Sitting of 19 February 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Derby (North-Eastern Division), in the room of Frank Lee, Esquire, deceased.—[Sir Charles Edwards.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

    WOMEN FACTORY WORKERS (DISCHARGE).
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of young women were recently dismissed their employment at a certain factory; why was the reason for their discharge given as not obtaining the standard required in the work for which they have been selected; and will he take steps to inform the company that such an inaccurate statement constitutes a poor testimonial to the young women's capacities, which they resent, and that it should not be repeated in other similar cases?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am informed that the reason given for these discharges was in some cases that on account of reorganisation the employee was surplus to requirements and in others that she had not attained the standard required in the work for which she was selected. There was in every case a right of appeal to a local Appeal Board. Every possible step is being taken to find employment elsewhere for the discharged workers.
    Mr. Daggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in instances where the girls had undertaken a course of training for 10 weeks and had been passed out as being fit for such work, their dismissal forms contained a statement that they had not attained that standard, and if it was true that the company did not require them, why was it not stated that their services were surplus to requirements? Will my right hon. Friend inform the company
    1872
    that, in putting on the dig missal forms a false statement that the girls were incapable of undertaking the work for which they had been selected, it was doing a disservice to these young women?
    Mr. Bevin: I was not aware of the point raised by my hon. Friend, but I will pursue the matter further.

    WORKS COUNCILS.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make a full statement on the policy of works councils and explain the machinery that is to enable them to function?
    Mr. Bevin: I am constantly promoting works councils. The latest example is the scheme now approaching completion in regard to the Government Ordnance factories which was arrived at in consultation between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, the trade unions and my Department. As regards the subject in general, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 29th January to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander).
    Mr. Smith: Is it the intention of my right hon Friend to have these works councils instituted throughout industry, and, if so, will he ask the Government and all representative interests to use their influence in order that the machinery may be got ready to function as quickly as possible and as efficiently as possible?
    Mr. Bevin: It is my policy to promote them everywhere, but I would like to make it clear that I am adverse to setting up separate committees in works for separate purposes. There is a great deal of confused talk about production committees. I believe in works councils.
    Sir Herbert Williams: In the case of new factories, will the Minister take care that the committee which is originally appointed is regarded as provisional, because until the workpeople get to know one another, they are not always in a position to select the most suitable representatives?
    Mr. Bevin: In the scheme promoted for Royal Ordnance factories, which has not been finally settled, we have laid it down that men serving on a committee should have been in the works one year.
    Sir H. Williams: Will the Minister consider the problem of Royal Ordnance factories

    1873
    which are just beginning, and where provisional committees will be needed in the early stages?
    Mr. Bevin: We are doing that.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the method of organisation in the printing trades with regard to workshop committees, where each departmental organisation is federated in one workshop and attached, through the branch secretary, to the trade union?
    Mr. Bevin: When the Royal Ordnance factories scheme is complete and finally settled, perhaps the best thing for me to do would be to let hon. Members have a copy of it.

    POTTERY INDUSTRY (YOUNG PERSONS).
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Minister of Labour whether the hours of work for young persons between the ages of 14 and 16 in the pottery industry were increased with his approval?
    Mr. Bevin: In connection with arrangements for releasing pottery workers for other urgent work, particularly in Government factories, I was advised that with the reduced numbers the necessary pottery output could not be maintained unless weekly working hours were increased, and, further, unless young persons under 16 were allowed to work beyond the weekly limit of 48 hours previously applying to them. In accordance with proposals made to me on behalf both of the employers and the workers concerned, I made an Order which among other things authorised the employment of young persons under 16 in a pottery factory for hours in excess of 48 but not in excess of 53, subject to permission being obtained in each case from the District Inspector of Factories. While I regret the necessity for this action, there was, in my opinion, no alternative consistent with my public duty. I propose to keep a close watch on the matter and to review the position in three months' time.
    Mr. Lindsay: Does the Minister realise that that argument has been used before for extending the hours of labour for young persons between 14 and 16 years of age, and that it is directly opposed to the Government's policy and the policy of the Board of Education, which is to try
    1874
    and release young people so that they can join cadet units and go to evening classes? Does the Minister expect them to do this after they have worked a 10 hours' day? Will he review the matter?
    Mr. Bevin: I have already announced that it will be reviewed after three months. I had to consider the position which arose because of the opening of certain factories making urgent munitions required by the troops; billets and other facilities were very short in the area, and I had to get the release quickly of a large number of people and to make improvised arrangements for the purpose. I am now filling the requirements by bringing in other people from outside. I hope to be in a position in a very short time to withdraw the Order and restore the position.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister say what will be the gross number of extra hours worked by these young people now that the Order is in operation?
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot give a precise answer.
    Mr. Stephen: Did the Minister say that the trade unions agreed to this?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Denmanasked the Minister of Labour what is the death rate from silicosis in the pottery factories, in which he has approved the increase of hours of work for young persons under 16 years of age to 53 a week?
    Mr. Bevin: For the three years 1938 to 1940 the average number of deaths from fibrosis of the lung {including silicosis) among persons who had been employed in the pottery industry was approximately 52, and the average age at death was between 59 and 60. I am advised that silicosis usually takes many years to develop and that the deaths now occurring are largely attributable to conditions which prevailed in the industry long ago, before the regulations were strengthened and various improvements made.
    Mr. Denman: Do not increased hours of work mean an increase in danger?
    Mr. Bevin: I think that the way to treat silicosis is to make industrial conditions such that it cannot arise.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: My right hon. Friend has given figures for three years; can he say whether there has been an annual increase or an annual decline?
    Mr. Bevin: I have not got that information.
    Mr. Denmanasked the Minister of Labour what steps, under Section 99 of the Factories Act, 1937, examining surgeons are taking in respect of young persons under 16 years of age employed for 53 hours in pottery factories?
    Mr. Bevin: This Section requires young persons under 16, on entering employment in a factory, to be examined by the examining surgeon as to their fitness for that employment. It does not require a further examination if the hours of work are changed. As stated in my reply to a previous Question, the inspectorate will, however, keep a special watch on the employment of young persons under 16 in potteries for more than 48 hours a week, and the position will be reviewed in three months' time.
    Mr. Sorensen: What percentage of young people are rejected for this kind of work?
    Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that Question.

    SKILLED PERSONNEL.
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will indicate the measures that have been adopted by his Department to secure, without loss of time, the employment of skilled technicians and persons trained in applied science and engineering to appropriate posts in the Defence Services, and thus obviate complaints of waste of skilled man-power?
    Mr. Bevin: The primary responsibility for making proper use of skilled personnel rests upon the authority in control of the particular Service. An inquiry into the use of skilled men in the Forces has been made by the Committee whose Report was published yesterday, and the same Committee have also carried out a similar inquiry with regard to the Commissioned ranks.
    Sir P. Hannon: Will the Minister do everything in his power to see that persons recruited having special skill and scientific training are allocated as far as possible to services in which they can be useful?
    Mr. Bevin: That question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

    REFUGEES (EMPLOYMENT).
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that refugees received in this country, for example, the evacuees from Gibraltar, are provided with full-time employment contributory to the war effort?
    Mr. Bevin: In so far as the Question relates to foreign refugees, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 27th November last to a Question asked by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie). I understand that more than 85 per cent. of the foreign refugees from enemy occupied countries are now in full-time employment. All cases of British refugees from Gibraltar still remaining unemployed are being scrutinised by my Department in consultation with the Ministry of Health and the wardens of the hostels in which the refugees are billeted. The majority of the able-bodied men are already working.
    Sir P. Hannon: Is the Minister aware that in the case of refugees from Gibraltar, large numbers of them are wandering around Kensington and other parts of London, without having any employment; and will he remedy that position as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.
    Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that the chief obstacle to the full employment of refugees, especially foreigners, is not any unwillingness on their part to work, but a prejudice against refugees which, unfortunately, is fostered in this House by some hon. Members?
    Mr. Charles Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the position is not wholly satisfactory with regard to refugees, and will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Bevin: I think the fact that 85 per cent. of refugees from enemy occupied countries are in full work—and not in separate works, but associated with British workers in British works—is the best answer to the hon. Lady's question about prejudice against them. It is a great tribute to everybody concerned. There are difficulties, which I do not want to enumerate, with regard to evacuees from Gibraltar, but we are trying to overcome those difficulties.

    CIVIL DEFENCE PERSONNEL (PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT).
    Captain Gammansasked the Minister of Labour when he expects to be able to offer definite schemes of part-time employment for Civil Defence workers, both during the on duty and off duty periods; and to what extent Government offices and establishments in London are prepared to make use of part-time labour generally?
    Mr. Bevin: Some action has already been taken to make the services of Civil Defence personnel available for other work—when this is practicable—and I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security the question of extending these arrangements. As regards the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has advised Government Departments generally of the need to make the fullest use of part-time labour, particularly for the substitution of women being withdrawn for war service. It is too early yet to estimate full results, but part-time working has already been successfully introduced in one or two Departments including my own.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will the Minister hasten these discussions with the Ministry of Home Security? Is he aware that I have received a deputation this morning from Civil Defence workers who are only too anxious to give greater service and are tired of their inactivity?
    Mr. Bevin: I can assure my hon. Friend that no one moves with greater speed than I do.

    EVASION.
    Major Lyonsasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that in disclosures concerning black-marketing, gaming, club-running and boot-legging a number of male persons of military and National Service ages are from time to time involved, whose identities are known, and whose particulars are at hand or readily discoverable; and whether, in view of the public exasperation there is at this type of traffic by such persons, he will take immediate steps for their mobilisation for appropriate service forthwith, and deal similarly with all such future cases?
    Mr. Bevin: My Department takes up at once all cases of this kind of which
    1878
    they can obtain particulars. It should not be assumed, however, that the persons concerned are all liable to be called up for military service or are otherwise evading their National Service obligations. On the contrary, the cases so far investigated have not produced any instances of evasion.
    Major Lyons: While I appreciate, of course, that my right hon. Friend cannot make public all the machinery, will he consider detailing some officer of his Department whose special concern it should be to look into these cases as soon as they come about?
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot detail special officers, but I will follow up every case I can.

  FOSTER-MOTHERS (BIRMINGHAM SCHEME).
  Major Petoasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to the Birmingham City Council's scheme of regularly-paid foster-mothers; and whether, in view of the difficulty of securing foster-mothers, he will consider recommending the plan to other local authorities?
  The Minister of Health (Mr. E. Brown): I am well aware of the Birmingham foster-mother scheme, which was approved by my Department in 1935. I shall be prepared to approve schemes with the same object devised with the same care, if they are submitted to me.

  PENAL SANCTIONS (DRAFT CONVENTION).
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Minister of Labour what are the reasons for the delay in the ratification by the British Government of the Geneva Penal Sanctions Convention, 1939; and whether this ratification may be expected at an early date?
  Mr. Bevin: The ratification of the Draft Convention concerning Penal Sanctions for Breaches of Contracts of Employment by Indigenous Workers adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1939, has been delayed owing to the need for consultation with the Governments of all the non self-governing dependencies. Replies have now been received which

  1879
  enable action to proceed in the matter and a decision regarding ratification may be expected at an early date.
  Mr. Harvey: Will an announcement be made to the House?
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Health whether he can now make a statement as to the number who are now insured under the National Health Contributory Scheme; what the yearly contributions amount to; what is the weekly amount the employers and workers pay, respectively; and what is the State contribution?
  Mr. E. Brown: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  The figures for Great Britain for the year 1940 (the latest year for which the information is available) are approximately as follows:
  Number of persons insured under the National Health Insurance Acts at the end of 1940–22,300,000.
  Total of National Health Insurance contributions paid during that year—£30,700,000.
  Weekly amounts of contributions of

  (a) employers—£300,000.

  (b) workers—£290,000*.

  State contribution in 1940—£7,300,000†
  * This sum includes payments made by insured persons themselves as voluntary contributors.
  † The State contribution represents one-seventh of the amount actually expended in 1940 on benefits and administration in the case of men, and one-fifth in the case of women.

  LONDON REGIONAL PLANNING (STANDING CONFERENCE).
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Health when the Standing Conference on London Regional Planning was established; whether he can say how many meetings have been held since September, 1939; what was the date of the last meeting; and upon whom is the responsibility for summoning meetings?
  Mr. E. Brown: The Standing Conference on London Regional Planning was established in 1937, and, by its
  1880
  terms of reference, it is limited to dealing with planning matters relating to Greater London which may from time to time be referred to it. The Conference first met on 13th October, 1937, and its last meeting was held on 3rd March, 1939. I understand that no further meetings have been held because no matters have been referred to it since the outbreak of war. Meetings are summoned by the Chairman through the Honorary Secretary who is the Clerk of the London County Council.
  Sir H. Williams: Do I understand, having regard to the very much greater importance of planning in the regions concerned, that this Conference has not been summoned at all?
  Mr. Brown: The fact is that matters may be referred to the Conference from any source.
  Sir H. Williams: But surely there are matters which should be referred to this Conference?
  Mr. Brown: That, of course, is a general question which has a wider application than to my Department.
  Mr. MacLaren: Is it not true that the work of this Conference his been entirely abolished owing to the high value of land?

  MEDICAL PROFESSION.

    PANEL PATIENTS.
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Minister of Health whether the calling-up of civil doctors has increased the average number of panel patients per panel doctor; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. The calling-up of civil doctors has increased the average number of panel patients per working panel doctor, but in View of the connection with call-up statistics, it would not be in the public interest to indicate the extent of this increase.
    Sir L. Lyle: Does it not indicate that a serious state of affairs may arise in regard to the health of the civil population which will hold up production and our war effort?
    Mr. Brown: There is a difficult situation as regards medical man-power, and that is why the Committee is sitting under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend

    1881
    the Under-Secretary for the Dominions to determine priorities as between Service and civil needs.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not a fact that the general conditions of health during war-time are higher than during times of peace?
    Mr. Brown: That is a rather wide and sweeping statement.

    RELEASE FROM SERVICES.
    Sir L. Lyleasked the Minister of Health how many doctors have been released from the Services to continue civilian practice under the system described on 5th February?
    Mr. Brown: I have not the complete figures for the whole time this system has been in operation, but during the last four months the Central Medical War Committee has recommended the release of 36 doctors from the Services to private practice. The release of all these doctors has not yet been actually effected, but in only four cases have the Service Departments found it impossible to release them.
    Sir L. Lyle: Does this not show that a very unsatisfactory state of affairs has arisen, and would it not be much better if the Services called up doctors for a short period of training and then released them?
    Mr. Brown: I am afraid that my hon. Friend's Supplementary Question oversimplifies this problem.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not a fact that there are large numbers of very eminent alien doctors in this country who could be usefully employed?
    Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend will look at the answer I gave a week or two ago, he will see that they are being employed.

  MENTAL HOSPITAL PATIENTS.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health whether any records have been or are being secured of the weight of patients in mental hospitals now as compared with the beginning of the war?
  Mr. E. Brown: It is part of the normal practice in mental hospitals to record the weights of patients from time to time, and the Commissioners of the Board of Control have in the course of some recent visits obtained particulars of these weights at certain hospitals.
  Mr. Sorensen: Will these records be published in full, and does the Minister appreciate their relationship with the general effect of war-time conditions?
  Mr. Brown: I could not give a general answer of that kind. I would point out that the weight of the general population has probably declined since the war began, and this, of course, is not necessarily an evil.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Health what were the average amounts of supplementary pensions paid in April, 1941, region by region, and what were the comparative figures for August, 1941?
  Mr. E. Brown: I regret that information regarding the average amounts paid region by region is not available. Particulars of the average payments for Great Britain are given in the Board's report on the Administration of the Determination of Needs Act, 1941, up to 31st December, 1941, Cmd. 6338, published a few days ago.
  Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these figures are in the Assistance Board's office? What is the reason for trying to hide from the House the information asked for in the Question?
  Mr. Brown: There is no desire to hide anything. Ministers have always been pressed to concentrate on problems of great magnitude and not put the task of too much detailed inquiry upon those concerned in these very complicated things. If there is any issue of magnitude concerned, I am always glad to make the information available to the House, as is well known. I am informed that it is not available, and it could not be got without a great deal of labour.
  Mr. Edwardsasked the Minister of Health whether he will publish the instructions sent out by the Assistance Board, whereby many applicants in receipt of statutory disregards have been refused winter additions; and why pensioners in receipt of Army allotments have also been refused winter additions?
  Mr. Brown: The conditions under which winter additions are granted were fully explained in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr.

  1883
  Ellis Smith) on 4th December, 1941. As regards publication of the Board's instructions, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on 2nd July, 1941. I am sending him copies of these answers.
  Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Health the amount of the average increase to applicants under the Determination of Needs Act, 1941, up to August, 1941, and the proportion of applicants affected?
  Mr. Brown: The information available on this subject is given in the Board's report on the administration of the Determination of Needs Act up to 31st December, 1941 (Cmd. 6338) published a few days ago.
  Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that this Command Paper is not available to a great number of the public, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving the utmost publicity to the fact that it states that the average increase is a miserable 6d. a week and that only a third of the applicants have been affected by it?
  Mr. Brown indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister dispute my statement that the average is 6d. and that only a third have been affected?

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RATE REVENUE).
  Sir Adam Maitlandasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of local authorities in regard to the attitude of the Government in connection with loss of rate revenue suffered by local authorities in consequence of the war; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this position?
  Mr. E. Brown: I am unable to add anything to the reply given to my hon. Friend by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st October last.
  Sir A. Maitland: In view of the anxiety on the part of local authorities, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    BILLETING ALLOWANCE, CHEPPING WYCOMBE.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulty
    1884
    experienced in the Chepping Wycombe reception area in finding householders who are able financially to provide full board and lodging for evacuated boys of the Chiswick County School and the Shoreditch Technical Institute for a payment of 12s. 6d. per week for boys of 15 years of age and of 15s. for boys of 16 and 17 years of age; and whether he will see his way to increase these allowances?
    Mr. E. Brown: I hope to be in a position to make a statement with regard to billeting allowances in the near future.
    Sir A. Knox: When will the statement be made?
    Mr. Brown: Very soon.

    BILLETING ACCOMMODATION, WADDESDON.
    Colonel Arthur Evansasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Croydon Borough Council at which strong criticism was expressed by certain members with regard to the arrangements proposed by his Department in connection with the billeting of Croydon infant schools at Waddesdon, Buckinghamshire; whether he is satisfied that these criticism are not justified; and what action he intends to take to refute them and allay anxiety?
    Mr. E. Brown: My attention has been called to Press reports of these proceedings in which an entirely unwarranted attack was made on the owner of Waddesdon Manor who has, since the commencement of the war, provided accommodation and services there for 100 children under five and their nursing staff. The arrangements now proposed were suggested by my Department and the proposed payment was fixed by the District Valuer. At no time has any profit accrued to the owner, who placed himself unreservedly in the hands of the Ministry of Health both as regards the original and the proposed arrangements; and we are grateful for his generosity. I shall be communicating with the Croydon Borough Council and shall ask them to give to the facts the same publicity as attended the proceedings to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.
    Colonel Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further encouragement to property owners who are anxious to be of service to the State?
    Mr. Brown: I shall be very glad to do so, and I should certainly deprecate sensational statements, which are quite often unfair.

    PERSONNEL (ALLOTMENT CULTIVATION).
    Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered a communication from the Shirley and District Allotment Association urging that Civil Defence duties and training should not be permitted unduly to interfere with work on their allotments by Civil Defence personnel; and whether he will make a statement?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The communication in question is prompted by recent measures to restrict resignations of part-time members of the Civil Defence services, but I see no reason to anticipate that these measures need entail undue interference with the cultivating of allotments. The recognised standard of compulsory duty is a maximum of 48 hours in each period of four weeks, and authorities have been instructed, in fixing hours and times of duty, that full regard should continue to be paid to the employment and other day-to-day obligations of members of the Services.

    ADMIRAL SIR BARRY DOMVILE (DETENTION).
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Home Secretary whether Admiral Sir Barry Domvile, who has been imprisoned for 19 months, is detained under the Acts Prejudicial Section of the Defence Regulations; and whether he will allow this officer, who has rendered 44 years of distinguished service to the country, an opportunity to prove his innocence of acts of sabotage, attempts to get secret information, and seeking to make contact with the enemy, particulars in support of which have never been furnished to him or the Advisory Committee?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Particulars of the reasons for which a detention order was made against Admiral Sir Barry Domvile were communicated to him by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, and he was given every opportunity at the hearing of his case before the Committee to deal with all the matters alleged against him. In the Debate on 26th November on Regulation 18B I gave a general account of the main types of cases where detention orders have been made against
    1886
    persons believed to have been concerned in acts prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm, and I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting that if any person is detained on the ground of acts prejudicial, his acts can only be of the types mentioned in this general account. This was not of course my meaning and I was not attempting to give an exhaustive summary of every type of act which may be the basis of a detention order under this provision.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had two long talks with this elderly officer and that, judged by every unbiased standard, he now appears to be treated most unjustly? May I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give an opportunity to this officer to reopen his case and make his innocence clear? Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that this officer is a danger to the State?
    Sir Irving Albery rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We must get on with the Questions.
    Sir I. Albery: I respectfully desire to ask you, Sir, whether a question such as that which has just been asked, which concerns a distinguished officer who has served his country, should not receive a reply from the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has answered the Question on the Paper.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

    RELEASED DETAINEES.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Home Secretary the number of persons, previously confined under Regulation 18n, released during the last three months?
    Mr. H. Morrison: The number released in the three months ending 31st January last is 76.
    Mr. Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that it is perfectly logical for many of these people who were interned after evidence of propaganda against this country was given now to make representations to gullible witnesses that they had repented, and will he keep in mind that they may be very dangerous should this country be faced with a crisis?
    Mr. Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that the last point is taken care of and that the other aspect he has mentioned

    1887
    is among the considerations which I take into account when deciding on the question of release.
    Mr. Davidson: With regard to those who have been freed during the past three months, has full consideration been given to the acts in which they indulged before they were interned?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

    ALLIED NATIONALS (EXEMPTION FROM RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Home Secretary whether a revision of the regulations governing friendly aliens is contemplated in the near future?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan) on 12th February. The amending orders will be issued in the course of a few days.

  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Pensions how many of the 127,000 applications for war service grants made since the new scheme was announced have been rejected?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): The number is approximately 30,000.
  Mr. Hewlettasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider amending the War Pensions and Detention Allowances (Mercantile Marine) Scheme so that merchant seamen can benefit or their dependants can receive pensions in the event of such seamen contracting disease such as dysentery, diphtheria, etc., and so bring the scheme into line with those governing the service of men in the Army, Navy or Air Force?
  The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939, under which the War Pensions and Detention Allowances (Mercantile Marine, etc.) Scheme is made, authorises awards of pension to merchant mariners and their dependants in cases of disablement or death directly attributable to war injury or to detention sustained by reason of service in British ships. I should not
  1888
  feel justified in proposing an extension of the Act to cover cases of disease contracted in the normal course of the seaman's calling.
  Major Milnerasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will publish a comparative table showing the pensions paid following the last war and those paid in the present war?
  Sir W. Womersley: In view of the very large number of figures required for a complete table, I should not feel justified in present circumstances in devoting the necessary time and labour to compiling it, but I may explain that a White Paper, giving the new present war rates of pension, will be published within the next few days, and that the corresponding rates for the last war are contained in the Great War Royal Warrants, etc.
  Major Milner: Would it not clearly be a great convenience if in a few selected cases, at any rate, soldiers of the lowest rank, for example, 100 per cent. disability pension was given as it was after the last war and as it is to-day, and similarly with widows? Could not the right hon. Gentleman give half-a-dozen selected cases of that sort?
  Sir W. Womersley: I hope to have the White Paper in the Vote Office next week. It contains a complete list of the new rates of pension for every rank in the Army, Navy and Air Force. I will take into consideration the suggestion about publishing examples.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think a comparison will be worthless unless he publishes figures as well as to the cost of living at the two dates?
  Sir W. Womersley: I quite agree, and I shall be prepared to give them.
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Pensions why a former pilot-officer, of whose name he has been informed, who fought in the Battle of Britain and has since been discharged on medical grounds, has been told that he cannot be informed of the medical reasons for discharge?
  Sir W. Womersley: I regret that it has not been possible in the time available to obtain the papers which relate to this case. I will, however, look into it and communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  Mr. Lipson: Is it not the usual practice to inform the applicant of the nature of the disability?
  Sir W. Womersley: It is the usual practice, but in this case I understand he was asking for papers.
  Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Pensions whether a man passed into the Army A1 who subsequently breaks down in health and is discharged, is automatically entitled to his pension?
  Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir; the disability must be certified by my medical advisers to be either directly attributable to service or to be, and remain, aggravated to a material extent thereby. As I stated in answer to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on 3rd July, where, in the case of a man definitely passed as fit on recruitment or mobilisation for war service, effective service is found to have caused a degree of aggravation in a previously existing condition, the fact of discharge resulting from that condition would justify me in regarding the aggravation as material and thus bringing the case within the scope of the Royal Warrant. There are, however, some cases in which it is not possible to certify that service has caused any worsening.
  Mr. Hannah: Are not doubtful cases very apt to be decided against the soldier?
  Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir. I can say this emphatically. Where there is a doubt, we give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a clear case where an appeal tribunal would give great satisfaction?
  Mr. Messer: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered, what many Members have asked for, the setting-up of an independent medical tribunal to which these men can apply?
  Sir W. Womersley: There is already an appeal to an independent medical referee nominated by the Presidents of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. That has worked very satisfactorily up to now. In reply to the first supplementary question, the fact that of the cases reviewed after I made the announcement regarding this concession over 70 per cent. have been accepted is some evidence that the benefit of the doubt is given.

  INDIA (POLITICAL SITUATION).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether the promised statement of His Majesty's Government is likely to be made in the near future; and whether, in view both of the unfortunate effect of Japanese propaganda in some parts of the Far East and of the beneficial effect of the consistent opposition of Jawaharlal Nehru and the Indian Nationalist Movement to Japanese aggression and ambitions, it is intended fully to utilise the latter fact to counteract any effect of Japanese propaganda?
  The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I am not in a position to make any fresh statement on the Indian political situation. As regards the latter part of the Question, His Majesty's Government naturally appreciate and will give full publicity to the anti-Japanese sentiments of Indian political leaders, and will welcome their active co-operation in resistance to Japanese or other enemy aggression.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latter part of his statement will give great satisfaction in certain quarters in India? When are we likely to have the general statement of Government policy which the Prime Minister said would be made in the near future?
  Mr. Amery: I cannot give fuller satisfaction at the moment to the hon. Member's thirst for information.
  Sir A. Knox: Have any Members of the national movement in India shown any anxiety to fight against the Japanese?
  Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance, in view of the present trend of military events in the Far East, of enlisting the active support of the masses of the Indian population on our side, and does he realise that that could most effectively be done by giving them a free country to fight for?

  BURMA (CIVIL DEFENCE).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Burma what steps have been taken respecting the provision of air-raid shelters and similar forms of Civil Defence in Burma and, in particular, in the Rangoon area; whether the present Burman Government have taken active steps in

  1891
  the matter; whether any arrangements exist for the evacuation of the civil population in areas likely to be exposed to concentrated air attack; and what sum of money has been allocated to Civil Defence purposes?
  The Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Amery): Active steps have been taken to organise Civil Defence on lines generally similar to those in this country adapted to suit local conditions, particularly in the Rangoon area. The organisation which covers arrangements for the evacuation so far as may be necessary of urban populations, as well as the provision of shelter, is in the charge of an officer who has had experience in the Ministry of Home Security. Details of the sums allocated are not available.
  Mr. Sorensen: Have any arrangements been made for evacuating the civil population, and are the air-raid precautions in being to protect the population, particularly of Rangoon?
  Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I said that arrangements have been made for evacuation and all arrangements made for shelters where possible.
  Sir Stanley Reed: Under the Constitution is not that a responsibility which devolves upon the Burman Ministry?
  Mr. Amery: It falls primarily on the Burman Ministry, but it also falls on the Governor under the Defence of India (Burma) Rules.

  POLICE APPEALS.
  Major Petoasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes, in the course of the present Session, to introduce legislation allowing a right of appeal to members of police forces against disciplinary awards of a chief constable?
  Mr. H. Morrison: This matter is under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

  TAXI-CABS, LONDON.
  Major Petoasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the present shortage of taximeter-cabs in London is due in part to a pre-war standard of maintenance, which it is now impossible
  1892
  to obtain; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will arrange to bring these standards more into line with present conditions?
  Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir; the reduced service is due partly to shortage of drivers and repairers and partly to rationing of petrol. Instructions were issued as long ago as May, 1940, that cabs should be licensed, irrespective of age, provided they are maintained in a clean, sanitary and roadworthy condition. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of any case where hardship appears to have been caused by police requirements, I will have it looked into.
  Sir William Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a deputation from the London cab trade recently waited upon a representative of the Ministry of War Transport and informed him that they were very satisfied with the consideration they had received from the Metropolitan Police?
  Mr. Morrison: I am very glad to hear that.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of running taxis and the cost of living of the taxi-men have greatly increased, and that their duties have become very arduous and have been carried out with great devotion; and in these circumstances will he consider allowing them some percentage increase in their charges?
  Mr. Morrison: I should require notice of that Question.
  Mr. Denman: Are woman to be allowed to drive taxi-cabs?
  Mr. Morrison: That point has not arisen in the Department, but if it did, I would give it consideration

  ANTI-SOCIAL OFFENCES (PENALTIES).
  Mr. Bowerasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider taking powers to make those people who run gambling dens, sell bootleg liquor or otherwise endeavour to make an illegitimate profit out of the national emergency liable to the death penalty or imprisonment for life?
  Mr. H. Morrison: While I share my hon. Friend's wish that it were possible to put an end to these anti-social offences at a stroke by some dramatic and comprehensive measure, experience shows that it is only possible to attain the ends which both he and I desire by making such specific amendments of the laws relating to specific offences as will enable convictions to be obtained and stern penalties to be imposed on all types of offenders who basely exploit war conditions for personal gain.
  Mr. Bower: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the remarks made by the Solicitor-General on this subject last Sunday; and does he realise that these pests and parasites are a hindrance to our war effort because of their activities, and that the Solicitor-General's view, that the present methods of dealing with them are inadequate, are shared by a large number of people?
  Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister suggest to the Solicitor-General that it is inappropriate for a Minister of the Crown to suggest martial methods of dealing with offences of any kind?

  SERIOUS FIRES (INQUIRIES).
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Home Secretary whether, now that the fire services are nationally controlled, it is proposed to institute inquiries into fires causing loss of life as in the recent case of the Deansgate Hotel, Manchester; and whether such inquiries will be conducted on the lines of those covering colliery explosions and railway disasters?
  Mr. H. Morrison: Any case involving loss of life would, of course, be inquired into by a coroner, but it is now the normal practice to call for a full report on any serious fire, and a formal inquiry would be held in any case where this appeared to be necessary. From the particulars which have reached me, I have no reason to believe that the fire which my hon. Friend mentions was not well handled, but I have already called for a full report. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, certain allegations which had been made in connection with this fire have already been dealt with in a statement to the Press by the Regional Commissioner.
  Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would allay public
  1894
  feeling in these cases if there were an inquiry such as is made into colliery disasters? Will he find out whether there is any truth in the allegation that because the Fire Service is nationally controlled, it is not as efficient in this case as when it was under the local authorities?
  Mr. Morrison: Suitable inquiries are being made. At first sight I have no reason to believe that there is any truth in the allegation. I do not think the type of inquiry that is made into colliery disasters would be appropriate, but I can assure my hon. Friend that dl proper inquiries are made by headquarters in all suitable cases.

  CHILD WELFARE (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY).
  Mr. Lindsayasked the Prime Minister whether in order to safeguard the interests of the growing generation he will arrange for the Board of Education to resume full responsibility for all children, whether in evacuation or reception areas, in private homes, hostels or camp schools, for welfare and play-centres, and for the provision of all nursery accommodation?
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister cannot accept the suggestion implicit in the Question that any of the responsibilities of the Board of Education have been shifted to other Departments, and sees no occasion for disturbing the arrangements whereby the various Departments concerned with the welfare of children discharge their respective functions in mutual co-operation.
  Mr. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that local education authorities are receiving circulars from six Departments and that there are three different bases of grants and that all this takes up a great deal of unnecessary labour? As this matter does not lend itself to being dealt with by Question and answer, I beg to give notice I shall raise it on a subsequent occasion.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    WAR EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that obsolete forms of Treasury control are an obstacle

    1895
    to war production; and whether he will move to appoint a committee to carry out an immediate investigation and to report to this House with a view to bringing the Treasury relationship to production Departments in line with present requirements?
    Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not accept the statement made in the first part of the Question and sees no need for an inquiry. The organisation of the Treasury has, of course, been modified to meet the demands of war-time conditions. Special arrangements have been made with the War Departments whereby, within limits agreed with the Treasury, they have wide delegated powers to incur expenditure without reference to the Treasury. Moreover, where matters have to be referred to the Treasury, arrangements have been made for the substitution of informal discussion for official correspondence in order that decision may be reached with the maximum possible speed. There is every reason to believe that these arrangements are working satisfactorily.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that that statement is very misleading, and that there is a great volume of evidence that there are serious delays in production arising from the method known as "awaiting Treasury approval"; and is he also aware that in the case of certain dockyards this is affecting work to the value of more than £20,000,000?
    Mr. Attlee: If the hon. Member has any cases, I hope that he will bring them to my notice.
    Mr. Edwards: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not be a little more serious about this question? It is not easy for me to do what he asks, because there is such a large volume of information. Will he consult with the Chairman of the Committee on National Expenditure and ask him to look into the point?
    Mr. Attlee: I will ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider that point.
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state at the nearest convenient date the proportion of the national revenue for a 12 months period expended upon war
    1896
    effort; and whether he hay any information as to the approximate estimated figures for the United States of America?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): During the 12 months ended 31st December, 1941, over 50 per cent. of the estimated national income of this country was expended upon the war effort. As the United States became a belligerent Power only a very short time ago; it is not possible to make any useful comparison, comparable figures not being available.
    Sir P. Hannon: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister of Information to take steps to make this result far more widely known to our Allies throughout the world?

    WAGE AND PRICE POLICY.
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now any statement to hake in regard to a general wage and price control policy?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the previous statements that have been made on 20th November and 18th December last on behalf of the Government and the contents of the White Paper of July, 1941.
    Dr. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend not only bear in mind the stabilisation of the currency but also the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are still outside the scope of any trade and wage agreements?
    Mr. Lipson: Will the rig at hon. Gentleman consider the recent action of the Australian Government in this matter?
    Sir K. Wood: I should not like to comment upon the action of one of the Dominions Governments.
    Mr. Lipson: It is not question of comment.
    Sir K. Wood: I have no information on that subject except that which is contained in newspaper reports.
    Viscountess Astor: You may learn even from the newspapers.

    INCOME TAX (WAGE EARNERS).
    Sir F. Sandersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of those married women whose entry

    1897
    into industry has so steeply raised the assessment on the husband's income, and, in view of the fact that the joint assessment to taxation for married women is based previous to the Married Women's Property Act, he will provide that married women shall be taxed as individuals?
    Mr. Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to say what steps he proposes to take to even out the Income Tax on workmen's wages where present tax is assessed on higher wages than they are now earning?
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardships imposed upon industrial workers by the present method of deducting Income Tax from wages; and whether he is prepared to consider any amendment of the present scheme?
    Sir K. Wood: I have had these matters under careful review, and hope to deal with them in my Budget statement.
    Sir F. Sanderson: In view of the importance of this subject and its possible effects upon our war effort, will the right hon. Gentleman give really serious consideration to it between now and the Budget?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, I have just said so, although I cannot accept all that the hon. Gentleman says in his Question.
    Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a great deal of hardship arises from taxing workmen's incomes upon assessments made when their incomes were very much higher?
    Sir K. Wood: That is one side of the shatter. The other side of the position is that unless we adopt some method of that kind, they will not get full advantage of all the allowances to which they are entitled under Income Tax legislation.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the time-lag in the notification of amended assessments to employers?
    Sir K. Wood: Certainly.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether workers who live at some distance from their place of employment, may claim an allowance against their Income Tax liability equal to the amount of their travelling expenses?
    Sir K. Wood: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1941, which made special provision for an allowance to manual wage-earners in respect of additional travelling expenses, incurred by reason of a change, through war circumstances, in the wage-earner's place of work or residence. The allowance falls To be made only where an increase in the travelling expenses is incurred.
    Mr. Lipson: Does this allowance cover the whole of the increase?
    Mr. Leslie: When the Minister is revising the matter will he take into consideration the non-manual workers?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, within the Section I have referred to.

    PETROL (PRICE).
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the recent petrol price increase will have to be borne almost entirely by the Government; and what steps he is taking to implement the declared policy of the Government to stabilise prices?
    Sir K. Wood: I am advised that the assumption in the first part of the hon. Member's Question is incorrect. As regards the second part, I would refer him to the answer which I gave to him last Tuesday.
    Mr. Edwards: Is it not a fact that more petrol is being used for business purposes?

  AGRICULTURE.

    WAGES AND PRICES.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement relating to prices of agricultural products consequent upon the recent increase in wages costs?
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the revised list of agricultural prices has now been fixed; and whether the increased cost will fall on the Treasury or on the consumer directly?
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any statement to make about the proposed increased prices to agricultural producers?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I regret that I have nothing to add at the moment to the reply given to Questions by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and Sudbury (Colonel Burton) on 12th February, but I hope to be able to make an announcement during the course of the next few days.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend bring home to the Treasury the disastrous consequences of this wholly unnecessary delay?
    Mr. Hudson: I cannot accept the suggestion that the delay has been wholly unnecessary. I have often told hon. Members that there is a singular lack of statistics for the agricultural industry, and as a result it is possible to hold perfectly honest and sincere opinions about costings which differ widely from each other, and the task of reconciling these calls for patience and statesmanship and requires time. That is what we are engaged upon at the present time.
    Major Cazalet: May I ask whether in fixing these prices the Government are taking into account the kind of crops which they wish to be planted in the spring?
    Mr. Hudson: Owing to the weather during the last six weeks, there has been a complete hold-up of agricultural operations, and therefore the delay, though regrettable, has not in fact done any harm.
    Mr. De la Bère: The same specious arguments used over and over again by the Treasury are not a solution.
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Is the Minister bearing in mind, in fixing these prices, the need for having prices which will represent a return to the small farmer?
    Mr. Hudson: All relevant considerations are being borne in mind.

    VEGETABLES (SOIL-LESS CULTIVATION).
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information as to the nature and quantity of vegetables grown privately by hydro-ponic methods during 1941?
    Mr. Hudson: The vegetable crops usually selected for the application of hydro-ponic methods are tomatoes and
    1900
    lettuce. While I have no information as to the actual quantities of these and other vegetables grown privately by such methods in 1941, I have no reason to think that they were appreciable.
    Dr. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend encourage this soil-less method of production among a large number of people who have backyards but no gardens, and thereby increase the vegetable production of the country?
    Mr. MacLaren: There is plenty of land in the country.
    Mr. T. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving wider circulation to the very excellent pamphlets on research work which has been done in connection with these methods of cultivation?
    Mr. MacLaren: It is all absolutely nonsensical.

    INFECTED STORE CATTLE (DISPOSAL).
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps will be taken, in view of the refusal in future to accept store cattle for slaughter, to ensure that store cattle reacting to the Johnin blood test can be disposed of so as to prevent infection?
    Mr. Hudson: I am at present in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food on this and allied questions.

    KENT APPLE CROP (SPRAYING).
    Mr. Mathersasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to protect this year's Kent apple crop; and whether sufficient spraying facilities will be provided?
    Mr. Hudson: The programme of spraying by fruit growers for the 1942 crop is on a larger scale than usual. I am hoping also to arrange for spraying machines to be available for use by the War Agricultural Executive Committee of Kent. The supply of spraying material is adequate to enable the programme to be carried out.

  EDUCATION.

    SEA AND ARMY CADET UNITS.
    Mr. Lindsayasked the President of the Board of Education what action his Department is taking in relation to the

    1901
    formation of additional Army and sea-cadet units throughout the country?
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): In Circular 1577 the Board called the attention of local education authorities to the projected expansion by the Admiralty and War Office respectively of the Sea and Army Cadet units. Contacts are being established locally between the education officers in all Higher Education areas and the representatives of the Sea and Army Cadet organisations.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend see to it that each of these units has a proper supply of leaflets, so that false hopes will not be raised in these boys when they are interviewed?
    Mr. Butler: The organisation of these units is a matter for the Admiralty and the War Office respectively. I have no doubt they will pay attention to this vital matter, and I see no reason at all why in this respect hopes should be disappointed.
    Viscountess Astor: The Admiralty and the War Office are both overworked at the present time.

    MEALS AND MILK (SCHOOL HOLIDAYS).
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has sent out any direction to the local education authorities in connection with giving school-children meals and milk during the Easter vacation?
    Mr. Butler: The attention of local education authorities has from time to time been drawn to the desirability of providing meals and milk during holidays. About one-third of the authorities make this provision. The demand for such provision and the extent to which advantage is taken of the facilities, when offered, vary widely from area to area. I do not propose to issue any general directions about the Easter vacation, but I am asking His Majesty's Inspectors to pay special attention to the need for securing that the provision of school meals and milk is continued during the holiday, particularly for the children of women in employment.

    BOYS' AND GIRLS' CLUBS.
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is doing anything to help the local education authorities in forming clubs for boys and girls?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, local education authorities are being encouraged and assisted to the utmost to expand their local provision of boys' and girls' clubs, whether through their own or through voluntary effort.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    BLACK MARKET OFFENCES (PENALTIES).
    Major Stourtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the recent maximum penalty increase of three times the price which an article might fetch, if lawfully sold, is inadequate to stop black markets which menace the proper conduct of the war; and whether, in view of grave cases recently brought to trial, he will take steps, by Order in Council, to increase the maximum penalty by an amount not exceeding 10 times the price which the article might be expected to fetch, if lawfully sold, and to render offenders liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding 20 years?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): The maximum penalties were increased by an Order in Council made on 9th December, 1941. My Noble Friend has seen no evidence which makes him think it is desirable to make any further revision at the present time.
    Major Stourton: Is not the Minister aware that the public are sick and tired of being exploited by these racketeers and that they are even more sickened by the pusillanimous attitude of the Government in dealing with them?
    Mr. Silverman: Is it now an offence to purchase from the black market?
    Major Stourton: Are black market activities increasing or decreasing at the present time?
    Major Lloyd George: I could not say without notice, but I see that the penalties are increasing very substantially.
    Major Stourton: Is the Minister not aware that there should be a further substantial increase in those penalties?

    FISH.
    Mr. Hewlettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the present shortage

    1903
    of supplies of fish, he is satisfied that everything possible is being done to obtain as much fish as possible from Iceland?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

    SMUGGLING, NORTHERN IRELAND AND EIRE
    Dr. Littleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can now make any statement on the steps being taken by his Department to deal with the smuggling of foodstuffs between Northern Ireland and Eire?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. All practicable steps are being taken to prevent the smuggling of foodstuffs from Northern Ireland into Eire. I am glad of this opportunity to issue a warning to food traders in, and doing business with, Northern Ireland, both wholesale and retail, that any action, direct or indirect, which is conducive to smuggling, e.g., the supply of abnormal quantities of foodstuffs, renders the trader concerned liable to the withdrawal of his licence on the ground that he is an unsuitable link in the chain of distribution within the meaning of the statement I made on the 6th August, in response to Questions put to me by my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and East Leicester (Major Lyons).
    Dr. Little: Is the Minister aware that the Bishop of Derry this week, in his Lenten letter, referred to this smuggling as having a demoralising influence on the people and that the children on both sides of the border are being kept-from school on account of it?
    Mr. MacLaren: Abolish the border, then.
    Major Lloyd George: I fully appreciate that it will have a demoralising affect upon both sides. Steps that we are taking now will give us a certain measure of control, and we shall, I hope, be in a much stronger position to stop it.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister keep in mind the parable of the loaves and fishes?

  FLAX-GROWING, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Supply whether, as the linen industry is one of the chief industries in Northern Ireland
  1904
  and in order to prevent additional unemployment through scarcity of flax, he will arrange for the encouragement of the farmers to grow more flax?
  The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Yes, Sir. Steps have already been taken to this end, and the increased price to be paid for the 1942 crop has been announced.
  Dr. Little: Is there any truth in the rumour current in Ulster that 60 per cent. of the flax grown in Ulster in 1942 is to be taken across the Channel from our spinners? Is that true or false?
  Sir A. Duncan: I have not heard it.

  PRODUCTION (REGIONAL ORGANISATION).
  Major Lyonsasked the Minister of Supply, as representing the Minister of Production, whether he will now arrange to establish regional executive production councils, meeting weekly under the chairmanship of each Regional Commissioner, to ensure administrative decentralisation, acceleration of decisions and economy in money and man-power, and on which supply Departments and all other appropriate Government Services are represented?
  Sir A. Duncan: My Noble Friend has under review the organisation of production in the regions, and has appointed an ad hoc committee under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Citrine, composed of representatives of the British Employers' Confederation, the Federation of British Industries, the Trades Union Congress General Council, and of the regional boards, to advise him on this matter.
  Major Lyons: In view of the urgency of the matter can this gentleman get to work immediately? Will he have the powers suggested in my Question?
  Sir A. Duncan: I understand that he was appointed yesterday and that he has already got to work.
  Major Lyons: Will the Minister answer the second part of my query, as to whether his terms of reference will include a recommendation on these lines?
  Sir A. Duncan: I will look into the matter.
  Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister consider publishing the personnel of these regional committees to Members of Parliament?
  Sir A. Duncan: I will communicate with the hon. Member.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: Will instructions be given to Regional Commissioners to notify Members of Parliament in their regions when steps are being taken in this important matter?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman make available to the House the information in the report, as soon as it is ready?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make on the reason for the proposal to suspend the Rule to-day, and upon the future Business of the House?
Mr. Attlee: The suspension of the Rule is a purely precautionary measure. Mr. Speaker is being moved out of the Chair to obtain Votes A and 1 of the Army Estimates and the Army Supplementary Estimate.
The forthcoming Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—A Debate on the War Situation, with special reference to the Far East, will take place on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Sitting Day—The Debate will be concluded.
Third Sitting Day—We propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, 1942, and to consider Votes A, 1 and Navy Supplementary Estimate in Committee.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: No doubt the Lord Privy Seal realises that there is very great interest in the Debate proposed for the first and second Sitting Days. Many hon. Members think that the Government, with the permission of the House, might suspend the Rule on both the first two days.
Mr. Attlee: I think we shall certainly suspend the Rule on the first Sitting Day. On the second Sitting Day it will be prolonged, in accordance with the course we have adopted according to the time
1906
of the year. We might well consider during the course of the Debate whether the Rule should be suspended. The Government desire to give every possible scope to the Debate.
Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Would the Government consider that it may be the desire of the House to have a three days' Debate? I appreciate the importance of the other Government Business, but it will be within the recollection of the House that, on the last occasion when we discussed the situation in the Far East and other events of the war, a great many Members did not have an opportunity' of speaking. I realise that the time may be extended for the second day, but I still think the Government may find it the desire of the House that there should be a three-day Debate, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that this is the desire of the House and that the Government will give it consideration.
Mr. Attlee: I will convey to the Prime Minister what the hon. Member has said.
Mr. Woodburn: May I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House that, if the first two days are restricted to the Far Eastern situation—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are not."]—That was suggested—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the naval side of the war should be discussed on the third Sitting Day?
Sir A. Knox: Will the Lord Privy Seal take into consideration the fact that none of these Debates on the war situation takes place without giving very valuable information to the enemy?
Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the procedure he has suggested is one by which the Government may make a speech for the defence in secret and then the jury, having been brought in, hears the other side of the case? It seems to me that the nation is not in a position to judge unless it hears both sides of the case all round.
Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested that it might be necessary to ask the House to go into Secret Session during the course of the Debate, and also that the Debate on the second day should be in open Session. I will convey the point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, because

1907
obviously what the House desires is to receive the greatest possible amount of information without, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, giving away something which will be of advantage to the enemy. It is therefore a matter which is to be weighed very carefully by the Government. I quite agree that the public have a right to know the other side, and what the Government desire to do is to give the people of this country, and this House, the fullest possible information on which to form their judgment.
Captain Godfrey Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of a record being taken of speeches made in Secret Session, not for circulation to Members, but in order that they may be on record and that the Government may study them at leisure?
Mr. Hore-Belisha: May I ask my right hon. Friend what arrangements will be made for the discussion of the Beveridge Committee's Report? It raises many important issues which are not completely covered by the Army Estimates, which are to be discussed to-day; other Departments are concerned.
Mr. Attlee: We will consider that, but the right hon. Member will agree that the Debate which is to take place next week must necessarily have precedence. But I understand the matter can be raised on the Estimates to-day.
Mr. Bellenger: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that although the Beveridge Committee's Report does touch on Army matters, it also deals with two other Services as well, and raises highly controversial issues? Would it not be better, in view of the wide scope of the Army Debate to-day, to have a special day's Debate for that particular subject?
Mr. Attlee: I have indicated that we will give full consideration to that point, but I was pointing out that it can be raised to-day on the Army Estimates. I do not say that all the issues can be raised, but part of them can.
Sir F. Sanderson: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the democracies can ever win the war if we spend so much Parliamentary time in discussing it?
Commander Locker-Lampson: Wars are not won by Debates.
Viscountess Astor: Nor by speeches.
Sir S. Reed: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that, during the last war Debate, in which the House expressed such a passionate interest, there were very often not a score of people in the House for considerable periods of time?
Sir Richard Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions through the usual channels in case the House should wish to go into Public Session at some stage on the first Sitting Day rather than wait until the second Sitting Day?

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1942).
Estimates presented,—for Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1943, with Memorandum [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 51.]
CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1942 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
Estimate presented,—showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1943 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 52.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Third Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 54].
Fourth Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 55].

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1942.
    Order for Committee lead.

    CAPTAIN MARGESSON'S STATEMENT.
    The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Since I introduced the Army Estimates last year the British Army has been engaged in campaigns is six separate theatres—in Libya, East Africa, Greece and Crete, Iraq and Syria, and the Far East. From time to time the Prime Minister has described to the House the course of these campaigns while they were in progress, so I will not cover the same ground again to-day. Since a Debate has been arranged for next week, I do not propose to discuss the grievous set-backs to our arms and to our prestige brought about by our defeat in Malaya and the subsequent fall of Singapore. So far no details of the fighting have reached me, and I do not know the extent of our casualties. But I want to assure those who are passing through this agony of suspense waiting for news of their loved ones that as soon as information is received here it will be handed to them without delay.
    There is just one point which, though it is rather obvious, ought not to be forgotten in connection with the fighting and the loss of Singapore. In the Great War of 1914–18 we were able, as a general rule, to send new divisions to a quiet part of a stationary line of defence, and there they were able to secure battle training and experience in a modest way before being committed to the hazards of a pitched battle. In this war the position is quite different. When we meet the German armies in the field we meet troops having 2½ years' experience of fighting. When we meet the Japanese we have to face hardened soldiers with

    1925
    4 years' experience of a type of warfare with which we are totally unaccustomed. There is no time for our troops to secure preliminary battle training: very often not time for them to become accustomed to the new climatic conditions after a long sea voyage under the cramped conditions of a troopship. That is a handicap we have to accept for the time being and which we must face.
    For practically the whole of the last 12 months, our troops at different times have been engaged in active operations against the enemy. We have suffered some severe reverses and disappointments. A great deal has been written and said about the failures, but I think it is only right, in fairness to the officers and men engaged, that some mention should be made of our successes since they have considerably strengthened our general position in the Middle East. I would ask hon. Members to judge for themselves how much more difficult our position would be to-day if the Italian armies in East Africa, Eritrea and Abyssinia, comprising some 280,000 soldiers—more than one-third of whom were Italians—had not been wiped out. That vast theatre of war would have become a running sore. We should have had to employ more and more men and equipment to contain the enemy; forces and material which, thanks to our final victory at Gondar, were liberated to fight in Libya and elsewhere. Acts of magnificent heroism were performed by our small Forces of British, Dominion, Indian and East and West African troops under, I may say, the most trying conditions against an enemy numerically far stronger.
    Then if we turn to Syria, it had become obvious, even before the evacuation of Greece, that the Germans were beginning to infiltrate, and there could be no doubt that the Vichy Government would give up the Syrian airfields for the use of the German Air Force. Possession of these airfields would have made it possible to mount a heavy scale of attack upon the Suez Canal and our Egyptian base, and it is unlikely that Cyprus could have been defended in those circumstances. It therefore became a matter of extreme urgency for our own defence to carry out an immediate occupation. The campaign began on 8th June and, though unsupported by armoured forces, of which none could be
    1926
    spared from Libya, it was brought to a successful conclusion in five weeks. In August, in conjunction with Russian troops, our forces entered Persia and assured the expulsion of German agents from the country of our new Ally.
    So, thanks to the short but successful campaign in Syria, to the fact that the revolt in Iraq had been speedily crushed and, finally, to our occupation of Persia, what had looked like becoming an ugly situation was cleared up and we had now secured all the countries which form the northern front of our Middle East position. We had ensured, for the time being at any rate, the safety of the essential oil supplies in Persia and Iraq. Moreover, we had opened up a supply route across Persia to our Russian Allies. I need not enlarge upon the vital importance of this northern front to our Middle Eastern position. It must remain a constant source of anxiety for us. It is not so long since it was seriously threatened by the German advance towards the Caucasus, and, though the threat has been staved off by the brilliant series of Russian counterstrokes, we must not lightly assume that it is wholly removed or that it may not develop in another way by a German threat through Turkey in Asia. The Western flank of our Middle Eastern position is no less vital to our plans. So with a view to removing the danger to the western frontier of Egypt and freeing the North African seaboard, we decided last summer to launch an offensive against General Rommel.
    The House is familiar with the fact. The ebb and flow of the tide in this Libyan battle has bewildered the onlooker, and it is natural to inquire how it is that, having destroyed a large part of Rommel's forces, we are yet compelled to withdraw towards the end of what seemed to be a favourable battle. I cannot say how far this reverse is due to tactical consideration, but I do know that the difficulties the Staff have had to contend with in keeping troops in the forward areas supplied with food, water, ammunition, petrol, etc., have been colossal. It is often difficult for those like myself, whose fighting experience is confined to the Western front in the last war and who have consequently never taken part in large-scale operations in the desert, to appreciate how tremendous are the distances which our supply columns

    1927
    have to cover and what this means in time and in the wear and tear of men and vehicles. As I remember it, in the last war in France railhead was, generally speaking, somewhere about 25 miles behind the front line, which in those days was, to all intents and purposes, both static and continuous. In the desert there is no continuous front line. You never know when you are going to encounter marauding enemy patrols. Our forward troops are not 25 but sometimes as much as 300 miles away from their railhead. The House will readily understand from this that the number of troops that could be maintained in the forward area to attack Rommel's strongly defended position at Ageila, or to resist any counter-attack that might be made against them was strictly limited by the amount of supplies that could be brought forward over those hundreds of miles of desert.
    Mr. G. Strauss: (Lambeth, North): Is it not the same for the Germans?
    Captain Margesson: I am coming to that point in a moment. As we advanced we got further and further from our supplies, and our difficulties increased. As Rommel retreated on to his supply dumps his maintenance difficulties became less, although his total force had been very seriously weakened during the fighting. So you got the position that, owing to supply difficulties, although we had a total force stronger than the enemy, this advantage was counteracted by our not being able to maintain in the forward line of battle a force sufficiently strong either to drive the enemy out of his defended position covering his reinforcements and supplies or to withstand a counter-stroke which the enemy, refreshed with men and materials, was able to launch against those light forces which were all we were able to maintain until, once again, we could use Benghazi as a forward base.
    Let me say a word about the statements and rumours which have circulated to the effect that our tanks, their armour and their armament are inferior to German equipment. Certainly in some respects we are at a disadvantage with the Germans. In tank warfare, as in battleship construction, there is an eternal struggle between armour and armament. Before the war our tank and anti-tank
    1928
    gun, the two-pounder was, without doubt, the best in the world, and its worth was shown in the battles preceding the evacuation from Dunkirk. But we knew very well that the success of this gun would be countered by the enemy using heavier armour and fitting his tanks with a more powerful gun. So before the war began, we started to design a tank and anti-tank gun of longer range and greater hitting power. It was imperative that the production of the two-pounder should not in any way be delayed, because our demands for it were very great indeed and, as I have said, it was the best weapon of its kind available at that time. If after our heavy losses at Dunkirk we had used some of the two-pounder capacity for the production of the larger gun—and there was no other capacity ready—we should have very greatly reduced the total number of tank and anti-tank guns available for the Army at a time when, owing to our losses, the troops were almost entirely without protection and invasion was expected at any moment. Thus it was necessary to rely on new capacity for the production of the larger weapon. This new capacity was secured and, as announced by my noble Friend the Minister of War Production, the manufacture of the larger and more highly-powered gun is proceeding apace. The House will be interested to learn that we are working on the production of a still larger tank and anti-tank gun with even greater penetrating power.
    A second point upon which I should like to make a few remarks has been referred to many times in the public Press and is now finding some expression in the newspapers of the United States. I refer to the general suggestion that while we are very willing to accept arms and equipment from any and every source, we are not so willing to send our soldiers out to fight with them. With all the emphasis at my command I deny this insidious and wholly false accusation. A figure has been quotes to me as current in America which purports to show the number of Imperial troops under arms in Libya, and it has been stated that only an insignificant fraction of these troops are British. Criticism of this sort, though based on false premises, must be met: but, in meeting it and giving the true figures, I intend to do justice to this country, not to depreciate the efforts of all those who have helped us

    1929
    from outside. The Middle Eastern Command covers not merely the whole of' Libya, Egypt, the Sudan and Eritrea, but also Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Persia. The figure quoted in these criticisms covered also the East African Command. The proportions of British troops are very far from what our critics would like the world to believe. Of the total troops in the Middle Eastern Command nearly half come from this country, rather more than a quarter from the Dominions. India finds something over a tenth, and the balance is made up of Colonial and Allied contingents.
    Earl Winterton: Are not Colonial troops included under the term "Imperial"?
    Captain Margesson: No, I meant East and West African troops. Now as to the composition of the Eighth Army during this present battle. Fifty per cent. of all the troops employed were British. Nearly one-third were provided by South Africa and New Zealand; more than a tenth by the Indian Empire. There was also a small number of Australian troops, and the remainder of the Force was completed by units provided by our Polish, Free French and Czech Allies. All the armoured tank brigades were British.
    Mr. Garro Jones: I really think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not greatly clarifying the matter if he describes troops coming from these Islands as British. Does he mean by that troops coming from England, Scotland and Wales?
    Professor Savory: And Northern Ireland?
    Captain Margesson: I mean troops from the United Kingdom. I repeat that all the armoured tank brigades were British. The armoured car regiments were from the United Kingdom, except for two from South Africa. Let us look at the casualties. Of every 100 men killed or wounded in the land fighting since the beginning of the war up to January, 1942, about 70 have come from this country.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: In view of the widespread criticism that has been made against this Island in other parts of the world, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take every step, in conjunction with the Ministry of
    1930
    Information, to see that these figures are given the widest publicity?
    Captain Margesson: I cannot imagine that an important statement such as I am attempting to make will not receive the widest possible publicity.
    Mr. Davidson: It has not done in the past.
    Captain Margesson: I know. That is why I am making this statement on the matter. Our critics will not forget, I hope, that in naval warfare, and, of course, amongst the Mercantile Marine, the vast majority of casualties have been inflicted upon our seamen; and the same is true of the Royal Air Force which, in spite of the magnificent contributions of the Dominions and of the Allied forces, has suffered far more heavily than any of them. Even if we exclude civilian casualties due to enemy air raiding—casualties happily not shared so far by our Dominions—it is true to say that in proportion to population the British Army and the British nation as a whole has borne a very full share. I hope that what I have said will finally dispose of this most malicious slander.
    The despatch of United Kingdom troops to foreign theatres depends fundamentally upon two things. First the absolute necessity of defending this country, the heart of the Empire. Second, the availability of shipping. As to the first point, it is vitally important that this outpost, this bridgehead for future operations on the Continent of Europe, should be held inviolate. It is unthinkable that the safety of the vast machinery of production that we have created here, the arsenal from which arms are flowing to all the Allied nations, should be risked by any under-estimate of the threat which can be brought against it. Hon. Members who listened to the secret Debate on shipping last week will appreciate the gravity of the second point. I should like to remind hon. Members that, difficult though it is to find, assemble and convoy the shipping necessary for even one division, it is no less difficult to produce the subsequent stream of freighters upon whose safe and punctual arrival depends the maintenance of that division in the field.
    A consideration of the operational activities of the Army would not be complete without some reference to the equipment position. In this respect the last 12

    1931
    months have shown a marked improvement in our position. Judged on any reasonable comparative basis that I can think of—whether the comparison is with the peak period of the last war or is with earlier periods of this war—the sum total of deliveries to the Army in the last year has been astonishingly large. But, good though the relative result may be, the absolute result is not yet satisfactory. With the great dispersion of our Forces, with the large allocations that have had to be made to Russia—allocations that have been put to magnificent use—and with the further calls of our Dominions and our Allies, our needs are enormous indeed. It is not only the quantities that are stupendous, it is the different types of highly technical and specialised weapons, not to mention the enormous amount of motorised transport, that make the equipping of the modern Army for this war, compared with the last war, such a colossal undertaking. Fully as I appreciate all that has been done, I do endorse most emphatically the Minister of Production's call for more and still more effort. This war, as we have learned, is largely a war of equipment. We started a very long way behind scratch. Since Dunkirk, when we lost so much of the ground we had gained, we have been forced to start all over afresh. For new weapons and munitions of war, we have so far had to rely, for the most part, on our own productive effort. I cannot, therefore, tell the House that I am satisfied or that the Army has yet got all the equipment it needs.
    With the permission of the House, I will now give some account of progress in the field of administration and organisation which has taken place since I last introduced these Estimates. Both at home and abroad, the year has been one of steady and progressive administrative development. The most important development has been the complete reorganisation of the Forces in this country. This reorganisation has not been apparent to the general public. It has, nevertheless, been of great extent and significance. If the House will permit me, I will, as briefly as I can, sketch the historical reasons which resulted in this reorganisation, since it may, at first sight, appear strange that there should be such a comprehensive change when the war is over two years old.
    1932
    Before the war, the British Army consisted of a few Regular divisions and a number of Territorial divisions. Plans existed for sending a small Expeditionary Force to the Continent of Europe, and those plans included the formation on the outbreak of war of numerous maintenance units which would be required to enable this Regular Expeditionary Force to operate. These additional units were formed from the trained reserves of the Regular Army, which existed largely for that purpose. The Territorial Army—as opposed to the Regular Army—comprised several volunteer divisions, which, though they were complete in fighting units—in which, obviously, service is popular—depended upon post-war action to produce their maintenance units, because there was nothing corresponding to the Regular Army reserves. Thus there were no corps, army, or line of communication units to complete any force in which Territorial divisions might be included, largely because that type of unit did not attract volunteers in times of peace. When it was decided to double the Territorial Army, this disadvantage was increased. The quickest way of doubling the Territorial Army was to throw off from existing units duplicate units, which were necessarily of the same kind. This provided a very large addition to our Armed Forces, but it brought in its train many disabilities which have had to be eradicated by a gradual process of adjustment. We had doubled the number of divisions, but the deficiencies in corps, army and line of communication troops were also doubled, and the War Office was faced on the outbreak of war with the very difficult task of raising a great number of miscellaneous units, many of which required technicians and technical equipment, in both of which there were shortages of supply. In spite of these difficulties, some Territorial divisions were sent to France to reinforce the B.E.F., and the necessary ancillary units to complete these divisions were sent with them. But it was impossible to make any progress towards completing into major formations those other divisions which were left at home.
    The difficulties were vastly increased after Dunkirk. Practically all the technical equipment was lost, and the threat of invasion demanded at that time that the maximum number of fighting units should

    1933
    be equipped to meet the enemy. There was no time to build up a balanced Army, comprising a proper proportion of ancillary units capable of sustained operations, either in England or in theatres overseas. The very large intake of new personnel which followed during the autumn of 1940 had either to make good casualties in existing units or be formed into infantry training units; the only equipment available in sufficient quantities was infantry equipment. The threat of invasion continued during that winter and the spring and summer of 1941. Equipment for armoured units and artillery was still in short supply, and it was not until the autumn of 1941 that sufficient equipment began to be available to enable us to convert large numbers of infantry units into the artillery, armoured, signal, R.A.S.C. and R.A.O.C. units of which we were so woefully short. But the plans had been laid some long time ahead, and, though the reorganisation did not begin until the autumn of last year, it was possible to carry it out with great speed, and much progress has been made in that direction.
    We have formed a number of new armoured formations, including armoured divisions and army tank brigades. We have strengthened the armoured formations in the Middle East by the provision of new units, and this process is continuing. We have formed a number of field regiments of artillery, which were required to complete the forces already overseas and to provide corps and army troops for forces in this country. We have practically completed the formation of the required number of anti-tank regiments. We have converted considerable numbers of infantry battalions into anti-aircraft regiments for the Field Army. A great number of new signal units has also been formed, mainly for service overseas. In this direction, we have still a long way to go, and I should like to remind the House that training of technical units is not a quick business. It takes about eight months to train the more technical signaller. A start has been made in organising and training air borne troops, and we now have a number of parachute and air landing units.
    I hope that what I have said, as briefly as I can, will show the House that a great deal of hard, slogging, administrative work has fallen to the lot of the War Office and Command staffs during the last
    1934
    12 months, and has been carried out with great thoroughness and despatch. When things go wrong with the Army, as they are bound to do from time to time, it is the custom to put it all down to what people are pleased to call the "brass hats." It is interesting to observe, by the way, that that phrase is rather out of date—brass has disappeared from the Army hat; though not, I believe, from those of the sister Services. But in my opinion, and in that of well-informed observers, the brass has also disappeared from the minds of the leaders of the Army, indeed, it was ever there. Those Members of the House who have informed themselves of the various activities of the Army, by personal contact with its senior staff officers, must have gained the impression that the directing staff comprise a body of hard-working, hard-thinking and sensible officers.
    Major Milner: And hidebound.
    Captain Margesson: I do not in the least agree that they are hidebound. At the War Office the Standing Committee on Army Administration, of whose constitution I informed the House a year ago, has investigated the mechanism of the big administrative departments of the Army. The impetus to reform afforded by this Standing Committee has made itself felt right down to individual units. In particular I approved a recommendation by this Committee that there should be set up an Executive Committee of the Army Council. This Executive Committee meets weekly, or more often if necessary, and it disposes of questions of important day to day administration while giving preliminary consideration to those larger questions of policy which must necessarily be referred to the full Army Council in due course. These frequent meetings of this Committee have the natural consequence of reducing "minuting" and the to-ing and fro-ing of files within the office and of securing rapid and authoritative decisions. As an indispensable corollary to this Committee, I have approved the creation of a new Army Council Secretariat, which nor only performs the usual secretarial work of the Army Council, for its Executive Committee and for other Committees within the War Office, but also provides—which is most important—a convenient instrument

    1935
    for that closer working together of the military and civil sides of the War Office on which the Esher Committee laid such stress a generation ago. [Laughter.] It is a good thing to have done it, anyhow.
    Earl Winterton: They have just received the Report.
    Captain Margesson: They have not. My noble Friend will probably know that that is not so. It is taking some time to work on. The policy of decentralisation of administration has developed since I referred to it last year. The success of the experiment of providing a Command Secretary in one Command, as I told the House last year, has justified its extension to two other Commands. I hope to extend it to all Commands in due course. I am having examined the question of devolving administrative functions below Commands to lower formations, of improving the machinery of military headquarters throughout the country, and of developing the work already achieved by the Standing Committee in reducing and simplifying paper work. I know the House takes a great interest in that kind of paper work.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is this arrangement limited to three Commands?
    Captain Margesson: For the moment I said it is limited to three, but I am endeavouring to extend it to all. For example, the number of returns submitted on the average by an infantry battalion has been reduced by more than 30 per cent., and the decision to complete only one attestation form for each soldier, instead of two, is saving tons of paper and much clerical labour. We can and will do more in this direction. There is much more to be done, and we are progressing along these lines. The policy of decentralisation is one to which we are definitely committed, and to the extent that its success must depend upon the exercise of initiative by lower commanders, it is a step which carries with it the possibility of breakdown in individual cases. It is a step, therefore, which is open to many theoretical and some practical objections. But I am satisfied that it is in the interests of the Army as a whole and as a great administrative organisation it is a step which ought to be taken and one which the House will
    1936
    fully approve. It is, moreover, a step which will smash bottlenecks and speed up the working of the machine by securing that decisions are taken promptly at a level proper to their importance.
    In the time at my disposal I cannot hope to deal with the many subjects connected with the Army in which the House is naturally most interested. But I should like to mention one point which is of the greatest interest, I think, and with which is bound up the future efficiency of our troops. I refer to the methods which we adopt with the object of securing that soldiers are employed on the tasks for which they are most suited. Under the voluntary system obtaining before the war the choice of regiment or arm of the Service lay largely with tae recruit himself, and, generally speaking, a recruit was placed according to his own wish. From this system sprang the County layout of the infantry arm in particular with its great advantages in the direction of the creation of a regimental spirit, but corresponding disadvantages in the creation of a great national army. Now we place a man not necessarily according to his own wish, but where the Army needs him.
    I want to explain what we do with the new entry, or, as it is known, the Army Class intake. In regard to this intake, we are perfecting a system of what is known as selection testing. We started it in the middle of last year by the appointment of a Director of Selection of Personnel, who serves under the Adjutant-General. This officer is helped by a Board of four civilian experts who meet every few weeks and have placed their great skill unreservedly at his disposal. The main object of this new system is to prevent the waste of man-power, which can occur in either of two ways—either by giving men work which is beyond their capacity to perform efficiently, or by employing on simple routine tasks men who are capable of much more skilful work. The scheme of selection procedure is rather like a series of filters of steadily narrowing mesh. The first filter is applied before men or women come into the Army at all, before even they are medically examined. It consists of a simple intelligence test. After this test, and after medical examination, a man or woman is interviewed by a military interviewing officer, who has the marks from the previous test before him. As a result

    1937
    of this talk, the Interviewing Officer recommends to the Ministry of Labour, who are the posting authorities, to which arm of the Service the man ought to be posted. The Ministry are aware of the demands of the various military arms, be it artillery, engineers, R.A.S.C., R.A.O.C. or infantry, and within those limitations they issue their posting orders to the individual. The main object of this first filter is to pick out men and women who are likely to learn a new job well and quickly, men and women of good native wit, irrespective of whether they have had a long and expensive' education. Here then is the first rough assignment to the various arms of the Service.
    The second filter is applied at the training unit stage. There men and women are given tests, some mechanical—and these are devised by scientists—some with pen and paper. As a result of these tests, coupled with a careful individual interview, the man is earmarked for the particular duties for which he seems to be best suited. This second filter is designed to find out all that can be readily ascertained about a man's experience, his interests and his gifts. The result of it may be, in some cases, that a man is transferred from the arm to which he was originally posted. The third filter—and this is as yet only in the experimental stage—comes very much later on, when men are considered for commissions. Here quickness to learn is only one factor, though an important one, especially for the technical corps. Most important are the man's personality, his capacity for leadership, his capacity for endurance. I should like to make it quite clear that men are not considered for commissions solely on the result of these tests, or of isolated interviews. Not at all. They are recommended on their whole record, including their military knowledge and the impression which they have made upon the officers who have been training them for months.
    Earl Winterton: Within limits, are officers and men so far as possible drafted to units in parts of the country from which they come?
    Captain Margesson: Within limits, Yes, Sir?
    Mr. McNeil: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not explain
    1938
    where this initial test was applied. He merely said it was made before they were medically examined.
    Captain Margesson: It is made before they come into the Army, under the Ministry of Labour, and not by the War Office.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that there is also considered a report by security police on the politics of a man?
    Captain Margesson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I apologise for interrupting, but has not the Minister received representations that certain applicants have been asked, when they have said that their father was an M.P., "What is you father's politics? Is he Labour or otherwise?"
    Captain Margesson: I have heard these stories, but I do not see why it should follow that because a man's father happens to be a Labour man he will be turned down. The same thing might be said about my son, who is serving as an ordinary seaman in the Navy. I do not believe it.
    Mr. Walkden: Why not ask a man whether he is a vegetarian?
    Captain Margesson: The object of these tests is to show what a man's interests are, his power of initiative and his leadership, and I think the system will prove itself to be of the greatest possible value to the Army.
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not propose to speak in the Debate, so I would like to ask this question now. Does not the Minister think it is somewhat irrelevant to ask a boy what his father is? Ask him what you like about himself, draw him out, but do not put questions which might be misconstrued in his mind and those of others.
    Captain Margesson: I really cannot take that line. I do not see why an ordinary boy's mind should be prejudiced because he is asked what his father is and what is his own life. As I was saying, all these data are checked by an outside opinion, an impartial interview board, and the new development which I have outlined consists in the presentation to the interview board of an objective assessment of the candidate's temperamental fitness for an officer's work. All this is a great advance upon the past. It is of the

    1939
    greatest importance that we should not waste time and money in sending unsuitable candidates to the Officer Cadet Training Units, and I feel that the House will welcome what I have said as showing that we are setting about the business in a common sense, up-to-date way.
    The remarks which I have made about selection testing bring me, naturally, to a consideration of some of the points raised in the Report of Sir William Beveridge's Committee on skilled men in the Services. Members of this House have already seen the Report and the remarks of the War Office upon it. One of the most striking features of modern warfare is the link between the Fighting Services on the one hand and industry on the other. But even in the last Great War the conflict between the production field and the user field began to obtrude itself, and now it has become almost a truism that warfare cannot proceed at all without a vast array of men and women behind the fighting lines producing the required machines and munitions. We are not alone in suffering from this dilemma. The Germans have met it, largely as a result of their unsuccessful campaigns in Russia and of the tremendous loss of men and material which they have suffered there. Our American Allies are now meeting it. On the one hand they have planned to equip an enormous army and great naval and air forces. On the other hand they must also equip with tremendous speed and efficiency the great factories necessary to feed not only their own Forces but those of their Allies. We in this country have been at war now for 2½ years, and though by 1914 standards our casualties in the field have been light, the problem of the proper distribution of man-power, particularly of skilled man-power, has become more and more difficult. For all these reasons my colleagues and I have welcomed the advice and assistance given to us by Sir William Beveridge and his colleagues.
    I should like to make one or two specific points, not by way of apology, but by way of explanation. The Committee have tended, very naturally, to apply to the Army problem the standards of the civil engineering world, and it has been natural for them to draw attention to the fact that, under the Army system, there is a very wide distribution of the available skill
    1940
    and that concentration of this skill in central workshops or establishments would effect an economy of numbers and an economy of production. As a theoretical principle this is undeniable. But Members of this House who have followed the progress of operations, particularly in the recent battles in Libya, will realise that the problem before the Army -s not merely a question of the most economical method of maintaining its technical machines, but the far more difficult problem of maintaining those machines under active service conditions in the field and in action. From the accounts of the battles in Libya it is clear that the Axis armoured divisions are very well served by their repair and maintenance units, who have succeeded in putting damaged tanks on their tracks again with great rapidity. I may say that on our side I have heard much praise of our repair units, though we have been somewhat short of repair echelons and have not been as amply provided as we should like to be with tank transporters and recovery vehicles.
    But, Sir, the moral of all this is that no system of centralisation of repair and maintenance could give adequate results on the battlefield, and it will be clear to the House from this one instance that in the Army we must of necessity accept a wider distribution of our skilled personnel than is possible in civil life, and we must accept also the fact that we must have proportionately more skilled men than would be justified in other circumstances. The Committee has admitted this proposition to some extent, but has not, I feel, wholly appreciated the point. But the Committee have argued that the Army would do well to follow the example of the Royal Navy by establishing a unified corps of mechanical engineers, and they go further and argue that the skilled technicians already on the establishment of the Corps of Royal Eng seers should be made available for the repair of machines, particularly of tanks, instead of waiting in enforced idleness for the jobs for which they are trained.
    I will admit quite frankly that there are skilled men in the Royal Engineers who may sometimes have to stand by without using their skill, but, if the House will again take into consideration the fighting in Libya, it would have been quite inconceivable from a military point of view for units of the Royal Engineers, or for individuals from that corps, to

    1941
    accompany the armoured fighting formations in the front line in order to service our armoured fighting vehicles. Detachments of this corps did, of course, go with our forward troops, but they went to clear mine-fields and destroy damaged enemy tanks. The duties for which the Corps exists fully occupied their attention. I mention such tasks as the rapid construction of forward landing grounds for our aircraft, the repair of water installations, and of electric plants, and the many other engineering tasks which were required of them in the towns along the seaboard as those towns fell into our hands. The proposal that all engineering skill should be amalgamated into one corps of engineers is not impossible of achievement, but, even if it were possible to carry it into effect during the course of a war—and I am having this problem examined as a matter of great urgency—there would still have to be particular units earmarked for this purpose or that and in the stress of battle units earmarked for work of a field engineering type on the lines of communication could hardly be detached for mechanical maintenance work in the forward areas.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: With regard to the maintenance of tanks and similar material, whatever the arrangements are surely there is bound to be an immense waste of skilled technical personnel as long as the necessary material for repairs is not available?
    Captain Margesson: Obviously, if the material is not there for the skilled personnel to use, they are bound to be idle. Nevertheless, as I said, we have greatly profited by the advice of this Committee, and my hon. Friends will describe perhaps in rather more detail the action that we have taken in carrying out the Committee's recommendations.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: What was the reason for the delay in publishing this Report, which was presented in October and has only just been published?
    Captain Margesson: It had to receive a considerable amount of careful consideration before publication.
    I have given a sketch of the record of the Army during the last year in the operational sphere and I have said something about progress in equipment and organisation. In the latter we have a
    1942
    story of steady and encouraging progress: in the former, in the main, one of disappointment, discouragement and even disaster. What of the future? As I see it, we are growing stronger all the time: but are we growing stronger quickly enough? It is true that this time last year we stood alone. To-day we have the great Russian people and the might and the resources of the U.S.A. behind us. But what matters most is the answer to the question, "What are we ourselves doing?" Are we going all out? Are we giving 100 per cent. of our individual best without thought of self to help the country's war effort? Quite frankly, for the moment I do not feel that we are. Perhaps our immunity from air raids during the past months, perhaps the fact that the recent reverses have not taken place close to these shores as was the case in the summer of 1940, is responsible for a certain feeling of lull, for the tendency sometimes for people to sit back and watch the progress of events. Sir, we have had grievous defeats; we are in the gravest danger. Is this the end, or is this only the beginning of a new period of influence and glory? It can be the former if we are untrue to our traditions and to our duties. It will be the latter if we deserve it, and I believe that it is possible for mortals of our race to command success by deserving it.
    Mr. Lawson: The House, I am sure, appreciates the exposition of the Army Estimates which it has just heard from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think the House will thank him more than anything else for the denial, and the figures he has given to prove that denial, of the charge that the British race has been using other forces rather than its own to fight its battles. We have all heard the cry, "Where is the British Army?" It is possible that some of the people who have used that cry have been the victims of a deliberate charge that has been made from interested places. As a matter of fact, that story has come back to this country and affected our own people. We are very grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving us facts and figures that will now go abroad in the world. But I have been wondering why the War Office did not tell this to the world before, What is the purpose of the Ministry of Information if not to inform the world as

    1943
    well as our own people, and particularly to deal with matters that might affect the morale of our own people? I think that this matter is sufficiently serious for inquiry on the part of the Government. Is it the War Office which is responsible for letting this matter go on for so long? This information ought to have been given to the world long before to-day. It may be that these statements will be coloured and used by the enemy, and that they have affected the battles we have been fighting in the Far East. As far as I am concerned, I hope that more will be heard about the matter. Of course, we are particularly open to that kind of charge. This country needs a very large garrison, and there will always be people in enemy countries who will seek to affect the strategy and disposition of our troops.
    There have been people in this country who have been trying to underrate the danger of invasion, and I am glad that the Government are very conscious of the imminent possibility of invasion. I know something about this matter, and the world and the enemy can know it, namely, that the Forces in this country have been continually exercising their minds on the subject. The troops have also been exercising, and there is an alertness for whatever might happen. We ought to take heart from these facts, because there are some things which we are apt to forget. For instance, at this time last year we had hardly re-equipped the Dunkirk troops, and the Home Guard had not even got pikes. I understand that a representative of the War Office has been suggesting that pikes are not a bad thing. I once read about a gentleman who won a war with a stone and sling.
    Major Milner: That was a long time ago.
    Mr. Lawson: I think it was before the last war, but, so far as this particular gentleman is concerned, I consider that to use language of that kind does an injustice both to the Home Guard and to the country. I should like to use the words of one of the sages on the Saturday - night broadcasts, and say "Take him away." During the last year we have turned out hundreds of thousands and almost millions of trained men, and we must not forget that from the High Command down to the humblest N.C.O. the Army has been working at
    1944
    high pressure to train them. We are apt to take for granted the fitness of our troops, but it requires a very high standard of intelligence, bunched together as they are in these Islands, to maintain that high standard which is uniform throughout the country. The country expects the Army authorities to make the utmost use of man-power The Minister gave an explanation of the Report of the Beveridge Committee, but that Report reveals that there is still some of the old Army spirit left. I suppose that a good many Members have reed the Report, but from the Minister's statement one would hardly expect to find this quotation in it:
    "In respect of the Army, our investigation has shown a continuing failure to use men of engineering skill according to their skill, which has surprised us by its extent. … They include highly skilled engineers of all kinds, millwrights, turners, tool make -s, fitters, copper-smiths, electricians, boilersmiths, panel-beaters and pattern makers. … Up to the present there is no guarantee that men of this type now supplied to the Army will be used on work that needs them."
    That is a small illustration of the scathing criticism of this Report. I do not believe that this misuse is widespread, but it is a serious matter for the country when craftsmen of this description, who are worth their weight in gold to the country, are being used in the Army in dead-end jobs and are wasting their time, as time can be wasted in the Army. I consider that this matter ought seriously to disturb the War Office. The "Tines" comment the other day was:
    "It is difficult not to agree with the Committee's view. The failure of the Army, compared with other Services, to make the best use of skilled man-power is due to a frame of organisation, and it may be fairly added, to a frame of mind suited to conditions which are no longer conditions of modem war."
    I would ask the Minister how it is that this Report was three and a half months old before it was put into the hands of Members? It is surely an unusual thing, when there has been an inquiry, for a Department to wait until it can publish, along with the inquiry, its reply. I have never known such a thing take place. This evidence of waste of valuable material is so important that it ought to have been in our hands long before it was three and a half months old.
    I want to deal with the question of the selection of officers, because it seems to me that there is one aspect of the matter

    1945
    that is being overlooked. In the last war by this time there were great masses of men who had been promoted on the field, who had few or no educational qualifications, but who had proved themselves good soldiers and good leaders. Of course, you have not the same conditions, and you have all the risks of selecting men without their being tried in the field. I know that the War Office are very anxious to get the best men, and they have their intelligence tests. A year or two ago the House decided that all men who were given commissions should have served in the ranks. That was supposed to be a safeguard for the country, that we should select our officers on a democratic basis and get the best men. I wonder whether it is having quite that result. I would not say a single word about those who have been selected, but have we the range of selection that the House intended we should have when it established the principle that men should go through the ranks? It is not the War Office that selects. It is not the Selection Committee. They select only from the human material that they get. It all depends upon who is sent up by the commands. Commands do their duty as they see it.
    It is one of the tendencies of modern life to give undue value to degrees and that kind of thing. Are some of the commands influenced more by educational qualifications and social status than by those qualities which really count for leadership on the field of battle? Courage and mother wit are worth a stack of degrees on the field of battle. As far as I know, the class of men who have proved good leaders on the field, men from the mines and workshops who have no educational qualifications, are not being sent up by the commands. No one who knows me will believe for a moment that I under-value education, but I have noticed in modern life—and this is typical of modern life as well as of the Army—that more credit for intelligence is given to those who are supposed to be educated than is sometimes justified. The commands work hard, I know, and so do the N.C.O.'s. I should not like men who may be of the highest quality overlooked merely because they have not been to some university. One of the best-known and ablest of our men, who has now passed on, the late Sir William Robertson,
    1946
    I believe, had no educational degrees at all.
    General Sir George Jeffreys: May I, speaking as one who knew Sir William Robertson well, say that whether he had a university degree is surely not the point. He was an extremely well-educated man.
    Mr. Lawson: That is the whole point that I am trying to make. There are some very well-read, well-educated and highly intelligent men who, I think, are not receiving any consideration at all because of the lack of these academic qualifications.
    The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the question of the women's Services and the charges that are being made generally. I am very sorry that those charges have been raised in the House and in the country generally. We have led the way among the countries of the world in using women-power in the Army. I do not think that is an exaggerated statement even compared with Russia. Hundreds of thousands of our young women have voluntarily left their homes to do the rough work of the Army. Many of them are very much concerned with what has been said in and out of the House. I write to a young lady in the A.T.S. myself, and she writes to me. She signs herself as "One gunner to another." That is my daughter. I know generally from the expressed feelings of parents as well as from these girls, that this Mother Grundy kind of business has not done any good in the country. It is shameful to scatter these things abroad instead of telling the world something of what we ought to be proud.
    I should have liked to have dealt with the equipment that is used by our troops. I want to see this country well garrisoned, but I do not want to see too many men kept here. "Safety first" is a very good thing, but you can sit at home until you lose health both of mind and body. I understand, but I do not know how it is, that the Germans have more infantry in Libya in action than we have. I learn on high authority that they have infinitely more anti tank guns. The right hon. Gentleman himself has said that our gun power is not exactly equal to theirs, but even after he has given his explanation there is a good deal that puzzles people about Libya. It will,

    1947
    I dare say, come in for examination in the forthcoming Debate. I would like to ask, however, whether it is true that we were outnumbered in infantry in Libya.
    By comparison with last year, in spite of the grim circumstances of to-day, and in spite of the Far East, we are apt to overlook the tremendous distance we have travelled on the way to security so far as this country and possibly Europe are concerned. Last year at this time we had hardly any defence worth anything. We are reminded by these Estimates that this country has now masses of men trained and equipped for war who were not at our disposal this time last year. Many of them, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, have been sent to the Middle East. We have great Allies, with tremendous man-power and resources, who were not linked with us this time last year. The almost illimitable man-power of long-suffering China, the vast manpower and resources of Russia, to whose epic struggle we owe so much, and America, whose statesmen cheered, encouraged and helped us in the hour of our lonely struggle against overwhelming odds, are with us. I speak with some emotion when I think of those lonely days through which we passed in 1940. Our gratitude to that great nation, the United States, is so deep that it will become part of the warp and woof of British history. These great nations have become our Allies since last we discussed these Estimates. Their fighting power and resources are added to ours, and though we have suffered grievously in latter days and will suffer in days to come, I venture to say that these forces will spell doom to that brutal system from which the world is in danger at the present time.
    Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins: There is one matter of vital importance to the Army which has not yet been mentioned and which I should like to raise. It is the training and co-operation of the Army with the Air Force and getting the due support that the Army ought to get from the Air Force. In the period prior to the war, I think I may say without contradiction, co-operation between the air and our ground forces was to all intents and purposes nil. I happened to be living on Salisbury Plain during the summers of 1938 and 1939, and I frequently watched field days and
    1948
    manœuvres. On no occasion did I ever see any air support. I remember attending one specially important field day on the Plain when all available mechanised forces were engaged. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff and several senior staff officers came specially from London. There was a large contingent of the Press, and everybody of importance was there. I attended with two serving staff officers, and one of the first questions I asked was, "Where are the planes, where is the air reconnaissance?" I was told that there would not be any and that there practically never were any. I asked the reason, and they said that there were so many difficulties in making arrangements between the two Services, with the result that there was no training between them. I cannot say whether that was the fault of either of the Services, but certainly there was no co-operation between the two, and this vital part of training was not carried out.
    During the whole of this war the common complaint has been that the Army has lacked air support. Wherever the Army has been employed the cry has been the same—"Give us the machines to work in co-operation with us." It is only recently in Libya that the air has been covering our troops to any extent at all. In fact, when the advance in Libya took place, the news bulletins on the B.B.C. always took great care to emphasise the fact that our troops were getting air co-operation, as though it were a new and novel experience after the experiences that the Army had had in France, Greece and Crete. The excuse was that we were short of machines, but it looks as if there were some faultiness in distribution, for the Army should have had a certain number of machines allotted to them. I know the Army have frequently been told, "Because you do not see planes overhead it does not follow that you are not getting air support." There may be a certain amount of truth in that statement, but it does not appeal to the Army when they are being harassed and dive-bombed, and they begin to get a little sceptical as to whether they are really getting air support. The Navy, of course, is fortunate in one way, in that it has its own Air Arm, and there is a school of thought—I do not know how strong it is—in the Army which thinks that it should have its own Air Arm.

    1949
    It seems to me that there should be no large Army formation abroad without its component air force with it, and not only with it but having been trained with it beforehand to act in conjunction with it. Even in Libya, although we know the Army there have had more air support than ever before, it is a great question whether the training between the sister Services had been sufficient. There have been many reports, and I am told they are true, that the Air Force had sometimes been unable to distinguish between friend and foe, rather to the detriment of their friends. It does not encourage troops to go forward if they are being bombed by their own Air Force, and it must entail a certain lack of enthusiasm to the advance. I noticed in the "Evening Standard" last Monday that the R.A.F. are planning a large-scale training with the Army. The report stated:
    "Big R.A.F. forces operating from home bases are to begin special training in support of the Army."
    "Are to begin"—two and a half years after the war started.
    "The fighter pilots are to practice attacks on Army columns and take part in the Army's invasion exercises. Army and R.A.F. officers are to be brought together to study each other's problems and plan combined operations. This is the biggest step forward that has been taken in this country."
    Captain Margesson: Could my hon. and gallant Friend give me the date of that report?
    Sir E. Makins: It was last Monday. I do not know what truth there is in that report, but I hope that even at long last we shall have this training. The whole question bristles with difficulties. For good or ill we have our independent Air Force, and, personally, I believe that is for the best. It has its all-important independent rôle of fighting and defeating its opposite number of the enemy—bombing military objectives, factories, ports, etc.—but it must not be too independent of its sister Services. It cannot win the war on its own, although there may have been some almost super-airmen who seemed to consider that it might. The United States of America have their separate Air and Army forces. I read in the papers that the Germans have followed our course and have three Services, but there is this difference between us and the Germans, that their three Services certainly work in much closer co-operation than do the three Services
    1950
    in this country. I think the German Air Force and the other Services in Germany are much more co-partners in a large defence force and have much better liaison than we have.
    In anything I have said I have not wished to say anything against the R.A.F., because I think we owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their gallantry and bravery, which have been unsurpassed during the war. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for their part in the Battle of Britain and in all the different areas in which we have been fighting. I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War will not take amiss anything I have said in this matter, because I think it is of vital importance.
    Captain Margesson: Hear, hear.
    Sir E. Makins: All I have wished to do is to strengthen his hand in fighting his own battles. I am sure that is the feeling that is universal throughout the whole Army. I hope that we shall soon see the Army and the Air Force acting in friendly co-operation and trained together before they go into action, and I should like to put the accent on the training.
    Mr. Horabin: It is not often that I feel compelled to pay a compliment to the Minister, but I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for War upon the vigour of his speech to-day. He has made me feel that there is, perhaps, at last some real movement in the War Office. I welcome his reference to the part that the troops who had come from this country were playing on the battlefields of the world, but I feel that he was more than a little over-optimistic when he said that "brass" had disappeared from the Army now, and when he went on to say that the General Staff to-day was most up-to-date and modern in outlook. I could give him many examples to show where the Staff is not up-to-date and modern in outlook, but I do not propose to do so in the course of these remarks. What I intend to do is to make some attempt to get down to the root causes or our military disasters. I am going to say some hard things, but I should like my right hon. and gallant Friend to appreciate that I have the interest and the reputation of the Army at heart. Like him, I fought in the last war, and my

    1951
    son to-day is serving in the Army. I want to say nothing that will distress. All I am concerned to do is to make some contribution towards getting things right. I feel that all is not well with the Army at the present moment. I fully agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir E. Makins) said about the need for far closer Air co-operation, and I do not feel that in the middle of a world war we can consider the Army in vacuo. After all, Sea power affects it at every turn, and Air power has converted what was a far simpler two-dimensional war into a three-dimensional struggle; but the Air factor has not invalidated the Sea and the Land factors. It has merely synthesised them. That is why Air co-operation is so important at the moment.
    In this Debate upon the Army Estimates I feel it is impossible to talk sense if we consider the Army entirely on its own. After all, the Armed Forces are the instrument through which the whole resources of the nation are brought to a concentrated focus against the enemy, and it is against that background that we have to consider the Army. There is also another aspect to this problem. The battle zone to-day is not confined to the areas in which the contending armies are at grips. The battle zone covers the whole territories of the nations at war. Gone are the days of those Cabinet wars when Governments and their armies fought against each other without interfering very much with the life of the community as a whole. The air arm, blockade and the quantities and complexities of modern military equipment inexorably put every citizen in the contending nations right into the front line.
    In other words, war is no longer an extension of politics, as Clausewitz, thought. Politics has become one of the most vital weapons in the armoury of war. We cannot consider the Army outside its political context. Our failure to recognise this is one of the fundamental causes of our disasters in the Far Fast. We are attempting to-day to fight a fully mobilised Japan on the basis of a Colonial war. The natives stand passively aside while the Army fights its battles in their midst. Malaya could only have been held in co-operation with the Malayans. I will read what the "Times" correspondent has said about Singapore. I should
    1952
    like to point out that my notes for this speech were prepared before the "Times" article was printed. The article does rather indicate that the war in its course is proving the truth of our contentions, and that our generalisations are confirmed by the facts that come from the battlefields. The "Times" correspondent said:
    "From the scene of hostilities"—
    "Unlike Tobruk, Singapore has a population of 700,000 people. Unlike Moscow, the bulk of the population were apathetic spectators of a conflict they felt did not concern them. … The Government had no roots in the life of the people of the country. … The bulk of the Asiatic population remained spectators from start to finish. Their inclination was to get as far as possible from the scene of hostilities."
    I think this is the important point—
    "There was no native labour at the docks. Soldiers had to be taken away from military duties to load and unload ships."
    In one conversation with U-Saw the Prime Minister made more possible the loss of Burma. Two days ago the Prime Minister of Japan made a speech that our Prime Minister should have made in order to fire the peoples of India with enthusiasm for what should be our common cause. I am sure—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member must not anticipate the Debate upon the war situation. What the Prime Minister of Japan may have said cannot be in Order upon the Army Estimates.
    Mr. Horabin: I will leave that point. It was Hitler's brilliant political strategy that enabled his Panzer divisions to cut through the armies of Western Europe like butter. Not less significant is the failure of those same Panzer divisions to disintegrate the Russian Army. Russia stands impervious to political infiltration, because the Russians are welded by a common faith into impregnable unity. There is another aspect of this problem. It is not only in the air that the internal combustion engine has profoundly altered the character of war. On land the internal combustion engine and the short wave radio have freed the modern Army from the shackles of railhead and telephone grid. Freed from those restrictions, the modern Army can rapidly build up an overwhelming local superiority almost where it will. Once the defence is pierced, composite combat groups pass

    1953
    through the gap to disintegrate the defensive forces by attack from the rear. The battlefield becomes a chaos of what appear to be unrelated actions. The German and Japanese commanders maintain contact with their combat groups by means of short wave radio. They keep feeding in support where it is required until the defence is completely disintegrated. Supporting troops press closely on the heels of spearhead groups. Both leaders and men of the German and Japanese armies are trained to develop a high degree of independence and initiative, so that they can size up a situation quickly and act instantly, without orders.
    That is what blitzkrieg means. It is the zig-zag path of lighting, forcing its way along the path of least resistance to its objective in the rear. In Norway, France, Greece, Crete, Malaya, and Singapore, the resistance of the British Army has collapsed before these blitzkrieg tactics. Why is this? Because our Army leaders have failed to evolve a tactical doctrine based upon the profound changes in military technique brought about by the internal combustion engine and the short wave radio. Shortage of equipment and shortage of air support, important as they are, are not the primary causes of those defeats, when we are on the defensive. We still form lines. Once the line is breached and the enemy is penetrating to our rear, back we go to the next line. The British Army seems incapable of arresting that process of disintegration brought about by the infiltration tactic of blitzkrieg. It matters not whether the forces and the equipment are adequate for the purpose; the British commander loses contact and control of his forces. His defeat then becomes inevitable. He surrenders with 60,000 men. Comparing our tactics with those of the Japanese at Singapore the "Times" correspondent said:
    "The Japanese possessed above all that capacity for co-ordinated effort with every man and every weapon, all arms co-operating so that the maximum effect was achieved—that very capacity which has been most conspicuously lacking on the British side. One good push has sent the structure crashing to the ground."
    What is wrong with the British Army? To face that question and to accept the inescapable facts is not treason to the cause. It is treason to dodge the issue. Unless the question is fairly faced, I believe that we are well on the way to
    1954
    final and irretrievable disaster. It is not that the British soldier is inferior to the German or the Japanese, man for man. I am certain that this generation of British manhood is as tough, courageous and tenacious as any generation that has gone before. The root cause of our humilating defeats lies in another direction. I have tried to explain that this is a war of peoples against peoples. All the resources of the nation pitted against the total resources of the enemy. We are attempting to fight this war of peoples—this People's War—by means of a class army. A tactic based on the internal combustion engine and the short wave radio, depends for its success upon the independence and initiative of the private soldier. It depends also upon a discipline, based on mutual co-operation and understanding between the soldier and his officer. In such an Army class can have no place. If it is there, it must produce disaster. The Secretary of State for War made it clear that the War Office instructions on this point are explicit.
    Candidates for commissions are to be selected for their practical qualifications and not because of their class, education, or birth. I fully exonerate the War Office on that point. But these War Office instructions are flagrantly disregarded by commanding officers of units and by selection boards, who very frequently indeed—even to-day, in spite of what the Secretary of State has told us—ask these class questions:—"What school did you go to? What is your father? What private income have you?" I have even talked to young men recently who have been asked what their clubs were. I am not going to quote specific cases. What I say will be confirmed by cases which are, I think, known to almost every Member of this House, and they certainly will be known to innumerable thousands of the public outside.
    I would, however, like to illustrate the depth of folly to which snobbery has reduced the leadership of the British Army. The son of a constituent of mine went to an O.C.T.U. When he got there, the commanding officer said to him, "Did you go to a public school?" In fact, this boy did not go to a public school; he went to a State-aided secondary school, but being a bright and intelligent boy, he promptly answered, "Yes, Sir, Redruth." A few days later the present Secretary of State for War went down to inspect this

    1955
    unit, and, in announcing the impending visit, the commanding officer said, "The Secretary of State for War is coming to visit us. We must have a guard of honour of public school boys. X, you must be one, you went to Redruth, didn't you?" This story has been repeated and has become a standing joke in Cornwall. When candidates who are not public school boys go up before the selection boards too often they are selected because they ape the manners and the accents of the public school boy rather than because of their practical qualifications. The German Army selects its officers on quite another basis. This is what Ludendorff says about the qualifications required for an officer in the modern German Army—
    Dr. Haden Guest: Did the hon. Member say "Ludendorff"?
    Mr. Horabin: Yes, Sir. This is what he says:
    "In times of people's armies and of totalitarian warfare, the officer will fulfil his task only if he has a clear notion of the basis upon which the unity of the people and discipline rest, if he is himself rooted in the national life and knows the essence of the soldier's soul. In these qualities the old school of officers was lacking, for the officers lived apart from the people."
    This is what the "Times" correspondent says of our leadership in Singapore, and it has some bearing on this matter:
    "The absence of forceful leadership made itself felt from the top downwards The material of the men was potentially good. Something was lacking to crystallise it, to co-ordinate it, to infuse it with the fire of confidence."
    Australia has a classless Army. This is what the "Times" correspondent says of their leader in Singapore:
    "To my mind the general who showed the greatest qualities of leadership was the commander of the A.I.F Hard, bitter, sarcastic, difficult, he was a fighter through and through, imbued like his men with an aggressive, offensive and unconventional spirit.
    As for the men, for the kind of warfare by which our Armies are faced all over the world, military mass training is useless.
    "The aim"—
    Again in Ludendorff's words—
    "must be to train independent soldiers who will gladly assume responsibility. Discipline must be a harmonious co-operation of all, suppressing all thought of self and directed to one aim only. That aim is victory."
    1956
    That kind of training we have already got for our commandoes. We must have it for the whole of our Army, if we are to survive. It is impossible in a Class Army in which the function of the private soldier is largely "not to reason why." If the Secretary of State for War would discuss it with some of the many intelligent young men in the Army to-day; he would find it is impressed upon them that it is their duty "not to reason why," not to understand the basic reason for their training.
    How are these things to be got right? I think three things are vitally necessary in order to lick the British Army into shape in the shortest possible time. I am convinced that it can be done. The first is that I think the Defence Minister, or the Secretary of State for War, must select as head of the Army, an officer who understands the type of war his Army has to face, and who is capable of evolving a correct tactical doctrine based on modern developments in military technique. There are many officers in the Army at the present time who have no conception of what has taken place. They have not received training for it, and if the Minister is a wise man, I think he would beg the Russians to send a military mission to this country in order to assist him in his task.
    Secondly, I think we should have a Select Committee of this House appointed to pass our military operations under continuous review in exactly the same way as the Select Committee on National Expenditure looks after the money side of things. Only so can we hope to bring to an end quickly the monotonous repetition of our military mistakes. Only so can the slackness that characterised the lack of preparation of our defences in Singapore be brought to an end. That is all I wish to say on that subject to-day; I hope I shall be able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye next week, because I would like to say more about it then.
    The third, and most important, point is that I think an Inspector-General, directly responsible to the Secretary of State, should be appointed. He should, of course, have an adequate and competent Staff, and should be able to descend on units without any notice at all, to investigate all aspects of their administration and training, and he should report direct to the War Office. If the report is unfavourable, then the commanding officer

    1957
    of that unit should be ruthlessly liquidated.
    In conclusion, I feel that it is imperative to make some reference to the Beveridge Report. It is true that the Secretary of State for War did touch upon it, but he far from satisfied me about it. I feel that a full-dress Debate should take place on that Report at the earliest possible moment, particularly in view of what I feel to be the disingenuous rejoinder of the War Office that is printed with it. In that rejoinder there seems to me to be same attempt to discredit the reliability of the Report. The War Office attempts to get away from the Report on the ground of the slender evidence produced by the Beveridge Committee. The War Office complains of the slender sample, of the few men who were interviewed. But the Army sample was larger than the sample for the other two Services; in fact, it consisted of 600 interviews—a very large number indeed—and those interviews were divided into three different categories. An important point which seems to justify the conclusions of the Beveridge Committee is that the results were consistent as between these three groups. All show the same substantial failure to use skill on the part of the Army. What justification is there for the reclassification by the War Office of the men interviewed? That, I completely fail to understand. The Committee made its classification with the full concurrence of the Army assessor. Now the War Office reclassifies the men without giving any indication of the basis, and without even consulting the Committee about it.
    The importance of the Beveridge Report goes far beyond the disclosure of the misuse of skilled man-power. By implication, it shows the vested interests of the various corps competing with one another. Instead of the Army being an entity, like the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force, it is a congeries of competing corps, each fighting for its own hand, with the results we see on the battlefields. Several Members have already asked why, after this Report had been presented to the War Office, it has taken nearly three and a half months to publish it. Surely, it should have been in the hands of the House long before, and surely this House is entitled to some explanation about that. Does not this long delay show that
    1958
    there is a lack of any sense of urgency in these matters on the part of the War Office? This seemed to be indicated also by the Secretary of State when he told us to-day that the Esher Report was now being put into operation.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) has dealt with a large number of points with only one of which I should like to deal. As often happens in these cases, his comparison with the German army appears to be a little out of date. I do not know when Ludendorff wrote that book from which he quoted.
    Mr. Horabin: About five years ago.
    Sir F. Fremantle: He was then coming to the end of his tether. There is, however, no question about it that we have a good deal to learn even from our enemies. I want to draw attention to one or two points which arise from one of the Army services not mentioned in the Secretary of State's illuminating address to-day—the Army Medical Service. It is particularly appropriate that we should pay some attention to it to-day, because the modern Army Medical Service, with its nursing and ancillary services, is largely the product of the late Secretary of State for War, Lord Midleton, whose death, only this week, we deplore. I had the good fortune to act as assistant secretary to the Departmental Committee of the War Office by which he undertook and carried through the reorganisation of the Army Medical Service. As a young house surgeon who in South Africa had criticised strongly the Army Medical Service of those days, I was put on this Committee in order to help them to consider in what way they could reorganise it to attract the right recruits into the Service. The work of that particular Departmental Committee was absolutely vital. It is worth while remembering this in comparison with the idea expressed by Wolseley in 1886, when he wrote:
    "The sanitary officer as a general rule is a very useless functionary. In future, so long as this fad continues, my recommendation is to leave him at the base."
    That was the idea of the War Office and Horse Guards of the sanitary and medical services, except when it was thought necessary to treat the wounded. What was the result? In the South African War we saw the result of years of neglect not

    1959
    altogether, perhaps not at all, the fault of the Medical Service, the repeated applications of which for improvement had been turned down. In two and a half years of that war in an average Army strength of 208,000 there were 58,000 cases and 8,000 deaths from enteric, and only 7,000 deaths from casualties killed in action. Compare that with the last war. Vaccination was good and thorough in the 14 years which ensued, and for a total strength five times the average in the Boer War, instead of 58,000 cases of enteric, there were only 7,500; instead of 8,000 deaths, only 266. How had this been done? It had been done in many ways, but largely owing to the introduction of vaccination, which had been brought to perfection by the research work of the Army Medical Service. Of dysentery, there were 86 cases per 1,000 in the South African War and only 6 per 1,000 in the last war.
    These things are typical of conditions which are vital to the whole Army machine. We have learned to do quite a number of things with regard to the engines of warfare and the repair of machinery. That is all very well, but does the Secretary of State, as did the Horse Guards in the last century, take human material absolutely for granted which can look after itself and not require repair, except by technical officers? His speech and speeches which have been made on behalf of the War Office on these Estimates—and I have taken part in these Debates ever since my maiden speech 21 years ago, to which the present Prime Minister replied as Secretary for War—have generally been to approve the real importance of the Medical Service and still to look upon it as though it is only required to treat wounds in the field. They still have the idea that it is not essential, even since the last war. All through the 40 years I have been watching it we have gradually seen built up, by its own initiative and by the initiative of idealism, a far large conception of the importance of the Medical Service, the recognition that the Army cannot get on without healthy personnel. It has to be as healthy as it can be made to be. When a man arrives in the Army he has to be made healthy and has to be maintained healthy. Steps are taken in order to keep him healthy in the field.
    1960
    There are certain definite points which we see which show we are reacting to modern ideas. There is the large increase in women medical officers in the Army. There is a considerable amount of questioning, especially among the women doctors outside the Army, as to whether they are given the proper position inasmuch as they are not given the same commissions as other medical officers in the Army but receive general commissions. I will not go into that, because it is under active consideration by the War Office and the Central Medical War Committee, of which I am a member. We shall be meeting to-morrow on the subject. On the whole the Army Medical Service has gone ahead in recruiting and making good use of these women doctors and also in establishing their position by creating an extra division of the War Office, with a woman colonel at their head.
    There are other more technical points on which we want to hear definite evidence about their advantage. There are the troops about whom we have been hearing fighting on these eight different fronts, facing all sorts of dangers and troubles. To what extent have they suffered? We do not hear, we cannot tell, except by general it formation, by letters and correspondence of our own, and from particular technical journals. There has been remarkably little sickness over and above what is inevitable. A great deal of that evidence is attributable to the anti-toxin which is prepared by the Army Medical Service There is a great difference between this result and that of those Italians and those Greeks with whom we have been able to exchange experiences. As regards enteric, there have been, I believe, very few cases among the inoculated; they were far more among the Italians in Libya. As regards tetanus, I believe that most people in the House do not recognise the appalling danger to the wounded if they get infected. As a result of our tetanus inoculation, I believe we have only had two mild cases in the whole of our services amongst the inoculated. The difference that this creates was particularly noted. In the Greek hospitals there was a large amount among the Italian and Greek wounded. That ought to be borne in mind. I want to refer to the way in which the Army generally have had their eyes opened to the effects of the

    1961
    deficiency diseases. A remarkable series of nutritional scales has had to be worked out, and I believe that no less than 100 different specialised rations have had to be prepared to meet the different races among our troops: Cypriots, Indians, and so forth.
    One particular point which I wish to raise is the difficulty of dealing with the subject of psycho-neurosis. Among ordinary people—and this applies to the Army, as well as elsewhere—that is regarded as a minor factor; but I believe that of cases invalided out of the Army at home, no less than 15 per cent. are due to these psycho-neuroses. These cases are people of less stable mentality who have been whipped up into the Army, and who are a constant nuisance not only to themselves, but to the units in which they serve, until they are cast out. A great deal more attention has been paid to this subject in the German Army than in our own. The difficulty which we experience is that there are not enough people who have gone through the schools of psycho-neurotic work and who have sufficient common sense to be useful. The Army has taken on some of the best of them, and they are helpful; but a great deal more requires to be done. I am told that the higher appointments in the German army, not only in the medical service but in the rest of that army, are made on the findings of the psycho-neurotic advisers; and that is the reason why the German army is commanded by young, promising, active, able heads and chiefs. This science of the understanding of psychology must go a great deal further before we can make proper use of the human material submitted to us.
    There is no time for me to deal with all the other points that I should have liked to raise, but there is one question, which has been raised at Question Time, concerning the number of men who are taken from civil practice in order to fill the ranks in the Services, and especially in the Army. The Services were asked some time ago to see whether they could not modify their demands for more men. They have done a good deal in response, and we appreciate their difficulty. But I am not sure whether more could not be done, especially in regard to Service hospitals. There are several different sets of hospitals: one for the Army; another for the Navy; and, I think, one or two for
    1962
    the Air Force; hospitals under the Ministry of Pensions; hospitals under the Ministry of Health; Emergency Medical Service hospitals; and ordinary civil hospitals. I do not believe that this is a proper economical way of going on. We cannot make such big, radical changes in the middle of a war as we would wish; but we can prepare for them, and in the meantime we can co-ordinate. What is more important is the question of these men who have been dug out from private practice, whose work has to be carried on by older men and by disabled men. Are these men being properly used? When I first started as a civil surgeon, 42 years ago, in the South African War, no education in military duties was provided. Now in three weeks at the depot every civil practitioner, on being called up, is taught the very things that one wanted to know, and that one never learned, either in hospitals or in private life. Men go through this course and then have a week in the Army School of Hygiene. I assure the House that the demands of the Fighting Services have denuded, and are denuding, the civil medical service to an alarming extent. So far we have not suffered seriously from epidemic disease, but there may come a great demand for civil doctors, especially in the event of invasion.
    I will end up on that point. The Army have organised the Home Guard. What have they done in the way of providing medical services for the Home Guard? I believe that the British Medical Association did offer the services of the profession, in a general kind of way, to the Home Guard; but they want some kind of organisation. There is an organisation, very much in skeleton form, in one or two areas. The thing can be done. What is wanted is not the appointment of medical men to be trained with the Home Guard, because these doctors have their own civil work going on at the same time; but they want to know what demands are likely to be made on them and what occasions they are likely to be required. They want a large number of first-aid posts, rest houses, and so on marked off.
    I should like to end by asking the Secretary of State for War to look into the future of the medical service of the Army; because I believe that if every lad and lass is to have a year's military training as an essential part of their

    1963
    education, the Army medical service will play one of the largest parts in introducing the young adult to the ideal life, mental, vocational and spiritual as well as physical, and preparing him to advance the defence of his country if necessary, and to take his part in all the other things to which we hope to return in time of peace.
    Dr. Haden Guest: I want to say how very delighted I was at being able to hear a survey from the Secretary of State for War of the military situation which one can say, in general, is of such a very satisfactory character. When we look at the series of military operations in perspective, and contrast what was happening at the beginning of the war with what is happening now, despite the fact that the war has spread over a very much wider area—and I believe it will spread over a much wider area—the result must be regarded as very satisfactory. I believe we have nothing to fear, except, of course, deaths and wounds.
    The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) raised the question of the allocation of medical personnel, but I feel that I must first say something with regard to the slanderous accusations which were recently made with regard to the women's Services. For over a year I was on the medical staff of a command and my principal job, among many other jobs, was to deal with everything that had to do with the medical side of the women's Service in that command. As regards accusations which are made about parts of the Service, I do not say, speaking generally, that all the women in the Services are complete angels. In fact some of them are rather like their brothers, but on the whole, and, by and large, to the extent of about 99·5 per cent., the women in the Services in my experience have an extremely high standard of conduct in every way. It is unfair that those who do not know and who speak from outside experience should make jeering and very scandalous references to the women of the Services. I worked with them and I had them working with me as clerks and assistants, and as expert advisers on many points on which they were very expert indeed, and everyone who has had that experience realises that they are just the women of our race doing
    1964
    a fine job, and it is not fair to speak ill of them as has been done.
    Having said that, I want to get on to the question of the medical services and the allocation of medical man-power as between the Army, which takes the largest number of doctors, both men and women, the emergency medical service, which takes a far larger number, and the civilian medical practitioners in the country as well as those doing ordinary hospital work. One realises that the intelligence tests to which the Secretary of State referred and which are now such an important part of the Army machinery for grading men and putting them to the service in which they can best be used—an enormously important matter—are, fundamentally, based on medical knowledge and require medical direction and are carried out to a very large extent in association with the medical branch of the Service.
    I would like to reinforce what the hon. Member for St. Albans has said, that there is a wrong idea about as to the function of the medical services. Some people seem to think that the business of the doctors in the medical services is to look after the sick and the wounded and that that is all. Far and away the most important function of the medical service is to look after the physical welfare and the well-being of the men in their unit, to see that they keep well and that the conditions of their lives, in every possible way, are as good as they can be. Anyone who has seen any active service knows that in a unit the commanding officer relies to a very large extent upon the medical officer with regard to maintaining not only the health but the morale of the men. He has, in that aspect, a very important function. But, even with regard to doctors who are waiting for casualties, one sometimes hears complaints, both in hospitals and from medical officers who are attached to units, that they have enough to do.
    I had an experience in that respect which I will relate to the House. I had gone out to France in May, 1940, for the purpose of looking into the medical services and seeing what they were like, with a view to making use of the information in this House at a later date. I found, on going to one unit which was on the then Belgian frontier, that the medical officer was in a state of suppressed fury. He told me what a very large practice he

    1965
    had somewhere in the Midlands and how he had nothing whatever to do in the wretched battalion with which he was associated just north of Arras, and how he thought that he would have no more work to do at all. I remained in Arras for two days after that and on the second day after that interview I was awakened by a certain number of bombs exploding close by an aerodrome. It was the beginning of Hitler's offensive. The medical officer who had been complaining that he had nothing whatever to do, no doubt went through the whole of the retreat to Dunkirk and the evacuation from Dunkirk, and no doubt acquitted himself like a gallant gentleman; and he certainly in those circumstances could not complain of lack of work. I mention that because it is essential in the Army that at all times there shall be men ready to take up work when the emergency comes. As we know, the emergency has not yet come in this country. We shall be extremely and unusually lucky if we do not require to have Army units in action in this country before the war is, perhaps, very much older.
    The Army requires very large numbers of medical men, and so does the Navy, though not so many, and the Air Force, and some time ago a committee was set up under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, known as the Shakespeare Committee. It consisted of a number of distinguished medical men representing the civilian medical profession, and of one representative each of the Army, the Royal Air Force, and the Royal Navy. It was appointed to determine how the medical man-power in the country should be allocated as between the Services, the Emergency Medical Services and the civilian practitioners. The Committee has done a valuable work and reported, and I hope that the Under-Secretary in his reply will be able to give us more information about that Committee and the valuable work that it has done. There is in fact—and I hope that this will be confirmed by the Minister in his reply—no real shortage of medical personnel in the country. It is only a question of the allocation. The Army has enough people at the present time, although it is constantly requiring more, and so have the other two Services, and it is really a question of seeing, as the hon. Member for St. Albans rightly pointed out,
    1966
    that the civilian medical practitioners are not too much reduced in numbers, so as to be unable to give adequate attention to the civil population. I believe that the Shakespeare Committee will have indicated in its report the lines on which that allocation of medical personnel should proceed. The Ministry of Health has, at the instance of this Committee, recently sent out a circular to the emergency war hospitals which provide most of the medical services, asking them to reduce their staffs because it is thought that those staffs are too big. That, I think, will have to be done. It is a very important point and I hope we shall have more information about it.
    Also, of course, as a result of the findings of this Committee regional committees have been set up to deal with the matter in great detail and especially the vexed question of allocation as between hospitals occupying men full-time and occupying men part-time. On this point I want, particularly, to ask whether it is necessary to keep the Shakespeare Committee in being as a kind of court of appeal? As a fact-finding committee it has done valuable work but why should that Committee be maintained as an executive authority to decide upon the allocation of medical man-power? There is in the Services already, all the executive authority which is required and I suggest that if the Shakespeare Committee is maintained—and I have nothing against it; it is an admirable Committee—it will be only a fifth wheel to the coach. What I am aiming at is an increase in the efficiency of the organisation with regard to the medical services of the country in general, and also that allocation, in future, along the lines suggested by the Shakespeare Committee, should be made the business of the heads of the various Services. It should be the business of the head of the Emergency Medical Service, the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, Dr. Anderson, Secretary of the Medical War Committee and representatives of the ordinary medical practitioners in the country, under the chairmanship of an independent non-medical person.
    If that body is constituted as I have suggested—and I believe it would recommend itself to the Services—you would have in the hands of that committee or council, whatever you like to call it, all

    1967
    the necessary knowledge with regard to the needs of the Services. There would be the knowledge of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Emergency Medical Services, medical officers of health and private medical practitioners and you would have, not only knowledge of their needs but executive authority to allocate and use the men and women concerned. I believe that would be a valuable improvement in organisation. Undoubtedly, it will become more and more necessary for us to economise, as the Minister said, in every possible way. Any economy which can help to do away with correspondence, the use of paper and the unnecessary expenditure of time would be of enormous advantage. These men I have suggested, if grouped into a committee, would be able to deal with the whole medical organisation of the Services and the civilian community. The constitution of such a committee would be a considerable improvement on existing circumstances and our war effort would move with greater rapidity.
    Captain Gadfrey Nicholson: I would like to refer for a moment to something which was said by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin). He criticised most severely the method of selecting candidates for Officer Cadet Training Units. Well, my experience of the Army during the past two and a half years has not been the same as that of his informants. I have been instrumental in putting up for these units, the names of men quite half of whom did not come from public schools and, as far as I know, almost every man I recommended to my commanding officer was selected. I think the hon. Member's speech will be mischievous in effect, and will give an inaccurate impression of the true facts; and I hope that, on further investigation and consideration, he will feel disposed to withdraw something of what he has said.
    I shall not refer to the speeches made by the two distinguished doctors who have preceded me. I have no medical knowledge and, therefore, I have no wish to criticise but I would like to say something about the speech of the Secretary of State. It was a good speech, full of interesting matter. I was particularly interested in his appreciation of the importance and significance of the lack of what might be called the experimental laboratory we had
    1968
    in France during the last war for the training of troops. In training in this country the Home Forces suffer exceedingly because they have nowhere to "try out" training, close at hand. In that connection I would like to stress the anxiety which many besides myself feel, namely, that we are not adequately using the experience of those who have learned something about modern war in the Near and Far East. I was interested, too, in what my right hon. and gallant Friend told the House about the British share in the fighting which has taken place, and I would like to add that it is only right that some steps should be taken to bring out the specifically English share. I believe the whole Empire suffers because of the lack of mention of English troops—[HON MEMBERS: "British."] No, I am particularly referring to English troops. Scottish troops are picturesquely garbed, they make odd noises and they are very fine soldiers, but I maintain that English troops are second to none in the world. I would sooner fight with English troops than any other troops in the world. It is not a question of sentimental justice; real harm has been done to the British cause by the failure to point out that English troops do the predominant amount of fighting. I would like also to refer to the Beveridge Report and stress my conviction that it deserves particular study.
    But the speech of the Secretary of State in general was beside the point. He either dealt with past events or with administrative questions. But this is a moment when people are seriously worried about the Army. They feel that the British Army will play a key part in winning the war for us. They are not worried about administration—except for the fact that the Army is over-administered and that administrative powers are not devolved down to junior formations and ranks much more than they are at present. I know that many questions which cause anxiety cannot be dealt with in public but some can, notably the two main questions with which my right hon. and gallant Friend hardly dealt. First, there is the question of equipment, and, secondly, and above all, the question of training. The Minister made no mention whatever of our methods of training or of his confidence in our methods of training.
    I will give one example only, and I think the Under-Secretary would interest the House and the country if he dealt with

    1969
    it. It is this. Are the higher ranks in the Army—and I am making no charges or implications—satisfied about air co-operation? In particular, the amount of air co-operation available for training? That is the sort of question that the Secretary of State, in my humble submission, ought to have dealt with in his speech. My right hon. and gallant Friend has very great responsibilities. He is responsible for the British soldier, and nothing is too good for the British soldier. I am old-fashioned enough to be firmly convinced that the British soldier is far superior to any other soldier as a fighting man, and I am certain the British soldier is conscious of that, too; but if the Secretary of State devotes more than a very small part of his time and activity to questions of administration, questions of the past, questions of personalities, he is not being true to his trust. He is primarily responsible for providing the British soldier with the training he deserves, the equipment he deserves, and the leadership he deserves. I very much regret that he did not touch on those subjects in his speech. As a representative of the Army in the House, I conclude by saying that the British Army, I am convinced, will not fail this country. Once again, as in the past, it will snatch victory out of apparently adverse circumstances; once again it will save this country, and once again civilisation will survive, thanks to the British soldier.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: After listening to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State introducing the Estimates, I am inclined to offer congratulations to him on a workmanlike speech. Although I may have appeared unfriendly in making two interjections in that speech, I want to say quite frankly that even the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's worst enemies—and I include some of those who have written books dealing with him and the job he held so brilliantly for his party when he was Chief Whip—could not help paying a tribute to him for the way he has spoken on the Estimates.
    Many aspects of the Beveridge Committee's Report have been referred to, and I think we can reasonably expect a full day's Debate on that report at a later stage. The report proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the War Office have failed to exercise such scrutiny of its man-power as would enable that man-power to be
    1970
    utilised effectively in the best manner. As we have already been informed, the report deals almost exclusively with the non-use of skilled men in engineering and kindred trades. There is no suggestion in the report that the men referred to are shirking their duties in any way, shape, or form. The criticism is that the men have special qualifications that are not being utilised—that is all—and that they are not being utilised at the time when there is a widespread demand for men with those particular qualifications.
    I want to call attention to some other aspects of a more deplorable and inexcusable waste of man-power. The "Star" newspaper—and I make no apology for mentioning that newspaper—has performed, during the last few days, a useful service by calling attention to the vast number of fit men in the Army who are really what they rightly describe as toy soldiers. These men add nothing to the fighting strength of the Army, and in fact they do little, if any, regular training as fighting soldiers. With great respect, I maintain that in the main they perform jobs which could adequately and efficiently be done by women, boys and older men. Far too many of these men are being given commissions on entering the Army. They do not pass through an Officer Cadet Training Unit or have special training, and yet they seem to obtain very rapid promotion. I refer in particular to welfare officers, who come under what is called the A.W.2 Department of the War Office. These men with commissioned rank are strutting about like peacocks, and some of them hold very high ranks indeed. They are favoured people who are relatively useless to the Army, and their presence in the Army is liable to cause discontent among genuine soldiers. Their presence undermines, rather than stimulates, morale in the Fighting Services and training battalions. When I think of what is being endured by our lads in the Middle East—where I served in the last war—in Burma and in the far-flung battle-line, I say without hesitation it is inexcusable that we should have so many of these men strutting about to-day.
    I have taken a special, if not a personal, interest in the entertainment side of the Army, and I have found considerable pleasure in doing so as a civilian. I wish to say quite frankly that I am in favour

    1971
    of providing reasonable facilities for entertainment of a wholesome kind, and I am in favour of encouraging the soldiers in their different units and war stations to help in entertaining themselves. I notice that the Under-Secretary agrees with me, but I would point out that when teams of professional entertainers are introduced into some of these depots you destroy the impetus which is required to get amateurs to take an interest in the question. By the formation of their own concert parties and bands, much good has been done, but I am afraid that amateur entertainment is being neglected by the Welfare Department. I say that from my own personal contact with various Army depots, camps, units and brigades. The "Star," supported by a volume of evidence, has, in the last few days, disclosed a state of affairs which cannot be tolerated any longer. They have given cases of dance bands playing day after day and night after night in cabarets, dance halls and music halls, and, in some cases, in night clubs, and I would particularly draw attention to the fact that this entertainment is purely for civilian audiences. These bandsmen are in uniform and are clothed, fed and maintained by the State, and their wives and families are receiving the usual Army allowances and pay, and yet they are allowed to receive substantial fees from vested interests in the music halls, night clubs and cabarets. There is no doubt that the greater part of their time is spent in working for civilian employers. One organisation says in its report:
    "The company to which I refer has been serving soldiers and training soldiers in Scotland for the past 12 months. This party has been going about for nearly a year and has been seen at nearly all the most important theatres in Scotland."
    To call these men soldiers is simply grotesque. I have been told that the head of the Army welfare has complained that the Army requires a greater volume of entertainment than it is now getting. I have no doubt about that. The Army needs far more entertainment. When I have asked Questions in the House I have been told that the welfare officers report, in the specific areas to which I have referred, that everything is all right, but, if the General wants more entertainment for the troops why does he without protest permit these Army dance bands and concert parties and soldier artistes to appear
    1972
    before civilian audiences night after night in every part of the country instead of utilising their services, as he could do, to entertain the troops? I have some of last week's bills. These are not the old-time military bands which could do a job of work, say, in connection with War Weapons Weeks. They are jazz bands and concert parties. Here is one that had a week's engagement at Preston. They call themselves the "Tigers." Another is called the "Tam o'shanters." Little did I think I should find that the racketeers had organised themselves into a concert party, but I find that they are associated with an Army regiment, and they are making a good thing out of it because they are likely to get £150 for a week's engagement, so it is a very good racket indeed.
    To offer the explanation that these artistes are on a week's leave is pure nonsense. If they are on a week's leave, how in heaven's name do they come to be on a week's leave each week for month after month? It is perpetual leave that they are on. There are people appearing in the West End of London this very week. We have been told in the gossip columns that they are in the Army, but they are not in the Army like some of us were in the last war, when we were two or three years away from home without a day's leave. We were glad to entertain our pals and do what we could to stimulate the morale of those around us, but these people, week after week, all the time, are entertaining civilians in the West End. A more alarming state of affairs is that theatrical agents are sending to managers lists of dates on which some of these military parties are free to accept engagements for civilian entertainment. According to official statements, many of these artistes have been enlisted into the Army and employed solely for entertaining the troops.
    If this be so, I would ask why they are given frequent leave to appear in music halls at certain intervals. I would also ask what social and vested influences there are behind these arrangements, and I would like to know why certain of the big organisations in the entertainment world and well-known managers are able to influence leave with such regularity for these big names in the music-hall world. Why are groups of men recruited to certain units and relieved week after week from their ordinary military duties? Why

    1973
    do they not, like some of our lads, appear on the parade ground morning after morning? Why do they not, like some of us had to do in the last war, do sentry and picket duty night after night? Why are they subject to such favouritism and privileges?
    These are questions which the general public are asking and they have a right to know who is behind it. If General Willans is responsible, let us have him before a Select Committee so that he can show how this racket is being run. It is a misuse of man-power and deserves the fullest investigation. Some time ago the House was informed, following the setting up of a Departmental Committee, that the National Service Entertainments Board would co-ordinate a scheme for Service entertainments generally. Is this Board carrying out its duties? I believe that it has had one meeting, but has it met since? Has Lord May, the chairman of this Board, taken steps to bring such facts as I have referred to the notice of the Board? Will Lord May provide an answer to this House why the Board is not functioning to-day? I would again remind my right and gallant Friend that I have no vested interest in any form of entertainment organisation other than ordinary amateur drama. In that respect I have a particular regard for many of the organisations that have been doing a fine job of work. Any criticism I may level is in no way directed to amateur theatrical organisations. We have reason to be concerned with what Lord May should have been doing and has not been doing. While entertainment may be playing only a minor part in this war, it undoubtedly indicates a regrettable waste of man-power when we find such abuses, which are fairly obvious to anyone in almost every town and city. I appeal to the Minister to convert these toy soldiers into real soldiers without delay. They bring discredit on the Army, they disturb morale, and they create discontent in the depots because their fellow soldiers say, "You have only to play in somebody's jazz band"—I will not mention names—"and you can be excused everything and can keep on dodging the column." I would ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to examine this matter. The Beveridge Committee may have overlooked it. It concerns many thousands of men, and he will be doing a
    1974
    useful job of work if he thoroughly examines the whole situation.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: Last week I raised the question of better conditions for soldiers, and because I made a comparison between the pay of our soldiers and those of other countries who are over here I was told by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for War, in somewhat sepulchral tones, that I was doing a disservice to the Army. On the other hand, he said practically in the same breath that the "rates of pay must be governed by the conditions of the country in which they are paid," and a little later he said:
    "It is right, and I would not quarrel for a moment with the argument, that the rate of pay for our Forces should be related as far as possible to the rates of pay and of wages of every other man and woman in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1942; col. 1491, Vol. 377.]
    That all seems very strange to me, because the suggestion which I made and which the Under-Secretary said was a disservice would, if it were adopted, cost the country 2s. 6d. extra per soldier per day, but the argument which the Parliamentary Secretary said was right might cost the country anything between 7s. 6d. to 15s. extra per soldier per day.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): I must say that I said nothing of the kind. I said that the wages of those in the Services must bear a relation to the wages of industrial workers, and that must be taken into account.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: In that case perhaps I may be allowed to repeat what the Parliamentary Secretary did say:
    "It is right, and I would not quarrel for a moment with the argument, that the rate of pay for our Forces should be related as far as possible"
    Sir E. Grigg: Yes.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: That is all I am saying—
    "to the rates of pay and of wages of every other man and woman in this country."
    The only reason why I was quoting that was that in view of the somewhat acrimonious discussion we had on the previous occasion I was hoping that on this occasion we could go along common ground, and therefore I intend to leave out to-day the comparison I made then between our

    1975
    Forces and the Dominion Forces, and shall merely make a comparison between the pay of our soldiers, especially the married ones, and workers in industry. I quote yet again the words that the Under-Secretary used:
    "that the rate of pay in our Forces should be related as far as possible to the rates of pay and wages of every other man and woman in the country."
    I am in complete agreement with that, and I think that many members of this House would also endorse that suggestion if it could be carried out. How could it be carried out? We as a nation would have to do one of three things. Either we should have to bring the standard of living of the civilian worker and his family to the level of the soldier and his family, or vice versa, or find a fair equal medium for both, that is to say the same standard of living for both to be assessed after taking skill and personal risk into consideration. To give an example, an industrial apprentice would be compared with the non-tradesman private, and at the other end of the scale a highly-skilled workman would approach the category, possibly, of a sergeant parachutist. Following that, it would be necessary that every adult civilian, like adults in the Services, should come under military law.
    Mr. Davidson: I notice that the hon. and gallant Member has confined his argument to private soldiers and the relation between their rates of pay and those of industrial workmen. Would he now give us his opinion as to the relation in pay between officers, from the rank of second-lieutenant upwards to that of general, and that of industrial workers?
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: I am following an argument which I used on the last occasion, when I said that I would confine my remarks to the minimum amount of pay in the Army. It is following those remarks that I am basing my approach to-day, and if the hon. Member will allow me to continue on those lines, he will enable me to save some time. It is obvious that what I have suggested and what, I believe, has been suggested on other occasions by Members of this House ought to have been done at the beginning of the war, but its adoption now would not only give some real meaning to the farcical slogan "Equality of sacrifice," but it would
    1976
    nip in the bud that dangerous and growing resentment that is sweeping through the Services, in spite of the denials of the Joint Under-Secretary last week. Since that time I have received innumerable letters on this subject. A great many of those letters have come from responsible people in or connected with the Services. It is interesting to note that though a number of them endorse what was said on that occasion last week about the disparity of pay between our Forces and Dominion Forces, practically every one of the letters says something about the unfairness between civilian and Service pay. I should like to quote one or two paragraphs from a few of the letters. Here is one from a soldier's wife living in Warrington. I naturally take a particular interest in this case because it is from a constituency which I once had the honour to represent. She says:
    "Before my husband volunteered, he was getting between £5 10s. and £6 a week. Now my Army allowance is £3 10s., to keep myself and five children. No wonder we get disheartened when we see our neighbours' wives and children dressed up to perfection, and new carpets going in their homes, when my own carpets are worn out and cannot be replaced. By the time my husband gets his discharge, he will be coming home to bare boards. I hope I have not done too much wrong in writing to you, but I just could not help it."
    Here is an extract from a letter from a number of men of a certain field company. More than 200 men have subscribed to this letter. This is what they say:
    "It is a great source of worry to the soldier that his dependants should have to exist on a miserable pittance from the Government, which should long ago have rationalised civilian and military labour on basic rate."
    You will find the same theme running through most of this correspondence. Here is one from a sergeant parachutist. The paragraph that I had intended to read, now I look at it again, is very true but also very rude, and on second thoughts I do not think I will read it. But towards the end of his letter he says:
    "The Army stands four-square, ready to fight anyone. All we ask is appreciation in a practical way to enable us and our dependants to live on the same standards as our brothers in industry."
    This from a staff sergeant at Aldershot:
    "This 'nest egg' should be retrospective, that is to say, with effect from date of enlistment. To soldiers that have been through Dunkirk, Crete, etc., the knowledge that after

    1977
    two years of war they now have the colossal sum of one guinea, and after another year's hard fighting the sum of £9 odd, cannot by any means be considered gratifying, the more so when we read in the Press of boys of 15 or 16 years of age earning £9 per week."
    I will not weary the House with several others that I had intended to read, but I will convey just one last extract from a letter by an officer in the War Office. This is what he said:
    "Sir Edward Grigg denies the statement of resentment in the Forces with evident rancour, and proudly states that there is nothing wrong with the morale, claiming that he has reports at frequent intervals. Does he really suppose a soldier is so naive as to go to some bumbling old general to say, 'No complaints, Sir,' just as he does to his orderly officer? Who make these cheerful reports? Nobody who really knows his men! I know no one, in three Commands who has ever made such a report to higher authority. The men in the Army are 'browned off.'"
    I think that these extracts all go to show that there is little doubt as to what is likely to be the main problem at home of this Government in the near future. If I am to receive a reply that there is no real dissatisfaction among the troops, if the Government persist in that ostrich habit, I shall have to ask leave through the usual channels, possibly for a Secret Session—as I do not think it would be proper to convey such information in open Session—so that I can convey to the House certain irrefutable serious facts and figures that I have in my possession which will show serious conditions. I am hoping that that may not be necessary, and I am quite willing, after this Debate, to convey this information to the representatives of the War Office.
    If my recollection serves me aright, I think it was in a Debate on man-power—it will be within the recollection of many hon. Members of this House—that the Minister of Labour not long ago said in effect that he did not mind what was earned by industrial workers so long as they produced the goods. So, to-day, civilian workers have a higher standard of spending power than they ever had before. I am not grumbling at that for one moment, but I have yet to hear the Secretary of State for War say, "I do not mind what soldiers earn so long as they win battles." In the meantime the spending power of the ordinary soldier is, I will not say at a pauper's level, but is at anyhow a miserable rate. And the Joint Under-Secretary explains that situation
    1978
    in the same Debate to which I have already referred by saying:
    "Once these rates are raised to a certain point they must affect the rates in time of peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1942; col. 1492, Vol. 377.]
    I somehow feel that that is typical of "the old school-tie" mentality, the mentality that continues to approach our wartime problems in a peace-time manner. That is the kind of mentality that is being such a menace to many Government Departments at the present time, which, I hope and believe, if rumour is right, are at this moment being reconstructed. I could name, and I think I shortly intend to name, 21 other Ministers who are also quite incapable of moving with the times if they are still in office. What does it matter what we do now, so long as it helps us to win the war? We hear a great deal about peace plans. There was the Atlantic Charter. Over the week-end the Foreign Secretary spent time telling us what we were going to do when we got peace. What is the good of making all these peace plans if there is a possibility still that we may lose the war? Yet the spokesman of the War Office says of something that would immensely encourage our fighting men that "once these rates are raised to a certain point, they must affect the rates in time of peace." What a difference to the outlook of the Minister of Labour which I have just quoted. For some reasons if only the Minister of Labour could take the place of the present Secretary of State for War then there might no longer be the necessity for myself and other Members in this House to stand up here time and again and plead the cause of the ordinary soldier, the Cinderella of the Fighting Services, and for so doing only receive in return the kind of insults that were hurled at the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and myself by the spokesman of the War Office on the last occasion when these matters were raised.
    Major Sir Ronald Ross: I cannot regret sufficiently that the hon. and gallant Member has not got what he deserves. I am not quite certain what that would be. There are one or two minor points I wish to raise in connection with these Estimates. None of them are points of any great moment—
    Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order. I really wish to know in what manner the repeated insults and the unwarranted

    1979
    innuendoes which are passed on every occasion on which the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) speaks can be brought to an end, for the credit of this House.
    Sir R. Ross: So far as I am concerned, I have never, to the best of my recollection, alluded to the hon. and gallant Member before. I had not any innuendo in mind, and I did not think that other people had any in mind, as apparently they had. No offensive innuendo was present to my mind, although there was one apparently in other people's minds.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the matter has gone so far, might the House be allowed to hear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in mind?
    Sir R. Ross: I had in my mind a phrase which would not cause offence, but perhaps I did not express it as carefully as I might have done. If I have caused the hon. and gallant Member any offence, I have done my best to remove it, by saying that I regret it, which I do; and I did not think the matter would be taken as seriously as it has been by the serious hon. Members opposite. Now perhaps I might proceed.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the hon. and gallant Member anticipate that the Secretary of State for War will take note of his remarks?
    Sir R. Ross: I hope that all hon. Members will. Unfortunately, I did not quite plumb the minds of some hon. Members opposite. But we will pass from that subject, or perhaps some other storm may start; and that would be very unfortunate.
    As regards the new system for the intake of recruits, it is a very scientific system, and one cannot now come to conclusions as to how it will work out. In theory, it seems to provide great advantages; but hon. Members, particularly those who served in the last war, will remember that there was a very scientific method of demobilisation after the last war. Under that system, the man for whom there was the greatest need was demobilised first, and so on until finally only the poor unskilled labourer, who was generally an infantry man who had gone through many campaigns, was left. That system broke down completely on the human element, because everybody in the Army knew that the poor old fellow who had been fighting for years, even if he
    1980
    was not a very skilled workman, ought to be given a chance to get home early and get on with his job. I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend will bear in mind that the very scientific scheme is sometimes a little impracticable when it neglects the human element.
    There is another point on which people are suffering some disquiet. We have a very small supply of professional soldiers. The senior professional soldier who has been in the Army all his life has a very great advantage over the amateur. Recently a large number of senior Regular soldiers have been removed, I understand, from their active employment because of their age, although I think manly of them were quite capable of carrying on active soldiering. In the case of Marshal Foch, if the present schemes as regards age limits had applied, he would have been dissociated from the French Army a good deal before the last war began; and yet he did very well. When you have not got the constant training of active warfare, which we had in the last war, to bring on the young men, it is not always a sound theory that because a man is young he is good, particularly if he has not behind him the thorough backing and training of a long period of professional service.
    There is another point which arises out of the reorganisation of the infantry as regards the territorial feeling and regimental tradition. I hope that, without interfering with the new scheme, it will be possible, in accordance with the regimental tradition, for association with certain parts of the United Kingdom to be maintained. It is better that Englishmen should serve together and Scotsmen and Welshmen, and even Irishmen. There is one point with regard to Northern Ireland which I would like to mention. I do not know whether it would be possible to allow troops from there to wear some distinctive badge. It is no fault of ours that the Military Service Acts do not apply to Northern Ireland because we are actually the only country in the Kingdom who did not give a vote against military service. I suppose that is why everybody else decided that we should not have it ourselves. At any rate, every one in Ulster is a volunteer, and it would be rather nice to have a little red band on the shoulder or something of that sort. I do not know whether that is practicable.

    1981
    I speak with profound conviction regarding the Adjutant-General's branch, but I wonder whether a small reform could possibly be brought about? A limit ought to be put upon the use of the word "forthwith." If the General Staff had mastered the art of surprise to the same extent as the Adjutant-General has mastered it, we would win all our wars. When officers or anybody else get a direction to go somewhere they are always told to "go forthwith." If the Army Council could suggest a slight lessening of the use of the word "forthwith" it would be received with great enthusiasm by the troops.
    There is one last thing I want to bring up, and it is connected with the medical side of the Army. When officers or other ranks become ill, it has to be decided whether the illness is due to their military service or not. On practically every occasion when there is the slightest doubt it is decided that it is their own fault, because the kind of diseases to which one is liable when wearing a khaki jacket and to which one is not liable when wearing a black jacket are very few. In workmen's compensation cases, for example, if a workman has an illness contracted through injury, he comes before the impartial tribunal but not so the soldier and the officer. The matter is taken to the War Office and is decided by the War Office, which is an interested party. The War Office then, with intense regret, notifies the soldier or officer that disability cannot be held to be due to war service.
    I am not trying to bring up a past case, although there was a past case which nobody knew more about than I, where the doctors who dealt with the individual were not even consulted. Moreover, the conclusion was not arrived at until four months after the event and it was in the teeth of the evidence of all the doctors. Cannot something be done about that sort of thing? It all arises out of one paragraph, loosely drafted, to the effect that there must be some specific feature of the case which makes it apparent that the disability was due to service and that it was not due to a cold which one might get in the ordinary course of business, if one was a civilian. This is being applied at the present time with the utmost harshness to other ranks and officers. There is still a sort of idea in the back of the minds of some of the high military authorities that officers are a wealthy class. Well, they
    1982
    are not. They have very little to come and go on and when, after they have had to live under military conditions in bad weather, they are thrown out of the Army their pay is stopped and they are put on the unemployed list and have to pay their own medical expenses, I think it is treating them harshly. It is bad enough for other ranks to be treated in this way but they are not treated as badly as officers. So I hope something will be done about the question of disability arising out of an individual's military service. I hope there may be some chance of appealing to a party who is not directly interested; that if such a matter has to be decided by the War Office, they will, at least, consult the medical officers concerned with the case and that a quicker decision than is given now will be made. This is a matter which is of great importance to many individuals.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I reply to the general Debate in order that the House may be able to take the Amendment which is on the Order Paper. I would like to say first how grateful we are to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) for the speech with which he opened the Debate on the statement of my right hon. and gallant Friend. I am sorry he has had to leave the House because I would have liked to have thanked him personally for his speech. It was up to his best traditions and I am sure will be very useful to the Service and the cause for which we are fighting. Nobody could have dealt with the Army in a more sympathetic and generous manner. There were two very important points which he raised—one about the selection of officers and the other the use and importance of infantry at the present time. Before I come to those two questions, which are questions of principle in Army organisation, I should like to deal with some of the smaller points that have been raised in the Debate.
    To begin with, let me say how much I appreciated the tribute which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street paid to the Auxiliary Territorial Service. They have been most unfairly impugned, very serious reflections have been cast on officers and on all ranks, and they are perfectly right in resenting those reflections. I am sure the fact that the House recognises

    1983
    how unfair those reflections were will be a great encouragement to all ranks in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. I also appreciated very much the hon. Member's reference to the Home Guard, the high military value of which, as he knows, we greatly appreciate. As a matter of fact, I gather that the military value of the Home Guard is also highly appreciated by the other Services, for quite recently I heard from a very responsible authority of the answer that was given by a naval rating to the question, "What is the use of the Home Guard?" The naval rating replied, "The Home Guard are most important; they exist to defend this country while the Navy are evacuating the Army." The Home Guard are in splendid fettle, and their spirit has been shown recently by the extraordinarily small number of resignations that took place when compulsion was introduced.
    Mr. Davidson: They are no "pikers."
    Sir E. Grigg: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir E. Makins) raised a point, to which other hon. Members have also referred, concerning co-operation between the Army and the Royal Air Force in training. I can assure hon. Members that co-operation in training began many months ago and was carried on all last year. I should not be speaking sincerely for either of the Services if I said that it has yet reached the degree of co-operation which both Services want, but it is making very good progress, and both Services look for great improvements in the coming year. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) that we in no way dissent from him in our high appreciation of the services of the Royal Army Medical Corps. We owe a great deal to them in the present war. The health of the Army is excellent. I agree with my hon. Friend that the greatest value of the Royal Army Medical Corps is not to cure sickness, but to keep the Army healthy, and that they have certainly done with very good effect. I will not give a detailed answer about the medical service for the Home Guard, for it is very complicated, and it would take some time to describe. It affects the Civil Defence Services as well as the Home Guard. If my hon. Friend wants details on the matter, I shall be glad to supply them. The organisation has taken a little time to
    1984
    work out, but I think it is reaching a high degree of efficiency at the present moment. May I add to what my hon. Friend said about the Royal Army Medical Corps by saying a word or two in praise and gratitude to the nursing sisters? The Army owe an enormous amount to them, and as usual they are maintaining their very high level of service in the present war.
    The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) asked a question about the Shakespeare Committee. I am afraid I am not sufficiently well informed to give him a detailed answer on that matter; but I thought his remarks were very much to the point, and we will bear them in mind in future. I can tell him that although there was a shortage of doctors for the Army last year, priorities were established and we now have sufficient doctors; but we realise the importance of doing our utmost not to starve the civil population of doctors. I think I can best wind up my reference to the medical services by quoting from a recent report from the Adjutant-General on the health of the troops. There is only one feature in which the health of the troops is really not good at the present time, and I think that applies to the whole of this nation. He says that 80 per cent. of the recruits require dental treatment. I am afraid that that is a great weakness in the country at the present time. The good health of the Army extends not only to troops in this country but to troops overseas, and a great deal has been done by the medical services for our troops overseas. The medical authorities report that the health and condition of our oversea troops contrast strongly with that of enemy prisoners, among whom dysentery, typhoid and other diseases are very prevalent.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Farnham (Captain Nicholson) asked about the equipment of the Army. My right hon. and gallant Friend dealt with that in his speech, and I do not think that I can add any more details to what he said. Great as the production of this country has been, equipment is still short of what we require, and naturally the Army ask that the greatest possible effort should be made so that it may be forthcoming. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) and one or two other Members have referred to the Beveridge Report and to examples of the

    1985
    waste of man-power. As there is an Amendment dealing with the waste of man-power, I think that I had better leave a reply on that subject to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, so as not to confuse the Debate by introducing the subjects in two parts of it.
    Mr. Davidson: Surely the Under-Secretary recognises that the Minister himself laid great stress on the utmost use being made of the military personnel now at hand? This question deals with men already in the Service, who are being freed and receive higher rates than other soldiers who are asked to do the ordinary routine work of the Army.
    Sir E. Grigg: I am not in any way derogating from the importance of the subject; I am saying that it will be dealt with by the Amendment, because I understand more speeches are to be made, and, therefore, the Debate is really not completed. I must leave my hon. Friend to deal also with the question of dance bands, a subject upon which I am afraid I am not at the moment very well informed. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) shall certainly be quoted to the Adjutant-General on the question of the use of the word "forthwith."
    Sir R. Ross: Then I hope that the Under-Secretary will quote me anonymously.
    Sir E. Grigg: I will try to subtract the copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT from the Adjutant-General's attention. My hon. and gallant Friend surprised me very much when he said that he is ordered in the Army to "go" forthwith. I spent some time in the Army and I was never told to go anywhere. I was always told to "proceed." I hope the Adjutant-General has not altered the Army terminology.
    Sir R. Ross: Some Members rather resent the foreign language of "proceed."
    Sir E. Grigg: It is an old Army phrase.
    Mr. E. Walkden: It is a new Army we are looking for.
    Sir E. Grigg: I sympathise very much with what my hon. and gallant Friend said, and I agree very much with his remarks about regimental tradition. Certainly no one who has belonged to an
    1986
    infantry regiment is likely to underrate the importance of regimental tradition, which is of many kinds territorial, historical and so on. It is vital to maintain it as part of the esprit de corps of our fighting services, and I welcome what he said. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) returned to the question of pay and allowances, and said that he could quote a number of hard cases. I can only tell him that hard cases should most certainly be brought to the attention of the War Office and that we will most quickly go into them. We are most anxious to deal with hard cases. He must remember that the Advisory Grants Committee helps officers as well as other ranks. Obviously it is impossible to deal with every case under ordinary rates of pay and allowances. There are two points he mentioned, however, which I regret very much. I do not understand why he referred to the Army as the Cinderella of the Services in regard to rates of pay and allowances. The rates of pay and allowances are equalised in the three Services and they are not properly a subject for a Service Minister but a broader question affecting the three Services, and of course affecting the Treasury. I also deprecate what he said in regard to morale. He quoted a letter which came from an officer in the War Office. I am not asking for the name of the officer but I ask whether the letter was signed.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: No, it was not signed, but in the meantime, the officer who wrote it has been in touch with me.
    Sir E. Grigg: If the letter was not signed, how did the hon. Member get into touch with the officer?
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: I said the officer who wrote it got into touch with me.
    Sir E. Grigg: I do not know why an officer who was not prepared to sign his letter should proceed to get into touch with someone to whom he addressed the letter anonymously. I do not wish to carry out any victimising inquiry, but I have some doubts about the value of a letter of that sort.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he was aware who the officer was, he would have no doubts at all.
    Sir E. Grigg: The letter dealt with the question of Army morale, and I should have said that to write such a letter was an improper and unpatriotic thing for the officer concerned to do.
    Hon. Members have spoken about the system of selection of officers. I want to deal with that carefully because it is a matter of the utmost importance, not only to the Army but to the nation. The nation wants to feel that the very best men are being selected for leadership in the Army in this terribly critical war and at this terribly critical moment of the war. I want to say, with all the emphasis at my command, that the Army is not in the least concerned with the origin of the candidates who come up for commissions. It is governed by one resolve only, to pick the best men regardless of their origin or background. I hope I shall be able to establish that we are doing our utmost to secure that result by what I say, in detail, of the existing system.
    Everyone, whatever his background, starts at once with an equal opportunity of promotion to non-commissioned rank. All the time, in the Army, an eye is being kept open for men capable of command and leadership to take non-commissioned rank, and those who show the necessary qualities get promotion very quickly because non-commissioned officers are so badly needed. The first test whether a man is fit for commissioned rank is, obviously, whether he has shown capacity for non-commissioned rank. That a cadet should have held non-commissioned rank is not a sine qua non for being recommended for a cadet training unit, for the very good reason that excellent candidates may be in small units where there are so few N.C.O's that they do not get a chance of promotion to non-commissioned rank. Still, I can say for the Army generally, that promotion to non-commissioned rank is open to a recruit at a very early stage if he shows the capacity. Everyone is on the look out for capacity of that character.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is the hon. Gentleman quite right there? Is there not an Army Council instruction that a candidate for an Officer Cadet Training Unit must have one stripe?
    Sir E. Grigg: That is varied in the case of units where it is difficult to get non-commissioned rank. I have made inquiries on that point and I have received
    1988
    a complete assurance from the Adjutant-General that that condition is not insisted on in units where non-commissioned rank is difficult to attain.
    Mr. E. Walkden: Do not the Engineers, who are particularly referred to in the Beveridge Report, have to receive one stripe before they go to the Officer Training Unit?
    Sir E. Grigg: I think I must ask for notice of that question, but I will find out. There are, however, special reasons in the case of a technical arm of that kind. The conditions applying to non-commissioned rank are not quite the same.
    The next point which has been raised is whether the commanding officer can be trusted to pick the best men and not to overlook good men. We are well aware of that point because all human beings have their idiosyncracies. Commanding officers are changed a good deal so that men get a chance of passing under more than one eye. Nevertheless, we are anxious that the selection should be as discriminating as possible, and lieutenant-colonels have been appointed in every command to go round units to see that the best men are being picked and to look out themselves, so far as they can, for promising men. General officers in all commands are paying special attention to that matter. I would remind hon. Members who have doubts on this point that a soldier who is not satisfied that he is getting justice in this matter has always the soldier's right to apply to the next highest officer. Every soldier has that right in regard to any grievance. If he thinks his nearest commanding officer is not doing him justice he can appeal to his superior officer. That is a valuable right which soldiers ought to make use of. I can say definitely that there is no question of insisting on any special educational attainments in candidates for Officer Cadet Training Units. The whole emphasis is on, and the whole search is for, leadership. That is what we want irrespective of everything else.
    I hope that if I describe the system of selection when once a cadet has been put before a selection board hon. Members will agree that we are doing our utmost to get the best men chosen. The selection boards for personnel have recently been revised, and the members now consist almost entirely of young commanders with recent

    1989
    experience of handling the young intake in infantry training centres and Officer Cadet Training Units. They have had recent experience of the whole Army intake. When a candidate first goes before the selection board he is not interviewed for two days. There are two days during which he goes through special tests before the interview. They are watched by the president of the selection board so that he can get acquainted with the candidates whom he has to interview. He spends two days seeing how they shape under these tests, which are, in the first place, intelligence tests. By intelligence is not meant the possession of a school certificate or anything of that character, but the general intelligence which a soldier requires for work in the Service. The second test is for alertness, quick reactions to events.
    Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman made a strange distinction there. He said the first test was not an intelligence test in the sense of the man having a school leaving certificate. Did he mean that it relates only to technical knowledge, or is it general intelligence?
    Sir E. Grigg: I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the House when the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street suggested that candidates were being selected because they had been to secondary schools or universities, because that is the point I was meeting. The test here is not a test of educational attainments but of general all-round quickness of mind in a soldier's duties.
    Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman speaks of general intelligence in a soldier's duties. Those are not the same qualifications. Is it a general intelligence test? Is it a test designed to show the man's intelligence or is it a specialised test? I am not concerned with the other point referred to.
    Sir E. Grigg: I do not know what the hon. Member means by the distinction between a general test and a specialised test. I say it is a test of general intelligence which does not require to be backed up by school certificates or educational qualifications.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Surely if a high level of education does not accompany a correspondingly high level of
    1990
    intelligence, it is time to scrap our educational system?
    Sir E. Grigg: Thai is not a question for the War Office. I hope I have succeeded in making clear the purpose of the intelligence test. The second test is for alertness and quick reaction to events. The third test is of personality, the power to inspire confidence. The fourth test, the hardest of all, is a test of toughness of fibre, moral and physical, and it is being carried out by trained psychologists. Hon. Members will realise that a man may have all other qualifications but not be of a type to stand up to the actual conditions of battle. Everybody who has been in a battle knows of such cases, and medical Members in particular will appreciate the importance of this test. It is being carried out by trained men to make sure that these candidates will be able to sustain their warlike capabilities in the stress of battle. These tests are being slowly introduced. We have been slow in introducing them for a special reason. They have been in use in the German Army and in the American Army for some time, but we are not Germans or Americans, and we were not sure that the tests of other nations might prove applicable to our own people. We have therefore been carefully testing the tests, and it is only now, when we are satisfied that we have got the right tests by very considerable experience, that we are applying them generally.
    I agree, of course, with hon. Members who have said that there is still one supreme test lacking, the test of battle. That is the great difficulty which our Army has faced in this war more than in the last war. As my right hon. Friend said, in the last war it was usually possible for formations of units to go into the line to be shot over and to get somewhat acclimatised and experienced in active service conditions before they got into violent fighting. Now units are thrown straight into the mill, and, as we have recently experienced in Malaya, thrown against veteran enemies with years of battle service behind them. It is a hard test of morale and training but I have no doubt that we shall overcome the difficulty.
    Captain Nicholson: Is the War Office paying attention to getting people back from the Middle East who have actual fighting experience?
    Sir E. Grigg: We are constantly getting them here from the Middle East as well as from other battle areas. Commanders of all ranks are loud in their praise of young officers who are coming into the Army and they pay high tribute to their qualities. I do not think that hon. Members will be able to say to-day that the possession of an old school tie is of particular advantage. I do not think it ought to be a disadvantage, but it is almost becoming that to-day. In the intake of officers up to October, there were 24 per cent. from some 100 schools which are labelled as public schools and 76 per cent. from all the other schools and educational establishments in the country, secondary, elementary and all the rest of them. Of the 76 per cent., only 9 per cent. had had a university education. The net is therefore being thrown very wide.
    It may interest hon. Members to have the figures for a test of leadership made last October as between those two classes. Candidates were, after considerable testing, separated into four classes—outstanding qualities of leadership, above the average, average and below the average. For outstanding qualities of leadership the public schools came out with 6 per cent. and the rest had 5½ per cent. In Grade B, that is, qualities above the average, there were 33 per cent. from public schools and 34½ from the rest. It therefore works out that for the highest classes 39 per cent. were from the public schools and 40 per cent. from the rest. For the average grades, the test showed 47 per cent. from the public schools and 43 per cent. from the rest, while for below the average, the percentage was 14 from the public schools and 17 from the rest. Hon. Members will notice that the difference between public schools and the rest in each of the four classes is very small indeed. It was a very fair cross test, and shows what is being done at the present moment.
    I should like to say a word about the next grade of officer, those who go to the Staff College, and qualify for staff appointments. They may not all go to the Staff, but they take the Staff College training. The average age is about 30 years, and the number of Territorial officers about equals the number of officers in the Regular Army. The commandant and others say that in quality the students at the Staff College are of very high grade
    1992
    indeed. These are the reasons for having confidence in the selection of officers at the present time. I have given the House all the details possible at the present time of how the selection is made. Hon. Members will realise how much care and thought has been given to trying to get the best system of selection. They may remember that any system of selection, apart from that of piling up marks, which is quite impossible when you are trying to arrive at leaders, is always open to the charge of bias and favouritism.
    It is the great disadvantage of board selection; everybody knows it, and there always will be hard cases. There always will be large numbers of candidates, or parents of candidates, who believe that they or their sons have been turned down for reasons which are not the real reasons. All I can say is that there, are no means of overcoming that, but, if hon. Members have cases in which they suspect hardship or bias, I hope they will send them to one of the Ministers at the War Office. They are always glad to investigate cases of that kind. I have investigated a good many, and I think I have been able to satisfy those concerned that there has been no real cause of complaint. When the facts have been stated they have begun to realise it. Very few people realise how tremendously keen the competition is at the present moment, and how hard it is to qualify. Competition is acute and there always will be cases of dissatisfaction; but I can say on behalf of my right hon. and gallant Friend, my colleagues and myself that if these cases are brought to our notice we shall be only too glad to investigate them, because we are most deeply anxious that there should be no shadow of suspicion of favouritism about the way in which leaders are chosen for the Army.
    Mr. Lipson: Is any record kept of the questions put to candidates at interviews?
    Sir E. Grigg: I will inquire about that. The object of the questions, as I pointed out, is to try and get the candidate to talk and to express himself and his own personality. The interview really is not a very important business; the other tests are important. But that is the only way in which a board can work. It is no use cross-examining the candidate. You get nothing by that means. You have to try and find out what the man is like,

    1993
    and the way to do it is to get him to talk himself. As a matter of fact, there are two questions which, the House will no doubt be interested to know, the Adjutant-General has ruled out of order. One is, "How much money have you got?" and the other is "How much money has your father got?" Those two have been completely ruled out.
    Dr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me for asking whether he will say a word about officers who, after having passed the tests and having been selected as officers, have been badly reported upon, removed from officership and sent back into civil life? I have submitted a case to the War Office in which everything showed that the man in question had been a good officer, doing very good work, but was unpopular with the commanding officer of his regiment. I would like him to say a word about that.
    Sir E. Grigg: Obviously I cannot answer now for individual cases, but in principle it must be possible. No system produces 100 per cent. of the right men, and the Army must have the right of rejecting officers who are found, after further trial, not to be capable of command. As a question of principle, there is no question whatever of favouritism in regard to this matter, and my hon. Friend should remember that every case in which an officer, having been unfavourably reported upon and called upon to resign his commission, appeals against the decision, is personally investigated by three members of the Army Council. Their examination is pretty thorough and complete.
    Dr. Morgan: But is the person concerned interviewed by the members of the Army Council, or is it only on paper?
    Sir E. Grigg: I am surprised the hon. Member does not know; I think I have told him.
    Dr. Morgan: No.
    Sir E. Grigg: Every officer has the right to see the Military Secretary or his representative. I know many cases in which officers have seen the Military Secretary, and although the decision may not have been altered, they have been satisfied that their case has been fairly considered. I think that the hon. Member has some case in mind about which I know nothing, and, of course, I cannot discuss that with him.
    1994
    I am giving him the general principles and practice. If he will send the case to me, I will arrange that it should be looked into.
    Dr. Morgan: I have already submitted it.
    Sir E. Grigg: Then it is being inquired into. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street asked me whether we had as much infantry in the Libyan battle as the Germans and Italians had against us. I am glad he asked that question, because it is very important that the value of infantry in the modern battle should be realised. I welcome the opportunity of saying something on that point. The answer to his special question is this: the number of infantry in the Eighth Army is approximately the same as the number of enemy infantry in Cyrenaica. Probably our numbers were slightly greater than the enemy's with regard to infantry. But it must be remembered that in battles like that of Libya, fought over such distances and with extended communications, neither army can bring into action at any one time all the infantry of which it disposes. Roughly speaking, the infantry force on each side was equal.
    On the general question of infantry I wish to say a word. It is of importance at the present time and because there has been a certain feeling which, I think, has told against the intake of officers for the infantry, or was doing so last year, that the infantry was an obsolete arm, which only soldiers who were looking back to the last war would worry about at all, that what mattered were the specialist corps—Commandos, Armoured Corps and so on, and that the poor old infantry was out of the picture. That is not at all the experience of this war. I want to speak about infantry in this war not because I served in the infantry myself, still less because I would wish to depreciate in any way the immense importance of other Arms, but only because the infantry has been foolishly decried. As a matter of fact, training for the infantry and, especially, training for leadership in the infantry, is the most difficult of all forms of training at the present time. The infantry has the most varied role. Its tasks may change rapidly. It has to cover a very wide variety of ground. Not only that, it has to do more individual fighting by sections, and even by soldiers, than other Arms. Other Arms fight much more

    1995
    in groups, such as the Artillery. The infantry fight in a much more isolated manner, by sections, or even individually. The training of the individual, from the leader down to the smallest unit, may be of the very utmost importance. In fact, I am sure that, apart from one particular junior leader, that is a junior leader of a group of tanks, the infantry leader's task is the most exacting in modern war.
    That is a measure of the importance of infantry. Previous experience is of little help in that training, unless the experience has been very unusual. Candidates have to get down to this training almost from scratch. They have to learn not only the practical use of their weapons, but how to deal rapidly with situations of a much greater variety than other arms have to meet. It is a fact that a single infantryman, isolated, may have a task to carry out in action as vital, and requiring as much courage, individual resource, and determination, as a single fighter pilot in a Hurricane. What I have been saying has been fully borne out by the fighting in Malaya, which has been largely a matter of infantry operations, and where the value of infantry training and leadership has been demonstrated to great advantage. I am sure that in this war, when the other Services have done their utmost—and, as hon. Members know, the closest possible co-operation of all three Services is indispensable—it is the Army which must clinch the issue; and in the Army, when the other Arms have made their contribution, it is the infantry which must occupy, and hold, and stand the hammering. It is the infantry, the oldest of all Arms, which is still the final factor in modern war. The best proof of that is that in Russia the Germans, who relied, to begin with, on their armoured formations, found that when dealing with an army of high morale, like the Russian Army, they could not depend on specialised corps, and that infantry was necessary. They reorganised their armoured divisions, halved the number of tanks, and doubled the number of infantry. That is an example of how infantry counts more and more in this war.
    I wish to say one word more about the morale of the Army, particularly in reference to an extremely doubtful letter which was quoted by the hon. and gallant
    1996
    Member for Marylebone. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked me the other day whether I had ever heard the expression "browned off." I have, as have most people who have ever served in the Army. I agree that there is a certain amount of boredom, as there must always be. It is inevitable, especially when men are not allowed to fight, which, after all, is the main job of an Army. This boredom in the Army is worse towards the end of winter. It disappears very rapidly when the period of large-scale training begins at this time of year. At the end of winter, it is one of our difficulties to overcome this periodic boredom, with which everyone can sympathise. After all, the Army's job is very largely a routine job, whatever variety you may bring in.
    I should therefore like to say a word about the Army Bureau of Current Affairs, which was set up very largely to deal with this trouble. It has arranged that once a week, in training time—to use a business phrase, in office hours—a unit gathers under its officer, and discusses some subject of public interest. The officer is in the chair, not in the pulpit. His business is to start a discussion, and to get the soldiers to give their views. In order that they may have interesting things to discuss, bulletins are issued in alternate weeks—one week, dealing with the war all over the world; and the next week, dealing with home affairs. These bulletins are written by independent authorities. They have proved very popular in the Army and not only here at home but in the Army overseas, which is always asking for larger numbers; and they have been welcomed also by the Canadians and others. If hon. Members are interested in these weekly bulletins, they will find copies of them available in the Library. I shall always be grateful for any comments on them which will help to make them more interesting and valuable. The officers are helped to start these discussions by the Army Education Corps and also by regional committees for adult education, and it is an interesting fact that in the last three months 2,400 officers have attended special courses to fit them for conducting aid starting discussions. The most valuable of all the results, apart from the dissipation of boredom, is the closer touch which it

    1997
    creates between officers and men. It certainly does that. I will give an example of what occurred the other day, when an officer who had been in China for some time started a discussion on China and Chinese domestic life and customs, and so on. They had a very interesting discussion on the subject for some time. That very same evening six of his men who had never been before came to see him with small domestic troubles of their own, asking for his help and advice, which shows that this kind of discussion helps to get men and officers together.
    Mr. Mathers: Are chaplains encouraged to do this kind of work? I know that certain chaplains have done it, but it appears to have been rather on their own initiative. Are they encouraged to do this, because it would give them an opportunity of getting in touch with the men in a way that is not possible by other means?
    Sir E. Grigg: The chaplains are given every encouragement, but they are not encouraged to seek out men belonging to other communions, as it might cause trouble. The most convincing test that I can give the House of the high morale which exists in the Army, despite the effect of the long winter, is the test of absence. Boredom in an Army leads always to a high degree of absenteeism. Soldiers go simply because they cannot stand it any longer; absence is a very good test. There are two main causes. One is home worries, which occur all the time but are worse when air raids are on; and the other is simply boredom with Army life. The latest report, which is a very recent one, says that absenteeism is now down to an extraordinarily low level. It is a small fraction of one per cent. in the Army, and at the present time there is no sign at all of anything but a steady decrease of the little absenteeism that there is. If a unit is warned for service overseas or the moment there is any sign of service overseas, absenteeism disappears. I would like to read to the House the report of a divisional commander on the moral of this question of absence. He says:
    "It is doubtful whether severe punishment (which has been tried) acts as a deterrent in the majority of cases. The best preventive is good, close relationship and understanding between officers and men. As a result of efforts in this direction, the average number of
    1998
    men in the Division absent at any one time has been reduced from 125 to 40 in the past year."
    To have only 40 men absent at a time is rather a remarkable record.
    "The latter figure represents less than one quarter of one per cent. and probably cannot be much further reduced. That this absence does not indicate a lack of fighting morale"—
    and this is the important thing—
    "is shown by the fact that when the division was ordered to mobilise and the men expected immediate orders for overseas, the number of absentees dropped to 12."
    Mr. Bellenger: The other day the hon. Gentleman rather alleged that I was guilty of something treasonable in making a statement about morale. My statement was related to the effect on the Army, and the Services generally, of the lack of attention by this House or the authorities to their just demands for pay and allowances. I have never for one moment suggested that the Army's fighting spirit was any lower than it has ever been. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think for one moment that I consider that the Army's fighting spirit is not good. But in view of what he has just said, it would be interesting if he could say how far the four leaves per year, the renewal of short leaves and the four free travelling warrants per annum have contributed to that fact.
    Sir E. Grigg: I think the leaves have contributed. I am glad to hear that explanation from the hon. Gentleman and, of course, I accept it. Perhaps the other day I turned upon him a little sharply, but it must be remembered that the word "morale" is used all over the world to mean fighting quality and it is dangerous to say that the morale of the Army in this country has been affected by anything in the world, because it has not. If you like, "general dissatisfaction" and so on is all right, but I would deprecate the use of the word "morale," which carries that sense, certainly in other countries.
    I will conclude with only one more testimony to the morale of the Army. I have quoted from a general, now I will quote from an outside authority which cannot be accused of overfriendliness to the Army, namely, the Beveridge Committee. This quotation comes from Appendix B by Mr. F. Pakenham. It is

    1999
    headed, "Outstanding Morale" and says:
    "The angle of this Appendix has necessarily been critical. But seeing that few, if any, civilians have enjoyed during the present war such opportunities as has been afforded us of cross-examining individual soldiers in their units and listening to their stories of misuse, one may be allowed in conclusion to pass outside the strict province of the Committee and respectfully record an abiding recollection of outstanding morale evident up and down the country among all ranks of the British Army."
    I think the House will not wish me to say more than that.

    ECONOMY AND WASTE PREVENTION.
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "in the opinion of this House, the avoidance of waste and a proper economy of resources in the Army are more than ever necessary for the successful conduct of the war."
    The Secretary of State for War to-day referred to his dissatisfaction with many things connected with the war. This House is anxious too that such dissatisfaction as he has, and as other hon. Members have, should be removed at the earliest possible moment. My Amendment deals with economy and the word "economy" has, perhaps, been subject to more misunderstanding than any other word in the vocabulary. In former times it was considered to be a term connected with money, and before the war economy took the form of trying to spend as little money as possible on Army services. To-day that economy of pre-war days has led to the most tragic waste in all history. We are paying in sweat, blood and tears because of false economy in pre-war days in regard to preparations for this war.
    Saving is also a term that is misunderstood. To abstain from spending money on doing things that are necessary is not saving, but the greatest waste. From 1922 onwards, instead of saving being a benefit to this country, it was a great injury. In 1922, the engineers found themselves without work, and from that year to the beginning of this war a whole army of engineers disappeared into other forms of industry, and there has had to be sent out a search party to look for those lost engineers, because they are the first
    2000
    essential of a modern army. To call that economy was the greatest mistake this country has ever made, and I hope that in future, learning from that mistake, we shall not allow that form of economy to come back into the vocabulary.
    The greatest waste that can take place is inefficiency. The Select Committee, of which I am a member, when it started to investigate the question of economy, was brought right up against a dilemma. There is no question that in the realm of money millions of pounds could have been saved if we had been prepared to wait for three months, or six months, or a year, in order to go into questions thoroughly, consider Estimates, check Estimates, and do things in the old ways of peace. But an economy achieved by such means might have meant the loss of millions of lives, it might have meant the defeat of this country. Questions of economy and waste cannot be considered in terms of money. They must be considered in terms of efficiency. If we can shorten the war by one day or one week, we shall save many more millions than are ever likely to be saved by the most rigorous investigation of accounts. Modern war is a war not only of soldiers, but of engineers, and it is impossible to separate engineering from the Army, and make it a question of a civilian occupation and an Army occupation. In the shortage of engineers resulting from the waste in pre-war days, there has naturally been competition between the Army, which requires engineers to use the weapons, and civilian occupations which require engineers to manufacture the weapons. In that scarcity of skilled engineers, there needs to be the utmost economy. That can be achieved only if every man who has engineering skill has his skill used to the utmost, and to use the labour of any engineer in some other occupation is waste of the worst kind in the middle of this war.
    The next point we must face, however, is that the skill of an engineer is completely lost if the material on which he can exercise his skill is absent. If we send tanks and engineers to Libya and do not send the spare parts, neither the engineers nor the tanks there are of any use. It is waste of shipping, waste of skill, waste of money, and waste of life itself, unless all these things are organised in harmony. There must be the tanks, the spares and the men of skill to use

    2001
    them. It has been suggested that in Libya there has been some such waste, and that the Germans, because they foresaw the necessity of having skilled men to repair tanks immediately, had a certain advantage over us in that their tanks which were damaged were replaced in the line far more speedily than was the case with our Army because of a lack of trained men. If that is the case, it indicates one or two points. It takes thousands of man-hours to produce a tank, and if that tank is left out of a battle in Libya, or anywhere else, for the sake of a nut or bolt, it represents the loss of thousands of man-hours, not taking into account shipping and the dangers to that Service and so on. Therefore, I hope that the War Office are cognisant of the importance of the utmost use being made of skilled men. The subject has been dealt with very excellently in the Beveridge Report, and the Minister has said he is going to pay careful attention to it; therefore I shall not pursue the matter.
    I should like to point out, however, that there is a hardship for engineers, because many of these men are capable and might rise to a high rank in the Army. It is because of their skill that they are condemned to act as engineers for the rest of the war, and I hope that their sacrifice will be recognised. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) made comparisons between the wages of workers and those in the Army. I hope the inference that engineers are all making high wages will not be accepted. The skilled engineers, as in the last war, are not receiving high wages. I have been in factories where machines could be erected only by those who had served a long time in engineering and they received half the pay of the men who were to work them. It is really the most skilled who suffer the greatest in the productive field.
    I should like to refer to another piece of waste which is a traditional habit of the Army, that is, putting round pegs into square holes. It is generally accepted that some people in the Army have the idea that when a man has special qualifications he suffers from a swelled head, and that the first thing to do for his own good is to humiliate him. If someone says he is a professor, the person in charge tells him to go to the cookhouse. That may be quite good for the professor, but it is not
    2002
    making the best use of his skill. I hope the new arrangements will see that men are directed to their proper spheres, and that if there is anything psychological, psychologists will deal with it. Let me give an illustration. I had the case of a joiner who before he joined up to serve in the Royal Engineers was a man who had taken charge of War Office contracts in different parts of the country. He went into the Army expecting to do the same sort of work, but he found himself a despatch rider, and nothing he could do within his regiment could alter matters. At the same time there was a young clerk from a sanitary engineer's office who also went into the Royal Engineers. He was a very able boy, and was trained in the most modern forms of building emergency bridges. He had never handled a tool in his life, but Army time was spent in training him to do this work. He was then transferred to another branch of the Royal Engineers to locate mines on the coast. Unfortunately, he was blown to bits, and his life and skill were lost.
    Here we have the case of a man with skill acting as a despatch rider, and a boy having no technical experience doing the other man's job. When I called the attention of the War Office to this case the matter was put right so far as the joiner was concerned, but it illustrates the feeling of frustration which is prevalent among so many skilled men who have to stand by and watch someone else do their job. I had another case of a man who was in a post office wireless reception station. He also, curiously enough, found himself a despatch rider, and he was compelled to go on despatch riding and was not allowed to help to repair wireless apparatus when anything went wrong. In spite of all his knowledge, he had to continue being a despatch rider seeing someone who knew nothing about it trying to mend the machinery.
    Then there is the question of wasting training on unfit men. If a man goes into the Army and is unfit, it is tragic that the Army tries to make him fit and tries to make an expert soldier of a man who has neither the qualities nor the physical capacity required. I had a case of a boy without a thumb on his right hand and whose mother admitted that he was mentally deficient, yet someone classed him A.I. When he came to my notice, he was already in France, and it took me

    2003
    and two Secretaries of State to get him back again. Think of the wastage of Army effort in trying to train a boy of that kind. In another case a man suffered from abnormal feet and could not walk very well. How he got into the Army I do not know, but, once in, they were determined to make a soldier of him. When I left the case seven months ago he had been taken into hospital and they had operated on him, and he was still unable to walk. It is the lack of sense of proportion in regard to these things which causes perturbation among the soldiers and the general public, because they naturally think the Army must be inefficient when it wastes time and effort like that. The 22nd Report of the Select Committee gives examples of this kind of thing.
    "In a sample analysis taken in one Command in December, 1940, of the men discharged for congenial mental defect more than half had over six months' service."
    The Government had spent six months in training and trying to make soldiers of people who were incapable of being soldiers. I welcome the announcement of the psychological tests and the other examinations that are being used to see that men are directed where their services will be of use, and that if necessary they will be kept out of the Army. There are men who would be a menace and not an assistance in the Army, and there is no advantage in adding to numbers unless the numbers have some qualities as well.
    There is waste of other kinds. Men are taken into the Army and classed A1, and in due course it is discovered that they are incapable of being soldiers because something has gone wrong physically, and they are discharged on medical grounds. They then find that the War Office refuse all responsibility for their condition and say that their ailments are due to pre-war conditions. Nothing causes so much irritation among men discharged from the Army, and among the general public, than this idea that a man is passed A1 and is then put out, evidently as C3, gets no pension and is treated as if he had contracted some disease on his own responsibility and is thrown, so to speak, on his own resources. I would ask the Minister to bring this matter to the notice of the Government, because it really is agitating the minds of many Members. It fills their post-bags, and it causes no end of irritation.
    2004
    I welcome also the announcement regarding educational work, but here again I think there is some wastage. In many cases men who hay been trained in civil life to lecture have sometimes to listen to officers who are poor lecturers. If an officer, who may be a good officer, and, in the words of General Wavell, talks very little, starts to talk very much, he may destroy the morale of his regiment by destroying its faith in his capacity to lead, for they might think that if he cannot lecture, he might not be a good officer. It would be far better if officers who were not good at that sort of thing handed the job over to somebody else in the regiment who had the capacity to do it. I would like to quote a letter I had on this subject:
    "I have listened to three lectures given on current affairs by the O.C. from pamphlets supplied to him. Quite frankly they have not been any good. Two of them dealt with the campaign in Libya and the other was on oil. I do not know who is responsible for these pamphlets but I can assure you they do not cause any enthusiasm among the troops, and it is a pity that such a good opportunity is wasted in this way. … Cannot someone give the brass hats a kick in the pants? All they seem concerned about is saluting and blanco-ing. They do not seem to understand there is a war on."
    In regard to blanco-ing, I am informed by experts that it destroys the webbing. It certainly destroys good feeling in the regiment, and a good deal of it could be scrapped with advantage. I received today a letter on the point about sending people to the wrong places. It says that any number of people in the Observer Corps are skilled and that it is impossible for their skill to be used in that Corps. It states that a whole family of electrical engineers are utilised as observers.
    I would like the Financial Secretary to deal with what is being done in the Army to stop waste of material, equipment and petrol. There is a great feeling that many wagons are running about the countryside wearing out the tyres. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with this point, because economy in rubber and petrol is of the utmost importance. There is also a feeling that food is wasted. The waste of food is usually alleged to be caused by bad cooking. The Army has good food, but it is cooked in such a way that men cannot eat it. I am glad that the Army is proceeding with the problem of trying to get good cooks, but I do not see why the

    2005
    A.T.S. should not be used for a good deal of the cooking, because they would do it better than some of the men. Some time ago the Army appointed a Controller-General of economy. Perhaps we can hear whether he has been able to achieve any economies by the cutting down of waste.
    In conclusion, let me pay a layman's tribute to what the Army has done. I happen to know, because of my work upon the Select Committee, some of the handicaps under which the Army has suffered. I do not think the British Army has ever in its history gone into battle with the equipment it ought to have had, and certainly in this war so far our soldiers have never been fighting on anything like an equality with the forces opposing them. We have been short of something—short of men, short of equipment or short of ammunition, or we have not had mechanised units in sufficient numbers compared with the German Army or with other armies, in Malaya or elsewhere. When we consider that in these circumstances our Army has actually won victories I think we have to stand in admiration of the work it has done. It is to be noted, too, that we hear little grumbling from them about it, that they seem to take it for granted that they should never have enough stuff, and that makes it all the more amazing. I hope that this country will not allow that to happen again. Whatever may be the circumstances under which we live after this war, if there is to be an Army I hope that the country will insist that it should be properly equipped and supplied with up-to-date weapons and not starved of any of the mechanical appliances which are necessary to get victory at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. NcNeil: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I should like to preface what criticisms I have to make about the most efficient utilisation of the skilled man-power within the Army by saying that I have at all times found that the Secretary of State for War and his two colleagues have with courtesy and alertness examined any examples of misuse which I have been able to bring to their notice. I think I ought to say that, like every other Member of the House, I clearly realise that with a machine as extensive as it must
    2006
    be for the administration of the Army we cannot expect niceties of judgment and refinements of procedure. But even with these two prefaces I think most people are still pretty starkly uneasy about the utilisation of man-power in the Army. It was proper and just for the Secretary of State for War to pay a generous tribute to his senior officers. It was an extensive and pretty frank survey which he made, but if I may dare say so as a very junior Member, I thought he seemed just a trifle complacent, seeing that he was coming to this House two days after the issue of the Beveridge Report. I think, too, that other hon. Members besides myself were a trifle surprised by the gaps there were in his survey. For example, I wonder what connection there is between the Beveridge Report and the repeated reports we have had that, despite the gallantry and the equipment and the direction of our men in Libya, we did suffer defeat there—what connection there is between this Report and the explanation of that defeat which is being offered here, namely, that our enemies were able to put tanks back on their tracks three times faster than we were able to do it. I hope that the Financial Secretary will deal with that matter, and some of the other gaps that I see in the survey.
    When the Minister of Labour introduced the Maximum Effort Bill two or three months ago he told the House that he was considering the possibility of a certain number of men being trained as dual-purpose soldiers. Since then we have heard nothing about this idea, which I think is of very great importance and very great application. In his very excellent reply the Joint Under-Secretary of State dealt with the Army Bureau of Current Affairs as a method of meeting and countering the browning-off that is felt in the Army. I should not dream of saying otherwise than that is a very important and healthy effort, but surely we might meet some of this boredom, and still have the great advantage of the byproducts of experiments in dual-purpose soldiering. I appreciate the difficulties, but they are not insurmountable. The Secretary of State for War has told us before, and he has told us to-day, of the necessity of maintaining huge Forces here. Here, in this country, is not only the bridge-head of our attack upon Europe, but the citadel of our production. Although I know nothing of military

    2007
    strategy, it must be plain that our Forces in this country will be concentrated in the industrial areas.
    If we could withdraw from this infantry, which has been rightly and properly praised to-day, a certain proportion of the men to our workshops, we could free from our workshops men who could be taught the rudiments of soldiering and the ability to use a rifle. Such dual-purpose soldiers would have some reference to our tank problems that we have been discussing. Speaking recently in this House, the Prime Minister spoke of the saint who refused to accept a good example because it was handed to him by the devil. We cannot refuse to learn lessons which are demonstrated to us by our enemies. Our enemies have offered us several lessons in this matter of dual-purpose soldiery. Will the Joint Under-Secretary tell us whether it is true that the German motorised infantry are all semi-trained men and whether, in the Middle East, these men were used in tank repairs? It is clear that, if a tank is struck, some members of a crew are likely to be disabled for the time being. If there is this supplementary force of infantry who have handled tanks and motors in the workshops, and have had experience in repairing breakdowns and cannibalising parts, such a force assumes a very great value on a battlefield, or, really, after a battle, and before the counterstroke comes.
    The Minister did not fairly meet the point of the Beveridge Report when he spoke about the Royal Engineers. If I might recapitulate the tasks which he said were the job of the Royal Engineers, he mentioned the construction of advanced landing fields for aircraft, restoring water pipes, and making roads. These, quite clearly, are all of one type of engineering, and that type is civil engineering. I am sure he did not mean to take any unfair advantage, but I thought it was not a just way of dealing with the conclusions of the Beveridge Report. Ordnance deals with servicing, but there seems to be no place in our organisation to which the mechanical engineer is automatically directed and from which he is automatically deployed as needed.
    I am not going to argue from the particular to the general, but may I draw the attention of the House to what is probably the most deplorable case in the
    2008
    Beveridge Report, case Number 140? I will summarise it. The case is that of an electrician, a man of experience and initiative, who has taken courses in his subject. He is the sort of man who, in business, would get promotion because clearly he has ability, initiative and application. In a workshop he would become a foreman, and probably an official in his union. After two and a-half years this man, despite efforts by himself, becomes—what? The reply is a music-hall joke. A cook. I should be wrong if I tried to take that as a general picture, and I should be wrong if I tolerated for a moment the impression that the Army always puts square pegs into round holes. It does not; it has made tremendous advances and, as has been said to-day, it is still making advances. There does, however, seem to be a lag in dealing with these men of skill on the mechanical side, and I should like the Joint Under-Secretary of State to tell us how they propose in future to use and to deploy this kind of skill.
    I was very pleased indeed, as the rest of the House must have been, to hear from the Joint Under-Secretary the account of the intelligence testing that is going on. I am sorry he is not here just now, because for a moment I want to digress and deal with his figures. I am always a little chary about statistics if they are not clearly displayed, but I thought it rather ludicrous when he told the House, with glee, that from a recent O.C.T.U. sample 24 per cent. came from the public schools and 76 per cent. from the other schools. I am speaking from memory, but I think my memory is fairly good in these things, and my impression is that about 7 per cent. of the total secondary school population is found in the public schools, so that if this is a fair and representative sample, three times more public school men find their way into the Officer Cadet Training Units than men from the secondary schools. I, therefore, think there was something a little strange about the sampling, or about the result. The hon. Gentleman went on to make further comparisons about average, below average, and above average. The figures lost their significance completely because, with this unequal distribution, we should have had to weight the other classes to get at true figures.
    I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us a little more about this

    2009
    testing. I have seen some of the testing which is done when the man goes for his medical examination. When he has had that examination, he is interviewed in the building by a representative of the Army, and is given something that approximates to an intelligence test. I think it is a good method but it has the disadvantage that the man is posted soon afterwards and undertakes his ordinary infantry training. He may prove to be a fairly good infantryman, and by the time the assessment of his test comes through the officer in command of the infantry unit naturally does not wish to lose this good infantryman, although he may be particularly fitted for a special corps.
    This is not a new point. It was argued with great cogency in the Report to which the hon. Member for Clackmannan and Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) referred. It now has a particular application because henceforth we are to deal, in the new intakes, with three particular types of men. With the older groups will be men who, because of specialist skill, have up to now been reserved. There will also be the young men who become of age to be taken into the Forces. We must take great care that these tests are of a type which will make sure in the first place that unsuitable men, the mental defectives and feeble-minded, are excluded immediately. The Mover of the Amendment referred to the figures. I need not go over the point again or emphasise it. We all know that the training for the first three or six months is the most expensive part and to take in such men is criminal. I know the Minister would wish to avoid that kind of extravagance.
    I have a case from my own constituency of a man who had been discharged from the Army. When I wrote to the Minister it was pointed out that the man had been discharged as a mental defective. I wrote to my constituent explaining that his illness was of a type which it would be difficult to prove was due to his service. The alleged mental defective wrote back and said that the Minister of Pensions had made a public statement that anyone who had entered the Army graded A.1 would have his case reviewed, and that he was now rejected as a mental defective although he had been graded A.1. That is a line of argument that is accepted by all except the Ministry of Pensions. We must see that
    2010
    the intelligence test—applied, I suggest, before the medical examination—excludes these men.
    Secondly, there is the case of those middle-aged men who can bring to Army tasks a great deal of resource and experience but who, naturally, cannot change their ways quickly or radically. If there are no light tasks for these men within the Army I suggest that very careful thought should be given to leaving them in civil life. On the other hand, the same type of test will bring out ability to assimilate quickly new information and methods. Sometimes I think we are a little careless about the recognition of the value of that type of man. I have been having a discussion with the Department about a man—I do not suggest at all that he is a superman—who is a graduate and who has been a schoolmaster. The secretary, with a courtesy and directness to which I have paid tribute, has gone into the case. He says:
    "We have had this man interviewed for the purpose of employment in the personnel selection staff, but he is not considered suitable."
    He says:
    "It is impossible to employ all the school masters in the Army on the comparatively limited amount of educational work which is going on."
    I suggest that that is typical of this narrow, rather canalised thinking which is still very obvious in the Army. The point is not that this man, being a graduate and having been a schoolmaster, must be given educational work, but that he is badly wasting his time. The secretary says that he is not. He says:
    "In this case, the man's time is certainly not being wasted from the Army's point of view, as he is being employed in very necessary clerical work."
    He goes on to say that there is a general shortage of clerks. I suggest that that is inaccurate. If there is one commodity in abundance in this country if is clerks; and there are plenty of them in the Army. Finally, the tests must mark out the potential officers. I do not say that every intelligent man makes a good officer. The Under-Secretary, very properly, pointed out the additional requirements. But I say, firmly, that no stupid man is ever a good officer. Therefore, we can shed those same people as the first step. Despite the generous and skilful tribute which the Minister paid to the absence of

    2011
    brass fittings in the Army, I still think there must be many dull, if not stupid and insensitive, men in command in the Army. Otherwise, we could not have had the Beveridge Report or the type of man to whom I have referred being treated as he has been treated. We have not only to ensure that intelligence is recognised in the Army; we have to demonstrate to the public at large that that is so. We have to make it plain that the Army does not believe that blue blood is any substitute for grey brains.
    May I ask the Under-Secretary to consider another point which was raised in that Report? It relates to the middle-age type of men of whom we are to have more and more in the Army. Some of these men may seem to be physically fit, but a sudden change of occupation, the rigours of Army life, may cause them to break up. It has been suggested—and I cannot see any great administrative difficulty in the way—that wastage, both from the point of view of the Army and of the country, because a partially disabled man is rejected for the Army, is not what it previously was, but that wastage can in some measure be guarded against by ensuring that the man's National Health Insurance record is brought forward on the occasion of his medical examination. In conclusion, may I add my plea to that of the Mover of the Amendment for the generous treatment of these middle-aged men, often men with responsibilities in the State, in the event of their being discharged from the Army as unfit?
    Sir Richard Acland: I would like to say something about waste food in the Army, and I think I can make a constructive suggestion to the Secretary of State about the best way of tackling the problem. We are fighting for democracy, and although I agree that the Army operational command has to be authoritative, wherever you can get any little scrap of democracy into the Army it will pay you a very high dividend indeed. If I were inspecting troops, one of the first things I would do would be to get hold of a private soldier and say to him, "What do you know about your messing committee?" If he answered, as I am sure he would in many units today, "I do not know very much about it," or "I do not know anything about
    2012
    it," I would see that his commanding officer was given something to think about. I am sure that units are not inspected with the object of seeing what has been happening in this way. You ought to make a tremendous thing of messing committees, if you want to save. You should have a grant action to get representatives selected, to see that the scale of food allowances is explained to the men, to prove that a certain amount of food is coming into the unit week by week, and to show that the best use is being made of it. A large notice should be put up in the dining hall, designed and drawn up, if you like, by the men themselves, on which notices of messing meetings could be put up. If you will do that and be proud of the fact that you really are getting a little democracy within your Army, I am absolutely convinced that you will get co-operation towards saving food in a way that is better than any other way.
    Compare that picture with what happens to-day. Somebody says, "By the rules we must have a mess meeting tonight. Get the sergeant to detail two men to come to the meeting." So there is waste of food. I was at one time the N.C.O. in charge distributing publications to officers and sergeants. Believe me, we could save tons of paper on publications without the loss of any vital information to any officer or sergeant if we were to use the peace-time practice which requires each set of ranks to have a library in its possession until they are moved. I submit it is not necessary for each officer to have all these leaflets in his possession, and that all that is needed is that those who need to refer to the leaflets should have ready access to them. For example, I had to distribute 52 copies of a leaflet entitled "The Inspection, Care and Maintenance of Army Vehicles, Wheeled" to officers, sergeants and bombardiers in the battery. There was one copy for the officer who was in charge of transport, and 51 copies for other officers, sergeants and bombardiers who had nothing to do with transport; there were none whatever for the men who actually had to look after the vehicles. If the Secretary of State feels interested in this matter, and I could have an assurance that somebody really would take the matter up with the idea that it might be necessary to "bust" through the peace-time practice and save paper, I believe I could turn in for the right hon.

    2013
    and gallant Gentleman's consideration a detailed report which would effect a great saving.
    To give another instance, it is not necessary to send round one copy per officer of the A.B.C.A. leaflets. It is not necessary to put five copies on the mess table, one for each officer; one copy for the officers' mess would be enough. There is a great deal of waste in the A.B.C.A. scheme at present. By this scheme we are trying to arouse the interest of the men, and whether we succeed or not will depend very largely upon the personality of those who give the lectures. We are not allowed to send out A.B.C.A. leaflets on the one subject which the men want to discuss—what is this country going to be like after the war, what will be its structure, what will be its economic shape? Would the Secretary of State like to co-operate with one or two people I could mention—including some Conservatives, of course—in drawing up a series of A.B.C.A. leaflets on what I think this country will be like after the war, what somebody else thinks—a variety of views? Let the men discuss that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who would read the leaflets?"] From my experience when lecturers have come down to the unit, that is the subject the men want to discuss. I have seen this happen at lectures. There is a lecture on the Pacific Islands, for instance. At the end, the audience is asked, "Are there any questions?" There is a dead silence, and then, it may be, there is one question; but if somebody asks a question which relates that subject back to something which is happening in our own country, and what it is going to be like after the war, there is a discussion, and it is difficult to stop it.
    With regard to the wastage of skill, I do not know how other hon. Members feel, but on reading the War Office's commentary on the Beveridge Report, I could not bring myself to believe that the Army would take such steps that if the Beveridge Committee investigate the matter in 12 months' time, they will not still find scores and scores of skilled men whose skill is not being used. I cannot but feel that this account, even when you make allowance for some of the things which the War Office added to the report, reveals a really alarming situation which needs
    2014
    something in the nature of a charge of dynamite to put right. How are you to get sufficient dynamic force to get these skilled men out of the jobs in which their skill is not being used? Of course, I understand the case of a man having to stand by in the event of his skill being made use of. I should pass the case where a commanding officer has a man in his unit standing by, providing he could show that the man knew he was standing by for the purpose and was being given some training for it, and that there were some tools in the unit which would enable him to use his skill in a situation which was reasonably liable to arise. In order to get the necessary drive to get these men out of jobs where their skill is useless, it will be necessary to put the onus on the commanding officer to push out of his unit all men whose skill he is unable to use. I consider that something like a Beveridge Committee investigation should take place every month, and that month by month examples should be considered, so that we could know how the matter was progressing. It should be known in the Army that if some committee found that a skilled man was not being used, it would be a very very bad day for the commanding officer.
    I now wish to turn to an even bigger question, concerning the wastage of manpower. As yet I have not heard anyone make this point, which seems to me to be fundamental. In a recent Debate the Government's case was that, excluding our aid to Russia, which is only small in proportion to the total output of this country during the last two years, we were unable to maintain a fully-equipped Army in the field over and above our Forces in Libya. This was due to shipping and to production difficulties. If that is so, why are we taking any men out of industry in order to stand by in an unarmed Army? As I understand it, the decision as to the size of our Army, and our policy to call up our man-power, became operative in June last year. In June we did not know whether Russia would remain in the war, we had no Alliance with China, and we had no reason to suppose that America would come in. Therefore, it was probably a sound decision that we must have a vast Army, even if that meant that our output was going down, in order to get as many men as possible into the ranks, and that we must rely on the arsenal on the other

    2015
    side of the Atlantic for production. That may have been a perfectly sound decision then, but since then Russia has shown that it is not going to fade out of the war, we have become an Ally of China, and America has come in on our side with a promise of 3,500,000 men. Therefore, if that position was right in July, it must automatically be wrong now.
    Has there been any change in regard to the size of the total Army, because it is absurd that the decision to-day is the same as the decision in July? If it really is the fact that it is because of shipping space and production problems that you cannot get more effective fighting units into the parts of the world where you want them, for goodness sake let the Army stop harrying and chivvying industry and agriculture to get more men into an Army which you cannot send anywhere because you have not production and shipping enough. It seems fantastic to be harrying and chivvying agriculture at a time when you have to put up the defence that because of shipping and production difficulties you cannot put any Army anywhere in the world except the one in Libya. The question is too big to be discussed on an Amendment, but I hope this big subject will be considered by the War Cabinet which we hope to have.
    Mr. Richards: I feel that I ought to apologise for detaining the House, because I realise that it is not at the end of a long day of this kind that we ought to be discussing in any detail, and with any effectiveness, a large question like waste in the Army. Waste and the Army seem to be always going together. The traditional Army way of doing things has been from time immemorial a wasteful way, and waste to-day is certainly not less than in former days. We all realise that the modern Army has always to be backed up by a very considerable body of people who are supplying it with munitions of war. I think it was stated by the Lord Chancellor, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was estimated towards the end of the last war that behind every fighting man you must have, in munitions and industries of various kinds, between three and four men, and it is estimated that that number has doubled by this time. It seems to me then that that is the fundamental problem that is facing the country. We
    2016
    have only a limited personnel. The question that the War Cabinet has to settle is, What Army can they afford to have in view, of the fact that they must have behind every man in the Army, let us say six or eight to support him? We have proceeded on the other assumption. Let us get all the men we can into the Army, and even jeopardise certain industries in order to put men into khaki. It is the wrong way about entirely. We ought to be quite clear in our minds, not merely how many men we can have—we can have great numbers—but how many we can have to train and equip adequately. That is the fundamental fact about our position as an industrial nation that is attempting to wage a war of this magnitude.
    In that very illuminating review that we had from the Secretary of State, I rather felt that he did less than justice to the Beveridge Report. It is symptomatic, and that is why people are so much concerned about it. I think the country very largely shares, without, of course, the detailed experience of the Beveridge Committee, the apprehensions that it put forward. It is a very common practice with statisticians and others to have what they call a fair sample. I think the Minister of Labour gave us good information occasionally when unemployment was very severe by testing periodically in various parts of the country who were really the men who were unemployed, for what period they were unemployed, and so on. It is a sample test. This is, as far as I can see, a rigidly carried out, scientific sample test of that kind, and it is clear to anyone who has read the Report that the Army does not come out of this well at all, and they are apprehensive as to the future conduct of the Army in this respect. They are not talking about the Army alone. They are concerned with the other Services. While they admit that it is rather easier to make use of technical skill in the other Services, they point out that the Army is far behind them in this respect. While we are struggling hard to equip our people, and taking skilled people from industry, it is most disquieting to feel that they are drafted into the Army and that their special skill is made no use of at all. I think that is a symptom of something that is fundamentally wrong with the Army, and people argue from indications of this kind, "Cannot there be some misfits at

    2017
    the other end of the Army?" I do not know what test we can apply to our generals, but, if the test of victory and success on the battlefield is the right one to apply, the Secretary of State himself admitted that we had nothing very much at present to boast of. We really must cut out all this waste. These men would be far better employed in supplying the Army than in attempting to become soldiers when they have none of the qualities to qualify them for becoming soldiers.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: I cannot apologise for interposing at this late stage, because I feel that the Amendment is really worthy of much greater consideration than the House has seen fit to give it. I have taken part in the Army Estimates almost every year since I came here, having once upon a time served in a regiment to which the Prime Minister himself belonged, the only difference being that I was a full-time soldier and they did not let me go home whenever I wanted to. There is a point which I would like the Financial Secretary to bring before the Minister for his serious consideration. During the Debate to-day I asked the Minister, when he was giving a statement with regard to British troops who had been in action and the proportion of British casualties to Dominion casualties and other Services, to see that it received the greatest publicity in other countries. One or two Members, particularly the right hon. Baronet who sits below the Gangway, intervened and said, that of course that would be done. He must have had experience of the Government being alert about these particular things. The prestige of the British Army has been materially affected in other parts of the world by rumours, particularly in America, that our men were not taking their fair share in the war. Therefore, I trust that the figures which were submitted to-day will be handed over by the War Office to the Ministry of Information and published in every possible way, particularly in America. I want to have an assurance that that will be done, and that the participation of Great Britain and British troops in the war will be broadcast in every way. This is not a Debate on the general strategy of the Army—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must remind the hon. Member that we are now on the Amendment, and he must keep to the terms of it.
    Mr. Davidson: I was about to say that the Amendment deals with economy and waste, and I want to give one or two instances where I feel that economy could be made, waste eliminated, and a more contented feeling made to exist among the average soldiers. Can the Financial Secretary give us any real reason for the retention of brass buttons, numerals and cap badges in the British Army? What strategic value have brass buttons, which the soldier has to polish with his tooth brush with the help of "soldier's friend," paid for by the soldier? Would he not agree that the abolition of brass buttons, numerals and badges and the substitution of a cloth or dull button would save the Army much money, save the soldier a lot of irritation, and save the officers spending time on small trials when a man is brought up for being unclean on duty? It would eliminate a great amount of irritation in the Army. As one who has experienced parades for guard duty and even parades for confinement to barracks, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman or whatever Committee deals with it to get down to the question of clearing out the brass and giving the Army something reasonable in the way of a service uniform.
    Captain McEwen: Would not the abolition of all parades not remove a source of considerable irritation?
    Mr. Davidson: Certainly not. As one who has served in the Army, I do not agree with that. There are many enjoyable parades, and I am only sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend who is in uniform does not share my enthusiasm. There is the pay parade; that is an enjoyable parade, and there is cookhouse parade. There are many parades in the Army which are enjoyable. I am not talking flippantly on this point, and I do not want it to go out that I believe that soldiers object to every little parade or to every restriction placed upon them, but they certainly do object to having continually to polish brass buttons, because that is a waste of time which could be more profitably employed.
    Then I would ask the Financial Secretary to consider the question of officers' servants. Can he indicate even approximately the amount of labour that is being used in the Army through having men

    2019
    serving as batmen or officers' servants? Do those officers' servants receive a full training, or are they selected by the officer as being appropriate for himself and merely kept to the job of looking after one particular person? To-day, in a time of total warfare, when every man is needed, when output is restricted because of the lack of labour, the British Army should eliminate every wasteful element within it. I believe that the Financial Secretary, who was an officer in the Army, my hon. and gallant Friend opposite and most of the other officers I have seen in this House are perfectly capable of brushing their own boots, cleaning their own belts and uniforms and looking after themselves generally, and it would be better training for them if they did for themselves here, because then, when they went on active service, they would feel very much more self-reliant.
    Next I wish to ask a question about the motor vehicles which are parked all over the country. My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) referred to motor vehicles driven about by Army drivers, very often at excessive speeds. From the point of view of economy, I should like to know what steps are taken to inspect the huge numbers of motor cars and motor vehicles which are kept stationary for many months at a time, parked for use at some future date. Is there any system of inspecting these cars and their engines at regular times, or are they left there day after day and month after month in the hope that everything will be all right if they have to be used? A very great saving could be made by adequate inspection of those stationary motor-cars.
    Reference has been made to square pegs in round holes. I do not want to go very deeply into that question but, while intelligence tests and tests for general alertness are very welcome indeed, I trust that we are not to have what I might call an intelligentsia Army. I hope we are to have an Army of fighting men whose time will not be wasted—and the nation's money be wasted—in giving them tests that will not make any difference to them in actual warfare. I trust that the tests will be successful but will not waste time and money in selection for Army posts. We can go rather too far in taking up time and wasting money in deciding whether a Man is fit for the Army or not. I had the
    2020
    case of a man who had been in a mental institution for 20 years. He had only been released for three months when he was called up, medically examined, passed Grade I, and taken into the Army. His case was sent to me, and when I asked for his release it was pointed out to me that he was very suitable and that he had already been promoted to the rank of corporal. Therefore, I say, we can go rather too far in trying to determine ability and fitness for the Army.
    I feel, as did one of my hon. Friends, that the Secretary of State for War glossed over the Beveridge Report rather lightly and that his word of thanks for that report was rather insincere. The Beveridge Committee, as the Minister of Labour pointed out, carried out exhaustive inquiries. It had very great powers. It was not a committee that merely met a few commanding officers of certain units, but it carried out an exhaustive inquiry because there was deep dissatisfaction in the country. Therefore, the report which is the result of that committee's labours cannot be glossed over. Without specifically mentioning any of the recommendations, I trust that the War Office will be big enough and broad-minded enough to consider the report fully. The report is intended to assist the efficient building-up of a successful British Army, and I hope that the War Office will give it the consideration which it deserves.
    Mr. Mathers: The process which we started earlier to-day of moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair in order to go into Committee of Suppy has proved more difficult than moving hon. Members from some of these benches. We are now dealing with the Amendment, which must be disposed of before that process can be carried out. I am glad the Amendment is still before the House, because I would like to raise two very simple points that can be dealt with by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who will be replying to this part of our discussion.
    When the Joint Under-Secretary of State was speaking about methods of ensuring that suitable men were given an opportunity to become officers and obtain commissions in the Army, he caused me to realise that there was a certain position arising before the point at which he commenced to deal with the matter, namely, at the point where a recommendation is made by the officers of the man concerned,

    2021
    as to his suitability and as to the desirability of allowing him to be trained for a commission. I know that an actual wastage of resources is caused in the Army by the reluctance of certain officers to denude their particular unit of exceptionally good men, believing that thereby they would be reducing its general efficiency. In discussing this matter with a retired general, I have been assured that these officers, in trying in that way to maintain the efficiency of the units they command, are really standing in their own light, and are not serving their own best interests. They think they are, but they fail to do so because what gets an officer and a regiment commended for efficiency is the rapid outflow of capable, trained men, who prove themselves efficient and who prove that the training they have had in that particular unit has fitted them to become officers.
    What I want to ask the Financial Secretary is whether there is any method of enabling a man who wishes to become an officer to have that opportunity, notwithstanding the reluctance of his commanding officer to recommend him for a commission because of the considerations I have mentioned. The Joint Under-Secretary did mention the fact that any man who has any grievance at all has the opportunity of appealing beyond his immediate superior to someone of higher rank, but I am sure that the War Office spokesmen here to-day will recognise how difficult a position of that kind might be in the particular circumstances I have cited, where an officer is reluctant to part with a man and thereby denies the Army the benefit of the full use of the human resources referred to in the Amendment we are discussing I would therefore like a few words from the Financial Secretary on that particular point.
    The other point I wish to put concerns the waste of resources which arises by retaining men in the Army who could be much better employed in a civilian occupation. I am thinking more particularly of the quite considerable number of coal-miners in my constituency who, after being drafted into the Army, find themselves, because of their low category position, carrying on work that they consider to be of very little value indeed. I have taken up quite a number of these cases, and it has been more recently made quite clear to me that nothing is being done
    2022
    in connection with releasing such men for work in coalmines, notwithstanding the very strong pressure that has been put upon the mining community to produce as much coal as possible for the use of domestic and industrial consumers. May I ask whether it is still possible for the Secretary of State for War to deal with applications for release of that kind? I know I may be told that such an application requires to be backed by a Government Department. The Department closely concerned in this case is the Mines Department. It looks as if there has been such a bar laid down by the Army authorities regarding the release of men that the Secretary for Mines does not take it upon himself to make any recommendation of that kind. I would like to know for the information of my constituents what the position is in that regard.
    Those are the two points I want to put. As I believe I am the last speaker on this side, I may be allowed to say that the Secretary of State may congratulate himself to-day upon the remarkable unanimity he finds in this House, and for the manner of acceptance of what I think is the very fine statement he made. I include the Joint Under-Secretary in my commendation. He certainly gave us an illuminating speech, and a very fair reply to the points which had been made up to the time he spoke. I am not saying that merely for the sake of complimenting and flattering the War Office spokesmen. I say it because here to-day we have discussed, in conditions of peace, and with a very large degree of harmony, the Service which, to a very great extent, is responsible for the fact that we are able, here in this country, to meet under these favourable conditions. I am sure it is the wish of everyone of us that we should, in this Debate, pay tribute to those who have stood between us and the danger that might have made our Debate absolutely impossible to-day.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): This Debate, on what appeared in the first place to be a somewhat restricted Amendment, has ranged over an extremely wide field, hardly less wide than that of the main Debate. I shall not be able, I am afraid, to deal with all the points that have been raised. I can, however, assure hon. Members that they will all

    2023
    be fully considered either by the War Office or by the other Departments concerned.
    Mr. Mathers: Does that mean that the Financial Secretary intends that we shall have a reply by letter if not by speech now?
    Mr. Sandys: So far as the War Office is concerned, I will see that that is done. I will deal with the two points raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers). He first of all mentioned the difficulty of getting commanding officers to yield up good candidates for commissions. I do not think that that is a very widespread complaint, but to some extent it is one that is always likely to exist. It is human nature not to like to part with a good man. I know myself how reluctant one is to part with a good N.C.O., a good instrument number, or some key soldier. You feel that the efficiency of your unit will suffer. It is easy to understand that commanding officers sometimes think first of that part of the Army for which they are personally responsible, before thinking of the needs of the Army as a whole. The War Office have this problem well in mind, and steps have been taken to deal with it. We have liaison officers attached to each command, whose responsibility it is to go round impressing on commanding officers their responsibility in this matter.
    As regards the release of men from the Army for the mining industry, the military authorities are prepared to consider cases of release of this kind on receipt of an application backed by the Government Department concerned with the particular industry. There is no reason to suppose that if an application is so endorsed, it will not receive entirely sympathetic consideration from the War Office. The release of miners from the Army for mining work is a question of Cabinet policy, relating to man-power in the country as a whole. It is not considered that at present large-scale releases for this industry are required. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) raised the a question of batmen. The Regulations lay down that batmen shall be fully trained as soldiers before they are employed as batmen. A detailed statement on this subject was made quite recently, in answer to a Parliamentary Question; and I will send a copy of it to the hon. Member.
    2024
    I would like to deal with a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) earlier in the Debate. He talked about "toy soldiers." He said that a very large number of soldiers are being released from military duties and granted prolonged periods of leave, to enable them to perform in music-halls or dance bands, for the entertainment of civilians. If that is so, it is a very serious matter; but I would like some substantiation from the hon. Member. The position is that a man on leave may in general do what he likes. Very often units have their own dance bands and entertainers. These may give performances near their stations in their spare time, provided that that does not interfere with their military duties. But the grant of special leave for musicians and actors—
    Mr. E. Walkden: And comedians.
    Mr. Sandys—and comedians is entirely contrary to the Regulations. If the hon. Member will bring to my notice such cases, they will be gone into; and if the facts are proved, the question of disciplinary action against the officers who granted that leave will have to be considered.
    Mr. Walkden: The evidence I have exhibited to-day accounts for at least 100 soldiers. There must be in this country at least a battalion doing this job every day of the week. Does the hon. Member mean that I must produce all this evidence? Cannot it be obtained by the Army Council forthwith?
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member has made an allegation. If he knows of 100 men, it is reasonable to ask him to give me some means of tracing those cases.
    Mr. Walkden: I will do it right away.
    Mr. Sandys: Then we can perhaps trace other cases. We will go into the matter very thoroughly.
    In the main, the Debate on the Amendment has divided itself into two parts: the question of the avoidance of waste of man-power, and the question of the avoidance of waste of material. Many speakers have stressed the importance of avoiding waste of skilled manpower, and of preventing square pegs being put into round holes. The Debate on the man-power aspect has centred very largely, as might have been expected, on

    2025
    the Beveridge Report. I propose, therefore, to say a few words on that subject. At the time that the Beveridge Committee was appointed last summer, the Army was in the middle of carrying out an extensive comb-out of skilled men, and this process was by no means complete when the Committee began its investigations. The results of this comb-out and of earlier efforts of the same kind have been by no means inconsiderable. Hundreds of thousands of men have been allotted to various types of skilled work within the Army. About 100,000 men who have shown some aptitude for skilled work have been trained at Army training establishments for work for which they were considered to be suitable. In addition to that, some 60,000 men, who possessed skill which could not be fully utilised within the framework of the Army, have been released for civilian industry. These results are by no means negligible, but the War Office would nevertheless be the first to recognise that there is still plenty of scope for effort and initiative in this direction. Much has been achieved, but a great deal more still remains to be done.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asked about the delay in the publication of the Report, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) suggested that this showed a lack of a sense of urgency on the part of the Government. The reason why this Report has not been published sooner is that it was felt that it would be more useful if it could be presented to the House with the considered views of the War Office on the issues raised. The Committee has recommended a number of important improvements in the machinery of the Army for finding and placing soldiers possessing civilian engineering skill. All these proposals, with the exception of two major changes, to which I will refer in a moment, have already been accepted and are in process of being put into effect.
    The steps suggested by the Committee include improvements in trade testing, in technical training and in posting arrangements, the reviewing of Army establishments and the setting-up of Tradesmen's Interview Boards in each command. The Tradesmen's Interview Boards are already functioning and are doing well. A representative of the Beveridge Committee has been attending these
    2026
    boards recently and has reported extremely favourably upon them. In addition to that, as the House knows, the Committee made two recommendations for major changes in the structure of Army organisation. The first of these was the formation of a corps of mechanical engineers, that is to say, the concentrating into one organisation of all the skilled engineering resources of the Army. I think it is only fair—and I am not saying it in any petty sense—to the military authorities concerned to point out that this proposal originated with the War Office, who brought it to the notice of the Beveridge Committee. It is an attractive proposal and the reason why it was not adopted earlier is the numerous difficulties which so great a change in the middle of a war inevitably creates. However, I would say quite frankly that the attention paid to this question by the Beveridge Committee has undoubtedly stimulated the investigation which was already in progress on this matter, and the fact that the Beveridge Committee endorse this proposal will certainly carry weight in the deliberations of the Army Council on this problem. The reason why the consideration of this question has taken some time is because the commanders-in-chief overseas, including theatres where operations are proceeding at this moment, have necessarily had to be consulted before a balanced decision could be reached. There would be nothing easier than to form a corps of mechanical engineers in the United Kingdom only, but that would create confusion as soon as reinforcements were sent from this country overseas. Therefore, any such change would have to be introduced into the Army as a whole, in all theatres of war—
    Mr. McNeil: I am looking for information on this subject. Would it not be possible to have a mechanised pool here and from it post specialist units overseas as required? There may be a perfectly good reply to this point, but if there is, I do not know it.
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think that would help us very much. The problem in this country is not nearly so great. It would be extremely confusing if we were to have one organisation here at home and an entirely different organisation overseas. Reinforcements have to be sent from this country to individual units overseas. If it is a sound

    2027
    proposal, it is sound for all theatres, and if it is not, it is not sound for any theatre. There is very little doubt that if this proposal could be carried through, it would have great advantages. All we are concerned about at the moment is to see whether we can get round the difficulties. There are difficulties, and it is no good shirking them.
    Mr. Davidson: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that you cannot possibly pool your mechanised forces in one theatre of war. You have to pool them in the centre, which would be this country, and from the centre draft them to the various theatres where they are required.
    Dr. Morgan: Cannot you bring them into line with the R.A.M.C.?
    Mr. Sandys: Hon. Members need not think that we are not aware of the advantages which would be gained from this change or that we are not trying to find a way round the difficulties.
    Mr. E. Walkden: It is not very convincing.
    Mr. Sandys: The second proposal is enlistment into the Army as opposed to enlistment direct in a corps. This also is a proposal which was brought to the notice of the Beveridge Committee by the War Office. Undoubtedly, this change would greatly assist in finding skilled men and allocating them to appropriate employment before they get allocated to any particular arm of the Service. Our difficulty here is largely one of accommodation and overheads. Since the scheme would involve greatly increased demands for accommodation, it was decided, before adopting it for the Army as a whole, to carry out an experiment on a large scale with the existing accommodation available. This scheme is in fact being carried out in some seven training centres in this country. The results have been extremely encouraging, and I think I can say that it should be possible to reach a decision on this whole matter in the very near future.
    The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) spoke about the Royal Engineer units, which are dealt with at some length in the Beveridge Report. The problem is whether these skilled men in the Royal Engineer units could be more fully employed. It is not possible to apply to
    2028
    soldiers in field units the standards which one would apply to engineers and skilled workers in industrial factories. I ask the House to realise that the Royal Engineers are essentially an emergency service, much like a fire brigade. One does not consider that, if firemen are not putting out fires all day long and every day, they are not being usefully employed. The same is true with the Royal Engineers. They are an emergency service which has to be ready to perform strenuous work of extremely varied kinds during the period of the battle. What is more, it must not be forgotten that they are soldiers as well as mechanics. We cannot afford to have any passengers in the Army; nor can we afford to have men who need other men to look after them. Royal Engineers may have to be working right in the forefront of the battle, repairing a bridge which has been demolished by the retreating enemy, or demolishing a bridge after the rearguard of our own troops has passed over. They are essentially soldiers as well as mechanics. That means that they have to do military training, and while they are doing that, obviously they cannot be employed at their trade.
    The hon. Member for Greenock also asked whether the setback which we have suffered in Libya was due to a faulty use of our skilled engineers in that theatre. The Beveridge Committee tended to recommend that our skilled engineers should as far as possible be kept in workshops in the rear. It is too early yet to judge the lessons which are to be learned from the campaign in Libya, but one thing, I think, is certain, and that is that such successes as General Rommel's army has had in that theatre have been due in very large measure to the excellence and rapidity of his repair organisation. The efficiency of that organisation has, in turn, been due principally to the fact that the mobile repair units have been brought right up to the very forefront of the battle. Therefore, I feel that we cannot, at any rate in the light of present experience, contemplate withdrawing our skilled mechanics any further to the rear. The tendency must be to consider whether we cannot push them further forward. Tanks, guns and other equipment, if they are to be of value, must be kept in action during the battle, by repairs on the spot. It will therefore be seen that, with certain reservations on the question of the interviews which are dealt with in the War

    2029
    Office statement attached to the report, we are in general agreement with the recommendations and the general conclusions of the Beveridge Committee. Most of these recommendations, as I have explained, have already been put into effect. We are grateful to the Committee, as my right hon. and gallant Friend made quite clear, for their work. It has been useful to us, and it has undoubtedly stimulated thought and has directed attention to these important problems. It has certainly had a beneficial effect. We are therefore indebted to them for the work they have done, and look forward to further fruitful co-operation with them in the future.
    I have spoken about man-power, and now I wish to turn to the other side of the picture, that is to say, the question of the conservation of our material resources. The hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) asked what the Controller-General of Economy had been doing, and whether he had achieved any success. The function of the Controller is to ensure the fullest measure of economy throughout the Army consistent with military efficiency, and I hope that I may show to the House that the results achieved have fully justified the setting-up of this new branch, which was announced by my right hon. and gallant Friend in his speech on the Army Estimates a year ago. There is no doubt that the most fruitful field for economy is to be found in the direct method of cutting down requirements. Persistent efforts are being made by the War Office to reduce the quantity and quality of our demands upon the nation's resources. A special committee continuously reviews the scales of unit equipment, and, wherever possible, effects reductions in the authorised scales. Very considerable savings have, in fact, been secured by this method. The soldier has, I think, learned that the output of industry is not unlimited. He knows from experience what it means to be short of equipment in battle, and he realises that any unessential article which he asks for can only be obtained at the cost of something else of which the Army may be in far greater need. In this spirit the War Office has been persistently scrutinising its demands upon industry with the object of eliminating all unessentials. While we recognise that there is scope for further efforts in this direction, substantial
    2030
    economies have undoubtedly been achieved.
    I have spoken of the saving of industrial effort effected by this process of reviewing and cutting down our requirements. The other half of the picture is the avoidance of waste, that is to say, the squeezing of every ounce of value out of the materials and equipment that we use. In many fields it is possible to achieve action just by issuing orders. To induce economy is unfortunately a more difficult matter. You cannot secure economy or the avoidance of waste, merely by the publication of an Army Council instruction or by a brisk word of command on parade. In the Army, as with the civilian population, economy and the avoidance of waste can only be achieved by the good will and the keen co-operation of the individual soldier. The War Office has, therefore, taken the view, I think rightly, that the most important thing in this matter is to create and foster a proper attitude of mind throughout the Army towards economy. The Controller-General and his staff have been preaching the gospel of economy by every means available, by inspections, lectures, broadcasts, films, posters, pamphlets and in many other ways. Nor have their efforts been confined to the United Kingdom. The Controller-General is at this moment on tour in the Middle East. The best way I can indicate the extent to which this campaign of economy has prospered is by giving some examples of the results achieved. Apart from the direct method of rationing, a reduction in the consumption of petrol has been achieved through a number of indirect means. Perhaps the most important is the introduction of the M.T. Maintenance day. This measure has not only reduced the consumption of petrol; it has also, by ensuring thorough and regular overhaul, greatly lengthened the life of the vehicles. In spite of the fact that during the second half of last year the number of Army vehicles increased by 17 per cent., the consumption of petrol during the same period actually fell by nearly 20 per cent.
    I was asked what the War Office was doing to economise in rubber, in view of developments in the Far East. There is a War Office Standing Committee whose exclusive function it is to deal with this problem. A variety of measures have been taken. A very large proportion

    2031
    of the rubber requirements of the Army is in motor tyres, and a number of steps have been taken to effect economies in that field. Regulations have been issued to ensure that before tyres become too worn they are to be removed and sent away to be retreaded or remoulded. If through negligence the tyres wear out, disciplinary action is taken. Restrictions have also been imposed on long-distance deliveries of stores by road. In addition, the speed limit of all Army vehicles is now under review. Other steps have also been taken to cut down military requirements of rubber. For instance, the rubber content of the standard ground sheet has been reduced by one-third. Since every soldier in the Army has to be issued with a ground sheet, this will effect a considerable saving.
    Economies have also been effected as a result of simplifications in the design of clothing. The hon. Member for Maryhill said there were too many buttons in the Army. I am glad to be able to tell him that it has been possible, without any loss of comfort or propriety, to reduce by six the number of buttons on the battle dress. The hon. Member for East Stirling complained that the cleaning of the respirator haversack had a deleterious effect. He said he had consulted experts, but I have also consulted experts on this subject. My experts give me a different answer from his. They tell me that cleaning does no harm to the respirator haversack, provided the proper cleaning material is used. In fact, cleaning is necessary in order to maintain and preserve the waterproof qualities of the material. The question of the saving of paper has been referred to by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) who gave instances of alleged waste of publications. I will certainly go into those allegations and see whether any reduction can be effected in the direction he indicated. Continuous efforts are being made to reduce the amount of clerical work in the Army, and so indirectly to save paper. I will give one example. A simplified accounting system has been introduced into the Royal Army Service Corps Motor Transport Depots. This simplification has resulted in an economy of 20 per cent. in personnel, and the amount of paper saved each month, I am told, would be sufficient to cover six acres.
    2032
    The hon. Member for Barnstaple spoke also about messing committees. He seems to have had unfortunate experience. It is laid down that every unit shall have its messing committee and that every man in the unit shall be free to send through representatives suggestions for consideration by that committee. In units in which I have served during this war we had lively, energetic and democratic messing committees, and many good suggestions were put forward and carried into effect. During the early part of the war we heard many shameful stories about the waste of food. The best indication of the improvement that has taken place is the fact that such complaints are now extremely rare.
    I would like to mention in passing the achievements of the Army Agricultural Scheme. During 1941 units have themselves grown no less than 25,000,000 vegetable rations. This has resulted in the under-drawing of a corresponding number of Army rations from the N.A.A.F.I. But perhaps the greatest single factor in the saving of food is the general improvement in cooking and catering, and the better understanding of their duties by regimental messing officers. In this connection I should like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the debt which we owe to our late colleague, Sir Isidore Salmon, who as honorary adviser on catering, did so much to improve the standard of food management in the Army. The hon. Member for East Stirling said that the greatest waste is inefficiency. I have shown the House, I hope, that there has been economy, and economy on a steadily increasing scale. Much valuable material, much time, much labour, much factory capacity, much shipping space have been saved. The results achieved represent a considerable saving of the nation's resources. These results also, I think, provide encouraging evidence of a rising standard of discipline and efficiency throughout the Army.
    Mr. Woodburn: In other times we should probably have been having a battle royal over these issues, but in these unhappy times, internationally, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

    NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
    Resolved,
    "That such number of Land Forces of all ranks, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, exclusive of India and Burma, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943."

    PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943."

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1941.
  Resolved,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment
  2034
  during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year."

  Schedule.

  Sums not exceeding.

  Supply Grants.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Vote.

  £

  £

  1. Pay, &c., of the Army

  10

  75,000,000

  Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.
  YOUTHS, REGISTRATION (ETON SCHOOL).
  YOUTHS, REGISTRATION (ETON SCHOOL).
  EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN ORDER.
  EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN ORDER.
  INDIA (MEETINGS, PROHIBITION).
  INDIA (MEETINGS, PROHIBITION).
  NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE (EXPENDITURE).
  NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE (EXPENDITURE).
AGRICULTURE.
  UNCULTIVATED GARDENS.
  UNCULTIVATED GARDENS.
  REQUISITIONED LAND.
  REQUISITIONED LAND.
  TRACTORS AND TRAILERS (TYRES).
  TRACTORS AND TRAILERS (TYRES).
  ARGYLLSHIRE (ACREAGE UNDER TILLAGE).
  ARGYLLSHIRE (ACREAGE UNDER TILLAGE).
  COAL SUPPLIES, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  COAL SUPPLIES, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  WAR-DAMAGED PROPERTY (LEASES).
  WAR-DAMAGED PROPERTY (LEASES).
  DEFENCE REGULATIONS (PROSECUTION).
  DEFENCE REGULATIONS (PROSECUTION).
  TRUST FUNDS (INLAND REVENUE SUMMONS).
  TRUST FUNDS (INLAND REVENUE SUMMONS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  LADY WELFARE OFFICERS.
  LADY WELFARE OFFICERS.
  OFFICERS' MESSES (CHIT SYSTEM).
  OFFICERS' MESSES (CHIT SYSTEM).
  SOAP RATIONING.
  SOAP RATIONING.
  B.B.C. NEWS BULLETINS.
  B.B.C. NEWS BULLETINS.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  ITALIAN LEGATION, JEDDA (WITHDRAWAL).
  ITALIAN LEGATION, JEDDA (WITHDRAWAL).
  MILITARY OPERATIONS (INQUIRY).
  MILITARY OPERATIONS (INQUIRY).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  TAX RESERVE CERTIFICATES.
  TAX RESERVE CERTIFICATES.
  INCOME TAX (REQUISITIONED SECURITIES).
  INCOME TAX (REQUISITIONED SECURITIES).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INSURANCE AGREEMENTS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INSURANCE AGREEMENTS).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSION ACCOUNTS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSION ACCOUNTS.
  CIVIL SERVANTS (BILLETING ALLOWANCES).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (BILLETING ALLOWANCES).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  TYPHUS (PRECAUTIONS).
  TYPHUS (PRECAUTIONS).
  DIPHTHERIA.
  DIPHTHERIA.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE, CARMARTHEN (CLAIM).
  HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE, CARMARTHEN (CLAIM).
  BRITISH FORCES, EGYPT (CEREAL PURCHASES).
  BRITISH FORCES, EGYPT (CEREAL PURCHASES).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (BADGE).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (BADGE).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FORTIFIED WRITE BREAD.
  FORTIFIED WRITE BREAD.
  PROSECUTION, WEALDSTONE.
  PROSECUTION, WEALDSTONE.
  CHILD NEGLECT CASE, HALIFAX.
  CHILD NEGLECT CASE, HALIFAX.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY).
Preamble
The House met, The EARL OF LUCAN on the Woolsack.

EDUCATION.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion which the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury moved on Tuesday last—namely, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the plans of His Majesty's Government for the education and training of the rising generation, with particular regard to Christian teaching in the schools of this country.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, in troubling you with a few remarks to-day I wish to say in the first instance that I do not speak with any authority from the religious body to which I belong. What I say I take full responsibility for, but at the same time I am quite certain that Cardinal Hinsley and his colleagues in our hierarchy can view the Motion of the most reverend Primate with nothing but the heartiest sympathy and good will. I think we have sometimes been—not sometimes, we have been often—all of us more inclined especially in this educational controversy to dwell on those things that divide us rather than on those things on which we agree. In saying that I do not mean for a moment that those things which divide us ought to be ignored or slurred over, very much the contrary. They are there, and they must be insisted upon and fought for, if need be. But I never could see in this connexion, or indeed in many others, why if people are agreed on points A, B, C and D they should be prevented from co-operating heartily on those points, however much they may differ on E, F, G and H. When you come to look into the fundamental doctrines of Christianity it would probably be surprising to many to find how great is the measure of that agreement, not only between ourselves and the Church of England, but with the great body of Nonconformist opinion.
I was extremely glad to hear what the most reverend Primate said on Tuesday with regard to the denominational schools. He regards them, as we regard them, as
934
a sacred trust which has been handed down to us and which we must never relinquish. As I understand his speech, he was concerned at the same time with the fact that numerous children, the majority of the children, were in other schools, and he felt it was his duty, with many others not of his communion, to do his best for them. Therefore I say, if the Church of England and the Free Churches can combine upon a syllabus of Christian teaching, for God's sake let them have it, but at the same time this does not cover the ground. I may mention, because this is an educational debate at large, the case of the Jewish schools. They are not many in number, but they are very numerously attended, and it is quite obvious that no syllabus will meet their case. Then I come to our own schools and I am bound to say that we cannot give up our schools for any syllabus whatever. We owe to those who founded them, and those who at great cost maintain them, that we must regard them as a fixed and constant element in the national education of the country.
But most unhappily we are now faced with a greater crisis with regard to these schools than we have ever faced before. This does not arise wholly from the war, though it has been gravely aggravated by the war. It arises from many causes, but mainly owing to the division of elementary education started by what is known as the Hadow policy and system. The crisis threatened some six years ago, and as your Lordships will remember an Act was passed, in some degree to cope with and meet this effectively, the Act associated with the name of Mr. Stanley, which was passed in 1936. With regard to that Act there is the utmost uncertainty as to where we now stand. I cannot ask the noble Lord representing the Government to reply to this matter now, because I imagine that it involves both legal and financial difficulties, but we do not know in the least what the position is. Agreements under that Act were being negotiated, but very few, as I am informed, actually came to complete legal fruition, though they may have come to moral fruition. As I understand the matter, the time allowed by this Act for making and approving agreements has run out, and fresh legislation would be necessary to revive the position as it stood at the beginning of the war. I can only hope that that position is kept in mind.

935
Then there are a number of schools that have been in part destroyed, or at any rate put out of action for the time, by enemy action. What is the compensation that is to be paid for those schools? We understand that the position is that the compensation is based upon the value of the building. But what will be the value of the building? Suppose it is an old school and the Board of Education insist for rebuilding on a higher standard which will greatly increase the cost. As I read the War Damage Act they would not be able to get anything but what might be the market price for the building, and that price presumably, as the building could no longer be used as a school, would be very low, for there are few other purposes probably for which it could be used. Here again I suggest that the position must be cleared up, although here again, I presume that further legislation will be required.
Under both the Acts which I have quoted—the Education Act of 1936 and the War Damage Act—the remedy is not only uncertain but it is very partial, and meantime the standard of the demands of the Board of Education has greatly increased with the far greater cost that will be involved. The cost at the best will be very great indeed. I have been able to obtain some approximate figures for one area. It is the area of London—that is to say the London Police area—south of the Thames. I did not select that because it made a strong case but because it happens to be in my own diocese. The figures that have been given me indicate that the cost will come to certainly £250,000 to make good. This is really a prodigious demand on necessarily depleted resources. It is not fair in justice and equity for that demand to be met from private sources. This is not the time or the place to state what arrangements may be come to, nor is it the time to state upon what conditions what I hope may be a final settlement can be attained.
Personally, I see no insuperable difficulty as regards either the position of teachers or otherwise. I think that with good will that can be arranged without any derogation of the principles of either Church or State. And, my Lords, I have precedents in this matter. There is, of course, a Scottish precedent, but there is also a useful precedent in perhaps the last
936
place in which you might have expected to find it, and that is in Ulster, where a system has been evolved, not entirely a Scottish system, but very different from the English one. Your Lordships may also be aware that a Private Act was passed to deal with the position of the schools in Liverpool. From all these precedents or any one of them, I cannot believe that a solution cannot be found. After all, those who are making these claims can point to the great efforts they have made in the past, often under most difficult conditions, and on the merely material side they have saved, and are saving, large sums for the State. As I have said at the beginning, I have every sympathy with this Motion. This Motion is the expression of a sincere movement for Christian education, but it would be an ironic tragedy if it should become the occasion of destroying the work of those who have borne the burden and heat of the day in their efforts for that Christian education which we all desire.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I should indeed have been sorry had I been prevented from joining in the chorus of regret at the impending resignation of the most reverend Primate, and had I not been able to hear the speech with which he opened this debate. We are told that it is his swan song. I trust it may not be, but if it is, I can only say that it was a most melodious contribution to a great theme. And those of us who recall the dignified eloquence and prudent statesmanship of some of those who have held his great office before him, will feel that the most reverend Primate has nothing to dread from any comparison with his great predecessors. We all of us, I am sure, were impressed, in particular, by the terms in which he dwelt on the Christian teaching, and even more generally on the spiritual side of the training of the young. What the lack of that spiritual sense may mean is brought home to us now with redoubled force by what we see of two great countries in both of which education is carried on with great vigour and with great skill. Both Germany and France are most highly educated countries. It would be a bold man who would say that the average Englishman was equal to the average German or the average Frenchman in the matter of mere instruction. But we sec how, in the one case, the lack of a spiritual sense has caused a great people to follow blindly the

937
unscrupulous ambitions of their leaders, and how a similar lack in France has brought about social disunion and a political demoralization which has prevented the great mass of the people from resisting the onslaught of the foe.
So far as what is called the religious controversy is concerned, what the most reverend Primate said was brought home to me by my recollections of thirty-six years ago, when it fell to me to have charge of the Education Bill in this House. Four years before, the Act of 1902 had raised no small discontent in many minds, particularly among some of the great Nonconformist bodies, and an attempt was made to redress what they conceived to be their wrongs. The atmosphere, however, was heated. I myself was treated with the greatest humanity by the right reverend Bench at that time, and I had the advantage of being a close personal friend of the most reverend Primate's illustrious predecessor, Archbishop Davidson. It was hopeless, however, to reach any agreement. The extremists on both sides grossly exaggerated the attitude of their opponents. By one side their opponents were accused of nothing but pure clericalism rather than devotion to religion, and by the other of pure secularism instead of devotion to freedom. Therefore, although the Archbishop did all that he could to arrive at a reasonable compromise, and although I hope that we were not backward in attempting to meet him, the effort broke down.
I should not recall any of that ancient history but for the fact that we are able to see that nowadays a very different state of affairs prevails. What the most reverend Primate said on the deputation which he headed to the Board of Education in August last showed how completely different, and how very much more wholesome, the present atmosphere is; and, although the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, who so worthily represents the Board of Education here, was not able to give a categorical promise to the most reverend Primate, yet the tone of what he said was, I hope, regarded as completely satisfactory by all those who desire to see this most disastrous difference of opinion brought to a complete close.
The most reverend Primate went on to discuss the supremely important question of continuation schools. Many of us remember with personal affection and with
938
great regard Herbert Fisher, with whom this question of continuation schools can be specially connected. It is a deplorable fact that for so long a gap has been allowed to exist between the ending of elementary education and the various forms of higher education, for we all know from our own experience how fatally easy it is to forget a subject which we have allowed to drop altogether from our minds, and how easily a weapon becomes rusty when it is not used. There is nothing whatever surprising therefore, in hearing, as we do hear, that a lad of seventeen or eighteen, who has been through the whole curriculum of an elementary school, when called upon, perhaps as a recruit to one of the Services, or perhaps in some other capacity, to display the results of his education, has to admit that he can neither read nor write. The paramount importance of filling up these difficult years—some of the most difficult years in the life of any boy or girl—with a reasonable chance of acquiring learning cannot possibly be neglected.
The French language has an advantage over ours in the distinction which it draws between education and instruction. What we are pleased to call education here is in French called instruction. The essential difference between the two should never be forgotten. The mere process of assimilating facts is altogether different from the bringing up, the education, the training, of the mind and character. That is a distinction which applies, of course, not only to the earliest education but also to continuation schools and to the final form of higher education at the universities. I do not propose to attempt to dwell on the question of the highest form of education, university teaching, of which something has been said; but it is of course a pleasurable thought to anyone who like myself has the honour of being the Chancellor of one of the provincial universities, to consider how in the course of a lifetime the whole aspect of university teaching has changed. In my youth one never thought of anything but Oxford and Cambridge, with the possible addition of Durham and of course the famous Scottish universities: now, not only in the great centres of population but in some other places where university colleges have developed into real universities, one sees how far the general education—in the real sense of education—of all classes has proceeded and developed.

939
One point in connexion with them and also with the technical schools has to be borne in mind; that is, the essential importance of securing a solid foundation of general knowledge and, if possible, of a real literary knowledge before an attempt is made to proceed with technical education. All the experience of those who have to deal with advanced science or with the higher forms of mathematics goes to show that the lads and the young women who have had the advantage of that groundwork of general education—and often, I hope, not altogether neglecting classical education—give infinitely more promise when they come to work on technical subjects than those who too early have applied themselves to the study of technical subjects. Before I conclude I should like once more to congratulate the most reverend Primate on the service which he has done to the House by introducing this subject and opening what has proved to be a most interesting and informing debate, which I trust will have a real effect in awakening general interest on the subject.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, in beginning to say a few words on this topic I cannot refrain on personal grounds from expressing the regret that I know we all feel at the fact that our great Christian leader has found that the time has come to lay down those duties which he has performed so long, to the great advantage of all the Christian Churches not only in this country but throughout the world; or, also, from congratulating us all on the fact that he has considered that a fitting task at the close of those duties is to introduce in this House such a vastly important subject as this. I am not qualified, and I do not intend, to deal with the subject as a whole. I wish merely to call your Lordships' attention for a short time to a topic in which I am particularly interested as a Judge and a magistrate—namely, the extreme importance of the religious education when you come to deal with the question of juvenile offenders.
The figures of the increase in juvenile offences are really—I do not like to say alarming, but they certainly call for attention. The figures, which are official figures, up to the year 1929 were more or less uniform. The average figures did not increase much during the last war; they were about 300 per 100,000. But from
940
1929 to 1933 the average rose to 370; in 1934 it was 439; in 1935 it was 529; and in 1936 it was 568, or nearly double the number of the average up to the year 1929. And the actual figures for 1938 are some 26,000 boys and 1,700 girls. I am sorry to say that during this war, no doubt for various causes which it is not very easy to estimate, the figures have increased enormously. From January to August, 1940, they increased by 41 per cent. in respect of children under fourteen, and those relating to children between fourteen and seventeen have increased by 22 per cent. The position is therefore a grave one, and I think it is partly due to difficulties that the magistrates feel in not being armed with quite sufficient corrective and remedial powers, but I do not want to go into that.
One knows that there is power to put a boy on probation, to bind him over, to send him to a hostel, to send him to an approved school or a remand school, and so on. All these are correctives, and the unfortunate position at the present moment is that the remedy for sending boys to approved schools, which is in most cases an admirable way of trying to reclaim a boy, is hardly open to us. The approved schools are so overcrowded that, they tell me at the Home Office I am sorry to say, there is a waiting list—what an alarming phrase that is!—a waiting list for nearly every approved school in the country. The same thing is true of the remand homes, and the trouble is that when these boys have been committed to an approved school there is nothing to be done with them. You cannot send them to prison, and I am sorry to say that in a great many cases they have been repeating a number of the offences for which they have been committed to the approved school. These are serious conditions. Ought we not to look at this problem, not from the point of view of remedial measures, but from the point of view of preventive measures? Is it not the very first essence of the thing that these boys should be taught what their common duty as citizens is? It is, I am sorry to say, undoubtedly the fact that there are a great many children at the present day who, in spite of our very excellent organizations, are not taught the simple elements of their duty towards their neighbour or towards their God. It is that teaching which, it seems to me,

941
ought to be given in every elementary school in the country.
It is said, sometimes, that the parents ought to give it. I think that is true. I suppose they ought but I am sure your Lordships will agree there are numbers of homes in this country where the parents are incompetent to teach the elementary truths of the duty of the Christian life. I am sorry to say also there are other homes where, if parents were to give any teaching at all, it would be in the opposite direction to that which most people would desire. Is it not essential that in every school the children should be taught the ordinary duties of living honestly, living cleanly in body and mind, abstaining from cruelty and violence, telling the truth? The list could be extended. There are numbers of these offenders who have never been taught that it is wrong to steal or never been taught to abstain from acts of violence. It is in that respect a matter of the greatest importance to the State that such teaching should be available for every child that goes into every school for the simple reason that they cannot be taught in a great many homes—and if they are not taught at home, where can they be taught? Is it not the primary duty of those charged with the education of children to see, at any rate, that their character is moulded on Christian lines?
I suggest that this problem is a very urgent one. There are no difficulties now, as it seems to me, in securing this teaching in any school that wishes to give it. I do not know how many of your Lordships have read any of the syllabuses. Only the other day I was reading the Cambridge Syllabus—a beautiful document. If any of our children were educated on the lines of that syllabus, we should be quite satisfied, and it would not make a scrap of difference whether that syllabus were taught by a sincere Nonconformist or a sincere member of the Church of England. But the more one reads that syllabus, the more convinced one is that it requires a training in teaching it. The syllabus itself emphasizes that. That is one reason, I think, for the imperfections in the teaching of religion in schools. A great many teachers with the desire to do it cannot do it. Why should training not be given to a teacher—a male teacher or a female teacher—in each school as to how these elements, which everybody is
942
agreed should be imparted by the teacher, should be taught? I cannot believe that legislation is required for that purpose.
I have no doubt, myself, that if training colleges were to provide a course of this kind—a post-graduate course—every local authority should be charged to see that in every school there is one teacher who is trained to give religious education. I cannot believe it requires legislation to enable that teacher to pass from class to class, and give religious teaching as required. They do it in all other subjects, or in many of them. We have a qualified mathematics teacher, a qualified French teacher, a qualified music teacher, teachers in what are called commercial subjects, and so on. Surely it is as important for teachers to be taught how to teach religion as to teach mathematics, and just as important that we should have trained teachers for this purpose.
One thing that rather disappointed me in the noble Lord (Lord Hankey) who replied for the Government was the way in which he dealt with the urgency of this problem. We are rather used to expect from the noble Lord things done in connexion with those activities in which he takes part, but he has acquired the complete Front Bench manner; and in respect of this matter all I gathered was that the Minister would give most benevolent consideration to what has been said. He could not promise he would do anything at any time that could be named in the future. How often have we heard that from Ministers? It was very striking, if I may say so, to mark the contrast between the beginning of his speech, when he dealt with these topics, and the zeal which he showed in dealing with the question of technical education. Things have been done in that field during the war, straight away, with the greatest success. What I suggest is that the noble Lord might help the Minister to secure for religious education some of the energy which has been put into technical education.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, whom we hear with the greatest interest and who speaks of his experience in the London Education Authority, uttered words of warning and spoke of the great advance made in the last twenty-five years. I rather gathered that he viewed with complacency the lapse of another twenty-five years to see what would happen in the meantime. The question is, with great

943
respect, very much more urgent than that. Just let us see what the position is. There are Committees, Departments, societies and individuals all concerned with planning what is to be the future of this world after the war. They are dealing with conditions at which they can only guess, and with resources for which they can only hope. But this is a question where we know all the problems. We have got the children before us. They have got to be the citizens of the future. They have got to be the citizens in that world which we wish to rebuild on Christian principles. It is our duty to take steps at once to see there are no delays in that respect.
There is no question of waiting to reconcile conflicting and unhappy differences. The time for appeasement has really gone. The ranks of Christians are closing and are closed. We are all concerned unanimously in emerging towards the goal of teaching religious Christian truths to our children, and in those circumstances, I suggest that steps ought to be taken at once to facilitate the whole of the five points mentioned by the most reverend Primate. It is an urgent problem, it is a problem which must be dealt with, and it relates to conditions that must exist after the war. I venture to hope that your Lordships will agree with the Motion that has been proposed.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, having been absent through illness, I intervene with some diffidence this afternoon. If I may crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes, I should like to indicate in the fewest possible words both the good will and the anxiety of Free Churchmen in this matter. As Vice-President of the Methodist Conference this year, I am not altogether un-conversant with the trend of opinion in the Free Churches. Perhaps, therefore, I may voice what I believe to be not only the keen interest, but indeed the anxious concern, of Free Churchmen generally as to the content of the prospective plans of His Majesty's Government for the education and training of the rising generation, with particular regard to Christian teaching in the schools of the country. Christian education is an absolutely essential factor in our national life, and examples of a Christian conception of life should, I submit, be available for every child whose parents so desire. The Christian
944
faith should be the basis and inspiration of all our educational work, or, to use the apt phrase of the most reverend Primate, its unifying aim.
Let me at the outset pay my tribute to the value of the religious instruction and worship at the present time being given in the provided schools of the country. The unselfish devotion of the teachers generally is deserving of the highest praise. I would go further and say that in my judgment they have just cause to resent much that has been written and said about the existing state of religious teaching, especially such talk as that of "pagan schools." Where, and in so far as, there has been cause for criticism, they and the local education authorities are the victims of the cramping effect of existing legislation with its resulting inadequate and obsolete regulations. The deficiency of Christian education is, I submit, more serious in the secondary than in the elementary schools. This may be accounted for by the pressure of examinations and the preponderant attention paid to physical science, but it is the more serious if only because of the tendency for secondary schools to increase in number while elementary schools are more likely to decrease, added to which the pupils in the secondary schools, being then nearer to manhood and womanhood, are more likely to remember what they are taught in their secondary than in their elementary schools.
I think it would be generally conceded that the adoption of adequate syllabuses of Biblical instruction by local authorities is, as the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, emphasized, of paramount importance. While there has unquestionably been a great advance in this matter and there are some really admirable syllabuses in use, such as that to which the noble Lord referred, the Cambridge Syllabus, the Middlesex Syllabus, the Surrey Syllabus and a number of others, nevertheless there are still some authorities whose syllabus is inadequate, and I believe I am right in saying that one in six of the local education authorities have not adopted one at all. Next I should like to emphasize the inestimable value of daily and reverent corporate worship in the schools. Here again it is in the secondary schools where there would appear to be more scope for reform. Then let me stress the crucial

945
importance of adequate training being available, for all candidates for the teaching profession in their college course, in order that they may be enabled to impart this instruction and exercise this influence.
Then, too, of almost equal imortance is the encouragement of teachers in their subsequent career by local education authorities and the provision of facilities for gaining degrees and diplomas in Biblical and religious subjects. I should like to thank the noble Lord the Paymaster-General for what he said earlier in the debate on behalf of the Government as to the provision for university extension lectures and vacation courses for teachers. Safeguards will be necessary to ensure the liberty of the teachers to give or not to give this instruction without advantage or detriment to their careers. One thing is certain, only instructed and willing teachers with a personal experience can adequately discharge this all-important task. It is the atmosphere of the school and the personal witness and influence of the teachers that leave the most enduring mark and that prepare the soil in which the seed sown ripens and breaks forth into fruit in after life.
When Lilias Trotter lay dying—that lovely artist soul whose life was poured out in the service of Christ among the Moslems in Algiers—some one brought to her sick room a spray of very early pear blossom. "Oh," she said with delight, "that's so like souls, you never know when they'll break out." What she had learnt in her patient ministry is a secret known to many school teachers. What nobler service can there be than influencing young lives for Jesus Christ? Nothing but a definitely spiritual end can fulfil the true purpose of our national system of education. That being so, the facts and means essential to a Christian interpretation of life must be made freely available in all our schools and especially in our secondary schools. Nothing can be more important than to ensure that the characters of the rising generation are based upon a definite knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Finally, my Lords I should like without presumption heartily to support what the noble and learned Lord said just now, that there should not be unnecessary delay in this matter. In fact I think, in legal terminology, we might say that time is the essence of the bargain. It is so
946
all-important that this matter should be handled now, fearlessly faced and adequately dealt with. I would enter a plea that the Government will not postpone action in this all-important matter while they are planning a large-scale reshaping of the entire educational structure to meet the difficulties and inefficiencies of the dual system, for any such comprehensive measure may of necessity have to be delayed while the time of Parliament is so largely taken up with all that concerns the bringing of the war to a successful conclusion. In view of the great spiritual ideals for which we are waging the war, I submit that if Christian principles are to prevail there is greater urgency for this matter than for the improvements and developments on the secular side of the question to which we all look forward. There is no question of our seeking denominational privilege or advantage. Our anxiety is to stress the things we have in common.
I am sure the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, will not misunderstand me if I refer to something he said earlier in the debate about the dual system. Although he spoke guardedly, he said "the situation may solve itself," and later in his speech he used the words "until I can see some better means." I feel, although perchance I may be treading on somewhat thin ice, that I should not be honest if I did not say quite frankly that we look forward to the day when the dual system of education will make way for one great national system, because children and teachers in single-school areas must be at a disadvantage. Where single-school areas are surrendered provision should be made for agreed religious instruction and special facilities granted for those children whose parents desire them to receive denominational instruction. I emphasize again the point that this matter brooks no delay. If we in any way fail to do all in our power to ensure a Christian basis for society, I do suggest that our responsibility will be an exceedingly grave one.
The German philosopher-poet Goethe, whose mind was probably beyond anything the world has known since Aristotle, once said that we human beings are "outwardly limited, but inwardly limitless." Yes, in the words of Jesus Christ:
" That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

947
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."
The world can indeed be run God's way but we seem only just beginning to realize that it cannot be run any other way. I believe with the fullest conviction that the aim and end of Christian education should be directed to bringing the children to a personal experience of the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God."
And that, I submit, should be our goal.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I should like to add my own word of thanks to the many that have been tendered to the most reverend Primate for initiating this debate and giving the members of this House an opportunity of discussing what has again and again been described in the debate as the most important subject probably of any before the country to-day, in spite of the war. As has been said very forcibly, this is of most pressing urgency. I do not think any of us can have listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, without being very much moved by what he said, and without wishing to thank him for the way in which he said it, in bringing before the House the urgency of this matter. If I address myself mainly to the religious side of this question, it is not because I belittle the need of reform in the educational system of this country generally and in carrying on education to as high an age as we can. I do not think education stops when you are supposed to have finished with school or university. What the most reverend Primate said about adult education is a matter which I hope will not be overlooked. But I want to address myself mainly to religious education, because I think it is true that it is of absolutely paramount importance for the future of this country and for the ultimate peace of the world.
I do not think there is likely to be any peace at all unless it is based on Christian principles and is permeated and sustained by the Christian spirit. I do not think anyone who knows anything about the present system of religious education can be satisfied with it. When we criticize it—as some of us have for many years criticized it strongly—it has generally been supposed that we are criticizing particularly
948
the teachers. I want to say at once that I am not doing that at all. I know enough about teachers, both in provided and non-provided schools, to know that in spite of the system many are doing quite admirable work. I cannot imagine how they do it. It is the system which needs reform. To start with, I do not think it is the fact that we are giving Christian religious education in this country in all our schools. Under the present system there is only one qualification demanded of teachers, and that is willingness to teach this particular subject. Willingness by all means both in the cause of religion and in the cause of the freedom of the teacher's conscience. I am prepared to fight for that freedom to the last ditch. Who wants anybody to be forced to teach religion against his or her will?
But in the interests both of religion and education surely anyone who teaches the subject ought to show that he or she has acquired a knowledge of that subject in order to teach it. In what I am about to say I am not chaffing about this; I am perfectly serious, because this is what it comes to not only in elementary or primary schools but very often in our public schools. Why the knowledge of history, geography, English, mathematics or even of elementary biology should in itself be a qualification for teaching elementary Christian theology I have never been able to understand. If I put in an application for a post to teach elementary biology, either in an elementary or a public school, and advanced as a qualification that I knew a little about elementary theology, I am quite sure I should not get the job. That is my first complaint, and a very fundamental point from the educational point of view. My second is that the present system does not encourage teachers to qualify themselves, to acquire the knowledge that is necessary for them to teach this subject. It discourages them. It is a most extraordinary thing that only quite recently have the public wakened up to the fact that you cannot in training colleges, if you want to be a teacher and take your teacher's certicate, take this subject as one of the necessary subjects for that certificate. Anyone who knows anything about training colleges—and I have been Chairman of one for a good many years—knows that there are many young people who will make admirable teachers with proper training, but whose previous education or their modesty

949
makes them feel that they cannot risk taking an additional subject for fear of not obtaining the certificate for which they are working.
My third complaint is that until comparatively recently, since the introduction of agreed syllabuses—and it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has said, that they do not exist under every local education authority in the country—little or no guidance has been given to the teachers as to what they are expected to teach. I am sure that is true. I know that a great many of the best headmasters take an immense amount of trouble in helping their teachers, but officially, up to date, practically no help has been given them at all. They are given a free hand, you say? Yes, but anyone who knows anything about the Holy Scriptures knows that if you are given a free hand with the Bible you can really teach almost anything you want to.
My fourth complaint is that this subject being the most important of the lot is the only one in the whole school curriculum that is not inspected or supervised by anyone. You will wonder what impression is given to some children and to some teachers by reason of the fact that the highest education authorities in this country representing the nation as a whole do not think this subject sufficiently important for anybody to inspect or take any notice of. It is giving an entirely wrong impression, and the teachers are deprived of the help which they get in all other subjects. I would submit that the system, if you really face it, is, from an educational point of view, wholly indefensible. You may say, "Well, who is to blame?" I do not really think that at this time it matters much who has been to blame in the past. I should certainly strain your Lordships' patience to the limit if I started to talk about the history of past controversies. Thank God, as has already been pointed out, an amazing change has come about, and has come about, I believe, very largely because we have now seen, after three generations, that is since 1870, the result of the kind of so-called religious teaching that has been given.
It has not been wholly bad—please do not think I am saying that—but it has been very far from what it ought to be, and in the general confusion and suspicion that there has been about this
950
subject, what has actually happened? I do not want to exaggerate; I do not think I am exaggerating; I really have taken a very keen interest in this question all my life. Owing to whatever the causes are that have brought it about, we have not had as a whole what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has been pleading for so nobly to-day, and what the' noble Lord, Lord Atkin, pleaded for also: we have not had Christian religion taught—I am not saying Church of England or Roman Catholic or Wesleyan or anything else, but the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. What we have done not only in elementary schools, but in education generally, is to have recourse to doing what, as any Bishop knows, any clergyman knows, most laymen know, and all fathers know, is the easiest thing to do—that is to exhort your children or your flock to be good. You can keep on doing that—I am quite sure they need it—but where do you get to?—absolutely nowhere. You take no responsibility; you need not believe in goodness yourself; you just go on exhorting other people. What I complain of is that that system has been based mainly on exhortation, and on Christian ethics. It is, if I may say so, very much the kind of religious teaching which is so common with the English—" Pull your socks up! "or" Get a move on! "You may be able to pull up your socks, but nobody has yet been able to pull himself up by his own coat collar.
That is really the crux of the position that we have to face to-day. I do not want to make fun of the teaching of Christian ethics, but I simply do not believe that you can produce Christian character—which all of us want and expect—if you divorce your teaching from the Christian faith and the Christian creed. You cannot produce the fruit without the root. I believe there is a common agreement, and I was immensely cheered by hearing Lord Rankeillour, as a Roman Catholic, in his opening speech to-day, say that there was probably far more fundamental agreement on doctrines of the Christan faith than ordinary people think. I believe that is true and I am strengthened in that belief by the agreed syllabuses that have been drawn up. I do not believe that you will ever teach Christian morals if you divorce them from the Christian creeds. It has been proved, I believe, that no man can fight and

951
overcome the unseen spiritual forces of the devil except in the power of the unseen spiritual forces of God. I do not think it is fair to children to tell them to be good or to hold before them the Christian ideal without telling them where and how they can get the power to live it.
We have got to demand, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has said—and I want to thank him for saying it publicly in this House to-day—teachers who are themselves convinced of the truth of the Christian faith. Some people will say that that introduces tests for teachers, but I deny it. I would myself vote against the tests for teachers which used to exist. This, however, is not the old idea, that anybody who wanted to teach in a school, college or university must sign the XXXIX Articles, or whatever it was he had to do, before he could be allowed to teach even mathematics. We do not ask that. Nothing that the most reverend Primate has said here, or has ever said, could be taken for a moment as suggesting that that is what is demanded. What we ask is that, from an educational point of view, this subject should be taught by people qualified to teach it. We do not want mere ethics, not because we do not want people to live a Christian life, but because we know that they cannot live a Christian life without the grace of God, and they ought to be taught what the grace of God is and where they can get it. We want people who will be able to teach that, and who are qualified to teach it.
I have the highest regard for the teaching profession, and not least for those who teach in our primary and secondary schools. I believe that they are as trustworthy and conscientious a body of men and women as can be found in this country or in any country in the world. Personally, therefore, I should be prepared to trust them to say whether they are willing or not to teach this subject, provided—and this seems to me most important—that certain things are made clear. The first is that they should show proper qualifications from the point of view of knowledge. Secondly, the Government, through the Education Department, should provide proper facilities for them to obtain those qualifications and take their certificate. Thirdly, they should be told quite distinctly and clearly what they are expected to teach; and, if we want them to
952
teach what is contained in so many syllabuses, that will mean the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith; not mere vague theism, but the Christian religion. Fourthly, they should get the same help in teaching this subject as they get in teaching any other subject.
I thank you, my Lords, for the kindness you have shown me by listening to me for so long, but I must plead for a little more patience, because I want to refer to a matter to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, referred just now, and that is the question of urgency. I gather from what the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said on the previous occasion that these suggested reforms would require legislation. I have always been under the impression—and I think I am right—that only one of them needs legislation, and that is the question of inspection.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD HANKEY): Four of them need legislation.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: Four out of the five?
LORD HANKEY: Yes.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: Is legislation required for making the extra subject an optional subject for the certificate?
LORD HANKEY: No, that is the fifth.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: I knew that inspection required legislation, but surely the qualification of knowledge is something which might be dealt with without legislation. If legislation is required, I hope that that legislation will be hurried through; because, if there is general agreement—as I believe there is—there is no reason why the matter should not be dealt with at once. There is one other thing which I want to say, and it will be my last word on the subject. It is a matter which has not so far been referred to. I dare say that there is a very good answer to it, but I should like to know what the answer is. If this question of education is the most important matter in the country, why is it that the Presidency of the Board of Education is held to be one of the minor offices in His Majesty's Government, and, being one of the minor offices, is looked upon as a stepping-stone to higher office? The consequence of that is that the position is very often regarded as a "try-out," to see what a man will be like, to

953
the great detriment of the cause of education in this country; because it cannot be said that the continual changes—there have been a few recently, and in the last twenty years I can remember quite a number—are good for education. Why should not a man who holds this office be ranked with the other Secretaries of State? There is an answer to that, I suppose, and I hope that I shall get it.
VISCOUNT WOLMER: My Lords, the most reverend Primate has set a worthy coping on long service to Church and State by inaugurating the notable debate which is taking place in this House. The attendance throughout the debate, the eloquence of the speeches to which we have listened, the unanimity of feeling, and the agreement found in all quarters and among all denominations in the House, both as regards the urgency and as regards the essential features of the problem, are very significant indeed. I think that on this occasion, as so often in the past, your Lordships' House has reflected very accurately the feelings of the nation. There is no doubt—and I think that His Majesty's Government are aware of it—that the nation is profoundly disturbed about this subject. It is profoundly disturbed by two things: in the first place by seeing what paganism has led to on the Continent, and secondly by a realization that this country has been and is slipping towards paganism—I will not put it higher than that. It is a terrible fear, and one which I think is held, and held not without reason, very widely throughout the country.
No one of any intelligence who has that fear would be so foolish as to lay the whole blame on our educational system, and still less on those who have to administer our educational system. We know that if there is a drift towards paganism the causes are more deep-seated than that; and that there can be no hope of a religious revival which does not find its centre in the homes of the people themselves. You cannot hope to make a reform of that nature or of that magnitude merely by trying to reform your educational system: it is vastly greater than that. Nevertheless, we all know and must recognize that our educational system and its administration are intimately connected with the problem, and if it is the wish of Parliament and the wish of the elder sections of the nation to
954
try to arrest what I have called the drift towards paganism, then some action must be taken in the educational sphere as well as in other spheres. I think that is the feeling in the country, which has been reflected so well in the debate in your Lordships' House.
I think the keynote was given by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, in the short and eloquent speech that he made earlier when he said, after having pointed out what has happened abroad:
" There is indeed a great undoing before us in all Europe, and a great human upbuilding of the foundation of faith and character is a dominant need before the world."
If that is the case—and who can doubt that it is the case after listening to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord, Atkin this afternoon—what can be done in the educational sphere in the direction that your Lordships and the nation so clearly desire? Well, the way has been pointed out in this debate. There is very general agreement indeed on the steps that can be taken and should be taken. There is very general agreement among the denominations; there is very general agreement among educationists; I believe there is very general agreement among the teachers themselves.
Everyone can understand and respect the anxiety that teachers may feel, and those who speak on their behalf must feel, that in any reform, in any new settlement, nothing should be done which would put a school teacher who did not feel conscientiously able to give religious teaching in an unfair position. We can all understand that, we can all respect that. I am certain that it is not the desire of any of those who are pressing the Government on this matter that anything of the sort should occur. Thank Heaven, the vast majority of the teachers of this country, in provided as well as in non-provided schools, are very keen Christians, and we are absolutely prepared to leave it to their honour as to whether they are qualified by belief as well as by knowledge to take part in giving this education. But if religious education is to be treated as the most important part of education, then those who give it must have exactly the same qualifications for giving it as they would have for any other subject.
There are only two other points I would like to make in regard to the urgency and importance of this question. The

955
first is that in the great educational reforms that have been forecast by the Government and in the extension of the school age the influence of the schools on the rising generation must greatly increase. The longer people are kept at school the more will their school life influence them, and therefore this subject is going to be even more important in the future than it has been in the past. Surely, also, we have to recognize that we live in an age of mass production, so to speak, where human opinion and human standards seem to be more stereotyped and more uniform than they have been in the past. After all, that is part of the technique of the dictators. We live in an age of mass psychology, of great mass influence upon the individual. If that is true, how fearfully important the nature of your education in a prolonged educational system is going to be.
This matter will be looked upon from different angles by people who are Christians and by those who are not Christians. The non-Christian view has not been expressed in your Lordships' House during this debate, but we all know that it exists in important circles in this country. I do not think the urgency or importance of this matter need be argued or discussed further from the Christian point of view. All Christians are agreed and alarmed. But I would like to say one word on this subject to the non-Christians—not to our Jewish fellow-subjects, because we know, although their religion is different, that their interest and their belief in the value of religious education is just the same as that of the Christians. What I am endeavouring to say is not addressed to that quarter at all. But to those who are not able to accept the Christian faith I would like to say this. Will they not agree at any rate that the whole of Anglo-Saxon democracy and representative government as we know it—the liberty of the subject and the rights of the individual as they have been developed in the Anglo-Saxon nations—that the foundation of all this is to be found in the values established by Christian teaching? If you took away the Christian standard of values what would be left of democracy and individual liberty as we know it in this country?
We all know there have been Christian Governments that have been monarchies
956
or autocracies, but I do not know a single case of any democratic Government in the modern sense of the term where there has not been in that nation a foundation of Christian standards of values to uphold it. Where that standard of values has disappeared and has been submerged, only the law of the jungle has taken its place. That is the situation we are witnessing in certain parts of Europe to-day. Therefore, I would say to those who are not themselves able to accept the Christian religion, "Do not make it difficult for younger generations to be given a chance to accept it if they wish."
LORD ELTON: My Lords, on more than one disastrous field we have been warned that complacency can weaken and blind us on the material plane. Time after time we have ignored our material weakness until it was too late. To-day we have only got to open our morning newspaper to find the Press warning the Government against complacency as to strategy or arms production. But there is such a failing as spiritual complacency, and it may be a more insidious and more perilous failing even than complacency on the material plane. Very recently, I am told on the best authority, a certain public school was being converted into a secondary school under the control of a public authority. All went well. Building after building was successfully adapted to its new purpose until they came to the school chapel, and then they came to a full stop. Why? Because there is no place for the school chapel in the national system of education. There simply is not such a thing. It is perhaps worth remembering that symbolic incident if ever any of us are tempted to complacency about the religious education of this country. It is not enough to say that so many hours of religious instruction are given in the schools. It is not even enough—although it is undoubtedly true, and it has very properly been said several times both to-day and in the former debate on this subject—that we have a large number of devoted teachers conscientiously doing their work. We have all of us been pupils, and some of us have been teachers. I myself taught for twenty years—not, it is true, in a school, but in a university—and on the strength of that experience, which in a sense we all share, I would venture to make the categorical assertion that in the

957
long run any man who teaches any subject in which he does not profoundly believe does more harm than good.
The young are infinitely perceptive. They are instantly aware of any insincerity in their teacher. Owing to the necessity, the regrettable necessity, of withdrawing children, at the option of their parents, from religious instruction, it is not possible for the schools controlled by public authority to do what, very naturally, any voluntary school does, and that is hand over the teaching of religious subjects to the enthusiast and the expert. Religious teaching has to be crowded into the beginning or end of a school day, and consequently has to be handed out to a very large proportion of the school staff. Yet, in spite of that, the local education authority, when it is appointing a new teacher, makes it in most cases a point of honour not to inquire whether he has any religious opinions—not to inquire, in fact, whether he regards religion as the highest form of truth or as a particularly virulent form of poison. They can ask him—they do ask him, if I am correctly informed—whether he is fond of football, but they may not ask him whether he has ever opened the Bole. It is impossible to imagine a local education authority appointing somebody to teach arithmetic without inquiring whether he has ever spent two consecutive hours studying the subject, or whether he regards the whole thing as pernicious nonsense. Yet, you have to imagine that, in order to get some picture of the respective significance attached to the teaching of arithmetic and the teaching of religion in this country to-day.
A partial solution, of course, is contained in what the noble Lord, Lord Atkin, has said, and in the third of the points put forward by the deputation headed by the most reverend Primate not long ago. It would certainly be a partial solution to bring it about that where only a few teachers are, in the fullest sense, competent to give religious instruction, then the teaching should be confined to their hands. That, of course, means certain technical alterations, so that religious teaching should be possible at any hour of the school day. It requires certain technical changes, but that much at least is indispensable if religious instruction is to be put on a footing with instruction in any other subject. But there are many
958
who would say that that is not a complete solution. There are many who would say that Christian education does not, after all, mean the study of a certain subject at a certain time, but the study of all subjects in a certain way. That is taking the matter a little further. The only final satisfactory solution would be to break down this sterile tradition of the local education authority that it is improper to ask a man, who may spend the whole of his life in the closest association with the young, whether or not he regards religion as the highest form of truth or as an opiate for the people. There need be no question of a religious test. All that is necessary is that the local education authority should recognize that no school is providing a Christian education unless some small recognized proportion of its staff, at any rate, are Christians, and unless religious teaching is provided by people who believe in religion.
This is necessarily, and I think very properly and usefully a somewhat scrappy debate, in the sense that the most reverend Primate opened up so tremendously wide a subject that it is impossible for any one speaker to deal with more than one little corner or fragment of it. I turn for the moment left me to a different topic, and ask your Lordships to remember that what we need for that spiritual regeneration which can only come from more religious teaching is more leadership all through society. Is there such a press of obvious alternatives to the present Prime Minister that we can feel confident that our methods of education and selection are finding us our right leaders? After all, the totalitarian States are all of them still in their revolutionary phase, and that means that not only the two or three big shots at the top, but most of the men at the head, as we should say, of the various Departments, will be men who have forced and fought their way up through the lava of a society in revolution, and that is a process which is unlikely to produce the Christian virtues, but will undoubtedly produce a great deal of ruthless energy and fanaticism. Are we sure that our system is providing the sort of administrator who possesses the ruthless drive and vision to cope with the enemy? To provide the leaders of the future undoubtedly the first need is to incorporate into the national educational

959
structure the public school with its century-old tradition of emphasis on character training. But that is a very wide subject which there is no time now to explore, and with your permission, my Lords, I propose to devote the last few sentences of my speech to another means, as I believe, of providing for the selection and education of the leaders of the new age, a means of which I have had some personal experience, and which I have seldom or never seen mentioned elsewhere.
We are bound to see in the post-war age a very considerably increased traffic upon the ladder of educational opportunity, and that makes it all the more important to ensure that the clamberers on the ladder of educational opportunity are properly selected. At present the climbers on the rungs of this ladder of opportunity are selected by a mere series of intelligence tests, of tests in pure intelligence. Yet the most cursory glance at one's own personal experience, or at the paces of history, should surely be sufficient to remind us that no great achievement depends upon mere intelligence. No matter what type of achievement you look at, whether you choose Dickens or Gladstone or Nelson, you find that intelligence is there undoubtedly, but there is something else. There is something which we are accustomed, loosely and perhaps inaccurately, to describe as character. But our present examination system simply does not pay any regard to character whatever. It does worse. It is capable of passing on from examination to examination a spineless bookworm the last of whose many triumphs may land him in Whitehall to "Pass to you, please" for the rest of his natural career.
Under the present examination system, with a mere test of book digestion and the capacity for absorbing and eloquently reproducing the ideas of other people, I firmly believe myself that Shakespeare and Cromwell and Nelson, and it may be Winston Churchill himself, would have been ignominiously ploughed, because the boy with rough-hewn original ideas of his own too often finds them serving as a sort of non-conductor for the ideas of other people, and in early youth he therefore passes for a dullard, and on the ladder of opportunity, whose rungs are controlled by a series of pure intelligence tests, he simply does not get his foot on to the first rung. Fortunately there are
960
patterns of how it might be possible to reform the examination system, and, since the examination system necessarily controls the education of a country, therefore with it the whole education system itself.
Cecil Rhodes wanted leaders. To use his own words, he wanted men who would esteem the performance of public duty their highest aim. He knew very well that a mere test in book digestion would not find leaders. He must have known that, for he must have known he was a leader himself, and he knew very well he could never have won a scholarship at school or college. In his fifth will, I think it was, the will which founded the scholarships, he laid down very meticulous instructions as to how he thought leaders were best found; and, crudely summarized, those instructions seem to amount to this: that his scholars ought to possess either exceptional character founded upon sound intellect, or exceptional intellect, founded upon sound character. Neither alone. Neither the spineless bookworm nor the gorilla-like he-man. The Rhodes scholar must be the all-round man of intellect and character.
I think there is already evidence that Cecil Rhodes's surmise of how leadership would best be found is working well in practice. There are already statistics to show that during the last few years a higher proportion of his scholars have actually obtained Firsts in the final schools at Oxford than of the open scholars and exhibitioners from British public schools who have been selected on a pure intelligence test, and, although here of course there are naturally no statistics, I think it would be true to say, to put it no higher, that at least a large proportion of them are fulfilling the aim of their founder and deeming the performance of public duty their highest aim. The late Norman Rogers, the Minister of Defence in Canada, who died so tragically in an air accident only the other day, was only one outstanding example of many former Rhodes scholars who are now holding places of high responsibility all over the British Commonwealth and the United States of America. I hope very much that I shall live to see a time when the whole examination system of the country approximates much more closely to the Rhodes ideal, with its test of potential leadership, than to any mere test in intelligence:

961
when it will be a two-fold test in intelligence and character.
Already there are signs here and there on the educational front that education itself is ready for some such change. There is, for example, the County Schemes, which I believe have been in operation in many parts of the country, by which a boy is expected, besides digesting his written authorities, to reach a certain standard in running, jumping, and athletics generally, to make something with his hands, to carry out an exploration, to sail a boat on the open sea. I look forward to the lime when some such certificate as that, much extended and developed, and dovetailed into the existing system, will be just as necessary to the ambitious young man as his First in the final school at some university. I have ventured to offer a couple of suggestions intended to do something, however small, to meet the two great needs of to-day, the need of an all-round education which alone will give us the leaders we require for the future, and the need of more effective religious training, without which we shall never achieve that spiritual regeneration through suffering without which we ought not to expect to win the war.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: My Lords, with great respect I would like to add my little quota of thanks to the most reverend Primate for the breadth of view with which he approached this great subject. There have been other occasions on which many of us have been grateful to the most reverend Primate for a similar breadth of view in other connexions. I want, if I may, very briefly to urge the importance of three general but practical considerations. The first is this: There is a very large body of thoughtful people who desire that more attention should be given to the religious side of education and who are prepared to agree as to its general principles. They desire to promote a genuinely religious attitude on the part of the rising generation; that is to say an attitude of reverence, thankfulness, cooperative service. The conception of a Divine Creator, who has revealed Himself partially in the beauty and goodness and order in the world and supremely in Jesus Christ our Lord, and of our co-operating for all we are worth with' His life-giving spirit—that conception is one which provides just that inspiration which human beings need. We want teachers who are
962
inspired by this conception themselves, and if so care must be taken to develop by all suitable means along the course of the teachers' training a truly religious atmosphere in that broad sense.
A great deal, too, will depend, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has already said, on the character of the brief religious service which should open the school working day. I always remember what I once heard the headmaster of a senior school in Leicestershire say of the effect on his school of the introduction of a new service book provided by the county authority, published by the Oxford University Press, and since adopted or adapted in a number of other areas. "It simply transformed my school," he said. He was himself a Baptist, and I heard him tell the story of a parent who raised an objection to religious instruction in the school. The headmaster invited him to attend the opening service. He did so, standing at the back, and when it was over he said to the headmaster: "If this is what you mean by religious instruction you can give my child as much of it as you like."
The large body of opinion in the county to which I am referring is agreed, I think, on another matter—namely, that children should be given a knowledge of the Bible on the lines of sound scholarship. Here the aim of the teacher should be, in the first instance—as the Spens Report pointed out—to show the children the meaning which the original writers intended to convey to their readers. In order to do this the teachers themselves must of course have made a serious study of the subject under scholarly guidance. The provision of the vacation courses mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, is a valuable step in the right direction, although of course much more will be required, and there is need for close co-operation with theological colleges and universities. Teachers should be given every facility for acquiring this knowledge, and then they should not be worried with inquisitorial tests, but, as the most reverend Primate has already said, trusted to do their best.
On another important matter I think we may count on a large and growing consensus of opinion. I refer to the importance of keeping young people linked

963
to their own Christian communion. Here, of course, no school provided by public authority may take sides; but without taking sides a real effort could be made to help the young people to see the importance of fellowship in religion, and the unnecessary loss and danger incurred by solitary drifting. The new youth clubs that are being formed all over the country are not designed to take the place of the various Christian communions. They are, however, designed to promote the total well-being of young people in body, mind and spirit, and the spiritual side will need careful attention. A youth club is only very partially fulfilling its true functions if its activities are confined to dancing and handicrafts. On all this I think there is very general agreement, and I would venture to urge the Government to take courageous and effective action in accordance with what I believe is a great body of public opinion. Unfortunately it is to a large extent inarticulate opinion.
The people who are incessantly talking, and indeed shouting, are the people who have some special axe to grind: people on one of the extreme wings of the ecclesiastical position or belonging to the small group which is frankly secularist. These are the people who are always ready to agitate and the Board of Education is tempted to pay too much attention to their squeals. They must, indeed, be protected, as of course they actually are, by a conscience clause. But they must not be allowed to obstruct the broad policy of English education. I am quite prepared to trust the good sense of the Board of Education, if the Board will go forward boldly and give the first place in their consideration to the ordinary Englishman of normal common sense who says little about religion, and must not be expected to say very much, but is by no means so indifferent to it as he sometimes appears.
I think it is very important to remember that as far as the Church of England is concerned it has hitherto proved very difficult to get the main body of English Churchmen who wear no label, and put themselves down simply as C. of E., adequately represented in the councils of the Church. Until they are the Church is in danger from fanatics. The country itself is similarly in danger from fanatics, not because the fanatics are at all likely to
964
convert the nation to their way of thinking, but because they queer the pitch and confuse the issue—and, I must add, frighten the Board of Education into inactivity and indecision. Stress has already been laid on the significance of the fact that the deputation which the most reverend Primate led not long ago to the Board was a united deputation, representing the Free Churches as well as the Church of England. That deputation is itself a striking illustration of the weight of this solid body of public opinion on which I am so eager that the Board of Education should take action. Already some local education authorities have a sub-committee which includes representatives both of the Free Churches and of the Church of England and also of the teachers to advise them on religious questions. A similar standing advisory committee of a representative character might render valuable service to the Board itself.
The second consideration which I would urge upon the Board is quite a different one. My own rather protracted experience of school and university life has shown me that education in this country is still at an initial, experimental stage. At every level there is room, there is need for great improvement: in the elementary schools, the so-called senior schools, the secondary schools, the so-called public schools, the universities: improvements in curriculum, improvements in examination, improvements in teaching method, and so on. But if this is so, if the whole of English education is not at an end but at a beginning, then a wise Government will surely encourage a variety of educational experiments, if they show any real promise.
The Board is tempted to desire to get all the education of the country under its detailed control. I hope the Board will steadily resist the temptation. Uniformity has a natural attraction for the official mind; but in education, and especially at the present stage of educational development in this country, any attempts to compel uniformity will surely involve harm and loss. No doubt some of the schools at present governed by an independent governing body will before long need financial help from the Government in some form or other; and the receipt of Government money will naturally involve some degree of Government supervision. But it is earnestly to be hoped that such

965
supervision will be exercised with the utmost sympathy and consideration; and, where general educational efficiency is secured, will give room, and indeed encouragement, to individuality and initiative and to a variety of colour. We do not want a totalitarian system of education in this country.
In this connexion it may not be superfluous to remind education authorities from time to time that the soundness and efficiency of the school is not measured by the exact condition of its buildings. Spirit and tone an; far more important, we all agree, than bricks and mortar. This, of course, does not exempt governing bodies and managers of schools from strenuous endeavours to make their buildings satisfactory and as nearly up-to-date as is practicable. But I have occasionally been shocked, as I expect some of your Lordships have been, at the number of marks given to mere buildings by persons who ought to know better, as compared with the marks given to the school for its success (in spite of obvious disadvantages) in turning out young people prepared in body, mind and spirit to play a useful part in the life of the community.
My third point is concerned with elementary education. In elementary education, I hold no brief for what is called the dual system to its present extent and in its present form. But until an agreed modification or revision is reached I hope the education authorities will give ungrudging and generous recognition, and all the help in their power to give, to Church schools which are educationally sound. If a Church school is not educationally sound, it should be made so without delay or else handed over. The large majority of Church of England schools are, as your Lordships probably realize, small country schools. I believe that these schools still have an important function to perform. The Hadow scheme of reorganizing elementary schools and transferring children of eleven years of age and over to "senior schools," raises peculiar difficulties in country districts. There are obvious objections to requiring children to attend school miles from their home. As many teachers say it is good for instruction but not good for education. Certainly the youngest children should be cared for locally. In very many instances, I believe, the village school will prove quite satisfactory for the youngest children. The movement in the direction of
966
Christian reunion is happily gathering strength, and, in the meantime, there is much to be said for retaining these little schools for the youngest children where they are efficient Church of England schools, as Church of England schools, pending the more fundamental solution of the future.
LORD ROCHE: My Lords, I had intended to address to your Lordships some observations on the lines which my noble friend Lord Atkin has followed. But having regard to the hour at which we have arrived, and to the fact that my noble friend has covered the ground so adequately and in a manner which raises great envy in myself, I do not propose to add, on those lines, more than a few sentences. But in those few sentences I desire to express these conclusions: that juvenile delinquency has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished, and that the subject matter of this debate, the remoulding of education, and particularly of moral and religious education, may have a great deal, and, I think, can have a great deal to do with it. I am not unaware that the figures, which, as he has said, would be almost alarming, are capable of some explanation. For example, more prosecutions are now taken than there used to be. As I say, there are explanations, but notwithstanding those explanations there is room neither for complacency nor indifference. The position is very serious. The few sentences which I desire to add are just to consider not the variety of causes—for there are many which may be adduced—of this state of things, but that which I conceive to be the root or dominant cause, and one which is capable of being reached, and one hopes modified by this subject of education to discuss which we have been invited by the truly noble and inspiring speech of the most reverend Primate.
The real cause, as I conceive it to be, is lack of discipline. The best discipline, no doubt, is self-discipline, and that is discipline which the Christian religion, as I conceive it, ultimately desires to teach and at which it desires to arrive. There is too little discipline in the world to-day. There is too little parental discipline. I myself hold the view that the increasing small-ness of families, if I may so put it, has something to do with it. The members of large families had a tendency to discipline

967
one another. However that may be, that is hardly a matter which is a topic in this debate. There is all the more reason, I suggest, that discipline should be taught in the schools, in order that there may be a substitute or something which will tend to remedy the lack of parental discipline and control and to provide other and different parents for the future. The very beginning of things must surely rest in adequate instruction in the training colleges of suitable persons to teach this disciplne. If that were adopted and some form of certificate or diploma, or whatever you like to call it, were granted to the persons who so qualified themselves to give this instruction, you would get rid of the odium or difficulty of the education authorities requiring, or even venturing to refer to the need for tests for teachers in that regard. That would all be done beforehand.
I will finish these few sentences with a brief reference to what I conceive to be the minimum of teaching that is required. I gather that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans would like a great deal more to be taught. I thought he was perhaps a little ambitious. I should like as a minimum to be taught, the ten Commandments and all that they import, and the Sermon on the Mount, which vivifies and explains those Commandments. This seems to me to be the minimum. I am aware that these are taught in a very large number of schools but such teaching is not obligatory on all education authorities. I think that it ought to be. This is a matter which, like other matters which have been raised, is of serious urgency. It is, moreover, one which really need not wait until the long and far distant future for a different world and a more peaceful world. I venture to express my agreement not only with what fell from my noble friend, but also with the purport of this Motion.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, at one of those great public schools where the governing class are educated, an old-fashioned school, I was taught that it was better to be dead than to be a slave, and that one should ever resist and resent injustice, even to others. I was taught a certain freedom from fear, and I was taught self-control. Above all, however, they taught us to think, not what to think. I think we all agree that that is
968
undoubtedly the best education for the governing class, and it is for that reason that we want to preserve our public schools. This agreement goes beyond the lay Peers; it extends to the Lords Spiritual, in view of the speech which we have had from the most reverend Primate. All will agree that this is the right education for a governing class. Is it not also the right education for the governed class? This is what the most reverend Primate said, speaking of the education of the children of the workers:
"The true test of the success of teaching is not whether children are able to answer questions set by others, but whether they are eager to ask questions set by themselves."
That is, to think, not what to think—and not only for the governing class, but for the working class.
This is the first time in my life that I have heard so bold a proposition put forward for the education of the working class, that they should be taught to set questions, to ask the questions to which they want to know the answers. It is right that that acid test should be laid down by the Primate of the Church of England, for we have here the dividing line, or even the gulf, which separates the Church of England from the Church of Rome. Teach children to think, not what to think. Infallible authority may never venture on that; it must retain in its hands the whole education of its children. It is the Primate of our Church who laments that "just when their minds are being opened they are closed down." Who wants their minds opened? What is the goal of the open mind?
By what yardstick should we measure the virtues or the successes of the leaders of the State and the Church? Should we measure them by how far they have increased the power or authority of their Church or State, by how far they have increased the numbers of their flock or of their subjects, by how far they have increased the prosperity and happiness, or even the contentment, of their people, or even by how far they have kept their own people safe in a world sweeping to ruin? No. I ask your Lordships to judge them by a far higher test. I would judge the leaders of Church and State by how far they have made themselves unnecessary, by how far they have increased the self-reliance, the self-confidence, the self-respect and the self-sacrifice of their people, by how far they

969
have made those that they ruled fit and able to rule themselves, by how far they have made their flock, in the words of St. Peter, "as free as the servants of God."
Is that too hard a test? Can that be the goal of everybody in this country of our way of thinking, the goal not only for the governors but for the governed—to be able to rule themselves? Is mankind capable of freedom? The child walks as we unwrap the swaddling clothes, the cathedral stands in its full beauty as we remove the scaffolding. We here are the wrappings and the scaffolding. Shall we hope to let common men do without us? Must we answer as must the Church of Rome? Of course it is risky to be free to choose the wrong, that we may learn to choose the right. Is it too dangerous? Is man's nature perfectable, or is it to remain for ever imperfect? The Primate of our Church has spoken, and I wish it was his inauguration and not his farewell. But, having heard him, perhaps I may say my Nunc Dimittis: Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace; for the Church of my motherland has become the Church of freedom.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, this debate might have followed a different path had regard been had solely to the wide terms of the Motion before your Lordships' House. But, having regard to the phraseology of the Motion, having regard to its proponent—to whom I would respectfully ask to be allowed to offer my tribute of regard—and having regard to the vast importance of the subject itself, it was clear that the theme of the debate in your Lordships' House would be that of religious education. It would for me, a Jew, be unseemly to speak to your Lordships upon that subject, but I may perhaps be permitted to say that I hold profoundly the view that it is essental that from childhood and in the school all our people should secure a firm religious and spiritual anchorage, and I accept what I understand to be the meaning of the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Wolmer; if I do not profess the Christian faith, at least I accept the Christian standard of values.
There is no subject which is more pressing in the whole field of reconstruction than that of education. I am referring now, having passed from one subject to the other, to secular education. It is a
970
theme which will occupy the thought and the energies of Government Departments, of your Lordships' House, and of all those who are pondering the future. It is not a theme which can very well be discussed at the end of a two days' debate, when the minds of your Lordships are attuned, and naturally attuned, to what has been the main subject of the debate during that time. I should have wished at some juncture—the opportunity will no doubt recur—to ask your Lordships to address your minds to what in other regards has been referred to as the extreme urgency of dealing with this whole problem of education in the post-war world. It is of all the problems of reconstruction with which we have to deal that with regard to which preparatory work is most necessary, and that with regard to which, in contradistinction to many other subjects of reconstruction, preparatory work can be started now.
Plans can be laid, even if they cannot immediately be carried into effect, and it is of the first importance for the future well-being of all our young people that when families are reassembled and the dispersed populations come back to their homes in the towns, there shall be schools ready to receive them, equipment whereby they may be taught, and teachers available to them. Teaching staff, equipment, buildings are all of them matters which will present the greatest possible difficulty. But I would urge upon the Government that as regards all these matters such foresight should be exercised as can be at this time; but, above all, that they should earmark the teachers, so that they maybe brought back to their normal vocations, from wherever they may be serving now, at the earliest possible moment, to be available for performing their ordinary duties in teaching the young on their return from their scattered homes.
Another matter to which your Lordships' attention will naturally be directed is that of the whole organization of the elementary school system and the age at which the change-over should be made from the elementary school to the secondary school, and the question of the age to which compulsory education should go. I do not propose to ask your Lordships to consider that matter to-day; it is one of vast import, with many and complex implications. There is also—I pose the question without seeking to answer it—the question of the relationship

971
between the secondary schools and the public schools, that old and most difficult and intractable problem of the public schools which, I am convinced, have a vital part to play in the whole educational system of the future, both by adaptation and by extension. Indeed I would associate myself with what I understood to be the meaning of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I believe that from the public schools we must expect the leaders of the future—in the administration, in the Services, in the professions, in industry and in commerce—mostly to come. I wish to see the public schools so absorbed into our educational system that at some point of time, at some stage in his educational career, every boy who has passed into a secondary school may have the opportunity of acquiring some of those very special virtues which are the most conspicuous characteristics of the public schools.
The difficulty with the secondary schools is that although a number of boys remain there till they pass to the university, the great majority of them leave at sixteen or under, and it is difficult for a community to be established within a school at which boys over sixteen are so relatively small in number and who can perform for the whole body of the school those valuable services which are to be derived from the public schools where the age moves more steadily and the boys are more numerous up to the ages of eighteen or nineteen, when they proceed to the university. I do not doubt that the habit of voluntary submission to discipline and the exercise of discipline over others learnt in the public school is one of the most valuable features of the whole of our educational system in the building up of men for the future, and I want to see the opportunity afforded to all our young people of obtaining the advantages of that system.
But the mere test of examination along present lines, whether of boys or girls—for girls cannot be omitted from our consideration—as to whether they should proceed from the elementary school to the secondary school or from the secondary school elsewhere, is not itself sufficient to ensure that those who are best qualified reach the public school or the university, as the case may be. It is difficult to prescribe the sort of test. We do not want
972
merely to send to the university, possibly at the public expense, those who may well be, shall I say intellectual prigs, or become so, with no interest outside their books, and no facility save that of passing examinations. We have to devise somehow a test whereby we admit to the universities those who may not be of the highest academic qualifications, but who yet possess those qualities of personal character and of manhood which are going to make them really valuable to the nation in the world of the future. We want more men of that kind in our public life and in our Services, in industry, and in commerce, men who may lack the highest intellectual qualifications but who have the sterling qualities of character, personality and leadership. One of the prime tasks of educationists, in my submission, will be in the future the devising of tests to ascertain which of our young people disclose those qualities which, by further education at the university, side by side with those of higher intellectual attainments, are likely to be of real usefulness in the future, whether they are sent there at their own expense or at the public expense.
When I mention universities, there is one point to which I must draw your Lordships' attention, and of which I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply to be so good as to take note, though I do not expect him to make any reply to-day. It is very natural that attention should have been mostly directed in this debate to the education of boys and young men, but it is of vital importance for the world of the future that the same opportunities should be available for the girls and young women. The number of Colleges, both at Oxford and Cambridge, for young women is so limited now that it is quite inadequate for the requirements of the further education of our girls and young women. I believe the Government will have to take into consideration the question whether, by some method or other, it is not possible to increase the number of Colleges for women both at Oxford and Cambridge, and to a certain extent elsewhere also. At the close of a debate such as this, where there is one subject that has been primarily occupying your Lordships' minds, any one following can only make remarks which are discursive and disjointed. The subjects to which I have directed your Lordships' minds would require not only one debate but many

973
debates. To-day I have ventured to do no more than to indicate some of the headings of the matters that will require consideration by your Lordships in due course.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' permission to reply to some of the questions mentioned in the debate. I hope that the most reverend Primate will feel that the House of Lords on this notable occasion has responded in a really proper spirit to his far-sighted action in raising this question. I feel that his Grace should be particularly well pleased that practically every speaker, in addressing himself to the subject, has spoken on the question of Christian teaching, and that a great volume of desire has been expressed all over the House that Christian teaching should be effective in the schools. The debate seems to me to be a very remarkable example of the wealth of knowledge which exists in your Lordships' House, and which can be brought to bear on any particular subject, but that wealth of knowledge makes my task, as a newcomer in this question, rather a difficult one. However, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has rather helped me here, by pointing to the extraordinarily large number of issues which have been focused into this debate. I am sure your Lordships at this late hour would not expect me to make any attempt to reply to every point, but only to one or two that have been particularly directed to me.
The point on which the greatest pressure was directed towards the Government Bench was that there should be no delay in going ahead in carrying out the five points, and in educational policy generally. This was pressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and by several other speakers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin. rather twitted me on the subject. He pointed out that when I spoke of the material contribution to our war effort, I spoke in a rather different way from that in which I had spoken before because I was speaking of something accomplished; but if I spoke of something accomplished, I did not speak of something accomplished in a hurry or a rush, or without the most careful and exhaustive consideration. Nothing is so dangerous in military matters, as the noble Lord, Lord
974
Mottistone, knows, than to rush in without proper preparation.
LORD MOTTISTONE: It is best to rush in sometimes!
LORD HANKEY: Not foolishly. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, with his great experience of these matters, commended my right honourable friend Mr. Butler for not rushing this question until it has been properly prepared by consulting all the interests concerned. He warned the House very seriously of the dangers of this question, as I ventured to do in my own remarks. It is the children's interests we have got to consider. We want proper education for the children, and there would be the most frightful danger of raising that horrible controversy of forty and even fifty years ago, which was such a hold-up to education in those days, as Lord Latham pointed out. I do want to assure your Lordships that the Government are not fobbing you off with excuses for inaction in saying that these consultations are going on. I am sure that those persons who are most intimately concerned with the subject will be the first to realize the difficulty of the negotiations which are actually proceeding all the time.
I owe just a word of explanation to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, about my statement in my previous speech that legislation would be necessary to carry out four out of the five points. I was perfectly correct in making that statement. Religious instruction, which is the first point, and religious observance, which is the last point, are universal, or almost universal, in our schools, but they are not secured by statutory requirements. If they are to be so secured, as the five points suggest, then legislation would be necessary. Another of the points—for altering the present fixed times for religious instruction in public elementary schools—would also require legislation, for the reason, that it is at present fixed by legislation, so that new legislation would be required to alter the existing legislation. The same applies to the exclusion of inspection of religious instruction from the duties of His Majesty's inspectors.
I think I must say a word about the training of teachers. That was first raised by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, who urged the necessity of giving the

975
youth of this country the best possible religious instruction. But many speakers have mentioned it this afternoon. The schools, of course, have to fight against some difficulties owing to the apathy and indifference of parents to which the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, drew attention. The schools cannot make up for all the deficiencies of the home, so the Churches also have their part to play in this problem of giving the children the best religious instruction. At the same time everything ought to be done that can be done to equip the teachers for this most important part of their work. At the present time many of the training colleges do actually provide courses of instruction in religious knowledge, but the passing of an examination in religious knowledge docs not count towards the certificate.
It has been represented from a great many quarters to my right honourable friend Mr. Butler, that in future religious knowledge ought to count as a subject for the certificate. Mr. Butler is examining that proposal sympathetically in consultation with the interests concerned. It is one of the many questions that he is going into. I appreciate the desire that Christian teaching should be given by teachers who believe in it, which was pressed so strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and a number of other speakers, but however desirable that may be we have got to be very careful in avoiding one difficulty not to rush into another. It would hardly be possible to make religious knowledge a compulsory subject for students in training colleges, nor indeed would compulsion be of much use if, as I believe has been generally agreed in the course of this debate, the teachers who are to give the religious instruction must not only be competent but willing to give it.
There are a great many other questions I should like to have said a word about, but time will not permit. There is the question raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, who found a great deal of fault with the present system and whose remarks tended, I think, towards more positive religious teaching in the schools than what can be called simple Bible teaching. That does raise very fundamental issues and it would be impossible for me to go into them at this late hour. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, appealed to the Government to exercise foresight for the re-establishment of
976
schools after the war, so that the children may come back to schools that have been prepared. There was also the question of colleges for girls at universities. The noble Lord did not ask for an answer this afternoon, and I shall not attempt to give it, but I will report the questions in the proper quarter.
Then there was the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, which was also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Roche, about juvenile delinquency. That, of course, exists in time of peace, and it is not entirely a problem of war. I was rather surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord say the last war had not had much effect on the statistics; because my impression was that it had considerable effect and that it was always attributed to the absence of the father weakening the discipline of the home. The noble and learned Lord gave your Lordships the statistics of the present war, which are admittedly formidable. A great many reasons are given by the experts for this juvenile delinquency during the war—the absence of the father and the absence of the mother (for so many mothers now go out to do war work), interruption of school life, the evacuation, the black-out, the earning of very large wages (the juveniles are having more money than they have ever had before), and the unsettling effect of the war on adolescent boys. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, said that the root cause is lack of discipline, and I am sure there is a great deal to be said for that view. One of the best means of combating the evil is to forestall it by the provision of leisure activities and interests, and that is really one of the aims of the Service of Youth to which I addressed some remarks in my earlier speech.
I am only going to mention one more point, and that briefly. There is a sort of current underneath all this two-days' debate suggesting a doubt as to whether we are a religious nation. A good deal of evidence has been adduced to suggest that we are not. It is said there is widespread apathy and indifference to religion, less Bible reading in the homes now than formerly, and a belief that parents take less trouble about religious education and tend to leave their children to decide their own attitude towards religion. There were many other trenchant remarks made to that effect. On the other hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, believes

977
that the overwhelming majority of parents desire Christian teaching in our schools, and the noble Lord, Lord Latham, claimed that the elementary schools constitute the most important agency in the country for religious education. For my part, my Lords, I do not want to appear complacent. I know the dangers of that. Undoubtedly the dangers are there, but is it not rather easy to be laudator temporis acti, to overrate the devotion of our forefathers to religious observance, to go to periods of our religious history for purposes of comparison that are not really representative, to fall into the national habit of exaggerating our defects and underrating the strong basis of Christianity and religion that exists, as I believe, in the vast majority of our population?
It may be that the churches and chapels are not quite so full as they used to be; yet a great many people do go to church or chapel, and in many places of worship there are a great many more services than formerly to help the people in the change of social habits that has taken place. Then all over the country, when one passes through new suburbs that are growing up, one sees churches and chapels still being built. We know that we want more to be built. But is there any other country in the world where the broadcasting system has the same number of religious services as here? There are two full services on Sundays, two short services on weekdays, and a great many intermediate services and talks on religious subjects. I do not think that would be tolerated unless the people were at bottom religious. Anybody who has gone to a football match and listened to community singing will know that when a hymn is sung—" Abide with me "or whatever it may be—it is amazing to note how everybody not only knows the tune but knows the words. Where did they learn them? There are only three places, in the Church, or in the school, or in the home.
I cannot believe that these people are, broadly speaking, irreligious. There is so much evidence to the contrary—Armistice day, for instance, with its religious service—and the fact mentioned again and again in this debate that religious teaching is practically universal in our elementary schools. Then there are the vast sums spent on foreign missions, and bodies at home like the Salvation
978
Army, the Church Army, hostels and missions, Toc H, that are doing such good work for the Church. I cannot bring myself to be defeatist on this subject, on this branch of the eternal war between right and wrong. I feel that to be defeatist would be a bad thing at the present time when the nation needs every scrap of strength it can draw from every source. It needs especially faith—faith in ourselves, faith in our arms, faith in our cause, and faith in Almighty God.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, having taken up so much of your Lordships' time at the beginning of this debate it would be shameful if I took up any more at the close of it. I must, however, express very cordial thanks to the noble Lord who leads the Labour Party in your Lordships' House for all that he was good enough to say about my unworthy self, and also for the words which fell from the noble Marquess on the Benches opposite and from other members of your Lordships' House. I perhaps owe an apology for having made the terms of my Motion so large, because I was so anxious not to isolate the subject of religious education but to treat it in its proper setting as an essential part of all true education. I may perhaps have induced the debate to run on rather too broad lines, but I think that may be forgiven because it has led to so many most interesting speeches and so many valuable suggestions.
I would only like to say with regard to one or two points which have been made, that I should myself, if there had been time, have desired to emphasize the need, in continuation schools as well as in elementary schools, of some form of religious education. I hope that is a matter which the Board of Education will take very specially into consideration. I should have liked to say more about that bane of our educational system called examinations to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred in what I thought a most admirable speech. These things I must pass by, but I must say a word about the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin and thank him specially for calling attention to the subject of juvenile delinquencies. It causes some misgiving about the moral education of the country when we hear so much of the appalling extent at the present time of

979
thieving, of petty pilfering, of black marketing, going on in spite of the resounding sentiments of patriotism, and very often, I regret to say, on the part of those actually engaged in the national service. It is a most serious matter and it deserves fuller consideration in your Lordships' House and elsewhere than is possible now. It does suggest something wrong in the clearness and fullness of moral teaching which possibly would be stronger if it had a fuller religious foundation.
I wish to thank the noble Lord who spoke for the Government for the care he has given to the matter, and I agree with him that it is possible to exaggerate the contention that we are only in a very loose sense a religious nation. I have always urged that we should pay the greatest possible regard to the strength of religious sentiment which is so vigorous in our people, but I have always also said that we are living on capital in that matter, and unless this religious sentiment acquires strength, solidity and basis we shall find that capital becoming seriously diminished. But it is there, of course, and for what it is worth we should be thankful.
I must confess I had some sympathy with what fell from my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin when he spoke about the familiar language we are accustomed to hear from the Government Bench—that all these things will receive careful consideration; and the effect of that pill is not much alleviated by the jam of the words "sympathetic consideration" which come to much the same thing. Though I fully understand what is meant and know the limitations under which the noble Lord had to speak, I do venture to ask the Board of Education—through the President—not to be too fearful of committing themselves, not to be too much afraid, when there is obviously this great pressure of public opinion outside, of the susceptibilities of what are called the various interests concerned. There is something more than these interests. There is the interest of the whole community. I am sure, as the noble Viscount, Lord Wolmer, said, that that is now much clearer and stronger than it used to be.
After all, is it not true that he that is continually observing the wind will never
980
sow? I hope in this matter the Government will have the courage to rely upon the strength of public opinion and take a line of their own. I am the less inclined to be disappointed in any way with the reply of the noble Lord because I have a profound belief that the President of the Board of Education is really keen about all these matters and will in due course have opportunities of showing that keenness. In these circumstances, it is not Papers I desire so much as performance, and because I believe that the President of the Board will in due course give performance, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOHN DILL.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the appointment of Field-Marshal Sir John Dill as Governor-designate of Bombay is in any way affected by his appointment in Washington.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord of the fact that the Field-Marshal is not due to assume office as Governor of Bombay until September next.

ABYSSINIA.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I desire to put the question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any further information as to the Abyssinian Agreement, especially in connexion with the Emperor's powers to sequestrate the property of enemy aliens, or the confiscation of concessions made by the late Italian de facto Government.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL) (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, I would say that under the Agreement enemy property

981
in Ethiopia is being dealt with in accordance with International Law, which means that State property, which is by far the largest part, will be treated as having become the property of the Ethiopian State. As regards the private property of enemy aliens the Emperor has power under International Law to sequestrate it pending its ultimate disposal in the peace settlement. Nothing in the Agreement diminishes this power. The responsibility for enemy property is one which we share with the Emperor, since much of this property came originally into our hands, and we cannot divest ourselves of this responsibility. For this reason and in order that we may assist the Emperor in dealing with the custodianship of private enemy property, the Agreement provides for consultation with His Majesty's representative. As regards such concessions as the Italian authorities may have granted, His Majesty's Government possess at present very little information, but this matter will be dealt with in accordance with Ethiopian law.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, may I ask two supplementary questions of the noble Lord? Apparently the Emperor can sequestrate Italian property after consultation with His Majesty's representative. Does that mean "subject to the veto of His Majesty's representative," or is the consultation purely a formal affair? Secondly, in connexion with these concessions, which, I think, are very numerous, will that Ethiopian law, if it has to be made, also be subject to the approval of His Majesty's representative?
LORD CECIL: No, no. With regard to that second point, the concessions will be dealt with by Ethiopian law. A concession
982
is something granted by the authority in the country. It is a right which can be granted or withheld or annulled. That is a matter for the Emperor, and he will no doubt bring in such legislation as he thinks fit to deal with these concessions. The answer to the noble Lord's other point is that it will be done in collaboration with His Majesty's Government. There is no question of veto, it is a question of International Law. These goods are sequestrated until the end of the war, and, at the end of the war, their fate will be settled in accordance with the Peace Treaty. This is exactly the same procedure as has been adopted in every other country with regard to enemy property.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Can this property be sold and the proceeds be dealt with in some way?
LORD CECIL: I understand that it is sequestrated until the end of the war. That is the position.

  LOST CLOTHING COUPONS.
  LOST CLOTHING COUPONS.