worst. Some year or more before they actually invaded the country they had been making preparations for it. At that time there was no serious grievance they could possibly allege against the Abyssinian Government, but there was the manufacture of incidents like the one that used to be known as the Walwal incident, which when they came to be examined by impartial authorities—as often as the Italians allowed examination—turned out to be at least as much the fault of the

659
Italians as of the Abyssinians. Nevertheless, the Italians went on and they invaded the country.
I will not go back on all the controversies as to whether we did everything we could to stop it. The fact was that the Italians were not stopped. They went on to the full accomplishment of what can only be described as their perfidy, and the means they used were the means of cruelty. Some of us have not forgotten the horrible gloating of one of the sons of Mussolini over the bombs which he dropped from his aeroplane on the absolutely defenceless villages of the Abyssinians, and his description of the beautiful affecting colour of the blood of the Abyssinians spurting out. Nor have we forgotten the ferocity with which Graziani suppressed any kind of opposition to the Italian Government. Through all that time the courage of the Abyssinian patriots never gave way. They went on fighting, many of them up in the mountains, denying the use of a very large part of the territory of Abyssinia to the Italians. In all that fighting the Emperor, whether he was in the country or outside it, remained as their leader and their ruler, even when he was apparently deserted by his friends and the Ministers of this country drank to the King of Italy as the Emperor of Abyssinia. It must have been a terribly trying and depressing time for him, but he never flinched, he never abandoned his rights, he maintained his fight for freedom. Then came the turn of the tide, the declaration of the general war, the splendid victories of the British troops with the assistance of the Abyssinians, and the complete restoration of the Emperor to his throne in Addis Ababa with, as far as one can learn, the support and approval of the great mass of the population. The Government have surely done well not to injure or in any way tarnish the splendour of the restoration of the Emperor by putting him under some kind of protectorate of this country when we have promised to create again for him a free and independent State.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I wish my noble friend and comrade Lord Noel-Buxton would recollect that his family has been immortalised not merely by their abolition of slavery but by the protection of aborigines. The Society over
660
which he presides is the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society. I think he emphasizes over-much the slavery side of the question and has been unduly impressed by the slavery question in Abyssinia for, even when Abyssinia was attacked by the Italians, he has consistently drawn attention to that side of the issue. Slavery is of many kinds. The worst is slave trading, and I would have your Lordships remember that the people who buy the slaves are nearly as as bad as those who sell them. This trade has been going on across the Red Sea and even through British territory, for slaves have been sold to people in the Sudan, to the west of Abyssinia.
I would have your Lordships remember, too, that slavery of the domestic sort is by no means extinct in the British Empire. You can go into any Sheikh's tent in the Jordan Valley and have your coffee served by a black slave. The abolition of domestic slavery is nothing to boast of or to use as an example for criticism of what goes on in Abyssinia under the present Emperor—I am not going back to the time of King Theodore. There was the mui-tsai system in Hong Kong, which is going on no longer, for the latest news in a telegram from Chungking in this morning's papers says the Japanese have rounded up successfully 2,000 dancing girls at Hong Kong, all mui-tsai. So do not let us be too virtuous about these things. Domestic slavery is unpleasant, but it occurs even in free countries. There is a slavery which locks up men's bodies and there is a so-called freedom which sets indeed men's bodies free but locks up all they need for subsistence. I do not think the condition of the ordinary peasant labourer in Abyssinia is much worse than the condition of the black peasant labourer in South Africa or even in our own Colony of Kenya.
The noble Lord said he wanted good government in Abyssinia. It has always been an old Liberal maxim dear to him and to me, that self-government is better than good government. I think that if we had had in this White Paper a real establishment of self-government under the Emperor Hailé Selassié we should have produced a better document than this. There is one point about which I wish to ask a question which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, did not mention. I want to know what is the area, what is the eastern boundary of this Abyssinia which we are

661
handing over by this Agreement. When the Italians started to invade Abyssinia we knew where the frontier was; it was at Eritrea. It was so no longer after they bad conquered Abyssinia by the methods described by Lord Cecil. They then proceeded to change the boundary of Eritrea. They took from Abyssinia a population, which is I think entirely Abyssinian, in the Tigre Province.
Does this Agreement restore to Hailé Selassié, except for the area specially mentioned, that territory up to the old frontier? I am glad to know that it does. That is all right then. So far as the territory is concerned, it is restored to the Emperor except for the fact that throughout the duration of this Agreement the very sinews of Abyssinia are taken away. Abyssinia has no sea port, it has one solitary railway, and that railway is to be reserved for British direction and management and order during the duration of the Agreement. I hope that the Agreement will come to an end at the end of four years; but I remember so many other cases. Was not it Egypt which we had to evacuate under an Agreement, and yet we remained there to our own disadvantage for a great many years? I would sooner have seen no territories cut out, least of all these territories which are the most civilized and developed.
My view of this document is that it is a victory for the pro-Italian-Roman clique in Cairo, which has always been against Hailé Selassié. They did their best to stop him going back to Abyssinia. It was not until that declaration which Lord Cecil read out was made in 1940 that he was allowed to go back. Even then there was very little assistance given him to get back. They were actually stopping him going into Addis Ababa until South African troops had got there. As I say, very little assistance was given. This is a document which exactly carries out, not the views of the Foreign Office which made that famous declaration in 1940, but the views of the clique in Cairo who have persuaded the Foreign Office to force through the Emperor's hand almost with a colossal bribe an Agreement which saves for the Italians all then property rights, perhaps not all their privileges, but their investments in that country, all the concessions that were made by the Italians during the Italian occupation That, I think, is a fatal blunder.
662
We have been discussing in another place over and over again whether the Italian civilian prisoners in Abyssinia, were to be evacuated or not. We were always told by the Foreign Office that they were going to be evacuated to Italy, that Italy was going to send ships to evacuate all these Italian inhabitants of Abyssinia. Nobody who knew Mussolini would dream for one moment that he would ever evacuate one of them from Abyssinia. Naturally, he wants them all there at the end of the war to stake out a claim, if not for Abyssinia at least for Eritrea. Naturally, he cannot spare ships, and equally naturally' for the last six months therefore the British taxpayer has been keeping these people. They have not even been compelled to work, but they have been fed and looked after in the same way as refugees have been looked after in this country. Under this Agreement they stay in Abyssinia; under this Agreement they are still supported by the British taxpayer who will get no compensation, and under this Agreement they will still be there when the war comes to an end, and they will then automatically form a civilized Italian community—yes, I suppose you can call Italians civilized! Well, I would much sooner they were not left in that country. I had hoped that after the war we might have an international adviser; that we might have Americans helping the Emperor in the administration of the country. As I see it at present when we do step out we shall leave the Italians with all their bad traditions to take our place as the whites of Abyssinia in the years to come.
Now, my Lords, on this occasion I have the greatest possible pleasure in speaking for my Party. It is a pleasure which I have not enjoyed very often. I say they are not satisfied with any sort of solution of the Abyssinian problem which does not follow precisely the declaration made when we sent Hailé Selassié back to Abyssinia or issued the Atlantic Charter which was drawn up at the Conference between Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt. If this paper is meant to fall in with that solution I think it is a very helpful idea, but we should not look at the question in any other way save how far does it implement absolutely the establishment of a free country uncontrolled by this land. I am not thinking of

663
Abyssinia only; I am thinking of the effect on the whole world if, so soon after the signing of the Atlantic Charter, we go back on the principles laid down in that Charter. We want out of this war nothing except the destruction of Hitlerism. If you are going to import into this war the old Imperial spirit, grabbing a bit here and a bit there to colour red, and governing the areas probably better than they are governed at the present time, you are giving the lie to what we are standing for in the present war, you are injuring the repute of this country, and injuring its good name at the very moment when we ought to sacrifice everything to preserve that good name.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, to me at any rate it is somewhat of an improvement to be discussing the Abyssinian solution in a much easier atmosphere than one has been wont to encounter in the past, in the very numerous meetings, study circles and the like which one has had to attend in order to deal with this subject. For there it was a common experience that something of a controversial attitude and atmosphere speedily developed, with a fervour and a partisanship which at times recalled the theological controversies in days when, if I may say so, people took their theology a little more seriously than they do today.
There were, in my experience at all events, several currents of opinion that led to this controversial attitude. There was first of all a section of opinion which, deeply impressed with the strong nationalistic spirit of Abyssinia, deeply impressed with the long independence of the past, and also perhaps feeling strong sympathy with the present Emperor, could think of no solution whatever but the restoration of the fullest, the amplest independence to the Emperor. They were confident that if that were done all these difficult questions of slavery and all the difficult problems of slave raiding that we have had in the Sudan, in Kenya, and elsewhere would speedily find their settlement. Their confidence was as absolute as that which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has expressed to-day—such confidence not only in the good will but in the power of the Emperor that he is prepared to leave to the Abyssinian Courts and to that very
664
curious thing the Abyssinian Law, the cases, criminal cases and the like, of a British Army of occupation. They had confidence as complete as that which Lord Wedgwood has just expressed. He would regard any derogation whatever from the authority of the Emperor as giving evidence of the influence of a pro-Italian clique. If there is slavery, and if slavery is not successfully abolished by the Emperor, he can feel that slavery is not the worst evil in life, and that in any case there are very unfavourable conditions of native labour in Kenya, as in South Africa. We have had this afternoon almost a perfect expression of the confidence that that section of opinion has felt in the Emperor and of its very strong determination that there should be no derogation whatever from his full authority.
And there was a second section, rather strongly opposed to the first perhaps; the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, is a representative of it. The members of this section realized that the Emperor Menelik was one of those who joined in the scramble for Africa, and his methods were certainly as forcible as those of the worst of the other scramblers. The Abyssinian Empire of course consists not only of what I may call the old administered districts under the Emperor, but of a very large number of outlying provinces held by his Generals, and held in a form of degradation and serfdom certainly far greater than that which you could find anywhere in other parts of Africa. That section hoped that an opportunity might now be taken of relieving those people from the serfdom from which they have suffered, of ameliorating their condition, and perhaps most of all they hoped that something might now be done to introduce civilization in that one remaining part of Africa where civilization is practically unknown even in name.
Let me take also a third party. I spare your Lordships a long catalogue of them, but there are many currents of thought on this subject. I noticed this particularly when meeting my friends coming from South Africa. They themselves have had a considerable part in reconquering Abyssinia for the Emperor. They were very reluctant to think that a large area should be given back to purely native rule which in their view was capable of European occupation, thus extending that long and narrow belt of civilized

665
occupation, so dear to South African ideas, which runs through Africa. Then there were other people who used to take part in these discussions, people who have had experience in Sudan and Kenya, experience of slave raiding, and of the most unneighbourly behaviour of every kind. They hoped that something at least might be done to deal with that in the future.
Finally, there was a section of opinion which on a more general view, and without taking perhaps quite a partisan attitude on the subject, did realize that our intervention now in Abyssinia and the steps we have taken towards its reconquest, though the do not give us a political responsibility, it is true, do place us in a position in which maladministration in Abyssinia will undoubtedly redound to our disrepute. The world will hold us, in other words, responsible for it. If the handing back of Abyssinia on terms of full liberty to the Emperor remains an accomplished fact, and if as a result that part of Africa docs not come under any form of civilized rule, then undoubtedly there will be many people throughout the world who will say that we ourselves have been a stumbling block in the way of the progress of civilization in Africa. That is a fact that undoubtedly one has to bear in mind in this connexion.
To come to an Agreement in circumstances such as these, was undoubtedly difficult, and I think that considering the influences there are in England on the subject the Foreign Office is to be congratulated on having come to an Agreement at all with the Emperor, for I know how very difficult the task of negotiation did happen to be And if we discuss it here to-day, it can I think only be, not with any idea of any change in that Agreement, any alteration in the terms of the Treaty, certainly any alterations in disfavour of the Emperor himself—that would be unthinkable, and a breach of faith—but from a practical point of view to see what its disadvantages to us may be, and what steps may have to be taken by His Majesty's Government further to implement it. To do anything less, to suggest here that it needs radical amendment, would be most disturbing to those who have to carry the Agreement out, and would breed distrust throughout Africa itself. It leaves Abyssinia in the position not of a Protectorate, of course—that is very clear—but of what used to be
666
called in old International Law a "temporarily protected State."
Clearly the success of the Agreement in achieving some of the objects we hope to see—namely, the improvement of civilization, the end of slavery, the end of serfdom in the outlying districts—must depend entirely on the extent, as Lord Noel-Buxton has said, to which the advice tendered to the Emperor is accepted by him. We know that the previous position of these advisers was sometimes one of influence, at other times of complete impotence. What are the sanctions we have that this advice will be accepted by him? There are two. The first is the continuance of military occupation. That in itself would be something like a breach of the understanding on which the Agreement is based. It must continue during the war, it must continue as long as Abyssinia—and this is a point we sometimes forget—is full of guerilla bands using arms left by the Italians and likely, if previous history is repeated, to stand in strong opposition to the Emperor's central rule. But we must all feel that military occupation must end when peace is really restored.
The second sanction is, of course, the withdrawal or withholding of part of the subsidy. I want to point out that, in the opinion of many of us who have taken some interest in examining into the resources of Abyssinia, the subsidy is already inadequate, particularly in the vanishing form in which it is put. May I give your Lordships a figure or two which would illustrate my point? Take the immediate neighbours of Abyssinia and their yearly expenditure. They are territories which have been administered for a long time; a good deal of capital has been put into them, and they are, so to speak, going concerns. Abyssinia is disorganized and undeveloped in every way, and its expenditure must, in the first instance, be much greater. Its next-door neighbour, Uganda, already spends £1,750,000; Tanganyika rather more than £1,750,000; Kenya, £2,250,000; and the Sudan, which has a population of 6,250,000 and in general characteristics comes closer to large tracts of Abyssinia, spends £4,750,000 a year. Far larger resources are required by the Emperor if he is really to develop the country on anything like modern lines or even to secure law and order and decent administration.

667
Its own income is very small. It is difficult to calculate what it has been in the past, but if your Lordships divide in your own minds Abyssinia into two parts, one the administered part, difficult as it is to ascertain what is the income of a country that has never had a Budget, it is perhaps possible that the Emperor had from Customs duties and railway dividends something like £200,000 a year. Of the second part, the large area which was handed over to his Generals and fief-holders, you can say nothing whatever as they simply lived on the country. It has to be remembered that Abyssinia is a country without any minerals. One thing Italian scientific exploration of the country has proved is that its resources are very small. How are they to find for themselves an income that would be adequate for restoring order, establishing good administration, and, what is more, keeping up the very numerous and very expensive capital works that the Italians have introduced into the country? We may think what we like of the Italian invasion and its methods, but the fact remains that they have left in the country capital assets alive which cannot be valued at less than £80,000,000 or £90,000,000 after making all deductions.
The Abyssinians themselves, owing to the action of the Italians who murdered so many of their young and educated men, have not got a single man capable of looking after their roads, their electrical installations or the other capital works the Italians have left. I maintain that in these conditions what we have provided for is already inadequate, and if it decreases in the manner proposed year by year it will be more than inadequate. It is certain that if we are to give real assistance to the Emperor these sums must be increased. It is certain that if we wish to keep any real hold on him by the use of these sanctions, then we shall find ourselves quite unable to withdraw the subsidies. In the end we come to this, that there are no sanctions that we can prescribe in that direction, and that we depend therefore entirely on the personality, influence, and character of those whom we send as advisers. I know some of the officers already working there. I know the class of officer we can send from the Sudan and the Colonies. I have every confidence that they will fulfil their mission.
668
Their influence will count for much, but we must realize that by this measure of restoration—a measure which some of your Lordships consider inadequate in itself—we are running grave hazards of a continuance of difficulties and maladministration in Abyssinia which may redound to our discredit.
I do not wish to go into the further questions that were raised on the actual terms of the Agreement, because I am sure that Lord Cranborne will be able to answer these; but I may say on one point, with regard to the respect to be paid to Italian property under International Law, that I hope some care will be exercised to maintain, as far as possible, the prescriptions of International Law in this respect, for we should be unwilling to set a bad example to other people who are now taking over considerable areas of our own in which there is considerable private property. We must be careful not to exhibit a flagrant and complete disregard of what has always been the conventions in this respect.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Surely not. I am very anxious to have the assistance of anybody on this matter, still more of the noble Lord, but surely at the end of the last war we took the whole of the German private property in this country and told the Germans they must look for compensation to their own Government.
LORD HAILEY: The usual procedure, if I may say so, is to set off one claim with regard to private property against another claim. You have your process under which you establish your debits and credits on account of private property. That was the process we ourselves applied in the last war, and I have no doubt we shall apply it in this war. It should apply equally to Abyssinia.
One last point. It was suggested that there might be some improvement, some greater security for the future of Abyssinia, if there were some element of international management introduced into the treaty arrangements. It was even suggested that part of this territory should be made subject to an experiment in international management. It would, no doubt, be interesting to have an experiment of that nature. Hitherto we have had to depend for our experience on the somewhat narrow basis of what we have seen in the New Hebrides—hardly an

669
adequate field, I think, for judging the value of international management. But it is said that it should now be tried in perhaps one of the most difficult places of the world, and in some of the most difficult conditions. I do not wish to argue here the case for international management in regard to Colonial possessions, but I am hoping that some day or other one of your Lordships may bring this matter forward when we can discuss it on its own merits. Some of us have very strong feelings on the subject, and we should like an opportunity of arguing the whole matter out and expressing our feelings upon it. Let me only say now, that the art of managing Colonies, the practice of Colonial administration, is not just merely a question of pure mathematics or of philosophy; it is a question of actual experience; it is an art that has to be acquired in itself, and I am not one of those who believe that we should quit ourselves of our responsibilities any the better if we brought into a share of them others whose methods of colonization and of administration most of us do not believe to be any better than our own.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I do not wish to follow the noble Lord in the interesting speech to which we have just listened upon a subject on which he speaks with so much authority, but may I venture to remind the House that this Agreement and our relationship with Abyssinia has a background going back a great many years? I believe it was in 1885 that Lord Napier made a speech in this House, just after we had connived at the Italian occupation of Massowah, in which he pleaded with the House and with the Government of that day to give Abyssinia what he described as a square deal. Then coming down to a later period there was the Tripartite Agreement of 1906, under which that part of Africa was divided up into zones, followed by the Agreement with Italy in 1924, when the Italians were supposed to have special authority and special influence in the affairs of Abyssinia. Then, of course, we all remember the abandonment of Abyssinia in 1936 to which my noble friend Lord Cecil has already alluded. We can hardly be surprised, therefore, that many of the Abyssinians are extremely suspicious of us and of our methods, and I think the great problem really is as to how those suspicions can be allayed and entirely eliminated.
670
I was speaking to a friend of mine the other day who has occupied one of the most important positions in Abysssinia, and he said that in his opinion the first essential was to obtain the confidence of the Emperor and his people, and up to date it may be said we have hardly missed an opportunity of undermining that confidence. Once confidence has been reestablished the movement towards the abolition of slavery can be resumed to ultimate success. The question before your Lordships to-day is, it appears to me, how far this new Agreement will promote that mutual confidence. We know that as far as the Emperor himself is concerned he will do his best to carry out the terms which he has already made. We also know that in the State of Abyssinia he is beset with grave difficulties in endeavouring to carry out this policy, and the question is whether we are really, through this Agreement, assisting and helping him to overcome these difficulties, or whether we are creating greater difficulties than he has to face even at the moment.
May I ask the noble Viscount who is to reply on behalf of the Government to assure us that no pressure of any kind has been brought upon the Emperor to sign all the clauses of this Agreement? Is it a purely voluntary act on his part? That is the first assurance I hope he will be able to give us. The second one is this. I think my noble friend suggested that this is a temporary measure, that the military occupation clauses are inserted owing to the exigencies of the war, and that when the war has come to an end then the procedure in regard to Abyssinia will not necessarily be founded upon this particular Agreement. Those of us who have read the Agreement without knowing all that has gone on, without knowing about all the negotiations which have taken place, must have come to the conclusion that it is a very hard bargain. My noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood said Ethiopia is to be a free and independent State with a free and independent Government. I can hardly believe that so long as Abyssinia is bowed down by all the clauses in this Agreement we can really describe that country and its people as a free and independent country and people.
I would venture to make one or two criticisms in regard to certain clauses. The military clauses contemplate first of

671
all a Military Mission. I am sure that is heartily welcomed by the Emperor, and by all the friends of Abyssinia, but there is also to be apparently a force of occupation which is to guard the railway and other parts of the country. Could the noble Viscount tell us broadly what this force will consist of? I do not imagine that we can afford at the present time to employ a considerable force in policing a country which belongs to our friends and at the same time fight our battles against the enemy. After all we have limited man-power. Why have not the Government in this document welcomed the offer which the Emperor made some months ago, when he said that he would reciprocate the benefits he had received from us by supplying armed forces wherever they might be needed in order to release Imperial troops for warfare on other fronts? There is not a word in this Agreement, so far as I can make out, in which the Emperor is asked to undertake the organization of forces to assist us against a common enemy. On the other hand, as far as the Senussi are concerned, we have succeeded in securing their support, and I believe one Division at least of that tribe is fighting alongside our forces in Libya.
The other point I want to mention is about Italian prisoners. In Article VII it is proposed so far as Italian prisoners are concerned to hand them over to the custody of the British military authorities, who will evacuate them from Ethiopia. Then Article VIII says that "the Government of the United Kingdom will use their best endeavours"—whatever that may mean—" to secure the return of Ethiopians in Italian hands, and to secure the return of artistic works, religious property and the like," which have been removed to Italy. May I suggest that that surely is a matter in which the Emperor should deal direct with the Italian Government? There should be reciprocity. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us what is meant by "our best endeavours." I cannot help feeling that that position ought to be made plain.
The question of appointing advisers has already been dealt with. As I think my noble friend Lord Wedgwood said, what we want to know, and what we ought to be certain about, is that the Government are going to set up eventually a free and independent Ethiopia, and give the Emperor our benevolent help in reorganizing
672
his country; that in return we expect him to assist us in every possible way in the prosecution of the war; and that this Agreement is not the prelude to some form of protectorate or sphere of influence, or whatever it may be called, but that it is our firm intention to restore the liberty and independence of Ethiopia.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I have but one word to say, because the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, made the only criticism that I should make of this Agreement, on which I should like to congratulate His Majesty's Government. I know how exceedingly difficult the negotiations have been. I was much alarmed by the assurance given by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, during his speech, that the frontiers of Ethiopia are to be the ancient frontiers. I do not wish to suggest to your Lordships that there should be any carving up of Ethiopia, but I hope that the noble Lord will say that the Government are prepared to consider negotiations over the matter of the frontiers, when the final treaty comes to be drafted. I know, for example, that the Colonial Office will share the view that the Abyssinian-Sudanese frontier is unreasonable. There is also the famous maladjustment of the boundary where the so-called Baro promontory juts out of Abyssinian territory into the Sudan, actually dividing the territory of the Anak tribe.
Similarly I would suggest that it would be completely impracticable to try to restore the old position in regard to the Somalis and the Danakil. I would suggest that this is a splendid opportunity to unite all the Somalis into a single organic State. I myself would like to see the experiment of which the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, spoke in international direction and control, but however that may be I am perfectly convinced that nothing but bloody warfare can possibly follow if the Somalis are forced into subjection to the Ethiopians. I trust that the arrangements made will not supply the Ethiopians with the modern implements of war with which to effect this subjugation.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, spoke rather easily of slavery. The fact that conditions are not perfect in one place is no reason why imperfections should

673
be tolerated in another. I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, in their belief that in the future, inevitably, we British people must share some responsibility for what occurs in Abyssinia, and it would not be in accordance with the Atlantic Charter, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, to enable Ethiopians to enslave other peoples. There were peoples in the Ethiopian Empire who were in revolt and semi-independence. It may be better that they should be subject to Addis Ababa, but if so they must have some guarantees of good will.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL) (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords,.I think that in the debate which has taken place this afternoon over the Agreement which we have negotiated with the Emperor of Abyssinia, there has been a very general consensus of approval. There have been criticisms and questions on details, but on the main basis of the Agreement I think there has been no criticism. That is very satisfactory because this question of Abyssinia is one which does rouse very great interest and very strong feeling among wide sections of opinion in this country, even at a time when the world is being rocked by yet more important and terrible events than those which happened in Abyssinia in 1935 and 1936. It is natural perhaps that we should take this very strong interest in the country, because after all the invasion of Abyssinia, which took place in 1935, was not only at that time one of the most shocking events of modern times, but also one of the most significant. It was even more. I think it might be described as one of the turning points in modern history, because it really was the rock on which the post-war peace system split and foundered. Therefore I think it is all the more appropriate that Abyssinia, which was the first country to fall beneath the harrow of the aggressor, is the first country to be restored, and that after an interval of only six years since the time when he was driven from his country the Emperor is back upon his throne as an independent sovereign.
It is the more gratifying, I think, for all of us that it is the troops of the British Commonwealth of Nations who have been the instruments by which this restoration has been achieved. Following the destruction of the Italian Armies it was inevitable
674
that there should be what may be described as an interim period. The country was in a very disturbed state and it is so still. The administration of the Italians has been swept away and the administration of the Emperor to take its place has not yet been re-created. Therefore quite naturally it fell to us to carry on a military administration and to maintain law and order. Now at last it is possible for us to proceed to a further stage. As noble Lords know, negotiations have been proceeding for some considerable time and now an Agreement has been signed at Addis Ababa between His Majesty's Government and the Emperor. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that it was a perfectly free Agreement and that there was no improper pressure exerted upon His Majesty.
This Agreement, as has already been mentioned in the debate, is to last two years. Under it we resume our normal diplomatic relations with Abyssinia and Mr. Howe is proceeding to Addis Ababa immediately in order to take up the post of His Majesty's Minister at the Emperor's Court. In his opening speech the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, urged that we in particular had a special responsibility, as I understood him, for the establishment of order in Abyssinia and for providing for the future of the country. That of course primarily—I would emphasize this—is a responsibility of the Emperor himself. As I have tried to explain, Abyssinia is now a sovereign independent State. I think it is necessary to underline this, because I got a slight impression when the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, was speaking, that he did not quite realize what the position now is. He seemed to have in mind some form of Crown Colony or Protectorate government. He asked how we were going to maintain our control.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt, but may I just say that I took pains to state that I was very gratified that the Agreement did not embody an Imperial policy but the opposite?
LORD CECIL: Allow me to follow up what I was saying. I understood the noble Lord to speak about advice that is to be given to the Emperor, and to ask who were the advisers who were to be appointed; how were we to be certain that this advice would take effect, and how

675
could it be enforced. These advisers, it is true, are being recommended to the Emperor by us, but they are his servants and not ours, and it is for him to decide whether the advice which they give is taken or not. To me it seems that anything less than that would be a hollow sham and quite unworthy of the steps which we are now taking. I do hope and think that the noble Lord has not too great cause for anxiety. The Emperor has made it perfectly clear that he recognizes the need for assistance to be given to him. He has asked His Majesty's Government to place a number of British advisers at his disposal and to assist him financially in the setting up of his Administration. We have agreed to do our best to provide for a limited duration advisers, and it will be their duty to assist the Emperor with their counsel. Lord Noel-Buxton, I think it was, asked a question about nationality. He wanted to know whether the advisers would always be British. The answer is that at present it is contemplated that they should be British, but there is nothing in the Agreement which prevents His Majesty's Government, if they should so wish, recommending to the Emperor nationals of any other country.
Then there was the question of meeting the Emperor's request for financial aid without inexorably tying him to this country. This has cost His Majesty's Government here very anxious thought. The Emperor asked for financial assistance and we gave it to him, as noble Lords know, on a tapering system, the idea being that his dependence upon a foreign country would become less and less until finally, at the end of two, or maybe four years, Abyssinia would again be standing on her own feet. I think Lord Hailey it was who said that this subsidy would be quite inadequate for the purpose. It is the hope of His Majesty's Government that, as law and order is restored and as the Administration becomes a proper working Administration, the need for the external provision of funds will become less. Clearly it would not be satisfactory to us or to the Emperor if he became permanently dependent on us in this way; that would not be independence in any true sense of the word. Moreover, there is a certain limit beyond which even this country must not go at the present time in the provision of funds to other countries, as I am sure noble Lords will
676
appreciate. But we have tried to put the Emperor properly on his feet, and I hope that noble Lords, and the country, will feel that the contribution which we are making is not unworthy of us.
I think, perhaps, there is one other subject about which I ought to say a word: the question of the administration of justice. This question was not emphasized by Lord Noel-Buxton, but this is the third sphere in which the Emperor has asked for assistance and there is, as noble Lords know, a draft administration of justice proclamation annexed to the Agreement. In view of past protection enjoyed by foreigners in Ethiopia in relation to extraterritorial rights, it was necessary to provide some safeguards in this respect not only to restore extra-territoriality but modernizing the whole of the Ethiopian judicial system. This proclamation was drafted by a joint committee of British and Ethiopian jurists and promulgated by the Emperor upon the signature of the Agreement. The Emperor has asked us to recommend some British Judges to assist in the administration of justice and to sit upon the Bench of the High Court in Ethiopia. Here again, His Majesty's Government will do their best to find these Judges, for it will be to our common interest that Ethiopia should have the benefit of British experience if this can be found.
There remains only one other sphere to which I think I need refer and that is the military sphere. The Military Convention attached to the Agreement provides for the Military Mission for which the Emperor has asked us and for the maintenance of the force which His Majesty's Government may require for strategical reasons, for the evacuation of Italian prisoners of war, and also for training the Emperor's Army which will be an essential element in the reorganization on the enlightened lines which it is the Emperor's earnest intention to follow. I should add that this Ethiopian Army which is to be set up is to be equipped entirely from the material captured from the Italians, and thus those weapons which were forged for aggression will be used for the defence of liberty. I feel that there is a certain poetic justice in that. Lord Davies asked what would be the numbers of the troops which were temporarily left in the country. I feel sure that he will not expect me to give him an answer in regard to the numbers.

677
It is not intended to leave those troops there permanently. They will be there for strategic reasons in connexion with the general conduct of the war, and partly to deal with the local position until the Emperor's Armies are constituted, armed and trained. When they have become a proper Army, an Army which can function, there will be no need any longer for our troops to remain there for the maintenance of law and order. The Emperor's Army will take its proper place in the administration of law and order as soon as possible. Those, broadly speaking, are the terms of the Agreement which has been reached. It is an Agreement which I was glad to sec was generally welcomed. It safeguards Abyssinian independence and provides that assistance, the necessity for which the Emperor, equally with Lord Noel-Buxton, recognizes.
There are one or two other points which have been raised in the debate. First of all the question of slavery, which was referred to, I think, by almost every speaker. There is no doubt in this House about what the attitude of His Majesty's Government on slavery is. This country has made it perfectly clear over many decades, and we should clearly wish to see slavery abolished in Abyssinia as in every other country. And I am very glad to be able to tell the House that the Emperor has already declared his intention to issue a decree forthwith abolishing the state of slavery in Abyssinia. He proposes to do that as soon as he is in a position to do so, and that is, of course, as soon as he is in a position to introduce legislation, which will be directly after the signature of the present Agreement; so that we may say that he is now already in a position to take that action.
Then Lord Wedgwood asked what were to be the boundaries of Abyssinia, and whether they were to be the same as before the Abyssinian war. The answer is Yes, they are. Then there was a rather more detailed point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and I hope he will allow me to put it forward to the responsible authorities.
Two points were made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. The first was about private enemy property. I understand that the objection he takes to Article VI, which deals with this question, is not to the first sentence of
678
paragraph (b) but to the second. He accepts the fact that private enemy property must be dealt with in accordance with International Law. What he does not like is bringing the British Diplomatic Representative into the matter; he thinks it should be done entirely by the Emperor himself. The reason, as I understand it, for this provision is as follows. During our campaign, and during the evacuation of Italian civilians, much private property came into the custody of the invading troops. I understand we are answerable for this at the peace settlement and must be able to account for it. We arc, of course, handing over our responsibility in Abyssinia to the Emperor, and no doubt he would act as we would have acted had we been concerned; in short, he must be able to account for this property at the end of the war. This is not only his, but our obligation. It is a joint obligation, and we cannot repudiate it. Therefore I think it is natural that our representative, in conjunction with the Emepror, should be in close consultation together with a view to seeing that this obligation is carried out. It involves no reflection upon the Emperor, I need hardly say; it is only that we have a joint obligation, and therefore it is natural that we should deal with it together. Then there was one other point he made, arising out of the Military Convention. He took some objection to the drafting of the clause which deals with immunities for British troops. He said it was too widely drawn.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I would not like to say I thought it was too widely drawn, but it seemed to me a matter of legitimate question why, when we recognized Abyssinian authority and Abyssinian administration of justice for ordinary civilians ail over the country, and even for British civilians subject to the presence of a British Judge, we should make a special exception for this particular class.
LORD CECIL: It really is because they are regarded as being part of a military machine. If the noble Lord will look at the Article he will see it refers to
"every civilian official of British nationality accompanying or serving with the said forces."
You might have a man who was not definitely in uniform but was part of the military machine, and you would not want that military machine to be clogged

679
because he was in a different legal position from that in which the troops themselves would have been. It is based, though I would not say in every detail, on the similar article in the Anglo-Egyptian Convention. So far as the women and children are concerned, I do not think we need worry about them because women and children are not likely to go to Abyssinia in the next two, or perhaps the next four, years. In connexion with this point, I think the noble Viscount raised the question of the currency of the Military Convention. It is intended that it should be for two years, but there is a provision for three months' notice, so that if the situation changed to such a degree that it was no longer necessary for us to keep these troops there, or to keep the Military Mission there, it would always be open to us to go to the Emperor and arrange for the thing to be abrogated.
Finally, there was one question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, as to what will be the position at the end of the currency of the Agreement. I understood him to say that it was too short. I am afraid I really cannot answer his question. The point really is that we have by this Agreement set up a sovereign independent country with which we are in agreement and this particular Agreement is to run for two years. At the end of those two years we shall no doubt get into further negotiation with the Emperor and discuss whether the Agreement shall be continued for a further period of years. But it is quite impossible for me to say to-day whether the Agreement will be extended, and if so for what period. That must be a matter for the consideration of His Majesty's Government and the Emperor when the time comes. I feel that this Agreement marks a big step forward. I feel that it is the righting of a very great wrong. We are to-day fighting a war of liberation and, however dark the night through which we are at present passing, I feel that in this Agreement we do see the first clear indications of a dawn which is coming.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Before the noble Lord sits down would he say a word about whether the concessions and the grants made by the Italian Government, while de facto but not de jure, are binding
680
upon the present Emperor, or whether this Agreement binds the Emperor to recognize those grants and concessions?
LORD CECIL: I should very much like notice of that question. I shall be delighted to make inquiries and to communicate with the noble Lord. It is rather a difficult technical point.
LORD DAVIES: May I ask whether it is proposed to avail ourselves of the assistance which the Emperor offered us some time ago?
LORD CECIL: I think the real need is to assist the Emperor to reorganize this military force. I do not think he is in a position at present to give extended military help in the war. As a result of this Military Mission we hope that he will build up a large, efficient, modern Army. If he does that and is in a position to offer the help we shall be very glad to consider it.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his full reply and for the additional information he has given us. I can only say that my anxieties are not altogether removed. If, as has occurred before, no progress is recorded in the implementing of a decree which in itself is of very small value, or if there should be another Emperor on the throne, possibly another Menelik, and we are bound to the continued handing over of large grants of money without conditions in regard to internal progress, it will be a melancholy thing. I can only trust that the Foreign Minister, recognizing the great British tradition in regard to native questions, and particularly in regard to slavery, will be active and ensure reform. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE HOME GUARD.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the probable increase in the numbers of Home Guards owing to the new conscription plans and compulsory hours of training, arrangements will be made for an increase in the number of weapons provided, with the ammunition necessary, and for a larger number of N.C.O. instructors to carry on during the extra

681
hours of training; and if the public are to be instructed to what extent they are to co-operate with the Army and the Home Guard in the event of invasion; and to move for Papers.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I want to say that this debate, staged in my name, was originally arranged for last Wednesday, but, at the request of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I very gladly charged it to this Wednesday. Although it is a little late, better late than never. I shall take the points in the order I raise them on the Order Paper. Firstly, comes the question of weapons and ammunition in view of the increasing numbers, of Home Guards under the new conscription scheme. Those of your Lordships who have served in the Army, Navy, or Home Guard will recognize how discouraging it is for a man who has been trained to have no weapons provided for him at all. This has happened quite often in certain areas in the Home Guard There is a definite shortage of the number of weapons provided. I can safely say that I can give the Under-Secretary of State for War details which I think will convince him that in some areas there is still a distinct shortage of weapons and ammunition.
One cannot go too much into detail publicly in your Lordships' House on these matters, and for that reason I was very glad to arrange with the noble Lord to give him any detailed matters when I saw him this morning at the War Office. But there are many general matters I feel should be aired publicly. For instance, we have heard so much from Government spokesmen and others recently about the efficiency and proficiency of the Home Guard all over the country. Although the bulk of the men themselves are splendid, one cannot help wondering how they can really be considered efficient to deal, with a possible, most ferocious, sustained and up-to-date air-borne invasion on a big scale unless they are fully armed and fully trained. We have heard recently in another place from the Prime Minister, as from Lord Beaverbrook, a most wonderful account of the way production of every kind is mounting in this country, and also that the Home Guard is more and more expected to take the place of the Regular Army, a great part of which may be leaving these shores. In other words, greater responsibilities are going to be put upon us. If our new
682
production figures are really so good, surely the extra rifles and ammunition to make us safe could be obtained rather than risk a Home Guard "Singapore" when the attack comes.
What I urge is that the Home Guard should be given more rifles and ammunition so that they may have a fair chance of observing and delaying the enemy tactics, which, as your Lordships know, is their chief role. I am, of course, speaking chiefly of the Home Guard, not in the cities or urban areas—I know nothing about them—but in the large scattered areas of which I have had long experience owing to the fact that I have a very large area under my own authority. I know the men are splendid, but you cannot fight against a Tommy gun with a claymore or pike. "We will give them pikes if we cannot give them rifles" has been suggested. The least you can do is to give everyone a rifle with sufficient ammunition to use it to the best advantage. If you want them to hold up tanks at road blocks, you must give them antitank rifles in addition to the weapons they already possess. This is a thing we do not already possess, and it seems to me you must do one thing or the other. Either you must say "Here is the Home Guard, a magnificent citizen army, which must be fully armed with the latest weapons and brought absolutely up to date, and given great responsibilities," or else you must say" Here is the Home Guard; they are not very well armed or efficient, but being numerous and on the spot, we will use them for what they are worth to back up the Regular Army in tight spots here and there, and they are capable of observing and possibly delaying the enemy." The Government must decide in which of these two ways they are going to mould the Home Guard.
Now we have finished with the question of sufficient arms and ammunition, and we come to the second important question, that of training the Home Guard both to use these weapons efficiently and to fight—not in the way they fought in the last war, but in the most modern and up-to-date manner. In scattered country districts, where company commands are stretched over miles of country, a regular non-commissioned officer instructor is required for each company for training purposes. I was glad to see that The Times advocated this in a leading

683
article on the Home Guard the other day. It is impossible to run a whole battalion of the Home Guard scattered over a vast area with one instructor. We must have one instructor per company if we are to make them efficient. That is, in my opinion, the absolute minimum. It has been said, "You must find instructors in the Home Guard and get them trained." The answer to that is that you hardly ever find an instructor belonging to the Home Guard who is up-to-date. He is usually thinking of the last war, and a short course of three days or five days cannot teach him half as much as a Regular Army instructor knows.
Now that they are going to get increased hours of training under the new conscription scheme, a Regular N.C.O. instructor per Home Guard company is essential, because there will be much more to do. If they are going to train three days a week, the instructors who have been doing the work cannot go on instructing them in the same things. You must have fresh blood and more people. I am not speaking, of course, of urban areas or areas where regular troops who can supply instructors are stationed. I am speaking only of those far-away country areas where the Home Guards are isolated and alone. In England there are a great many places where you have regular troops, and in those places you can have all the instructors that you want. I am talking about those remote places in the country districts. I find that the Home Guards on the whole do better under N.C.O. instructors than they do from lectures given by officers. They prefer that; that is the opinion I get from many people. As I said before, the average of one instructor per battalion is grossly inadequate. I should think by now that plenty of instructors are being turned out by the Regular Army after the long training they have had. I do not see how, in scattered areas like those in the far North and West, more than 24 hours' training per month could be attempted. In these areas some of the Home Guards are shepherds and such like, who could not even do that amount. That, of course, must be left to the local commanding officer to decide.
Now we come to my last point—the one upon which it is most important for us to have Government guidance. A short time ago a report of a most interesting lecture
684
was sent round to the Home Guard senior officers by the Commander-in-Chief, Scotland. I also received a letter from the Commander - in - Chief, who strongly approved of the lecture, and asked me to do all I could in my own county and elsewhere to support the plan involved. The Regional Commissioner for Scotland also supported the plan. The gist of the lecture was as follows: We are fighting a total war, and, as in Russia, every man, woman and child in the country should be told what to do in the event of invasion; it was ridiculous that strong men should loll on sofas in their houses when the attack was going on outside, just because they were not in the Home Guard or defence forces. The public has only been told to stay put; on the contrary there should be a job for everyone against the invader. This should apply not only to factory workers, A.R.P., police, special constables, fire-watchers, and others, but to every able-bodied man and woman in the country, whatever their job; and if that was going to be arranged it was high time this arrangement should be organized.
After all, if Hitler is supposed to be arriving here in April we have not very long to prepare for him. That was the purpose of Colonel Nock's lecture which was very fully approved by the Commander-in-Chief in Scotland and the Regional Commissioner for Scotland, Lord Rosebery. To-day I want to know if His Majesty's Government also approve it, because if they do I would like to know what steps they propose to take to bring it about, and what instructions they propose to issue. It may be there that they cannot give us a full answer at the moment, but we should like to know what we can be told. We should also like to know if they do approve of the instructions they propose to issue to the county councils, the police, the mayors of cities and to the public, or are we all to be governed on the old lines of International Law and The Hague Convention, most of which apparently has gone by the board so far as the Russian war is concerned? We feel that we would like to know what is in the minds of the Government in regard to this matter. We want a lead from them one way or another. If the Regional Commissioner says something for Scotland and the Commander-in-Chief also says something, what we want to know is, what do the Government say?

685
The Government ought to tell us beforehand so that everything can be prepared. Since Colonel Nock's lecture was delivered I understand things have moved forward a good deal, but I will not say any more about that, because the Under-Secretary of State for War will be able to tell us later.
I should like to quote another senior Home Guard officer of great repute who said:
" I feel very strongly that to the extent that arms of one kind or another are available, every able- bodied man. should be enrolled and trained to fight an invading enemy. When that enemy is in the immediate vicinity no man should stand aside on civil defence. No other task should take precedence over the duty of destroying the invade. The Home Guard, as the second line of defence of the country, should have the best remaining available men. Compulsory enrolment, combined with the suggestions I have put forward, should provide them."
Further, I would quote one or two paragraphs that are the absolute pith of the case which was set out in the lecture which was given with the approval of the Scottish Commander-in-Chief and Regional Commissioner by Colonel Nock. Dealing with what ought to be done he said:
" It seems very strange to some of us that a country which is fighting for its life, should be organized for the struggle with the workers in one compartment knowing little, if anything, about the functions of those in the others; this fosters the very opposite of friendly and helpful co-operation. This is a powerful drag on collaboration. It induces the attitude, ' You have your job and I have mine,' and makes no provision for the fact that, in the event, it may be necessary for all hands to be applied to the same pump to prevent the spread of a conflagration which threatens to destroy the means of carrying on any job at all. It cannot be denied that co-operation at some levels is spasmodic and half-hearted. The Army has its different branches: fighting troops, sappers, administrative and supply services, pioneers, and so on, all organized into one co-operative whole. Civil "Defence is organized in the same way: it has its casualty service, police, fire service and so on. is there any reason why the whole nation should not be organized for national defence? There is no insurmountable obstacle in the way of mobilizing everyone's efforts in this common task. Suppose we call them ' Home Defenders ' the task of guarding our homes has a lot of different sides to it. The military forces which include the Home Guard and Home Defenders, surely they should join hands. Can there be any doubt that when the last despairing efforts of the beast at bay is made the. most urgent duty of every person in these islands will be-to, help to kill Germans. And yet thousands of able-bodied citizens of this country at this
686
moment have no idea how to set about doing it, how to help the military forces to increase their fighting capacity."
We must not forget the greatly increased number of rifles which will be required now owing to the larger number of Home Guards coming under the new call-up. There is no use conscribing a man if you have not got any arms for him. The only other way is not to conscribe so many men but to limit them to the number of rifles we have. If every man is to be called on also to fight, then many more rifles will be required, or at any rate many more weapons of a suitable character will be required, for total warfare. When the Home Guards were first formed at a time of great emergency, after the Dunkirk evacuation, we accepted quite naturally the great shortage of rifles, ammunition, etc., on the assurance that one day this would be made good. Now. after nearly two more years of war, when we have been told that our production output is both astounding and prodigious, we are in some units still in the same position as regards rifles and ammunition as we were in at that date, although it is true we have been given other weapons of different sorts since that date. But I still think the deficiency in rifles and ammunition suitable for the Home Guard should be made good before we can be considered a really effective and dangerous force. I beg to move.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I wish to add one word in support of what the noble Duke has said. He speaks with great knowledge, having all through the war been responsible for a great area in the North of Scotland with a large number of Home Guards. I would only address your Lordships and the War Office representative here, Lord Croft, on two points. I feel strongly that, although there has been this great increase in production, there may well still be a shortage of rifles and of anti-tank rifles and ammunition, because not only of the losses, which are inevitable, but of the immense calls, notably those for Russia, that have been made upon our supplies. May I say this to Lord Croft, and I beg him to note it and, if he can, get the Army Council to agree to it? I think the mistake we are making in this very difficult business of the Home Guard, in regard to which I know they are doing their best, is that we have not done for the Home Guard what has been done for other forces that

687
I have known both in these islands and in the Colonies, and those with which I myself have served, as have many of your Lordships, in different wars.
Always, before, you have said, "When we give you a rifle—and with that we include an anti-tank rifle or machine-gun—\the one thing we insist upon is, however much ammunition or however little we are going to give you, in the end that will depend on how much we have got, but we give you enough to practise and get proficient, and we insist that you shall have this ammunition and that you shall practise." Now in the case of the Home Guard, this elementary truth was forgotten and it has gone on being forgotten to this very day. When I see the Commander-in-Chief of a particular area in which I may be and say, "Oh well, but is it not rather absurd that there should be all these tens of thousands of men who really have not got confidence in their weapon because there is no ammunition? "he says," Well, you had better ask the War Office." Really the War Office have on this occasion forgotten the first elementary rule and reason for a fighting force. When you give a man a weapon, give him enough ammunition to ensure that he shall get confidence in it and used to it. Far from the Home Guard coming to my noble friend and saying, "Please will you give us some ammunition?" I want him to say, through the Commanders of the Home Guard, "Here is the ammunition." Do not let them have to be asked how many rounds may be necessary, but let what is required be found so that the men may have confidence in the use of their weapons. I beg my noble friend to do that. However great the shortage may be, let him see that the same rule applies to the Home Guard as applies to every other force that I have ever heard of.
The second point is the point raised by the noble Duke in quoting Colonel Nock, who wrote the well-known memorandum in which he humorously suggests the strange thought that when the Germans landed it would not be the people playing golf, as in the well-known poem, but the people lying on their sofas and saying, "I do not belong to the Home Guard, I do not belong to the Regular Army, and I do not belong to such other force as may be named; I am going to loll on
688
my sofa." May I venture to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Croft, that the man who lies on his sofa when the sudden onslaught comes is committing a crime against the law of the land? If he doubts that it would be a very good thing if he would consult the Attorney-General, who will tell him that by the law of the land, whenever an enemy suddenly appears, every able-bodied man is bound to leave his sofa, spring to his feet and by every possible means in his power join with others in repelling the enemy. The point of the Hague Convention was raised again. I beg the noble Lord who represents the War Office to ask the Law Officers to give him a resume of that Convention by which we are still bound.
Of course, as we have a great many prisoners in our hands and the enemy has our prisoners in his hands, it is not for us to say that we do not stick to that Convention. By that Convention it is made abundantly clear that the signatories to it are pledged—and none of them have gone back on their word—to respect the action of any man who assists in repelling the enemy when the enemy suddenly attacks him. There is no question about it whatever. Not only is a man entitled to do it by International Law, but by the law of England he is bound to do it. The consequences of that position have been well described by the noble Duke. We want more rifles and more instructors, but what I want made clear to the country as a whole is that a man who lies on the sofa when the enemy comes is committing a crime against the law of the land and is liable to severe penalties. I hope the noble Lord will make this clear and, above all, that he will see that there are sufficient munitions to enable every armed man to have confidence in the use of his weapon.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am in the happy position, though taking no credit for it, of seeing that every one of the major reforms for which I have pressed since the days of the Local Defence Volunteers have been brought about. There are, however, one or two things that still must be said and I will endeavour to say them with the greatest brevity. The question of arms and ammunition has been dealt with by the noble Duke, and my noble friend Lord Elton has something to say on that point, so I will turn to the question of training. The Home Guard in my view cannot as

689
a body become proficient without the support of the Army. In the area in which I am privileged to serve that co-operation has been most helpful and most friendly. If I may have your Lordships' permission to digress for a moment, I would like to pay a most whole-hearted tribute to the Canadian forces for what they have done for the Home Guard. There seems to exist between us a special bond. I cannot quite identify its quality, but it does exist. They have done everything they can for us and I wish I could express my gratitude more publicly. Of their efficiency it is not for me to speak—it is well known—but: perhaps it would not be out of place for me to say that the Canadian tank regiment is composed of as fine a body of mo as I have seen for many years.
Passing from that, the point I wish to make is that this co-operation, however full, however generous, is not in itself enough. Some measure of control is needed, and if my noble friend who will reply will forgive me reminding him of this once more, it has been expressly laid down that the Army is to accept responsibility for seeing that the Home Guard is trained. Such responsibility must extend to matters such as criticizing officers, reporting on them, considering training programmes, but never have I found responsibility accepted or interpreted in that sense. Until it is you cannot make the Home: Guard a teal, efficient and effective fighting force. You will not, until that happens, get rid of constant complaints about training. In the last few weeks I have had several instances. One is of a volunteer who resigned because, after working hard all day, he had to spend many hours each week sitting up at night under conditions in which no useful purpose whatever could be served. Another is of a man who tried to accept every opportunity for training but whose platoon commander gave him only one parade a month. I suggest that until you get the Army actively saying "We are responsible and these things must not be," you will never be able to rely on the Home Guard to the extent which its fighting spirit deserves.
To pass quickly to my second point, the question of relationship between the Home Guard and the Civil Defence Services, I would point out that as your Lordships of course are aware compulsion for the Home Guard is purely local and operates
690
only in those vulnerable areas which are already short of men, where man-power cannot meet the twin demands of Civil Defence and the Home Guard. It is in these very areas that one would suppose a sense of reality would exist, for in this country we have a front on which we cannot say we under-estimated the strength of the enemy, a front from which we cannot withdraw. Yet we cannot deny the possibility of invasion. If it be coming it may well come in the spring. That being so it must be our urgent duty to get these new Home Guard recruits and train them without delay. Weeks slip by, weeks which once lost can never be recovered. Yet it seems that nothing is being done. I was privileged last week to take part in a conference at which a representative from the Regional authority was present. To say that I was surprised is to put it mildly, when I learnt the position of fire-watchers from whom we expected to get the bulk of recruits, for in this area fire - watchers outnumber the Home Guard by three to one. When you take into account special constables, the Auxiliary Fire Service, air-raid wardens and other people in Civil Defence, the proportion is six or seven to one.
In the event of invasion where would you be? The fire-watchers would be evacuated and would leave the town. How are we then to defend it? Any person who entered this town after compulsory enrolment escapes compulsion. Furthermore, if he is not registered at a labour exchange you cannot" trace him. I was told of special constables, exempt from the Home Guard, who have never performed a single act of duty as special constables. One, indeed, told me that he had just received a medal for long and meritorious service, although he had never performed a single act of duty. When at last I was invited to partake of tea I felt that all that was required was the presence of the Mad Hatter and the March Hare to complete the gathering. I ask my noble friend bluntly: Are the Government serious, do they mean to get these men or not, and having got them will they be trained without delay?
Then there is the question of the flood of correspondence, this flood of paper which never diminishes; these constant returns which irritate and exasperate. There is another matter of which I quote two examples. Several times weapons have been issued—and that takes time in

691
rural areas—but hardly are they issued before they are called back again for examination. Surely it should be possible to have weapons properly checked and to be certain about them before they are issued to us. Only last week every rifle, every weapon was called in for inspection—a perfectly sound and perfectly proper precaution. But it takes time. It is not easy in these rural areas where there are no telephones, and in many cases, it may mean a house-to-house call. The moment we got the weapons in, the inspection was cancelled. They had all to be sent out again, and the inspection, no doubt, will be carried out at a later date. That kind of thing does press hardly on us, and I hope something will be done to check it.
One other point; the question of these women who help us in our Home Guard offices. They are sworn in in our area under the Official Secrets Act, and their work is of first importance, and of a confidential nature. I feel sure that where they are not very young women, and where they cannot be replaced, the Ministry of Labour will exercise a sympathetic attitude towards us, and will not disturb our organization by calling them up if it can be avoided. It needs but some imagination and some further effort and out of the Home Guard we can forge a weapon for the defence of this country which will never fail us.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I think that in any discussion on the Home Guard we should do well to remember the sombre background against which we are talking. Whenever, and wherever, so far, the enemy has struck first, has got in the first blow against our land forces, he has driven us back with heavy losses. These grievous blows have so far been dealt us on the circumference of the vast struggle. We have accordingly survived; we have been accorded time to learn lessons from our defeat and to begin painfully, under the strokes of war, to equip our troops with the armaments with which they should have been provided at the outset. But if ever scenes remotely resembling those which we have had to witness in France, in Greece, in Crete, and in Malaya, were to be enacted in this small island, there would be no time for recovery, no time for learning—it would be extinction, swift, and, possibly, for ever. Therefore it is
692
against some such background as that that we should consider the problems which we are discussing this evening, and ask ourselves whether the Home Guard may not be suffering from much the same deficiencies of administration which have brought about the catastrophes we have had to witness elsewhere.
As to equipment, it is, as the noble Duke has observed, very difficult to speak with any particularity in your Lordships' House. I fully believe that there are many areas in which, the Home Guard are lavishly equipped, in which, in fact, as we have rather gathered, from the last speaker to whom we have listened, there are more arms than men. It still undoubtedly remains true that there are also far too many areas in which there are more men than arms. But, no doubt, the noble Lord will reply, as he is entitled to reply, that the areas in which the arms are less than the men, are areas regarded by His Majesty's Government, by the War Office, as not being danger spots. I only wish that I felt any confidence that that reassuring opinion was shared by the German High Command. We have seen a good many guesses of our own High Command as to the enemy's intentions, and they have not been so uniformly correct that we should stake very much of our confidence on their being correct this lime. If the noble Lord will permit me, I shall pass to him in private certain typical statistics with regard to the equipment of certain sections of the Home Guard, which may be no surprise to him, but which would be, I think, a considerable surprise to some of your Lordships.
I would like to say that I can introduce to the noble Lord from among my own friends and acquaintances, with many of whom I have served as a private in the ranks—men from various walks of life, but alike in being veterans of the last war, and in having served in the Home Guard, since the first hour of its enrolment—able-bodied men, fully fitted for this hazardous service, not one of whom has yet received a rifle, not one of whom has yet had the opportunity, since the last Great War, of firing a single practice shot from a Service rifle on a range. That, of course, is not Lord Croft's fault. He has never been one of those who told us that our salvation would be disarmament, or who has resisted or misinterpreted our belated demands for rearmament. I suppose

693
there is no one in your Lordships House more anxious to see every wearer of the Home Guard uniform fully equipped. Responsibility, I suppose, rests chiefly on the Minister of Supply, as to whose magnificent achievements we hear so much. I hope that the next time: he sees fit to address us, he will tell us a little of what he has done, and also a little about what he has not done, for the Home Guard.
I would like to suggest that apart from that very grave responsibility resting on the Minister of Supply, there are certain responsibilities resting on the British Regular Army, and the Government Departments too. I would suggest that, if as I understand is the case, Lord Croft has recognized the obligation Of the Regular Army to assist in the training and supervision of the; Home Guard, that obligation is not taken sufficiently seriously, at any rate; in many parts of the country. Too much of the Home Guard training is haphazard and unco-ordinated, depending not on clearly thought out plans bearing obvious relation to the needs of that particular area, but rather to what some harassed platoon commander can vamp up out of the exiguous resources at his disposal. It may be that Sergeant This has been through a course on decontamination. "Oh, very well," it is said, "let him give instruction in gas." Private That has been employed at a printer's, where he has had something to do with maps: "Let him lecture on map-reading." And when all else fails, there is always arms drill to fall back on.
Over this question of filling up time with close order drill or presenting arms, I do suggest to the noble Lord that the War Office could do very real service to the Home Guard by expressly prohibiting more than a small percentage of its hours of training being devoted to anything remotely resembling barrack-square drill. I know of erne Company Commander in the Home Guard who obtained some promise of co-operation from the neighbouring unit of the Regular Army. He received an offer of training for his motor-cyclists and he laboriously prepared a list, a list of the kind that the Army so loves, giving even birthplaces of the men and, it may be, the Christian names of their mothers. At last the men went to the appointed place at the appointed hour, full of enthusiasm and interest, but they were told,," There is no instructor for you; you had better go home." That was four weeks ago. Nothing has since been heard of any
694
instruction, and these men are beginning to melt away. That is one example of lack of co-operation, contact and supervision between the Regular Army and its neighbours in the Home Guard.
Another Battalion Commander has prepared his road blocks and his tank obstacles; he only needs some small minor works by the local Regular Royal Engineers to prevent the enemy tanks—as they can at present—sailing round his obstacles with scarcely a check in their onward progress. He received a promise that this would be carried out. That was four months ago, and still the work is uncompleted. This kind of incident is, I think, largely due to the practice of moving on Regular battalions quickly, so that they do not often take root in any one place, and a promise made by one unit may be completely unknown to its successor. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly unsatisfactory, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that there is a dangerous tendency not only to starve the Home Guard of its proper equipment, but to deny it proper supervision and assistance.
Finally, do not the Government need to pay more attention to the needs of this great citizen force in the plans which they are laying down for the latest call-up to the Forces? After all, we cannot have it both ways. If the Home Guard is important enough to require compulsion to be applied to it, then it is important enough for its key men to be left to it. I know of a battalion which has a railway platoon which until recently was under the command of a railway specialist, deeply versed in all the railway technique of derailment and so on. Then came the call-up and, in spite of every effort by his Battalion Commander, that man has been taken away. He is now serving as a private in a non-specialist line battalion, and it has proved quite impossible to provide an efficient substitute for him. I suggest that in the provisions for the call-up, not only to the factories, but to the Forces, some further regard should be paid to the needs of at all events the indispensable key men of the Home Guard battalions. The enthusiasts who are the core of the Home Guard are a magnificent body of men. I have served in the ranks, as many of your Lordships have, during the last few months, and that at least I know of them. They have an incomparable incentive to valour and self-sacrifice, such as no other

695
body of troops in the world possesses. They are not only fighting for their country and on the soil of their country, they are fighting, if invasion should come, on their own familiar streets and fields, almost within sight of their own wives and children. I ask the noble Lord to make every possible effort to facilitate the work and efficiency of men 'such as these, and to see that at long last they get the weapons that they will undoubtedly know how to use.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, I was unable to be present at the debate which was initiated by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, about ten days ago, and I had hoped that we might have heard him again to-day lay emphasis on that particular point which he raised on that occasion—namely, the great need for closer co-operation between the Home Guard, the military, and Civil Defence. I was much impressed by the argument he brought forward on that occasion, and, on reading the debate, I shared with him disappointment, and I might almost say dismay, at the answer he received from the representative of the War Office. It seemed to me that in that answer the noble Lord did not appreciate the position at all. The most that he could say was that this was a matter which for some time had been in the mind of the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said when he opened his speech just now, these are extremely grave times, and it is with a grave background that we speak in a debate of this kind. Surely, after two years' illustrations of what has had to be faced in Poland, in Russia, in Yugoslavia, in Norway, in Greece, in Crete and in France, the Government could have made up their mind by this time. After these months and years of travail, surely it is time for a speedy deliverance. There is an urgent need for more instructors, more weapons and more men.
I shall not go over those points in detail which have been dealt with by the noble Duke and other speakers, but I feel that I must, as the lecture has been quoted by more than one speaker to-day, mention that Colonel Nock is one of my own Battalion Commanders. When the Home Guard, or rather, the Local Defence Volunteers, as they were then called, were originally started, the Government
696
took one of the few opportunities they have had during this war of consulting the Lord-Lieutenant of the county. He has been, so far as I know, generally cold-shouldered in any responsibility in regard to this war, but on that occasion he was consulted, and was asked to recommend someone to act as zone organizer. It seemed to me when that responsibility was laid on my shoulders that the one thing that mattered for the organization of really efficient service was to ensure that that service had the closest possible liaison with Civil Defence, or A.R.P. as it was then called. I nominated the A.R.P. Controller of the county, and he was accepted.
For a year he carried the dual responsibility of zone organizer and became Zone Commander and A.R.P Controller. Throughout the county there has been a very close liaison of the two Services, built up on that principle that you should take advantage of the communications, take advantage of what one Service can do to build up the other, recognizing that it is difficult to find man-power for everything. But before that had been allowed to grow into complete fruition, the whole thing was smashed—smashed deliberately by authority from above, who dictated that there must be a complete divorcement between the two Services. Public opinion, I think, is swinging the pendulum now back again to closer co-operation, but it is not yet realized, or has not yet been made clearly public from the point of view of the responsibility of the Government, that they authorized this close co-operation. Various passages from the lecture which has been referred to have been quoted to your Lordships explaining the views of Colonel Nock, the Battalion Commander who has been in charge of that battalion ever since the inauguration of the Home Guard.
I wish to bring one other point before your Lordships in that respect, and that is in regard to the instruction which can only be given from above. What do the Government really mean by asking the civil population to "stay put"? It has been already referred to by one other speaker this afternoon, but I want to take it a stage further. What is meant by "staying put"? Surely it is that every man, woman, and child shall be given a job to do, and helped and encouraged to take their own part in the defence of their own homes. There must be no

697
shielding of one Service as against another, no disposition or attitude on the part of one Service to say, "This is my job—you get on with yours." We have only got one job and that is to defeat the enemy, to defend our own homes. So I put it that if the Government would come out much more strongly with this kind of instruction, and make it quite clear that when they say "Stay put" they are giving to each citizen occupation of mind and body and letting him feel that he is needed, as needed he is, we shall have no refugee problem and no panic. In this lecture which has now the approval of the Scottish Command and of the Regional Commissioner—I wish it had a little bit more approval from the Regional Commissioner and more lead from the Government—it is suggested that in certain places there should be local committees, and that the Home Guard should take the lead in these local committees. It may be that the Home Guard representative in a village is merely a volunteer or a platoon or section commander, and it is difficult for him, without real guidance from above, to make sure that such plans as he may make for the defence of his own locality are in accordance with the plan for the whole country.
There needs to be much more guidance from above as regards the formation of these local committees and as to what they are to do. We are confronted at once in the local committee with a problem such as this. The police have their instructions, but they are secret; the Home Guard have their instructions, but they are secret; Civil Defence workers have their instructions, but they are secret. How can we discuss them? If you are really to enthuse a local population, if you are to instruct the individual man, woman, and child as to what to do, you must get their confidence, and the only way of getting their confidence is to let them know what the position really is. Various speakers this afternoon have spoken about training. On these matters, possibly, the War Office are a little bit apt to be guided by, and get their picture from, the Home Guard centred round and about London. The noble Duke has already pointed out the peculiar difficulties that may exist in sparsely populated country away from big centres.
Let me put another difficulty such as I have experienced during the past two
698
years. In that locality we have not had the assistance of the British Army. We have had the assistance, protection, and collaboration of the Polish Army. I should wish to pay a great tribute to the gallantry, courage, spirit, and endurance of the Polish Army, but your Lordships will appreciate that it is very difficult to get that same loan of instructors from a foreign nation as you can get from the British Army. So there is a special need, in localities of that kind, for an extra provision of instructors, from localities where there are large numbers of British troops such as the area the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, mentioned.
One aspect of training has not been referred to this afternoon, and I do feel a great deal of good could be done by an extension of that kind of training such as was given by actual illustration in two forms—first, a visit from a Commando actually performing certain duties of attack, and, second, a visit by a travelling wing from the Home Guard School. I feel a great deal more could be done on these two lines than has yet been attempted or achieved. The lectures of the travelling wing were tremendously appreciated by all my Battalion Commanders. Again, another method by which much training could be given, which has not yet been developed, is the film. We should develop the film in the instruction of the Local Defence Committees. It is the public who want to see these films as well as the Home Guard. I would like to conclude by saying that the time is now ripe for a new definite move forward by the Government. Let the noble Lord, Lord Croft, take his courage in both hands. Let him go to the War Office and say, on the responsibility of this debate to which he has listened, that he stakes his reputation, and let us get some real results, some real deliverance from the difficulties in which we are placed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: My Lords, I venture very briefly to lay stress on three points in connexion with this subject. The first is that it is very desirable that priority in equipment should be given to the men who are defending aerodromes, whether the ground staff of the aerodrome itself or members of the Home Guard or any other unit which has this most important responsibility laid upon it in the interim period till the new force is fully organized and in position. My own observation, in a remote and exposed part

699
of the country, has suggested that the authorities have been somewhat slow in recognizing the great importance of this matter.
The second point concerns the Home Guard rank and file. Most of the men are in full employment. One of those, for instance, with whom I go on patrol at night, has to leave the post at six o'clock in the morning because he has to go to work. His work is important, urgent, Government work. It is only right to be economical of the energies of such men, and to concentrate the training, somewhat meagre as of necessity it must be, on essentials. Let first things be always kept first. Every man should have his musketry course. He should be familiar with the use of the weapons at his disposal. Every man should have practice in getting quickly to his action station. The action station should be placed in a state of adequate preparation. Communications should be practised and arranged in some detail. Liaison with the Civil Defence should be improved, and so on. In every exercise of the Home Guard, invasion or an invasion raid should be envisaged. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has already said, barrack square training, presenting arms, and that type of thing must be reduced to the absolute minimum. I realize that the Home Guard authorities, and especially the highest authorities, recognize this; but I do not think any harm is done by reminding them of it occasionally, and especially reminding the authorities who are intermediate or lower. Here, I believe, lies one of the secrets of Home Guard discipline. The relationship between officers and men in the Home Guard is in the nature of things somewhat different from the relationship between officers and men in the Regular Army. The difficulties that arise are brushed aside if all ranks have this one object steadily in the centre of the picture the whole time.
The third point is this. It is greatly to be desired that changes in schemes and commands should be reduced to a minimum. Constant rearrangements are discouraging and even bewildering. It is difficult to stop all sorts of rumours circulating among the rank and file and reducing confidence. I do not want to labour the point, but these choppings and changing" have been very trying. If I may say so, we have great confidence in
700
the General now commanding the defences of the county in which I live, and we hope he will be allowed to stay for a considerable time. If he is to be moved, we hope the General who succeeds him will adopt his dispositions, or at any rate the main lines of them and so preserve as much continuity as possible; and that, of course, applies generally throughout the country. May I add in conclusion that, as I move about, I find encouraging evidence that the Home Guard as a whole is keen and determined and has steadily gained in efficiency? I am now only asking that even more attention should be concentrated on the three points which I have mentioned.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I will intervene if I may for only one or two moments, because there are one or two very important questions which have not been quite touched on, although they have been very nearly touched on during the debate. The first is the question of liaison between the Home Guard and the Regular Army and the Home Guard battalions themselves. I have been Acting Deputy Adjutant of a battalion, and I find that there is really very inadequate liaison with the military and also between battalion and battalion of the Home Guard. Whose fault that is I cannot make out. The Battalion Commander has done his best to put it right. There ought to be somebody who can co-ordinate and put out of the picture anything of this sort. I beg that my noble friend when he replies will deal with that, but if he does not reply to it, I hope he will remember it, because it really is happening to-day in an area which, of course, I will not mention.
The next point I want to raise is this. It was touched on a little by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. There are many places where the men have rifles, but they do not practise with the rifle with which they are going to fight. They are given their fighting ammunition, and their fighting rifle, but they practise with another rifle, which is not sighted in the same way as their fighting rifle. That no doubt is a matter for the Ministry of Supply, but everyone who has done any soldiering knows very well that you want to get your men so familiar with their weapons that it becomes to them just like a walking stick—something they can handle which is very familiar to them. I hope this question will be very seriously gone into,

701
because I am aware that when the shooting at a real man has to come, one will shoot a great deal better with the rifle one has practised with than with a rifle one has never fired at all. There is one other point on that. This debate perhaps would have been much better if it had taken place in Secret Session, because one cannot say very much now. There are other weapons which have been served out. We all know that a big noise is very frightening to people who are not familiar with it, and some of these weapons make a great noise. If we are to get men, particularly when they are in a real battle, not only familiar with the fire of this weapon which I speak of but others, we ought to have more opportunity for training in their use. If that is done I think our results in killing the Boche when he comes will be very much better. That is all I have to say.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, before answering the noble Duke, I would like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on what I understand is his first incursion into debate in this House. I am sure I am voicing the opinion of all your Lordships when I say that we hope his voice will be frequently heard here. He has displayed so many virtues. He was so concise with the three main points which he put before us and which I promise him will receive the consideration of the War Office. He made himself heard; and he seemed to be extraordinarily brief. I would also like to say how much we appreciate the great work which is being done in the Home Guard in that part of the country from which he comes, and I hope that he has not fallen foul of my warrior cousin, who takes such a big part in the Home Guard in that area.
I am sure we were all pleased to hear the speech of the Duke of Sutherland, because we all realize what an immense amount of time and labour he has given to the Home Guard as a Battalion Commander in one of the most difficult areas. Many of us know he would have been here on several previous occasions but for the fact that he felt it was his duty to remain there amongst his people training them in the military duties which he has done so much to impart to them. The points he has raised have, of course, been very
702
carefully considered both before and since the introduction of powers for compulsory enrolment and training in the Home Guard. However, I would like, if I may, to correct any impressions that may be abroad that the introduction of compulsion is intended to involve any large immediate increase in the numbers of the Home Guard, except possibly in some limited areas. This being so, your Lordships will appreciate that the question of a large increase in weapons and ammunition on that account does not immediately arise. It is, in fact, a separate problem, and, as I indicated not long ago in the debate on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Cork, it is inseparable from the problems of supply of weapons and ammunition to the Army generally.
There seems to be a feeling abroad that the rifle is essential as a weapon for all the Home Guard, and I should like to remind your Lordships that in the event of invasion in a great part of this country we shall be engaged in fighting of a close character. For instance, in the actual cities, towns and villages the opportunities for using hand grenades against enemy motor cyclists and infantry, and incendiary and high explosive grenades against vehicles of all descriptions will be immense. If every platoon had its trained sections of grenade throwers or bombers there is no doubt that operating from trenches or from windows or doorways, or suddenly emerging round houses and cottages, they would he able to inflict great casualties upon an advancing enemy. If I were organizing an attack—I am afraid this sounds rather absurd from one so aged as myself, but my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who I always feel is so much younger than many of us, would probably bear me out in this—I would rather have trained bombers for fighting in urban areas, and if a bombing attack could be swiftly followed up by cold steel, it would be most effective. If I were a bomber in such a formation—and I think I have thrown most types of bombs that have been used in the Army—I should like to have a pike in order to follow up my bombing attack, especially at night. It is a most effective and silent weapon.
I think your Lordships will agree that in street fighting many commanders would far prefer to have trained platoons of bombers, flanked by men armed with Tommy guns, rather than a platoon of riflemen, although where you have open

703
country, or in defending the beaches where there is a good field of fire, the rifleman is of course invaluable against parachutists and troops landed from aircraft or the sea. I would suggest to the noble Duke that those men of his battalion who are not fully armed should be trained as bombers, as ammunition carriers, who I think do a vital work, as signallers, as trained scout observers and even as stretcher bearers. I believe they all could perform a very useful function in the Home Guard. In the wider areas the very large number of machine guns and sub-machine guns which we have now issued to the Home Guard will, of course, be invaluable. Now also that the Home Guard have been provided with large numbers of what I may describe as close-range artillery, it would appear wise to have special sections of the Home Guard trained as specialists in this form of fighting. I imagine that this is feeing done. Where Home Guards have this form of artillery, men who have no personal weapons become parts of the gun teams and can take an active part in the operation which only requires to be covered by a limited number of riflemen.
In those company areas which have no priority in the matter of rifles and in which a large proportion are not armed with that weapon, I cannot help feeling that with a little imagination every single member can be armed with offensive weapons and trained so as to take a vital part in the defence of his company area. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, made a good point that if possible more rounds should be found for practice. I am sure we all feel a great deal of sympathy with that, but I am also sure that he and other noble Lords will agree that with a shortage of ammunition it is better to concentrate as far as possible on miniature rifle practice and to let a man fire a few rounds to get used to the kick of the rifle so that he would know what happens when the rifle is used. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, suggested that it was a mistake to issue for practice ·303 ammunition when ·300 rifles are used. But if you have a considerable amount of ·303 ammunition coming along it is far better to give the Home Guard where we can a chance of firing the real thing with ·303 rifles, because if they can fire with the ·303 then the 300 is a far easier weapon to use hereafter. That is the explanation
704
of that seemingly strange policy. Arrangements for additional practice are at the present moment being worked out and it is hoped that bigger issues may be possible.
I want to make one remark with regard to machine guns because sometimes people seem to have an idea that you ought to have vast reserves of machine gun ammunition. I hope that no machine-gun will ever be tired unless there is a machine-gun target, and that means a group of at least twenty or thirty men bunched together, flank fire on an extended line, or advancing vehicles within decisive range. It is very rare—this will be a platitude to most of your Lordships—that a target will present itself for more than fifty seconds. I remember that in many battles in 1914, 1915 and 1916, we rarely fired a full belt. One minute was the machine-gunner's dream. I hope it may be a dream that will come true for the Home Guard. May I press the imperative need of communications between posts? Company reserves of ammunition must be speedily conveyed to the threatened post from Headquarters or from posts which are distant from the direction of attack. Most of the areas of Home Guard formations are of a circular character so that you have posts all round the area. If you know that the enemy is coming from the north you can take ammunition from the south to the threatened post in the north to relieve the position. If private cars are not available for this purpose I suggest that cadets on bicycles or runners might fill the bill, and I rejoice to think that the Cadet Force will now have that aid which is essential.
When the noble Duke stated that we are still in the same position as regards rifles and ammunition in some units as we were two years ago, I must protest that if that is true in some units it is definitely contrary to the facts with regard to the country as a whole. Many rifles have, since that time, been imported and issued to the Home Guard. Scores of millions of rounds of S.A.A. have been secured from the United States of America and thousands of Northovers, thousands of bombards and many thousands of submachine-guns have been distributed. I always think comparisons are a mistake, but it will be found in regard to a thousand members of the Home Guard that if you take info account their sub-machine-guns, machine-guns and rifles, they have

705
probably a good deal greater fire power than we had when fighting the Prussian Guards in 1914- If noble Lords ask whether we are satisfied I say, "No, of course not," but I can give your Lordships this assurance, that we shall never cease to strain every nerve to secure greater supplies.
I am bound, however, to ask your Lordships how you would act in the matter of priority for rifles. Surely you would put the Regular Forces first. You would say that they must have absolutely the first priority. Would you not put next the Indian Army, with its great perils in the East, in Malaya and Burma and in India itself? Are we to ignore the changed position of Australia and New Zealand? They will want all the rifles they can get. Must we not arm all the trained native forces which we have been building up in West Africa, East Africa, and for the defence of the Sudan? Are we not bound to provide rifles for the trained men of the Allied Forces who have sacrificed so much and who are coming to our aid? And when the call went forth for rifles for the Poles in Russia, surely we were right to provide these magnificent and trained fighting men with rifles?
Let us come home. Is it not the Air Defence Force of aerodromes which perhaps ought to have the most urgent of all answers to the call? Supply all these needs and then any surplus that we have should surely go to the Home Guard, and only when the Home Guard's needs are satisfied, it seems to me, can we possibly think of arming these civilians who have not yet joined the Home Guard with the precious weapons which are wanted all the world over. It is true to say that service rifle production is now on the increase and we hope soon that cur Army requirements will be fully satisfied. I therefore urge the Home Guard to continue to be patient, and, where the units are not yet in the possession of a full complement of rifles, I would suggest that they should endeavour to train their men in other essential forms of fighting which I have indicated, so that they can learn from the Russian guerillas on the one hand and from what our own troops in Libya have done on the other hand, in close fighting in towns and villages. There we found men ready to tackle tanks with the first primitive Molotov cocktails and they did, in fact, do it successfully.
706
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked whether anything could be done to stimulate the co-operation of the Regular Army. I think that in most parts of the country there is now very real co-operation. I find that the Army realizes that it is most dependent on the brotherhood of the Home Guard, and I do know of many Corps whose non-commissioned officers, after being on duty all day, go out at night to assist in training the Home Guard. I have seen N.C.Os. from the Brigade of Guards spending their leisure evenings at work at which one would have thought they would almost have become stale, with remarkable results. One realizes, of course, that there are areas where you have no Regular troops on establishment, and that Is a question into which we have to look. With regard to his point about drill we have long ago realized, in fact we have realized from the very first, that the Home Guard should not be treated like Regular soldiers and have so many drills as to make their work uninteresting, and we have never intended it. Where there is a tendency that way it is in fact actively discouraged. Instructions have been issued to that effect and I should have thought the position was improved very much.
I also want to say this in pursuance of the other side of the question. I have known scores of Home Guards, N.C.Os. and men, who were in the last war, and at the start of the organization were rather distressed to find results so slow because there was no cohesion and no readiness to answer the word of command. I did think of this after seeing a Guard of Honour three days ago. You may say "How absurd having a Guard of Honour of the Home Guard," but I can tell you they were a splendid unit. They turned out, about 150 of them, and they were extraordinarily steady. I assure your Lordships that men do want to do that sort of thing. One has only to sec the results to realize, not only that they do like it, but that it is giving them cohesion and that quality of discipline which must be helpful when the real trouble emerges. I can promise the noble Lord that we are taking steps to see that that side of soldiering is not being overdone.
Lord Elton asked a further question with regard to key men. This is a matter which has been under very earnest consideration. Where a Battalion Commander definitely considers—and he is

707
backed up by the opinion of the Zone Commander—that a man is essential—I think it is in the 35–41 Group—and application is made on the form N.S.300, this man may be reserved for what is regarded as the priority duty of training in the Home Guard.
The problem of providing additional permanent staff including, of course, N.C.O. instructors, has been under consideration for a long time; in fact for some time before the issue of compulsion ever arose. But it is not merely a question, as the noble Duke will realize, of sparing the available man-power which, I admit, even in these days of man-power stringency is of relatively lesser consideration. It is much more a question of finding suitably qualified instructors who are of a sufficiently high standard to justify their appointment to the Home Guard. I think the noble Duke will agree that it is no use providing old and out-of-date men. What are wanted are young and active men with proper training in modern warfare, and, if possible, experience with a field force. There are many demands for this type of N.C.O. and the right type of man is difficult to find. There is also a concurrent demand from the R.A.F. Defence Regiment. The matter is now in hand and I hope that as a result, we shall see, before long, that steps are being taken in the right direction, and we shall not fail to give special consideration to those scattered areas where much time has to be spent by instructors in travelling. I know the noble Duke has those areas particularly in mind.
The action to be taken by civilians in the event of invasion is, I think, an entirely separate matter from those raised in the first part of the Motion. It raises far wider issues, particularly the main issue as to whether civilians should or should not be encouraged to use weapons, and to co-operate with the armed forces of the Crown. My noble friend Lord Mottistone quoted from a lecture which has received some interesting advertisement this afternoon, although I frankly confess that I had not read it before, and referred to a passage in it, about lying on sofas. I do not think there will be very much of that.
I want to say this in conclusion, in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Buck-master, that the Government are regarding this question as a really serious one. It is the next great step. We have got on,
708
we are training the Home Guard, we are training and have trained the Civil Defence Services, and their co-operation is of great importance, and the next step seems to be—and we have very likely arrived at that now—that perhaps more general instruction should be given to the general public.
But it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to arm civilians, and my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for War, confirmed this as recently as 22nd January in another place. Instructions as to this were issued in May last in a pamphlet over the Prime Minister's signature entitled "Beating the Invader," and these instructions still stand. I am aware that the course of modern warfare in Russia and elsewhere has caused many people to take the view that these considerations should no longer prevail, but I would remind your Lordships that the presence of civilians actually taking part in operations of war—not hundreds of miles behind the front, as the partisans are in Russia, but actually where your military formations are operating—may by no means assist the responsible military commander in his conduct of the battle. There are many tasks which civilians can perform such as immobilization of vehicles and other stores and equipment which may be of value to the enemy, but haphazard action would not be desirable. The action which civilians should take in these circumstances is a matter for the Civil Defence authorities, and they have already issued certain instructions on these subjects. They will continue to issue such instructions as may be necessary from time to time.
On this matter of co-operation, on which great stress was laid by the noble Duke and by Lord Elton, I would like to say that I believe there is far greater cooperation now, at any rate among the military and Home Guard authorities, with the Civil Defence Services, than there was, say, six months ago. I have myself recently attended one or two very big exercises in one Command, in particular one three or four weeks ago, and I can assure the noble Lord that the whole of the Civil Defence people were out during the whole time of that mock invasion, which I think took place over a weekend.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: If the Government would assure me that they

709
favour that co-operation, that would have a much stronger effect than anything else.
LORD CROFT: I do appreciate that, and I was going to say that I will most certainly convey the ideas which have been so freely expressed in this debate to my right honourable friend in another place, in order that that may be appreciated. As far as I am concerned, we have always been desirous,, especially in the rural areas, that there should be the closest integration of the military with those who are in the Civil Defence Services or in the Home Guard, and personally I am very hopeful that steps will be taken to make that easier, although many local authorities have already done everything they can in that direction. Meanwhile, may I suggest that all civilians who feel that they have the time to train and undergo instruction should volunteer for the Home Guard wherever its ranks are not full, in order that their very proper desire to have fighting knowledge may be satisfied, and before vacancies may be filled by direction under the new scheme? I am very grateful to the noble Duke for the tone and manner in which he has introduced this subject. I am sure the debate has been a great help.
LORD TEVIOT: I think my noble friend has not gone into the question of the general strategic liaison, which I find, and the Home Guard find in the area where I live, is very wanting. I hope he will bear that in mind.
LORD CROFT: Yes, most certainly.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much. There are one or two things about which I am a little bit indefinite. With regard to the cooperation of the public, for instance, my Command is in Scotland, and I am asked to approach the county council. I cannot do that without the authority of the Government. I want to know whether the Government favour that co-operation between all the Forces and the A.R.P. I understand something is going to be stated about that at a later date. Is that so?
LORD CROFT: I can only assure my noble friend that the question is at the present moment under very active consideration. Perhaps I might further it by sending along the gist of the noble Duke's speech.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: May I mention the anti-tank rifles? I asked if we could have them at road blocks.
LORD CROFT: We certainly will give that consideration.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: Because obviously we cannot stop tanks without something of the kind——
LORD CROFT: I should not like that to go out to the public——
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): May I suggest, not as Lord Chancellor, but as a member of the House, that when a Minister rises to speak it is desirable that the other noble Lord should sit down.
LORD CROFT: I am grateful to the noble Duke, but that in our opinion is a most fallacious argument, and we are absolutely satisfied that other weapons, generally described as bombards, are most effective anti-tank weapons. They are distributed in many thousands. And do not let those men who have not got rifles believe for one moment that we have not got the hand grenades now, which can be very effective if fearlessly used against tanks or other vehicles.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I beg to withdraw my Motion. Although I am not absolutely satisfied, I think the debate will be a tremendous help.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932: BOROUGH OF CLITHEROE ORDER.

  HAILSHAM RURAL DISTRICT ORDER.
  LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in his name.
  LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in his name.
  Moved, That the Orders 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.
  House adjourned.