Sitting of 10 March 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  COAL INDUSTRY.

    DOMESTIC SUPPLIES.
    Mr. Isaacsasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the difficulties of equitable coal distribution, he will now consider the introduction of a system of control and supply by surrender of coupons?
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): The whole problem is under urgent review by the Government, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. Isaacs: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the problem in places like Southwark, where the trolleyman comes round with coal and sells it to people at one end of the street, leaving the people at the other end of the street without a supply, and would not a rationing system be very desirable?
    Mr. Grenfell: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall take steps to avoid similar difficulties of that kind.
    Sir Arnold Gridley: Would not it be very difficult to ration coal without also rationing gas and electricity at the same time?
    Mr. Grenfell: That is also being kept very well in mind.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether any instructions have been sent to local authorities, especially those some distance from coalfields, with regard to the need for stocking household coal for use when the ordinary channels of distribution are inadequate?
    Mr. Grenfell: Arrangements for the creation of reserve stocks of domestic coal in addition to those held by merchants and consumers have now been in
    902
    operation for nearly two years. The financial responsibility for these reserve stocks rests with my Department, but I have received and continue to receive invaluable assistance from local authorities who were asked in July, 1940, for their help in acquiring sites and making arrangements for stacking. In certain areas these reserve dumps are now being drawn upon, and where necessary local authorities have also been able to assist my Department in this connection.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that the coal shortage is very serious in the East End of London?
    Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend should know that there are still stocks of coal available. The coal situation to-day is rendered very serious because of transport difficulties; it does not arise solely from the question of supplies.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that I have been trying to obtain coal from the "Co-op." for two weeks, and I have not received any yet?
    Mr. Isaacsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has been informed of the shortage of coal in the Metropolitan borough of Southwark, and that such shortage leads to exploitation of persons able to purchase only in small quantities; that there are dumps of coal in that borough under Government control; in what circumstances these reserves can be made available for distribution; and whether the borough council coal controller has any direct authority in this matter?
    Mr. Grenfell: I am advised that there has not been such a shortage of coal in the Borough of Southwark as to necessitate the opening of the Government dumps in the district. They will, however, be opened at the discretion of the Divisional Coal Officer for London, should the need arise. The local fuel overseer has no direct authority in the matter, but is in a position at any time to advise the divisional coal officer. I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind in referring to possible exploitation since the retail prices of coal are controlled by my Department. If he has any evidence of prices being charged in excess of those authorised in the Retail Prices Schedules, I shall be glad if he will let me have particulars.
    Mr.. Isaacs: Is my hon. Friend aware that this exploitation takes the form of unauthorised persons buying coal at a regular price and hawking it round the streets; that in this borough there is an abnormal number of damaged houses which cannot be made weatherproof owing to extensive bombing, and that the occupants require coal; and can he say why the borough coal controller was refused access to those dumps when there was a serious shortage of coal in the district?
    Mr. Grenfell: There is a Divisional Coal Officer for London, and he has the last word in these matters. I have no information on the details supplied by my hon. Friend, and I did not know that a black market existed in coal, but it is a thing to be condemned, and I shall attend to the matter.
    Mr. Isaacs: If I give my hon. Friend particulars of the situation in regard to coal in Southwark, will he find out why the Divisional Coal Officer refused the use of those dumps?
    Mr. Grenfell: I shall certainly seek an explanation.

    PRODUCTION AND MAN-POWER.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement on the coal situation, especially with regard to production and manpower?
    Mr. Grenfell: The whole situation is at present under review, and I hope to be able to make a statement at an early date.
    Mr. Smith: May I take it from the reply that the recommendation of the Select Committee on National Expenditure will come under review as well?
    Mr. Grenfell: I am not sure how the House will take it, but we shall certainly make reports.

    MINING ACCIDENTS (REHABILITATION).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the high percentage of cures in mining accident cases at the Mansfield Centre for Rehabilitation; and whether he has considered the establishment of similar centres throughout the coalfields of the country?
    Mr. Grenfell: I am aware of the excellent work done at the Mansfield Centre of Rehabilitation in the treatment of mining accidents. This centre is the only one of its kind dealing solely with mining accident cases. Another such centre for Durham miners is now being established, towards the cost of which £10,000, or half the total outlay, has been granted by the Miners' Welfare Fund. Facilities for rehabilitation are also provided at some hospitals in mining areas and the Miners' Welfare Fund have assisted by grants for equipment. In so far as miners are prevented from returning to their former occupation they are within the scope of the Ministry of Labour's interim scheme for the training and re-settlement of disabled persons. The progress of scheme's of industrial rehabilitation is being carefully watched by my Department, and I shall do everything I can to further their development.
    Mr. Adams: Arising out of that satisfactory answer, is the Minister aware that under the Mansfield scheme there is a return of men to their previous occupations to the extent of 85 per cent. and that it might well be extended throughout the country?
    Mr. Grenfell: I receive reports from that institution, and I am satisfied that it is a very useful organisation which might properly be extended to all parts of the country.
    Mr. T. Smith: In view of the excellent work being done in this locality, is this not one of the things that ought to be jointly discussed between miners and mine owners, in order that every coalfield might have an institution in a similar sense?
    Mr. Grenfell: I hope that it will be discussed jointly very soon.

    COLLIERY CANTEENS AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of Mines whether urgent attention is being given to the provision of canteens at all pits so that meals of the kind required can be provided through the 24 hours; whether consideration has been given to the question of some allowances towards long-distance travelling expenses of mineworkers; and whether local omnibus service schedules are being varied to meet daily pit requirements?
    Mr. Grenfell: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes" The responsibility for provision of canteens rests with colliery owners, but it has been agreed that the Miners' Welfare Commission shall assist in the provision of the type of canteen service desired by the miners and, where required, a 24-hours' service is in operation. In the large majority of cases where canteen service has been asked for by the miners, a service is now in operation, and active steps are in progress to meet the remaining demand. Grants towards the cost are being made by the Miners' Welfare Fund. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, the Government are prepared to stabilise the cost of travelling incurred by mine-workers, and discussion is proceeding regarding the means by which this shall be effected: machinery exists for securing that service schedules are varied where necessary to meet the needs of pits.

    CLOSED PITS, COUNTY DURHAM.
    Mr. Leslieasked the Secretary for Mines, seeing that there are a number of collieries in the county of Durham now closed from which coal could be produced, whether any steps can be taken by his Department to bring these pits into production since many more factories will be in production in the near future for turning out munitions of war purposes for which additional coal will be required?
    Mr. Grenfell: I view of the general shortage of labour, it is the policy of the Mines Department and of the Coal Production Council to ensure that the available man-power is employed to the best advantage in those mines already in operation rather than encourage the reopening of additional collieries.
    Mr. Leslie: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain pits are flooded and they are only able to work the top seam at present?
    Sir William Davison: What is a coal merchant to do when a colliery with which he has placed his contracts has been commandeered and he is unable to supply his customers?
    Mr. Grenfell: That is another matter.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    WHISKY (EXPORTS TO AUSTRALIA).
    Mr. Purbrickasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that over a third of a million gallons of whisky from the United Kingdom were imported into Australia, cleared from bond there during the year ended September last, occupying a large amount of shipping space, bringing no foreign exchange here, representing a very small turnover as it is shipped from here in bond and brings practically no revenue duty here and which can be produced in Australia, he will take steps to stop this trade for the duration of the war and thereby make the equivalent quantity available for consumers in this country?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Exports of whisky to Australia. have already been greatly reduced. The question of a further reduction is under consideration.
    Mr. Purbrick: Does that mean that in the meantime we have to go thirsty for whisky while Australia is flooded out with it?
    Mr. Dalton: I hope, not quite.

    CLOTHES RATIONING.
    Mr. Keelingasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the permanent turn-up of men's and women's trousers is not used in Service and civilian uniforms, serves no useful purpose and wastes cloth; and whether he will issue an Order prohibiting it?
    Mr. Dalton: I am taking steps, in consultation with representatives of the trades concerned, to eliminate the wasteful use of materials and labour in the manufacture of clothing. My hon. Friend's suggestion will certainly be borne in mind.
    Mr. Keelingg: I hope that my right hon. Friend in the meantime is not having any trousers made for himself with permanent turn-ups?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Parkerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that persons employed on oily operations in the engineering and other industries rapidly wear out their footwear; and what steps he is taking to meet the needs of this class of person?
    Mr. Dalton: Trade unions representing workers in engineering or other industries whose normal ration is insufficient to cover their essential clothing and footwear should submit to the Board of Trade, through the Trades Union. Congress, full information about their special needs. All such claims receive careful consideration.

    PRIVATE TRADERS.
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has anything to say in regard to the cornmunication addressed to him by the Southampton Chamber of Commerce recently entitled "The Impact of the War upon the Private Trader" and also about the recommendations contained therein?
    Mr. Dalton: I have just received the report to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am considering it. It raises some matters which come within the terms of reference of the Retail Trade Committee, and I am asking this Committee to look into them fully.

    TINPLATE INDUSTRY (CONCENTRATION SCHEME).
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received the report of the Essen-don Committee on the Concentration of Production in the Tinplate Industry; what recommendations have been made by the committee; and whether he intends to publish the report?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. The Committee came to the conclusion that the advantages of a concentration scheme would not outweigh the difficulties, particularly in regard to labour. My predecessor, while accepting this conclusion, made it clear that in view of the surplus capacity existing in the industry, it would be necessary from time to time to authorise the requisitioning of some of the space for other war purposes. I do not propose to publish the report, but it has been circulated confidentially within the industry.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend consider circulating the report, if not publicly, at least to representatives of public authorities who are concerned with this vital commodity; and are they not entitled to receive the report just as much as members of the industry itself?
    Mr. Dalton: I will consider that, but at the present moment the report has gone to representatives of the employers' organisations and of the trades unions concerned. It is not desirable, in my view, to publish the report, because it contains information which would be of value to the enemy with regard to our industrial arrangements in this area, but I will certainly consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend as far as the local authorities are concerned.

  GREECE (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether arrangements have now been made for the despatch of further consignments of food to Greece sufficient in quantity to meet the urgent need of the civilian population?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): As I informed my hon. Friend on 3rd March, by agreement with the Greek Government, His Majesty's Government have financed the chartering by the Swedish Red Cross of the steamship "Hallaren" to help in carrying relief for Greece. Arrangements are now being made for this vessel to load a cargo of 4,500 tons of foodstuffs at Lisbon. This cargo is being purchased from Swiss stocks by the Greek Government in London, and His Majesty's Government are prepared to grant additional navicerts to the Swiss authorities to make good the amount so transferred.
  Mr. Harvey: May I take it that the policy of the Government is to do their utmost to see that this supply continues so that the Greek population may be preserved from starvation?
  Mr. Foot: As my hon. Friend knows, we have arranged three emergency shipments in order to meet the urgent need in Greece, but I would also like to make it clear that we cannot undertake to make good the whole of the supplies which have been pillaged by the enemy.
  Sir Percy Harris: Does my hon. Friend realise the serious urgency of this matter? Is not the time factor most important? Will the Government do their best to expedite the shipments which have been agreed upon?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Have any arrangements been made to send regular supplies, instead of piecemeal supplies, in order to succour these unhappy people?
  Mr. Foot: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to revious replies I have given on this subject. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), we have done everything possible to expedite these emergency shipments.
  Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that in normal times Greece imports 400,000 tons of wheat every year and that the arrangements so far made are entirely inadequate?

  MILITARY HARDSHIP TRIBUNAL, BATH (DECISION).
  Mr. Cecil Wilsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will inquire into the case of B. L. M. Knott, of Bath, a man of 56 years of age, who was ordered by the Military Hardship Tribunal at Bath, on 11th November, to undertake ground work in the home district; whether he is aware that in November, 1915, Knott was discharged permanently unfit for any form of military service owing to heart disease; that since then he has been repeatedly refused employment on account of rupture; that his painful heart attacks come on frequently rendering him helpless; and, as he is in a condition in which he can never be relied on, why is he ordered ground work and of what does this work consist?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): I have been asked to reply. I have made inquiries and understand that Mr. Knott did not submit a medical certificate with his application for exemption and that on the information before them the Tribunal took the view that he was fit to perform ground work in the neighbourhood of his home. I understand that ground work comprises fire watching and giving general assistance, but that no climbing of ladders or going on roofs is involved. The Tribunal's decision has been communicated to the local authority, who will no doubt only assign to Mr. Knott such duties as he is capable of performing.
  Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Lady aware that this man is obliged to carry something with him to counteract these attacks?
  Miss Wilkinson: There is a great deal of work in connection with fire watching which very unfit people, such as women of advanced age, are doing. Presumably it is this kind of work to which he would be assigned by the local authority.
  Mr. Wilson: Has the hon. Lady seen the report which the medical officer to the Assistance Board gave in regard to this man some years ago?
  Miss Wilkinson: I have, of course, read all the papers in connection with the case, but I would point out that the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this matter cannot be interfered with by any Government Department. I am only giving my hon. Friend an explanation of the papers which have reached us.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    BOY BANDSMEN (PAY).
    Mr. Isaacsasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there has been any increase of pay provided for boy bandsmen or boys attached to bands; and, if so, what amount is held over as post-war credits?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): There has been no increase of pay provided for boy bandsmen or boys attached to bands, since the outbreak of war. These boys will be eligible for a post-war credit. The amount is under consideration.
    Mr. Isaacs: Would it not be fair to give some increase of pay to these boys, who have to mix with boys from industry who have plenty of money?
    Mr. Sandys: I understand that for the work they are doing they are adequately remunerated.

    GUNNER J. CORDERY, ROYAL ARTILLERY.
    Mr. Toucheasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has completed his inquiries into the case of Gunner J. Cordery, No. 1123700, of the Royal Artillery, who, on producing a civilian medical certificate that he was suffering from hernia, was ordered by the medical officer not to wear his truss and

    911
    was told that he was quite fit and put on work for which he was physically unsuited, with the result that he incurred hernia enlargement; and whether he has any statement to make thereon?
    Mr. Sandys: I have made inquiries and am informed that the reason why the medical officer instructed Gunner Cordery to remove his truss was solely with a view to the strengthening of the abdominal muscles.
    Mr. Touche: Can my hon. Friend say why this man was told that he was perfectly fit and was put on to work for which he was not suited?
    Mr. Sandys: I understand that the work he was given was in the nature of physical training to strengthen his muscles. As a matter of fact he has now had an operation, after which he was passed A1.
    Mr. Touche: But is my hon. Friend aware that two days after this man was put on to this work he had to go into hospital for an operation?
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir, but it was as a result of the operation that he was passed A1
    Mr. Touche: Has any endeavour been made to re-grade this man, or was he just passed A1?
    Mr. Sandys: If my hon. Friend disputes that, I will certainly look into it again.

    HOME GUARD.
    Mr. Hannahasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to give colonels of the Home Guard any entertaining allowance?
    Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hannah: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the present system makes it extremely difficult for a poor man to hold office?
    Mr. Sandys: Entertaining is not regarded as a part of the military duties of Home Guard commanders.

    CHELSEA HOSPITAL PENSIONERS.
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that since the introduction of supplementary pensions, campaign pensioners from Chelsea Hospital are worse off financially than if they had not
    912
    accepted a pension, since Chelsea Hospital will not allow pensioners to have an income exceeding £1 per week for a single man or 30s. per week for a married couple which is less than would be paid to supplementary pensioners; and will he take steps to remove this anomaly?
    Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. There is nothing to preclude an old age pensioner in receipt of a supplementary pension from receiving a special campaign pension as well. The supplementary pension is not counted as income for the purpose of calculating special campaign pension. The Assistance Board also advise me that they disregard the first 7s. 6d. a week of a special campaign pension in assessing a supplementary pension.

    LIEUT.-GENERAL SIR ALAN CUNNINGHAM.
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the present position of General Sir Alan Cunningham; and when his medical advisers anticipate that this distinguished soldier will be able to return to duty?
    Mr. Sandys: This officer on his return to this country was examined by a medical board and classified as temporarily unfit for service. He has recently been reexamined and has now been passed as fit. There is at present no suitable appointment in which he can be employed.

    COURT-MARTIAL, MARYHILL BARRACKS.
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, the result of the inquiry into the conduct of a sergeant of the military police at Maryhill Barracks alleged to have ill-treated and robbed men awaiting escort; and has he any knowledge of this man's civilian record?
    Mr. Sandys: The sergeant and four other soldiers are now awaiting trial by court-martial. My hon. Friend will, therefore, understand that I cannot at present make any comment upon this case.

    SPECIAL BRANCH, MILITARY POLICE (TRANSFERS).
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the reasons for the transfer of officers of the special branch, military police, responsible for the arrest of Larmour, the Army contractor; and will he investigate the whole circumstances and call for available reports?
    Mr. Sandys: Of those concerned in the investigation of this case, one officer and one warrant officer have since been transferred to other commands. These transfers were made for purely military reasons entirely unconnected with the case.
    Mr. McKinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my Question? Will he investigate the circumstances and call for the available papers, including the report of the officer who was in charge of the investigation?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman wants me to look into. It is as a result of the inquiry I have made that I have been able to give him an answer.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is it not a fact that the officer involved submitted facts to the Judge Advocate and asked for an inquiry, with the result that all he got for his trouble was a transfer to Tyrone in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Sandys: His transfer had nothing whatever to do with this case.
    Mr. McKinlay: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

    DETENTION BARRACKS.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any inquiry has been made into conditions at detention barracks; and whether any improvements are to be carried out in the near future?
    Mr. Sandys: A Departmental investigation has recently been made as to whether the treatment, training, accommodation and feeding of soldiers under sentence in military prisons and detention barracks is in accordance with modern standards and satisfies the requirements of a war-time Army. Generally speaking, the investigation showed that the conditions at detention barracks were good. Certain recommendations were, however, made, some of which have already been put into operation.
    Mr. Bellenger: Would it be possible to publish the report of that inquiry, or parts of it, for Members of Parliament, as they and others are receiving widespread evidence that conditions are not so satisfactory as this inquiry made out?
    Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, I shall be glad to arrange for him and other hon. Members to form a small party and to go and visit one of these detention barracks.
    Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is considerable public anxiety about various incidents which have occurred, and if this report would serve to allay that anxiety, would it not be as well to publish it?
    Mr. Sandys: I will consider that question, and I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman forms one of the party.

    ADMINISTRATIVE DUTY OFFICERS.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any review of officers engaged in administrative duties at the War Office, commands and areas is to be undertaken with a view to releasing fit and capable officers for duty with the field Forces?
    Mr. Sandys: The principle that work which can be efficiently performed by officers in the lower medical categories should as far as possible be given to such officers, in order to release other fitter men for more active duties, is fully accepted and continuously applied.

    ROYAL ARMY PAY CORPS, LEICESTER (FIRE-WATCHING).
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many hours per month fire-watching duties are undertaken by members of the Royal Army Pay Corps at Leicester; and whether, in view of the low medical category of many of these troops and the importance of their duties, he will arrange with the civilian authorities to spread the work of fire-watching as equitably as possible among the whole of the city population?
    Mr. Sandys: In order to have available in the centre of the city a reserve of men to assist in the event of an air raid, about 400 members of the Royal Army Pay Corps stationed at Leicester are required to sleep at the Pay Offices one week in every four. These men are relieved of all other guard duties and fatigues. I am assured that this arrangement has prejudicially affected neither their health nor the efficient performance of their normal duties.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is my hon. Friend aware that many members of the Royal Army Pay Corps at Leicester have to do as many as 154 hours fire-watching per month? As that compares most unfavourably with the number of hours civilians fire-watch in the city, would it not be possible to arrange a more equitable system between civilian and Army fire-watchers?
    Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend's statement does not correspond with my information. It is, however, the policy of the Army to do everything they can to help the civil authorities.

    COMMANDOS.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state his policy in respect to the Commandos; and whether he intends to keep this formation in its present state of organisation or to extend this form of training to other units?
    Mr. Sandys: There has been no change in the policy or organisation of the Commandos. The form of training given to them has already been extended to other Army units selected for similar roles.

    MISSING PERSONNEL.
    Mr. Manderasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of individuals employed by the British Red Cross Society in hospitals overseas in making inquiries with regard to missing soldiers?
    Mr. Sandys: The primary responsibility for tracing missing soldiers, in so far as this work has to be carried out overseas, rests with the local military authorities. Full particulars of our organisation for tracing missing soldiers were given in my reply to a Question on 19 th December last, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy.

    OFFICERS (EFFICIENCY INQUIRY).
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the proposed review of the military efficiency and alertness of officers over 45 years of age is not to be carried above the rank of lieutenant-colonel?
    Mr. Sandys: The suitability of the more senior officers for the very responsible and widely differing types of appointments which they hold can, it is thought, better be ensured by a process of continuous
    916
    individual scrutiny rather than by the method of a single, general review.
    Mr. Thomas: Would it not create a greater feeling of fairness and be more in the interests of senior officers themselves if they were subjected to the same scrutiny as junior officers? May I also ask whether this scrutiny is to be extended to officers of the Home Guard?
    Mr. Sandys: The review does not apply to the Home Guard. As regards the other point, I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no hesitation in replacing senior officers who do not come up to the high standard required.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to set up independent selection boards to review the recommendations made by commanding officers on officers serving under them of 45 years of age and over; up to and including the rank of lieutenant-colonel, in order to ensure that officers efficient in modern tactics and ideas are retained in the Service?
    Mr. Sandys: The recommendations of commanding officers have to be confirmed by the divisional or equivalent commander. The report on an officer belonging to a technical arm who is not employed with a unit of his own arm, will also be considered by a senior officer of his corps. These safeguards should ensure that the services of efficient officers are not lost to the Army.
    Mr. Stokes: Does the Financial Secretary recognise that among these officers over 45 years of age there is, quite likely, a number of rebels who have been refused promotion on account of their insistence on new methods and new processes, and will not commanding officers take this opportunity to get rid of them altogether? How does the War Office propose to safeguard them?
    Mr. Sandys: I think that is an uncalled-for suggestion. I would remind hon. Members that any officer who feels that he has been unfairly treated has a right of appeal to the Army Council.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not possible that this rage for younger men may be carried too far, and might it not be the case that some older men are efficient and ought to be retained but may be removed simply because of this desire for younger men?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think my hon. Friend understands the nature of this review. There is no intention to displace any officer merely on account of the date of his birth.
    Mr. Stokes: is the Financial Secretary aware all serving officers know that the people who are rebellious and forthcoming very often get kept from promotion for being so, and it is this abuse we want to prevent?

    STEAMSHIP "DUNERA" (INQUIRY).
    Mr. Cecil Wilsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the "Dunera" Memorandum submitted to the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom at Canberra consisted of a letter from the camp spokesman, dated 2nd December, 1940, together with an explanatory memorandum of 130 words, and a further 500 words dealing with the inducements and promises to internees at the camps before embarkation; why there has been no inquiry as to who is responsible for the failure to implement the inducements and promises; and whether the memorandum received in this country from the High Commissioner did or did not contain the letter and explanatory memorandum above referred to?
    Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend's Question and the inquiries I have made in connection with it have led me to the conclusion that certain of the matters complained of may not have been sufficiently closely investigated. I am looking further into the matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    ARMY BANDSMEN (PUBLIC PERFORMANCES).
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that when the band leader Geraldo appeared recently at the Empire Theatre, Glasgow, he had eight guardsmen from Wellington Barracks in his band; and how much did the guardsmen receive;
    (2) whether he is aware that when band leader Joe Loss recently appeared in Glasgow, he received the loan of eight guardsmen bandsmen for recording purposes; for whom was the recording done; and how much did the guardsmen receive;
    (3) whether he is aware that the band of the Royal Army Ordnance Corp
    918
    recently did a week's broadcasting at Weston-super-Mare for the British Broadcasting Corporation and a concert at Swindon, Bath and Bristol; and can he state the fee paid by the British Broadcasting Corporation per man, the percentage allowed at the concerts, and how much the bandsmen received?
    Mr. Sandys: In the time available I have not been able to obtain the information asked for. I am making full inquiries, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any arrangements have yet been made to ensure that the British, Dominion, Indian and other prisoners of war, now in Japanese hands, will enjoy the services of the Red Cross and the protection of a neutral Power?
  Mr. Sandys: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which will be made at the end of Questions by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
  Major Milnerasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of Italian prisoners now in India; upon what work, if any, they are engaged; and whether any are working outside India?
  Mr. Boulton (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India. The number of Italian prisoners of war in India is approximately 65,000. In addition to the numbers, which vary from time to time, employed on fatigues and administrative duties in camps, prisoners are employed upon road-making, manufacture of clothing, construction of huts, vegetable gardening and anti-malarial drainage. No Italian prisoners of war sent to India are employed outside that country.
  Major Milner: Having regard to the fact that according to the newspapers there are something like 200,000 Italian prisoners, and having regard to the opportunities for work on road-making in Burma, China and elsewhere, how is it that the whole of them are not employed?
  Mr. Boulton: According to my information, there are 65,000 in India.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (DIVE BOMBERS).
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Director of the Air Training Corps was authorised to say that dive-bombers were obsolete; and whether that represents the conclusions of the Ministry in view of the proved success of the small Douglas dive-bombers in the Far East?
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), who is also Director of the Air Training Corps in the Air Ministry, was speaking to an audience of technical students and members of the Air Training Corps and was voicing a purely personal opinion. He was not expressing in any way the authoritative view of the Air Ministry, which he could only do on matters coming within the sphere of the directorate of which I am glad to say he has consented to become the head.
  Mr. Smith: Do I take it from that reply that the Air Ministry do not accept the statement made in the speech? If so, it is important that it should be made quite clear, because of the discouraging effect on men engaged in manufacturing dive-bombers.
  Captain Balfour: The view of the Air Ministry on dive-bombers is an entirely different question from that which appears on the Order Paper. The hon. Member asks as to whether the hon. Member for Swindon was speaking authoritatively, and I said in my reply that he was expressing his personal view.
  Mr. Stephen: Can the Under-Secretary say whether that view is also the view of the Air Ministry?
  Captain Balfour: Not in reply to this Question, but if the hon. Member puts down a Question he can, of course, have a reply.

  MERCHANT NAVY.

    LOSSES AND DAMAGE (INQUIRIES).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether the customary inquiries into vessels suffering marine damage or loss are being continued and steps taken to remove any avoidable causes of accident thereby revealed?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir. My Department inquires into all casualties involving loss or damage to ships or loss of life, whether they are caused by marine risks or enemy action. If the inquiries show that any additional and practicable measures will increase the safety of crews or ships, those measures are adopted with the least possible delay.
    Mr. Adams: Will the Minister investigate the complaints which are being made by shipowners that the Admiralty are now compelling them to use spirit compasses —with perhaps disastrous results in certain places—which they consider unsuitable as standard compasses?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If my hon. Friend will put down a Question about compasses, I will endeavour to answer it. As I understand it, there is great difficulty in regard to the shortage of electrician labour.

    DECEASED PERSONNEL (CERTIFICATES, CANCELLATION).
    Major Procterasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that officers and men of the Merchant Navy who have lost their lives in the service of their country have their certificates stamped "cancelled"; that these certificates have great sentimental value to their families; that the word "cancelled" is used also in cases of misdemeanour; and will he consider a special stamp for such cases?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in thinking that the certificate of an officer who has been found guilty of an offence is stamped with the word "cancelled." In fact the certificate is withdrawn altogether. I realise that these certificates of officers who lose their lives in the service of their country are highly valued by their relatives, and I am arranging that in future a special stamp shall be used.
    Major Procter: Is it possible for those certificates which have been sent to relatives to be re-stamped with the appropriate words?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. I will certainly look into that and endeavour to have it done.

  MOTOR HORSE-BOXES (PETROL).
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport how many coupons in excess of basic ration have been issued to owners of motor horse-boxes used for the conveyance of race-horses to meetings under National Hunt Rules in the five months ended 28th February, 1942?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret that the detailed information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available. I am able to say, however, that it is most unlikely that any supplementary issues of petrol were made for this purpose.
  Sir W. Smithers: In view of the request of the Minister of Transport for 100,000 lorries to be devoted to war purposes, why cannot these lorries and the petrol they use be diverted also to war purposes?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I think, in fact, that very little petrol indeed in being used for this purpose. Under the arrangement made with the National Hunt Committee, which controls the steeplechasing programmes in winter, this Committee allows only local entries, that is, entries from stables close to the course where the race is to be run.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Why is any petrol being used for this purpose?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: That raises the general question of the Government policy regarding entertainments, which was settled long ago.

  LONDON EMPLOYMENT AGENTS FEDERATION.
  Major Petoasked the Minister of Labour why, when his Department was consulting employers' organisations regarding Order No. 100, Employment of Women (Control of Engagements), the London Employment Agents Federation, which body has a very large membership of employment agencies, were not included in these consultations; and why no member of this federation has been included in the list of agencies approved by his Department?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): Before making the Order my right hon. Friend consulted both sides of
  922
  industry through the usual channels to satisfy himself that it would be in the interests of war production. No consultation took place with individual associations. If the object of the Order is not to be defeated, the approval of agencies under it must be strictly controlled and must in general be limited to agencies which are in a position to deal comprehensively with the demand for and supply of young women in occupations of a professional or technical character. It should be understood that refusal of approval under the Order implies no adverse reflection on the agency.

  FACTORY (GOVERNMENT CONTROL).
  Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Supply why a large new section of a certain factory, the name of which has been given to him, has been taken over by his Department, to manufacture the same kind of products which the present staff is efficiently turning out?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Assheton): My right hon. Friend is inquiring into this matter and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  MALAYA AND SINGAPORE.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a Commission of Inquiry, on the lines of the Dardanelles and Mesopotamian Commissions during the last war, to investigate the causes of the loss of Malaya and the disaster to our arms at Singapore?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. As has already been stated, no information about what happened at Singapore and in Malaya is yet available.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when the Prime Minister intends to implement the promise that we should have a Debate on the whole question of Malaya and Singapore?
  Mr. Attlee: That promise was dependent on having the information. It is no use having an inquiry or a Debate on a matter on which there is no information.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is it not the case that many people from Singapore have arrived in Australia recently, including the General who was commanding there? Therefore, are not the Government in a position to elucidate to the House some facts which the public ought to know in regard to this matter?
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Why waste time and money on an inquiry?
  Mr. Stephen: When do the Government expect to have any information on this matter?

  POLITICAL WARFARE DEPARTMENT.
  Major Milnerasked the Prime Minister which Member of the War Cabinet is now responsible for the activities of the Political Warfare Department?
  Mr. Attlee: It is proposed to make a statement on this subject shortly.
  Major Milner: Am I to understand that the responsibility for that Department has not yet been fixed?
  Mr. Attlee: There will be a statement made shortly.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    INCOME TAX AND EXCESS PROFITS LAW (SIMPLIFICATION).
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the war-time increase in the number of Income Tax payers from 800,000 to some 9,000,000, and to the complexities of the present Income Tax Acts, he will introduce new legislation upon the matter as was done during the last war; and whether he will make use of the draft of a simplified Income Tax Act which was part of the report of the Committee for the simplification of these Acts which was appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1927 and, after nine years work, reported in 1936?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I fully appreciate the considerations which my hon. Friend has in mind, and I recognise the importance of a complete codification of the Income Tax law as soon as it is practicable. I am afraid, however, that in view of the labour involved, it is impossible to undertake so considerable a task at a time like the present.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend serious in making that reply, because this report was in the hands of the Department in 1936? Is it not the case that if it had been given proper attention, the Chancellor would have had a very much easier job in war-time, especially now that so many working-class people have to pay Income Tax?
    Sir K. Wood: I am not aware of the circumstances at the time to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. De la Bère: The answer does seem unreal, and it is unreal.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consolidate and simplify in the next Finance Bill the law regarding Excess Profits Tax?
    Sir K. Wood: The provisions of the Excess Profits Tax are necessarily complicated and I doubt if they are susceptible of such simplification as my hon. Friend would desire. In existing circumstances, when the pressure of business is so heavy, I am afraid this would not be possible.
    Mr. Keeling: Will my right hon. Friend answer my Question about consolidation?
    Sir K. Wood: There is the same difficulty there.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the operation of the Excess Profits Tax is putting companies into a position that, when the war is over, they will not be able to function at all?
    Sir K. Wood: That is a question of opinion.
    Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House is at all times willing to pass a Consolidation Bill?
    Sir K. Wood: The work would have to be done, though.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Sections 25 to 27 of the Finance Act, 1941, which necessitate calculating 20/29ths of many sums of money, give a great deal of work to depleted accounts staffs; and whether he will consider an alteration of this fraction to two-thirds?
    Sir K. Wood: The legislation to which my hon. Friend refers provided that a tax-free payment of any given amount

    925
    should be satisfied by the same gross income as was required before the war when Income Tax was 5s. 6d. in the £. With Income Tax at 10s. this involves the reduction of the tax free payment to 20/29ths of its pre-war figure. I should not feel justified in substituting the simpler fraction named by my hon. Friend, which would reduce the payment to a greater extent than is required for the purpose stated.
    Mr. Keeling: Can my right hon. Friend say what amount he thinks is involved? It cannot be very big.
    Sir K. Wood: I cannot say.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the Chancellor consider getting some school-boys to give their services to those firms?
    Mr. Thorne: Will the Chancellor give a guarantee that the Income Tax will remain at 10s. 0d. in the £?

    WAR SAVINGS CAMPAIGNS (COST).
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that every week many man-hours are lost to production and much petrol is used on war savings campaigns and Warship Week parades, the only effect of which is to double the cost of interest payments to the Treasury on the money so raised; and whether he will take steps to prevent this waste of energy and public money?
    Sir K. Wood: I am of opinion on the contrary that Warship Weeks, as an integral part of the National Savings Movement, play a vital part in keeping before the public the necessity for spending less and saving more and thus applying the maximum part of the national output to war needs.
    Mr. Edwards: Am I to take it that the Chancellor does not question the statement that this doubles the cost of raising the money?
    Sir K. Wood: I do not assent to that statement.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Chancellor aware that there will be an opportunity later in the day of raising these points? Will he be prepared to give statistical evidence to justify the position?
    Sir K. Wood: I think that will be a matter for the Chair.
    Captain Strickland: Is it not a fact that in most cases the towns and cities take it upon themselves to pay the expenses?

    BANKS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES (WAR SUBSCRIPTIONS).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will instruct bank and insurance companies to make a return to him henceforth of the amount of all subscriptions to War Loans and war weapons' weeks made by them when not directly on behalf of their depositors?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. For the reason which I gave in my reply to my hon. Friend on 17th February, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by such returns.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor aware that that was a reply to a different Question? Is there no real desire to learn the truth and ascertain what is subscribed from genuine savings and what in fact comes from the banks?

    PERSONAL EXPENDITURE (REDUCTION).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government propose to introduce regulations designed to limit personal expenditure and to cut out all other forms of wastage large or small?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer my Hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) on nth February last.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor aware that I put down this Question to the Lord Privy Seal? Has the Chancellor studied the speech made by the Lord Privy Seal in the House on 25th February, when he stated that legislation dealing with this matter would be introduced soon? What does the Chancellor propose to do about this?
    Sir K. Wood: I always study the observations in speeches of my colleagues.

    PURCHASE TAX (RESTAURANT MEALS).
    Mr. Hannahasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the imposition of a purchase tax on all meals costing more than a certain amount?
    Sir K. Wood: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion, but he will not expect me to anticipate my Budget Statement.
    Mr. Hannah: Do the Government realise the deplorable effect upon Dominion and American officers when they see 50s. meals being served in London restaurants?
    Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most serious aspect of this is not so much the expenditure of money as the wastage of food?
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Let us begin a war upon waste.

    INCOME TAX (WAGE EARNERS).
    Major Petoasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the confusion which exists at the present time in the minds of a number of workpeople throughout the country regarding Income Tax and overtime, he will take steps to arrange for meetings of workpeople to be addressed by representatives of his Department or to institute some other form of publicity to explain this question?
    Sir K. Wood: Steps have already been taken, by way of broadcasts, posters and pamphlets. It is dealt with prominently in the "Income Tax Quiz for Wage Earners," which was published last month. I have also in mind the various means of publicity for this purpose, and I note my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Levy: Is it not time that the whole incidence of this tax was reviewed so as to simplify the matter and let people understand what they have to do and why they have to do it?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend would address himself to the simplification.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor consider changing the whole incidence so that the taxation is levied upon current earnings?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (FORMS).
  Captain W. T. Shawasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the number of forms issued since the war began by Government Departments, to be filled up by civilians in connection with their domestic and business affairs; the approximate number of forms that have been filled up; the tonnage of paper involved; and
  928
  the amount of storage space required for their safe custody?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir. The compilation of the information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks would involve an expenditure of time and labour which I should not regard as justifiable. If he has in mind any particular form which he regards as open to criticism, perhaps he will let me know and I will make inquiries.
  Captain Shaw: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that the filling-up of these forms by the civilian population, and also dealing with them in local government offices, where the staffs are much depleted, causes great difficulty and waste of time, and will he direct the attention of the Lord President of the Council to this matter, which is hindering the war effort?
  Mr. Stokes: Will the Financial Secretary spend a week in my business and see how many forms have to be filled in?
  Captain Crookshank: I think I could much better spend a week in my own business.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether detailed instructions have been issued to the Assistance Boards in relation to noncontributory old age pensioners and supplementary pensions; and whether such information will be supplied to Members of the House of Commons?
  Captain Crookshank: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the administrative concession announced on 3rd February to avoid the withdrawal of supplementary pensions in certain cases. I understand that the instructions necessary to give effect to this concession have been issued by the Departments concerned. As regards the second part of the Question, the instructions are necessarily of a detailed and technical character. It is not the practice for executive directions of this nature given by Government Departments to their officers to be made available in the way suggested, but if my hon. Friend has any other point in mind and will give me particulars, I will look at it.
  Mr. Taylor: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise that, as this is a complicated matter, if it is to be left entirely to the officers concerned many old people will be unable to take advantage of this very valuable concession?
  Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member must not be under any misapprehension. There are not very many people involved. It is a concession which was found to be necessary, and, if the hon. Member will study my reply of 3rd February, he will see that there are very few cases which can arise. Where they do arise we are very happy to be able to deal with them.

  WAR DAMAGE COMMISSION (CORRESPONDENCE).
  Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the numerous cases in which the War Damage Commission have failed to reply to correspondence from persons whose property has been damaged or destroyed by enemy action, he will take prompt steps to ensure that answers are sent by the Commission without delay in all such cases?
  Captain Crookshank: I am informed that the aim of the Commission is to limit correspondence with claimants as far as possible to what is necessary in order to make progress with the payment of claims. Where there is likely to be prolonged delay, an acknowledgment is now sent.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that long delay is quite usual?

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING.
  Mr. Bossomasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether, in connection with post-war planning, he will compel all bodies or authorities now exempt from control by building laws, Town Planning Acts, etc., to conform, in the future, to the Regulations applying to the remainder of the nation?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Henry Strauss): The Town and Country Planning Acts confer no general exemption on any body or authority, and the provisions of a planning scheme are
  930
  enforceable notwithstanding exemptions under other enactments. The Crown is exempt from the provisions of these Statutes; but my Noble Friend considers that such exemption is unlikely in practice to lead to difficulty in future.
  Mr. Bossom: Is it not a fact that certain bodies, such as railway companies, are exempt from such Regulations?
  Mr. Strauss: There are certain provisions in some relevant Statutes which are modified, or give certain exemptions, in the case of railways. The matter is one of considerable complication. If my hon. Friend will confer with me on the particular matter that he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into it further.

  DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF WORKS.
  Mr. MaeLarenasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what Government Departments are employing the firm of which the Director of Works in the Ministry of Works and Buildings is a partner; and whether he will furnish particulars of the work which has been placed with this firm?
  Captain Crookshank: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend in due course.

  HONG KONG (JAPANESE BARBARITIES).
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the treatment of military prisoners and civilians by the Japanese army at Hong Kong after the capitulation?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. Out of regard for the feelings of the many relations of the victims, His Majesty's Government have been unwilling to publish any accounts of Japanese atrocities at Hong Kong until these had been confirmed beyond any possibility of doubt. Unfortunately there is no longer room for doubt. His Majesty's Government are now in possession of statement by reliable eye-witnesses who succeeded in escaping from Hong Kong. Their testimony establishes the fact that the

  931
  Japanese army at Hong Kong perpetrated against their helpless military prisoners and the civil population, without distinction of race or colour, the same kind of barbarities which aroused the horror of the civilised world at the time of the Nanking massacre of 1937.
  It is known that 50 officers and men of the British Army were bound hand and foot and then bayoneted to death. It is known that 10 days after the capitulation wounded were still being collected from the hills and the Japanese were refusing permission to bury the dead. It is known that women, both Asiatic and European, were raped and murdered and that one entire Chinese district was declared a brothel, regardless of the status of the inhabitants. All the survivors of the garrison, including Indians, Chinese and Portuguese, have been herded into a camp consisting of wrecked huts without doors, windows, light or sanitation. By the end of January 150 cases of dysentery had occurred in the camp, but no drugs or medical facilities were supplied. The dead had to be buried in a corner of the camp. The Japanese guards are utterly callous, and the repeated requests of General Maltby, the General Officer Commanding, for an interview with the Japanese commander have been curtly refused. This presumably means that the Japanese high command have connived at the conduct of their forces. The Japanese Government stated at the end of February that the numbers of prisoners in Hong Kong were British 5,072, Canadian 1,689, Indian 5,829, others 357, total 10,947.
  Most of the European residents, including some who are seriously ill, have been interned and, like the military prisoners, are being given only a little rice and water and occasional scraps of other food. There is some reason to believe that conditions have slightly improved recently, but the Japanese Government have refused their consent to the visit to Hong Kong of a representative of the Protecting Power and no permission has yet been granted for such a visit by the representative of the International Red Cross Committee. They have in fact announced that they require all foreign consuls to withdraw from all the territories they have invaded since the outbreak of war. It is clear that their treatment of prisoners and civilians will not bear independent investigation.
  932
  I have no information as to the conditions of our prisoners of war and civilians in Malaya. The only report available is a statement by the Japanese official news agency of 3rd March stating that 77,699 Chinese have been arrested and subjected to what is described as "a severe examination." It is not difficult to imagine what that entails.
  It is most painful to have to make such a statement to the House. Two things will be clear from it, to the House, to the country and to the world. The Japanese claim that their forces are animated by a lofty code of chivalry, Bushido, is a nauseating hypocrisy. That is the first thing. The second is that the enemy must be utterly defeated. The House will agree with me that we can best express our sympathy with the victims of these appalling outrages by redoubling our efforts to ensure his utter and overwhelming defeat.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Arising out of this statement, terrible and horrible as it is, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will do everything possible to make the facts public, so that the people of this country will really at last know what they are up against and put their backs into the war?
  Mr. Eden: Naturally we had to be most careful about the facts before we made this statement. That is the only reason why it has not been made sooner. The Government felt that it would be wrong to make a statement unless they were absolutely convinced of the facts. That being so, in spite of the sufferings of the relatives, we felt it was our duty to make the truth known.
  Sir Percy Harris: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that not only the Emperor, but the Government and the whole Japanese people, are responsible for these atrocities, and not merely the army?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, that is certainly so.
  Mr. Lawson: Will special steps be taken by the B.B.C. to let the German and Italian people know how the New Order is working under their new Ally?
  Mr. Eden: The widest possible publicity in all languages will be given to these tragic facts.
  Captain Sir William Brass: Is Japan member of the League of Nations?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir, she is not.
  Captain McEwen: My right hon. Friend said that the Japanese Government have asked for the withdrawal of all foreign consuls from places they have occupied. Does that include German and Italian consuls?
  Mr. Eden: I should like to have notice of that.
  Sir W. Davison: Has anything been heard of the assurance given by the general in command of the Japanese troops to whom Singapore was surrendered that decent treatment would be extended to those who surrendered and that the rules of Bushido would be carried out?
  Mr. Eden: I have said that I have received no definite reports from Malaya, but the Government cannot regard the position as satisfactory until Japan allows the Protecting Power and the International Red Cross to function.
  Mr. Bellenger: With reference to my right hon. Friend's answer that the whole of the Japanese nation is responsible, surely the general officer commanding the Japanese is personally responsible and should be held personally responsible by us? Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that we hold him personally responsible? Does this not show the futility of our capitulation of such a large body of prisoners?
  Mr. Eden: Obviously the Japanese general officer commanding is primarily responsible, but the Government are also responsible for not allowing the Protecting Power to do its duty.
  Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that General Bennett has arrived in Australia from Singapore, can my right hon. Friend give any information as to whether there is an adequate food supply for prisoners who are in Singapore?

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Henry White, Esquire, for the County of Derby (North-Eastern Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY.
    SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1941.

      EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £250,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and for the Ministry of

      945
      Supply in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would suggest that with the approval of the Committee we should take this Supplementary Vote and the Vote of Credit for £1,000,000,000 together. We have done it on previous occasions, and it has met the general convenience.
      The Deputy-Chairman: I think that will be quite convenient to the Committee.
      Sir K. Wood: The Committee will recall that when on 26th December last I asked for the fourth Vote of Credit for £1,000,000,000 for the financial year 1941, I explained that it was impossible to say with certainty at that point of time whether the sum for which I was then asking and which, with the earlier Votes which had been agreed to, made up a total provision of £4,000,000,000, would prove sufficient to meet our requirements till the end of the current financial year—that is, to the end of the present month—or whether I should have to come to the Committee again at about this time for a further Supplementary Grant. It is now clear that the £4,000,000,000 which we have already had will not be sufficient to carry us all through the year, and after most careful examination of the figures of current and probable expenditure, I have come to the conclusion that I must ask the Committee for a further Grant of £250,000,000 in respect of the financial year now nearing its close. Of the £4,000,000,000 already voted this year, we had up to last Saturday, 7th March, issued from the Exchequer some £3,770,000,000. In addition, some £110,000,000 has been expended from balances of the previous year's issues, and this sum also has to be covered by the current year's Supply grants, with the result that we must regard the true figure of expenditure to date as £3,880,000,000. During the past six weeks our total expenditure has been at the rate of about £14,500,000 a day. We have been spending from the Vote of Credit at the rate of approximately £88,500,000 a week, or
      946
      about £12,500,000 a day, of which the Fighting and Supply Services account for £68,000,000 a week, or nearly £9,750,000 a day. It may well be, as the Committee will appreciate, that this rate, considerable as it is, will show a still further rise in the next few weeks. While it is permissible to calculate requirements on the basis of average expenditure over a period of weeks when one is dealing with fairly lengthy periods, the Committee will appreciate that this method is not appropriate in dealing with the restricted period of three weeks which we now have to consider, and I must allow some margin to provide against extreme fluctuations of demands by the Departments in this particular period. With all these considerations in mind, I have reached the conclusion that I must estimate the requirements of the Vote of Credit for the current year as being not less than £4,250,000,000, and I accordingly ask the Committee to approve the Estimate now before them for the net sum of £250,000,000.
      The Committee will notice that I have used the word "net" in referring to the amount of this Estimate. This is because, in arriving at the figure at which we have estimated our requirements for the year as a whole, we have made a deduction in respect of surplus receipts (that is, receipts in excess of expenditure) on certain Services, mostly of a trading nature, which are directly financed from the Vote of Credit. Some of my hon. Friends will no doubt remember that in the last war it was the practice to allow surplus receipts of this sort to remain in the hands of the Departments to be used towards meeting subsequent years' expenditure on the respective services, but on reconsideration of the point in connection with the arrangements for the present war it has been thought preferable, and certainly more in accordance with modem accounting principles, to bring these credit items to final account within the year of realisation in a way which preserves the essential flexibility of the Vote of Credit machinery and at the same time presents to Parliament a clear picture of net cash requirements year by year. I may say that for the current year these surplus receipts are expected to amount to about £25,000,000.
      If the Committee agree to this Vote of £250,000,000, it will, as I have already said, bring our total grants for Votes of Credit for the current financial year to

      947
      £4,250,000,000. In that connection I should like to recall the figures which I quoted to the Committee a year ago when I was asking for the final Supplementary Vote for that financial year. I then pointed out that the Votes of Credit of that year would reach the figure of £3,300,000,000, whereas in the last war the largest sum granted was £2,500,000,000, in 1918, though this was not all spent, owing to the conclusion of the war in that year. We have, therefore, now left still further behind the highest amount of expenditure in the last war, and our requirements continue to increase. I would also again draw the attention of the Committee to the continuing growth in the daily rate of expenditure in the present war. Two years ago our daily rate of expenditure was £5,000,000, £4,000,000 of which was for the Fighting Services. A year ago that rate had risen to over £10,500,000, of which £8,000,000 was for the Fighting Services. To-day., we are spending on the war about £12,500,000 a day, of which nearly £9,750,000 is for the Fighting Services. Our daily expenditure is, therefore, two and a half times greater than it was two years ago, and in the last year has increased by no less than £2,000,000 a day. Even if the size of this increase is difficult sometimes to comprehend, we can at least appreciate these comparisons which I have given to the Committee, and can at the same time mark the magnitude and the considerable increase in our war effort which they reflect.
      Mr. Graham White: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicate whether those global figures which he has mentioned include anything in connection with the Lease-Lend expenditure?
      Sir K. Wood: No; they do not.
      Mr. White: If so, the effort is really very much greater.
      Sir K. Wood: I think what I have said is correct, but I will verify the point. I now turn to the requirements of the coming financial year, 1942. Before very long it will be my duty as Chancellor of the Exchequer to present a full account of the financial out-turn of the present year and my forecast and proposals for the year 1942. I feel sure the Committee
      948
      will agree that this is not the appropriate time, but that the annual Budget statement will present a more suitable opportunity for giving my estimate of the rate of expenditure which the war may impose upon us during this critical year. For the moment I am asking for a vote of £1,000,000,000 to carry us through the opening months of the year, and at the present rate of expenditure this will probably be exhausted by about the middle of June.
      I have, as many of my hon. Friends on the Committee will recall, when presenting successive Votes of Credit on previous occasions, endeavoured to give the Committee a reasonably complete picture of the general financial situation, but in the present instance, when we are within a few weeks of my Budget Statement, the Committee will, I know, appreciate the reason if I refrain from going into details other than those directly associated with the Vote of Credit. I think I have said enough for the Committee to realise that the task of the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not lighten with the development and extension of the war effort, and I need only now say that, as regards expenditure, it remains a paramount necessity that the money provided for the war effort should be wisely spent, that consumption should be reduced as a national duty, that all extravagance and waste should be eliminated, and that no Government Department or undertaking and no individual servant of the Crown, or any other person, should be open to the reproach of squandering public money or dissipating materials and man-power available for the war effort.
      Mr. Stephen: Take a look at the advertisements.
      Sir K. Wood: For the rest, my main preoccupation must continue to be the avoidance of inflation. Without in any way falling into the error of anticipating my Budget statement, I may say—and it will, I think, be obvious to the Committee from such signs and portents as are available for them—that in this respect we have not been unsuccessful. Much remains to be done, and we cannot afford to relax, but against the rising figure of war expenditure we can certainly set such factors as the buoyancy of the revenue and the continued progress of the National Savings Movement. We are in the midst

      949
      of a strenuous campaign of Warship Weeks. These weeks, whatever may be said of them by way of criticism in certain quarters, serve greatly to bring home to the people of our country the great importance of saving, and they certainly lay the foundation of that regular weekly saving which is so vital to the maintenance of a firm financial front and thereby to the success of the war effort and the security of our people. The National Savings Movement has done much to bring home to all of us that it is our duty to refrain from all unnecessary expenditure and to restrict our consumption of goods and services to the absolute minimum. That, I think, is a lesson which cannot be taught too often. It is a theme the truth of which is becoming more and more self-evident with the progress of the war, and it is a touchstone of our success or failure in the financial sphere. I am confident that here, as elsewhere, the spirit of our people will be equal to the task with which we are faced and that they will be only too willing to play their full part in these matters which are so vital to the successful issue of the war. I would like, in conclusion, to say that I confirm the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) that the Vote of Credit figures do not include the assistance which has been obtained under the Lease-Lend arrangement and if that is taken into account, it means, of course, that our war effort is so much more than appears from the figures which I have presented to the Committee.
      Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: We have listened to-day to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the grave words of the Foreign Secretary still ringing in our ears—words which have sunk deep into our hearts, and will sink into the hearts of all the people of this country and make them realise, to a greater extent than ever before, what this war is being fought about and how it is necessary to prosecute it to a victorious end. The Chancellor, naturally, has not seen fit to-day to go into those details with which he has enlightened the Committee when presenting Votes of Credit on previous occasions, but I should like to ask him, and perhaps he will reply to me either at the end of this Debate or at a subsequent stage of the proceedings on this Vote, certain questions as to the com-
      950
      parison of expenditure now with that in the previous war. I think we are coming very near the time when the Votes of Credit which have been issued in connection with this war will equal the total of those issued in the war of 1914–18. It would be interesting to know whether in these two Votes that are being considered we have reached or surpassed the total figures for the previous war. I should imagine that in the three years of war which will have nearly elapsed when the second Vote of Credit which we are being asked to approve has come to an end, we shall have reached a figure somewhere near the total expenditure in the war of 1914–1918.
      Now I come to the yield of the revenue during the current year. I think we must all congratulate ourselves on the fact that, already, several weeks before the end of the financial year, the anticipated revenue has actually been attained. It would be interesting to know from the Chancellor whether in any previous year in the history of this country, the whole of the revenue for the year had already been reached some six weeks before the end of March. Of course, before we indulge in any complacency on this matter, we have to remember that expenditure has also gone up by leaps and bounds. Although the revenue will greatly exceed the Chancellor's estimate, the amount by which expenditure will be in excess of the estimate will, I fear, be even greater, and we shall therefore have a larger deficit on the year than the Chancellor of the Exchequer foretold. But the buoyancy of the revenue illustrates a point to which I have referred on previous occasions and which continually needs explanation to the general public. They always find a difficulty in understanding how it is, when we are making these enormous demands, that the tax revenue not only fulfils the estimate of the Chancellor, but exceeds it by such a large amount. Of course, the two facts are inter-related. The enormous expenditure of the State goes to individuals in the form of incomes and therefore provides them with the wherewithal to pay their taxes and to pay them with promptitude and in some cases to pay in excess of what has been anticipated.
      Mr. MacLaren: The dog feeding on its own tail.
      Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: That is so, and that is not anything to be particularly

      951
      complacent about. As my hon. Friend points out, it is something in the nature of the dog eating its own tail. In spite of the good position of the revenue, it is essential that the public of this country should still put every effort into the Savings Campaign. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has properly stressed the importance of that campaign, and no doubt he will continue to stress it as the year goes by.
      I am glad to realise from what the right hon. Gentleman told us to-day that the avoidance of inflation is a matter with which he is still very much concerned. We have met a considerable part of our war expenditure out of tax revenue, but only a very small part, really, when all is said and done. The avoidance of inflation must depend not only upon the success of our tax revenue, but upon the campaign to bring in war savings. For that reason, in spite of what must appear to the public as a sort of necromantic finance, it remains essential for the public to do their part in strengthening our position and preventing inflation, and that can be done only by economising in everything that is unnecessary for the purpose of sustaining a healthy life.
      Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I agree fully with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken; it is a little difficult, in the circumstances of to-day, to think seriously about questions of finance. There is no question that the money for which the Chancellor asks must be found. I think the Committee should give attention, however, to certain points which the Chancellor touched on, particularly in regard to inflation, in connection with the raising of these very large sums of money. It has always been said that lack of money never prevented any country from going to war. I suppose the financial condition of Germany was one of the reasons why our pundits who looked at these matters closely in pre-war days thought that that country would never be able to wage war. It is perfectly true that lack of money does not make it impossible for any Government to go to war. [An HON. MEMBER: "It needs only raw materials and labour."] Certainly the astronomical figures of our present-day finance reveal that finance has little bearing upon our own ability to wage war.
      952
      With that fact in mind, I am bound to say that it is not amusing to look back to the years before the war, and to remember that Chancellors of the Exchequer in Governments of all kinds and parties steadfastly refused to devote what to-day seems the miserable little sum of £100,000,000 for Empire development, money which would have brought us a definite dividend. No Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever his political faith, was even able to think of making Empire development in this way a charge upon the national revenue. In considering the money being provided in these days, we have to keep in mind two very important aspects of the question. The first is whether we are spending the money wisely, and the second is what effect this expenditure will have upon our national finances after the war.
      As to the first matter, I can only say what I have said before, that the very hard-working Members of the Select Committee on National Expenditure do their very best, within the terms of reference which the House has granted to them, to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is advised where waste is taking place. I think that is very good work, but, after all, they can only report to the House; the House itself is the real guardian against waste and cannot pass on that responsibility. In the present financial situation, the Government could do more to bring home to the people the absolute necessity for avoiding extravagance. For too many people do not realise yet the seriousness of our position and the urgent necessity for economy in every direction. War Weapons Weeks and appeals to save are excellent, but there is still more that the Government could do. Some people live in the happy idea that war-time is an awfully good time. They are doing well because they are getting good wages or good profits. It is a first-class show: why interfere with it?
      Mr. MacLaren: That is a fine reflection upon peace.
      Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: It is the duty of the Government to bring home to the people a real idea of what war means. The second aspect is our post-war position. I read in the papers the other day that a member of the Government said that certain Ministers had been asked to consider post-war conditions, and, that being so, the rest of them had better get on with

      953
      winning the war. A good many people in the country, however, cannot be actively engaged in fighting the war, and therefore the best of their brains should now be devoted to consideration of what our financial position will be in the post-war period. It is a very serious subject. The bulk of the people who are making sacrifices by saving money and investing it in various Warship or Tank Weeks, do not appreciate that what happens after the war will really decide whether their present economies will give them any permanent future value. Unless action taken now and after the war controls inflation definitely and finally, all the saving will have been in vain. People are having to be educated to the necessity to make these savings. I do not wish to suggest that they should be frightened, but certainly they should be told about the equal necessity of putting our financial house in order after the war, so that their savings and sacrifices will be of some value when that time comes.
      It is clear that there will be two phases to be met with, after the war is over—assuming that the optimism that we shall win the war within a reasonable time is justified. In the first phase, there will be a vast amount of money in circulation, but practically no goods for that money to purchase. Goods will be in very short supply, and there will be grave dangers unless the Government of that day, if it be the Government of to-day or another, are prepared to continue for some considerable time the restrictions and the strict ordering of people's lives which have been found necessary in war. I say that because I know that there will be a very natural outcry, immediately the war is over, to remove all those restrictions. There is not one of us who will not want them removed. We shall all hate them and want to get rid of them at once, but if they are removed too quickly, the result will be inflation. It is bound to follow, in that event you cannot possibly avoid it, because there will be such a plethora of money in the hands of the people and such a very small amount of goods for them to buy.
      Ultimately that period will pass, and after, say, two or three years the very reverse of that position will arise. Goods will come into greater and greater supply, demand will decline, and unless the Government are extremely careful how
      954
      they manage their financial affairs then, the result will be another period of unemployment and distress. I do not want to emphasise these things too much today, but I do want to press the point that all our financial policy should be framed with those factors in mind, because one never knows—though I cannot say I am an optimist in the matter—when there might be sudden changes or a sudden collapse of the war, and in that case, if we do not look ahead, we may be placed in very considerable difficulties.
      In conclusion, I believe that every chance this House has of impressing upon the people of this country the seriousness of our present position should be taken. It is very easy to believe that all is going well. Far too many people believe that everything will be all right on the night, that in a few weeks we shall recover everything. I do not hold that view; I view our situation as a very serious one indeed. Success is a question of production, and production only will enable us to win this war. These immense sums of money are being spent, and unless we can be quite certain that they are being spent to the best advantage, we shall not be able, at any rate within a reasonable time, to move towards the kind of victory we all long to see. I suggest that on such occasions as this, when we are voting huge sums of money, it is not inappropriate to tell the people quite plainly that though they may raise the money, it will be wasted if they are not careful, if they do not put into this effort every ounce they have to achieve the production without which victory is impossible, and further, that if inflation is not avoided by very careful Government action now and after the war, the result will be that their savings will be of no value to them in the end
      Mr. Graham White: I rise only for a moment or two to express my complete agreement with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he indicated that this was not the occasion for a Budget discussion. The House must concern itself strictly with the question of credits. I should like to emphasise what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) with regard to the great importance of maximum production, and also, which I think is equally

      955
      important for it is not yet sufficiently realised, of minimum consumption by the people of this country, if necessary by the imposition of far greater restrictions than have yet been devised. It must be brought home to every citizen of this country that he is now more important, from his own point of view, from that of the nation and of the possibility of there ever being any decent living in the world again, than he has ever been before. The citizen is very important on account of what he can do, and, oddly enough, he is equally important because of what he can do without. That aspect of the matter is one which is not sufficiently realised at present.
      Those who have preceded me in this Debate have already suggested that it is necessary to have a clear idea of what we are fighting for. That again is a matter which is of the greatest possible consequence at the present time. The days when we said that we had only one war aim, and that was to defeat Hitler, are gone, and that slogan has passed away on to the rubbish heap. It is very important that the people should realise that there is no sharp division between war and peace, but that the greater awareness of all sorts of things which has been forced upon us by the war should stimulate our war effort to the maximum and should also carry on into the peace. On that, I think, everything depends. When the war comes to an end there will be some 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 people the mainspring of whose existence will have snapped overnight, and it is essential that we should have an ordered scheme of what we mean to do. I do not wish to pursue the matter further now; I merely wish to emphasise the importance of dealing with extravagance and waste in every form. I wish I could say that there was none, but we have evidence of it on a large scale in the Beveridge Report in regard to the use of man-power, and we have it in small matters of detail. Each one of us should realise that we are not entitled to criticise unless we can look into our own minds and realise that both as regards action and refraining from consumption we are doing everything we can.
      We in this land are a curious people. We have shown in this war that we are frightened of nothing. We were fright-
      956
      ened of nothing when we decided to carry on the war, unarmed and alone, and the people in the blitzed areas have shown that they are frightened of nothing. Yet now we find ourselves refraining from making the maximum effort. In the matter of savings, let me give a few instances which I have come across within the last week or two. The savings effort is being hampered at this moment by a complete misunderstanding of the incidence of Income Tax, and although I should not wish to pursue the matter, because it would not be in Order, I should like to express the hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is looking into such matters, in connection with Income Tax and wages, as are interfering with savings and maximum effort. Only last week I was accosted by a man in the street who had evidently been making his first acquaintance with Income Tax, and he said, "I am not going to work overtime for Kingsley Wood.' "That was the slogan in the street. It took me quite a little time to convince him that he was on the wrong line, and I do hope that serious consideration is being given to this matter. I will leave that matter there, because I may be getting on to dangerous ground.
      Going back for one moment in my mind to the two first war Budgets, the complaint made then was that the expenditure was wholly inadequate as a representation of our war effort. That could not be said to-day, although I rather deprecate placing too much confidence in comparisons with our expenditure in the last war. We must, however, be satisfied that the expenditure is on the war and our war effort. Apart from matters of extravagance, we must realise that expenditure in this war, in its very nature and direction, is very different from what it was in the last war. We have advanced, and what we must do now is to satisfy ourselves about the expenditure of this money. It will not be withheld by the Committee; they will vote any sum asked for, provided they are satisfied it is being wisely spent and with no waste or extravagance.
      Mr. Stokes: I wish to put a series of short questions to the Chancellor, which perhaps he may be able to answer in the course of the Debate. We are to-day discussing a Vote of Credit. What is credit? What I wish to point out

      957
      to the Chancellor is that what we are proposing to do, at his request, is to vote this vast sum of £1,000,000,000 merely on the credit of the nation, that is, the assets of the nation, the goodwill of the nation, the integrity and the character of all the people constituting the nation. We are not merely borrowing from the banks. Will the Chancellor please appreciate that it is possible to conceive that perhaps he is wrong, or has been wrong, and other Chancellors before him, in thinking that it is always necessary to pay interest on your own credit? He will save a large amount of money for the nation if he adopts a different course. I want to put one definite question to him. It was put to the Brains Trust recently, I believe. The Brains Trust refused to answer, though I cannot believe that Prof. Joad would admit that he does not know everything. The question put was this: "How is it that we can lend millions to Ethiopia and China in war-time when in peace-time we have such difficulty in balancing the Budget? How is it we can lend these millions, and where can I find out more about this? "Can the Chancellor explain to the Committee where all this money does come from? It seems to me that it would clarify the minds of a great number of ignorant people like myself. We have heard talk to-day about inflation. That has formed the subject for a good deal of argument in Budget Debates. I want to put this to the Chancellor in his efforts to keep his Budget balanced up. That great authority Mr. Montagu Norman on 9th October broadcast to the nation on the importance of National War Bonds and National Savings. Mr. Norman explained, as the Chancellor has explained, that we are spending money at the rate of £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 every day. He said: "We may estimate by and large that over half that sum has been provided from taxation and from other sources. This leaves something like £5,000,000 a day to be found and that sum must, I think, be subscribed in loans of one kind or another, or come from a source which I hesitate to mention."
      He then went on to explain the source he hesitated to mention, which was by inflation. Does not Mr. Norman thereby mean that by depreciating the value of money he is enabled to collect double the quantity and so claim that he has balanced his books? Really, a man who says that sort of thing ought not to be left in charge of a sweetshop; it is a most
      958
      inadequate reason for causing inflation. If I were asked to go into the Lobby on this Vote of Credit, I would go into the Lobby against the Government because they have not shown themselves competent to be allowed to handle such vast sums.
      The Chancellor spoke about War Weapons Weeks and the importance of making them a success. To go deeply into that subject would be out of Order I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of what some banks and people like the Prudential Assurance Company are doing in connection with these weeks. They are offering to buy for individuals £1,000 of War Loan on payment of an annual premium of only £82 odd. I have in my hand a collection of interesting literature, among which is a letter from the Prudential Assurance Company offering support for a Warship Week in my constituency by investing to the credit of the Warship Week an amount equal to the aggregate of the sums assured by means of all ordinary branch proposals written for 3 per cent. Savings Bond policies during the three weeks before the week and the week itself. The Prudential says:
      "By this method towns similar in size to Ipswich have had an additional subscription of £100,000 from this company. This is an extraordinary method whereby you can help yourself."
      I agree it is an extraordinary method. I hope that the Chancellor will close down on it, and assure us that that form of subscription is not to be allowed. He refused to do so at Question time. It is important that he should know how much is genuine savings and how much is bank-created credit. I do ask that lie should give his serious attention to this, or we shall find that there is going on what went on in the last war: bogus loans for the purpose from banks and insurance companies.
      I come to the question of Treasury control. As a producer of things which the Government want with which to conduct the war, I find myself in great difficulty. Every intelligent manufacturer knows that in order to plan your output you must know well ahead of time what it is you are required to produce. Anyone in the heavy engineering industry knows that in peace-time you have not the slightest chance of fulfilling your plans unless this is done, and unless you know your plan at least a year ahead. I wish to call the

      959
      Chancellor's atttention to this difficulty which some of us experience. Supply Departments are restrained from placing their orders because the Treasury holds them up. I can give chapter and verse of a case in my own knowledge in which, in principle, a product required was agreed upon in September last year. The quantity involved was not large, something of the value of about £250,000. Both the Department and the manufacturer were aware that that would be the best plan, but although that was agreed upon, it was not until a fortnight ago, the end of February, that sanction was received from the Treasury that the purchase should be made. I submit that this is altogether wrong and that Treasury control should be speeded up. In point of fact, in this particular case this has more to do with production—
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I do not think we can go into contracts any further here.
      Mr. Stokes: I wish to point out that the Government are conducting the war inefficiently. If I am required to support a Vote of Credit of £1,000,000,000, I am entitled to suggest where their methods should be improved. If I am not entitled to discuss that, I do not know what I am entitled to discuss. I am only criticising the dead hand of the Treasury, which I fear is still all too persistent.
      I turn to the question of waste. A deputation of competent workmen came to see me the other day about the construction of an aerodrome. Their attitude was one of intense indignation, because it had been put in the public Press that men on the job were playing cards. It happens to be true that they were playing cards. I want to tell the Chancellor why. Their complaint was that the Air Ministry would not make up their minds where they wanted various things up and down the aerodrome. Things were constantly being interrupted, pulled down and put up again. On top of that during the recent hard period, when most of the work to be done was digging, about 300 or 400 people were taken from the town to the site by motor buses. They could not dig, so they played cards. In the evening they came back again. Is the Chacellor aware that spending Departments are spending
      960
      money in that way? How he expects War Weapons Weeks to be a success when people realise all the waste which is going on I fail to understand. I know that it is not a matter which we can discuss in detail to-day; but if the Chancellor wants the right sort of effort put into the war, he must consider the incidence on all these people of Income Tax.
      Those people who came to me with the grievance to which I have referred said to me, "Last summer, in the long days, we were working for long hours, and earning a lot of money. Now we are on short time, because the weather is bad; but this is the period when we are required to pay heavy Income Tax." I suggest that the incidence of Income Tax should be changed, so that it shall be paid out of current earnings. I hope that the Chancellor will consider that matter in connection with the forthcoming Budget. We have heard a great deal about equality of sacrifice and the necessity for everybody to pull his weight, to save every possible penny, and to consume as few goods as possible. I suggest that the Government have not done anything like enough in giving a lead. There is nothing imaginative in the policy they adopt. I will read a suggestion from a letter which I happened to write, and which the "Manchester Guardian" happened to publish, in 1937, long before I thought of trying to join this august Assembly. Discussing the possibility of war, I wrote:
      "As, presumably, the young men of the country will be invited to risk their lives, in return for a purely nominal monetary reward, no doubt the Government will also conscript all labour, irrespective of class, to work in the common good, from the Governor of the Bank of England downwards, in return for a purely nominal wage."
      An hon. Member: From the Governor of the Bank of England upwards.
      Mr. Stokes: I was thinking not of their status, but of the size of their incomes. It is quite time that the Government made a forthright statement on those lines. Personal expenditure has to be restricted. It is idle to go to the ordinary man and say, "You must work long hours, for seven days a week, if the people at the top, Cabinet Ministers and the like, are allowed to splash money about at their will." [Interruption.] Perhaps the Chancellor is not himself guilty; but some restriction is required.

      961
      I have the greatest hesitation in voting sums of money to a Government who are prepared to allow such happenings as we have had recently to take place without any explanation. I do not see why people should be asked for money to build warships when two of the largest go down and we have no adequate explanation from that Bench as to who misdirected them. I do not see why people should be asked for money to support a Government which, with knowledge of what was happening in Hong Kong, left soldiers and civilians there to the mercies of the Japanese to serve no useful purpose at all.
      Captain Cobb: Does the hon. Member suggest that if we did not vote the money, these things would not have happened?
      Mr. Stokes: No, but I suggest that Hong Kong should have been evacuated. I agree that the Government were not directly responsible for those deplorable events; but had there been any real strategy those things would not have happened, because Hong Kong strategically could not be held and ought to have been evacuated months ago. I do not believe that the Government have any real plan or any real long-term strategy of any kind whatever, and they are showing no leadership. On that account, if there were a Division I should vote against the Motion.
      Mr. Stephen: As one of the few Members who on previous occasions have voted against Votes of Credit, I think it well to say a few words on this matter. I and my colleagues have taken occasion to express our dissatisfaction with the voting of such credits to the Government for carrying on the war. We hold the same opinion still. We have possibly even less faith in the reconstructed Government than we had in the Government in its previous form; and that was infinitesimal. I have listened to the Debate, and I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). He said many of the things that I had intended to say myself. I was interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). While he was speaking, my mind went back to the last war and a famous by-election in Aberdeen. I thought his speech to-day
      962
      was in great contrast to the speeches he made then as a peace candidate. Evidently there have been many changes in the minds of men in. regard to basic ideas since then.
      I want to refer to what the Chancellor said about the bouyancy of the revenue and the good results of the National Savings Campaign. I interrupted him, and asked whether he had seen the magazine "Vogue" and the advertisements there, which showed that some people are spending extraordinary sums—advertisements about very expensive fur coats and that sort of thing. There are ion pages in this magazine, which is printed on very fine paper. I think it is published at 2S. 6d. While the rest of us are under a penalty of £100 if we throw a tram ticket on the street in an absent-minded moment, to allow this sort of thing to go on seems to show an absolute lack of any sense of reality on the part of the Government. Here is a question that millions of people are asking. When we hear on the wireless the amount of money that has been contributed in the way of savings, people say, "The Government have taken us, and have placed us in this or that job; they have taken our sons and daughters for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Why do they have to go round begging for people to lend money? Why do they not take the money in the same way? Why are the Government prepared to conscript human life, but not to conscript wealth?" I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the people of this country some reasonable answer to his question, which is in the minds of the people.
      I have a great deal of sympathy with regard to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich when he was speaking about the great financier of this country, Mr. Montagu Norman, who has been responsible for so much of the trouble in the world to-day. The fact that successive Chancellors have believed that lie was a wise man has been responsible for so much trouble. I do not want to pursue this, because I notice that the Chairman is becoming very uneasy in his seat, and I do not want to give him any trouble at all. But I do want to say something with reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), who warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was

      963
      bringing forward Votes of Credit like this one to-day, that he ought to be thinking of the days that would succeed the war and that there were possibly two situations which would eventuate after the war. What struck me as I listened to him was that the hon. Member for Kidderminster thinks in terms of going back to a pre-war world, and that just as it was in 1918, so it will also be in the autumn of 1942, or the beginning of 1943, when peace comes, though one is not so hopeful about that. He thinks that events will just happen the same, and he hopes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that the Government have to plan in connection with those events. The hon. Member for Kidderminster will possibly be greatly surprised at how things come at the end of the war. The way the Government are going on, their lack of foresight, vision and efficiency, the waste and extravagance, the way in which, all the time, they pander to the rich and well-to-do in the community, and the disasters that have taken place in, the field will lead to., the conclusion of two great events which will overthrow the Government and the section in the community who are mainly represented in the Government.
      We have to think in terms of a Socialist Britain after this war and not in the terms suggested by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. If we are to have victory, then the only real victory that can come to the people of this country is the victory of a Socialist Britain. If we do not have a Socialist victory, then things will be just the same as in 1918. What came to the ordinary people in this country in 1918 were unemployment, misery, greater and greater poverty, with home after home broken, and unless we get on this occasion a Socialist Britain we shall not secure a real victory. Naturally, I do not think that the present Government are a Government that will give us a Socialist Britain. I am not willing to vote £1,000,000,000 to a Government that has no idea of the bringing into being of a new Socialist order. I would only give a vote to a Government in which I had faith and which had before them an idea of the creation of a Socialist Britain and also the association of that Socialist Britain with other Socialist countries of the world and the
      964
      laying down of a great world Socialist federation.
      Sir Frank Sanderson (Ealing): The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has made special reference to the point that he cannot understand why the Government should conscript lives and fail at the same time to conscript capital. I wonder what the hon. Member really has in mind when he uses the expression, "the conscription of capital." Surely, if at any time in our history, this is the time when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has conscripted capital. I will give the hon. Member two points which illustrate what I have said. When we talk about the wealthy classes we must take people at the highest point. There are supposed to be in this country one or two who have an income of£150,000 a year.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Shame.
      Sir F. Sanderson: I agree with, and endorse, that sentiment, but let us see how much of that £150,000 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has left to the individual. My right hon. Friend takes, in direct taxation, Income Tax and Surtax, no less than £142,844, and the man with £150,000 a year, if there be one, is left to-day with £7,000 a year.
      Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Member realise that, if they conscript my life, they take me, and I have to go into the Army, and they do not leave me with this proportion?
      The Temporary Chairman: I think we have followed this illustration much too far.
      Mr. Stephen: In this case, the man is left, according to the hon. Member's own statement, with what he regards as the small sum of £7,000 a year.
      Sir F. Sanderson: It would not be in Order on this Vote for me to develop that point further, and I observe that the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) also desires to say something. I assure him that I shall develop it when we deal with the Budget Statement, because I wish to show that it is against the national interests that capital should be conscripted to the extent to which it is conscripted to-day
      Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern): May I put a point?
      Sir F. Sanderson: As this will not be in Order, I shall raise it on the Budget Statement. What I desire to do to-day is to raise two points, one of which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) when he referred to inflation. I do not think that there will be any difference of views in regard to how essential it is to prevent inflation. The Government have done all that it has been possible for them to have done to prevent inflation, and it is not so much the Government to-day but our own people who must play their full part in the prevention of any inflation which might accrue in the future. They can do that by one means only, and that is by saving to their utmost limit. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will agree with me that it is to the wage-earning classes that he has to look for the major portion of his savings, for it is they, and they alone, who have increased incomes, The advantage is twofold. Not only does my right hon. Friend receive the money to contribute towards the payment of the war, but at the same time the investor is putting aside credits which will enable him to purchase consumable goods after the war.
      I would like to congratulate the Government on their money policy and the success they have achieved. Unlike the last war they have, during this war, been able to raise their credits on the basis of under 2 per cent—actually 1⅞ per cent.—per annum, whereas in the last war money was borrowed at an average rate of no less than 51 per cent. per annum.5½ The saving in interest to-day reflects the greatest credit upon the Treasury. The Treasury to-day have complete control over all foreign exchange. They also have complete control over the raising of loans for any purpose other than that of war, whereas hon. Members will recall that in the last war large loans were effected in all directions and money escaped from this country abroad to remain there. To this day it has not been returned. That is not possible to-day.
      As I have said, I claim that great credit reflects upon the Treasury. I would, however, like to strike a note of warning. When the war has come to a successful conclusion it will be absolutely
      966
      vital that my right hon. Friend should continue to keep a close control in finance for a fixed period after the war, and he must resist any pressure to get rid of them so soon as war is over. One must bear in mind that thousands of millions of pounds are being loaned to the Government at a low rate of interest—2½ per cent.—against no less than 6 per cent. on Treasury bills in the last war. It is the duty of my right hon. Friend to be able to assure those who invest in Government securities to-day that those securities shall, in fact, not suffer some serious depreciation when the war comes to an end. Therefore, I submit it is essential that the Government should continue to control finance and to control the rates of interest which shall be paid, in order that our credit after the war shall not be impaired. My right hon. Friend will recall that it was not during but after the Great War our difficulties arose when inflation commenced, not during, but after the war, due to lack of those controls when there was a demand for consumable goods at a ratio considerably in excess of the goods which were or could at that time be produced. The result was that with more buyers than there were producers the available goods increased in price, in inflated values, and it brought in its train the difficulties to which I have referred.
      In conclusion, I would like to make one reference to the total cost of the interest and administration of the National Debt to-day. If we cast our minds back to the 17th century, it was in the year 1697, after a succession of wars, that the National Debt stood at £20,000,000, which was regarded at that time as a burden in excess of what the country could bear. The whole weight of the National Debt then was less than the cost of one and a half days of the present war. In the last financial year the weight of the National Debt was £230,000,000, and my right hon. Friend estimated that for the financial year ending at the end of this month the cost of the National Debt would be £255,000,000. After two and a half years of the most expensive war in the world's history the cost of the National Debt is £37,000,000 less than it was ten years ago. That reflects great credit on my right hon. Friend, on the Treasury and on the Bank of England. Therefore should the' same rate of increase continue in the months that are in front of us, it would not be

      967
      until October, 1943, that the weight of interest upon the National Debt would be equal to what it was ten years ago, that is, in 1931. I would only add in my closing words that the Chancellor should continue on the same lines and see to it that the country's interests are conserved and the necessary controls continue for a period of time when this war comes to an end.
      Mr. Richards: As the Chancellor has pointed out, we are precluded to-day from reviewing the position of the Exchequer generally. The Budget, however, is looming ahead, and we shall have an opportunity then, I presume, of reviewing the field more broadly than it is possible to do to-day. I rise to make one appeal to the Chancellor. Last year, along with his Budget, he produced a most interesting White Paper which gave us the analysed facts concerning Government expenditure, together with an estimate of the national revenue—that is, the revenue of the people of this country as apart from the Government's revenue. I think it is right that we should expect the Chancellor to repeat that gesture, as I hope he will, because it is really very difficult to know exactly what the Government are doing when we have these colossal figures thrown at us, unless we know at the same time what is happening to the national revenue. The Vote to-day is a complete account for this present year and is in anticipation of the demand which, as the Chancellor has said, shows no signs of diminishing, for a part of next year. It is natural that certain doubts should have been expressed concerning this colossal expenditure, and it is natural that we should wish to be quite certain in our own minds that this money is being wisely spent. There are all kinds of opportunities for mis-spending money, and we have heard instances given in the Debate.
      It is the duty of the Exchequer, a duty which I think they recognise as part of their work, not merely to collect the money, but to see that it is well spent. In looking through the White Paper which the Chancellor issued last year, I was rather interested to find that hitherto, on the whole, we have managed to finance this tremendous expenditure out of current accounts; that is to say, we have dipped into our capital very little in
      968
      financing these tremendous sums. I know that the taxation that is being levied does not now bear the same proportion to expenditure as it did two year's ago. As the debt goes up and the sums grow ever larger, the proportion that is obtained from taxation, unfortunately, grows less, but if we take together taxation and loans —and as the Chancellor has pointed out, many of the loans undoubtedly represent genuine savings —and if we can retain that position of financing by means of taxation plus loans that are genuine savings, I do not think we need fear inflation in the least. But we must not be too optimistic. I think there is already evidence of a certain amount of inflation. If I may be heterodox, I do not know that a limited amount of inflation will do any great injury; it is only when inflation gets completely out of control that great damage is done. There is another side to inflation, and it is this, that with prices mounting, everybody knows it is easier to meet the very heavy taxes that are being imposed on the community. A limited measure of inflation does not of necessity entail the criticisms that violent inflation would necessarily incur.
      If, before the Budget is introduced or when it is introduced, the Chancellor will produce a White Paper showing exactly what is the relation of the tremendous sum of £4,250,000,000 to the income of the country generally, I am sure his kindness will be much appreciated. It is very gratifying to find that the national income is growing, as we would expect it to grow. It is true that soldiers have been taken out of industry, but other people have been taken in, and I think that the position is balanced. The increase in the number of hours- worked, and a greater willingness to put more time and energy into work, has led to a growth in the national income, and this makes it easier for us to pay the heavy taxes with which we are burdened. There is, however, another side to the picture which is not so satisfactory; it is that we are still consuming a great deal more than we ought to consume. An appeal has already been made to the Government to bring about a drastic reduction in consumption. If we can increase production and at the same time reduce consumption, there will be a decent balance which, in the circumstances, I think, we can venture, from a purely economic point of view, to lend to the Chancellor for the purpose of prose-

      969
      cuting this terrible war to a successful conclusion.
      Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was very interested in the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards). I cannot agree with his optimism about the possibility of continuing to pay wages at a very high rate while those who receive the wages are not prepared: of their own free will, to put more than a certain proportion of the increased wages into some form of savings. Nor do I believe that the vast majority of wage earners will voluntarily restrict their consumption of those things the consumption of which we wish to see restricted. If I could feel that they would do this, I would not, either in the past, at present, or in the future, have been pressing, or press, for some form of general industrial conscription.
      I wonder very much what would have been the amount of this Vote if, at the outbreak of war, we had had some system of general industrial conscription in this country. I wonder what would have been its effect in terms of money and credit, and also what would have been the actual production rate at the present time of those who would have been conscripted under a measure of general industrial conscription. I believe that the difficult and grinding time through which we are passing, and which we shall have to continue to go through, is the very time at which to apply such a system. I cannot conceive of anything else that would bring home to the people as a whole more drastically, more violently, the fact that we are up against the toughest proposition this country has ever had to face. Quite by chance, I was the only Member of the House, and, therefore, the first Member, who, 12 months before the introduction of clothes rationing, suggested in a speech that such a step should be taken by the Government. I do not imagine for one moment that the Government took that step as a result of anything I had said many months before, but I advocated the step for exactly the same reasons as now I urge the Government to face the necessity for general conscription to-day.
      I believe it is by taking such a step that we can cure two ills that are rife at the present time. The first is a lack of realisation of the power of our enemies
      970
      and consequently, the danger in which this country stands, a lack of realisation of the necessity for putting forth the last ounce of effort if we are not only to stay our foes, but drive them back to the evil places from which they have come. Secondly, I believe that by taking this step we should be able to envisage a reduction in the amount of future Votes of Credit, not because the rate of production Would decline, but, partly, because, for psychological reasons, the amount produced would be greater, and, partly, because we should have a lower rate, a lower deck, above which it would not be considered right or proper for wages or salaries to rise.
      Mr. Stokes: Or incomes.
      Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think incomes would have to be dealt with by an entirely different method; obviously, they would not come within the general scope of conscription. It was the final remarks of the hon. Member for Wrexham that caused me to refer to these points. I come back to the danger of inflation, not only now, but later on. Would not many of the problems with which we shall be faced after the war in the industrial field, problems of re-employment, and so on, be far better faced if we had such a system as I have suggested in force from now on? I believe that even if the Government have not the courage—I believe they should have the courage—to put a system of general conscription into effect now, they will be forced to take that step immediately after the war. It will be forced upon them under far more difficult conditions than exist to-day.
      Mr. A. Edwards: As hon. Members are very interested in this subject, can the hon. Member make a little more clear what he means by industrial conscription,. as distinct from what operates to-clay?
      The Temporary Chairman: I do not think we can go very much further on this question, or we shall be dealing with legislation.
      Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am most grateful for that warning. I should not for one moment attempt in the limited time available to outline what I mean or what the effects would mean. The most I can do is to refer to it.
      Mr. Stephen: May I draw attention to the fact that legislation has already been passed for the conscription of man-power and property? This could be done by an Order.
      The Temporary Chairman: It involves making an Order, and I do not think we can discuss that.
      Mr. Orr-Ewing: I can only say that I was thinking as much about the financial effects and causes of any proposals I have touched upon, as about the actual conscription of labour in the physical sense.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer has talked about the savings problem. I believe that a great deal more could be done by way of encouraging savings and by way of the collection of savings in the countryside, if some short statement could be made as regards the effects of wartime taxation on the farming community, who at the present time are very much at sea as to what effect, for instance, the Excess Profits Tax is going to have on their industry. Some are equally at sea as regards the effects of Income Tax. I do not believe for one moment, and I would not like it to be suggested, that the farmer is attempting to avoid, either the payment of tax justly due on the profits he makes, or putting in any savings he can offer to help the war effort. I believe, however, that he would be prepared and be able with a clearer mind to contribute more to warship weeks and savings weeks if his position under the Excess Profits Tax was made clear to him. He is in a very different position from any other producer in the country. It is almost impossible on a rising market, such as at the present moment, to get any fairness in striking the value of a beast in January last and January this year, especially when the beast has added to its own value by the mere fact of its growth. Again, a dairy cow may have depreciated in value, but, in fact, by market conditions its price has increased. All these things should be taken into consideration in examining the taxable position of the farmer. I know that he is gravely worried, and until that worry is removed from his mind the amounts coming forward for war savings must be limited. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some sort of statement to clarify the position. It would both help the war effort and reduce the necessity for larger Votes of Credit in the future.
      Commander King-Hall: I listened with some interest to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) because of the community of thought which seemed to run through them. I suggest that if the two hon. Members on this side would speak on the other side of the House and advocate their views and call them the new Conservatism, they might find a remarkable degree of support. A number of Members have commented on the fact that during this war we have succeeded in raising loans for the conduct of the war at a rate of interest approximately half of that which was needed in the last war. I think the financial authorities, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his financial first-lieutenant, are entitled to the congratulations of the House on the skill with which the financial ship has been navigated in this war, within the limitation of what has been made possible by general Government policy. Of course, when on 22nd May, 1940, the then Lord Privy Seal said that the Government demanded
      "complete control over persons and property, not just some persons of some particular class of the community, but of all persons, rich and poor, employer, workman, man or woman, and all property"—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May. 29.40; col. 152, Vol. 361.]
      I am bound to say that I was one of those who thought something really drastic was going to happen in the conduct of the war. It is clear that the powers exist for us to have an even lower rate of interest, or, for that matter, no interest at all, in the raising of loans. Although these powers were asked for and were granted by the House of Commons in one minute under two hours, I am bound to say that on the financial side, as on other sides, every usage of power has been as if it involved the Government in the spending of a coupon of popularity. In this matter the Government have made a profound psychological error.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred in his speech to the connection between the whole credit position of the Government and Warship Weeks, and, of course, some of the money we are being asked for to-day will be spent on the organisation and expenses of those weeks. He told us that these weeks had done a great deal to lay the foundation for continuous Saving Group movements,

      973
      which are of such importance and of so much value. I agree with that, and, if I say something on the less satisfactory aspects of Warship Weeks, Tank Weeks and various other special efforts, I wish to make it quite clear that I do not wish in the slightest degree to involve in this criticism the thousands of devoted voluntary workers all over the country who have put in such an amount of work in an attempt to meet the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for saving and non-spending. But there is another side to this question to which publicity needs to be given. I have opened 12 or 15 of these various weeks—I shall have opened another five by the end of this week. There are certain misunderstandings which exist. I know they are known to the Treasury and that it is the Treasury's desire that publicity should be given to them. One is the misunderstanding that any value to the State is obtained by selling industrial securities and investing them in Government bonds—
      The Temporary Chairman: I am afraid we cannot discuss that point on this Vote of Credit.
      Commander King-Hall: I am only referring to the remarks that the Chancellor made when he described various aspects of Warship Weeks and emphasised his desire for new savings, which he said were the only things that mattered.
      The Temporary Chairman: We can use it as an illustration but cannot go into details.
      Commander King-Hall: I was going no further than to point out that chairmen of Warship Weeks have told me that it is the Chancellor's desire —
      The Temporary Chairman: That is the point. We must not talk about Warship Weeks in their details.
      Mr. Benson: I take it we can talk about anything which involves expenditure arising out of this Vote of Credit?
      The Temporary Chairman: Yes, in a broad way.
      Mr. Benson: We can go even in detail into the expenditure itself?
      The Temporary Chairman: Yes, the expenditure itself
      Mr. Loftus: Are we allowed to discuss the methods by which the Vote of Credit will be implemented and how the money will be raised?
      The Temporary Chairman: I think we had better wait until that comes, but it does not sound as if it would be in Order.
      Mr. Stokes: Are not the costs of Warship Weeks borne on this Vote? Surely we are entitled to insist that they should be carried out efficiently, and discuss it to that extent?
      The Temporary Chairman: I believe they are not borne on this Vote.
      Mr. Benson: It is perfectly true that there is an Estimate for the War Savings Committee, but it is a very inadequate Estimate, and the activities of the War Savings Committee are paid for out of this Vote of Credit. There is an enormous number of Votes which are inadequate, or even token Votes, and they are financed out of this Vote of Credit. The hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) referred to the cost of the National Debt as £255,000,000 this year, but he overlooked the fact that a very large amount of it is borne on the Vote of Credit and not on the Estimate. That is an example.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): If it is any help, I can give the information that Cd. 6,279, Votes of Credit, 1941–42, presented by me in May, 1941, on page 56 gives figures of the cost of Civil Revenue Estimates dealing with the National Savings Committee. Whether any part of the supplementary £250,000,000 that we are asking for for the year is going in that direction or not I am afraid I cannot say, but I should think it quite likely that some may drift in that direction.
      The Temporary Chairman: I think we had better wait until the actual point arises. It seems to be a matter of doubt, and perhaps we had better keep to a fairly short illustration.
      Mr. Loftus: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest, with the concurrence of the Chair, that we were discussing both Votes of Credit simultaneously?
      The Temporary Chairman: I think that is so, but I do not see how it affects the matter.
      Commander King-Hall: I will confine my remarks to illustrative matters. A number of Members have referred to the fact that one of the things that occur in these Warship Weeks which is not in the interest of the Treasury is the fact that large institutions and banks send down or instruct their branches to invest sums of money, and that has a most unsatisfactory result from the point of view of the Chancellor. A target is given to a town, and on the first day the people are told that 25 or even 50 per cent. has already been subscribed, and they go away under the impression that they have made a splendid start and that there is very little more for them to do, but in fact nothing has happened at all in the way of new savings. People should be told that unless during the week public houses, cinemas and retail shops have the worst week's business in living memory, the town has done nothing at all. That is the real test. I suggest that the Chancellor should recognise that there is a new temper in the country and should stand up more boldly than he has done before and say, "Grand totals mean nothing to me. I am only interested in saving which represents non-expenditure." We should modify the technique of begging and not lay so much emphasis on the fact that it is very profitable to the investor to lend his money for a cause which is greater than life itself.
      I should like to offer the Chancellor two practical suggestions, because I feel that it is no good generalising. One must crystallise generalisations into suggestions which the Minister can accept or reject. I wish the Government would use their influence to persuade people to ration themselves in tobacco, alcoholic liquor and entertainments, so as to bring about the decrease in spending which the Chancellor has said is one of his objectives. I think 5s. a week for tobacco, 10s. for drink and 10s. for entertainments should be ample for anyone. Secondly, the Chancellor will be looking around for some sort of appeal to take the place of these War-ship Weeks. I offer him the idea of Sacrifice Week. It would work as follows: Find out from the banks and public utility concerns the expenditure per day in a given district, and let the Treasury or the Savings Association say that the town should make a voluntary 10 per cent. cut during the week and at the
      976
      same time conduct a great drive for savings. Let there be competitions as to which town spends less per head during the week. I believe that if this great nation-wide organisation of War Savings would approach its task in future less from the attitude of "Alms for the sake of Allah, alms "and much more from the attitude of "Bring out your possessions and lay them on the altar of sacrifice," they would get even better results than they have done in the past. The country is longing for a call, for orders for stern sacrifice in every aspect of the home front, and in no aspect less than on the financial front.
      Mr. Benson (Chesterfield): One thing that the Chancellor invariably says when these Votes of Credit for —1,000,000,000 come round with their melancholy regularity is that the money must be spent efficiently and economically. I do not think anyone will disagree with that sentiment. On the other hand, they may be very sceptical as to whether it finds expression in actual practice, and I think it is our duty to the country, as the House of Commons charged with the control of finance, to see that when the Government ask for these enormous sums at short intervals we should scrutinise carefully and in detail whether the actual money is spent adequately and efficiently or not. It is very difficult to know nowadays what expenditure derives from an Estimate and what out of Votes of Credit. There is scarcely a Department or an Estimate which in this period of vast and rising expenditure is not greatly dependent on the Vote of Credit.
      Let us take, for instance, the question of the National Savings organisation. An estimate of something like £250,000 was passed, but the actual expenditure this year is £1,000,000. Three-quarters of the expenditure of the National Savings organisation will come out of this £1,000,000,000 Vote of Credit. If we are to insist on efficiency not merely throughout industry but in Government Departments, it would be well if we examined how far efficiency applies to a department of which the Chancellor is the titular and actual head. The Chancellor said that savings were the touchstone of our financial organisation, but if he thinks he is getting value for the £750,000 which he will spend out of this Vote on the National Savings organisation, he is

      977
      labouring under a grave delusion. The National Savings organisation gives nothing like value for the money that the Chancellor is pouring into it. I am not talking about the amount of savings, but purely about the state of efficiency of the organisation itself. The truth of the matter is that the National Savings organisation is in a state of chaos. It is almost entirely in a state of chaos for one reason, and that is that the head of this organisation, Lord Kindersley, is utterly and completely incompetent and ought to be removed immediately. Unfortunately, Lord Kindersley's incompetence is not of the type which reduces him to a cipher; it is the kind of incompetence which makes him a stumbling block and a hindrance to the whole organisation.
      Captain Crookshank: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman by bringing this matter round in this way is implying that my right hon. Friend and I are responsible to this House for Lord Kindersley.
      Mr. Benson: No.
      Captain Crookshank: That is how I understood the hon. Gentleman was bringing himself into Order, but if he is under that impression it is only right for me to say that I cannot possibly accept the kind of criticism he is now making against Lord Kindersley.
      Mr. Benson: I would not throw any burden on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman which his shoulders are not broad enough to bear. I am not discussing whether the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary is responsible for the state of the savings organisation. I am merely pointing out that complete disorganisation and chaos of the Savings Movement is owing almost entirely to the incompetence of the head of that organisation. Whether the Chancellor appoints Lord Kindersley or not, I do not know. I am not concerned about who appoints him. What I do know is that the Chancellor is responsible for Lord Kindersley and therefore for his inefficiency. That is the point with which I am concerned. I am not concerned with who appointed him and who can get rid of him. The Financial Secretary repudiates responsibility. If he would only repudiate Lord Kindersley, it would be much more to the point. I have no doubt that we shall ultimately
      978
      find out who has imposed this appalling incubus on the Savings Movement.
      Captain Crookshank: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to put Lord Kindersley on the basis of a civil servant, which I thought he was trying to do, I could not, of course, accept that sort of criticism as being ultimately directed to a person in the Chancellor's employ. If he is making, a general statement and not implying that Lord Kindersley is in a quasi-Civil Service position, that is another matter.
      Mr. Benson: I am fully aware that Lord Kindersley is not a civil servant. Everybody knows that he is the voluntary head of that organisation, that he volunteered his services, and everybody knows, too, that he can be removed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not concerned, however, whether Lord Kindersley is a civil servant or a volunteer. What I am concerned with is his incompetence and inefficiency.
      These are strong words, and I propose to give facts to justify them. I am not concerned with the amount of savings that are raised, save in so far as they are an illustration of the inefficiency and incompetence of the savings organisation and of the appalling complacency with which savings and the savings organisation are regarded. In the calendar year 1941 we raised £612,000,000 in small savings, which is £123,000,000 more than in the calendar year 1940. That was given as an example of enormous strides. As a matter of fact, it is a proof of the fact that we had not increased the efficiency of our savings organisation by one jot for the simple reason that the increase in small savings was a mere reflection of the growth of the wages roll of this country. In other words, we collected in 1941 practically the same percentage of the national wages roll as we did in 1940. There was no increase in efficiency.
      Let me give another figure. I am sorry to have to introduce figures, but this is an important matter and I can only make comparisons by figures. In the three months ending 28th February we collected £144,000,000 in small savings. In the corresponding period 12 months ago we collected £137,000,000. There was thus an increase in the 12 months of £7,000,000, despite the fact that the total wages roll of the country went up by £500,000,000. It may be said that Income Tax has interfered. Let us see

      979
      what the facts are. If and when Income Tax on wages is running smoothly, it will produce something like £2,500,000 a week. Let us assume that it has run completely smoothly since 1st January; that gives us £20,000,000. These two amounts, totalling £27,000,000, are again merely a reflection of the increase in the wages bill. What has happened is that the Chancellor has got no advantage out of his taxation of manual incomes. He has merely substituted an irritating form of exaction for a voluntary form of exaction. Here again we have a very large increase in the wages roll of the country, but the results show that there is no increase in saving efficiency; on the contrary there seems to be a decrease. The truth of the matter is that the central office under Lord Kindersley is utterly incapable of either organising or directing the Savings Movement. After 2½ years of war, and when they are entrusted with a function of immense importance, they are completely ignorant of basic and essential data. They have not made the slightest attempt to collect data and to find out facts.
      Let me give a few details. This organisation has divided the country into 1,250 local savings areas. I do not know whether hon. Members will believe me, but even now they do not know which are their good areas and which are their bad areas. All they know is the weekly savings per head of the population in those areas. These savings vary enor-mously with localities. I was at their headquarters some little time ago and ran `my eye over a large number of long columns of figures showing the weekly savings per head. I found that they varied from 1s. 2d. per head to 12s. 6d., and I asked what was the explanation of this extraordinary variation. They did not know. They assumed that it had something to do with the prosperity of particular savings areas. The only real basis of comparison between one savings area and another is not the population but the wages and income available for savings. There is no other possible comparison. If you want to extract money from an area, you want to know how much money there is there. They have not yet taken the trouble to make any estimate of the wages rolls in the local savings areas. They have not even taken the trouble to approach the Board of
      980
      Inland Revenue and ask, "Can you tell us the income assessable to tax in particular areas?" It has not even occurred to them that such figures would be valuable. One knows that in some areas the figures would not mean very much, but they would give valuable approximations. What one would have would be a fair estimate of the money available there instead of an inspissated fog.
      One thing which they have produced is a large map of England which looks as though it had smallpox. It is covered with various coloured dots. They showed it to me with great pride. I said, "What does it show?" They said, "It shows that the mining areas are doing badly." What they meant was that on the basis of population per head the mining areas were doing badly. But there are various explanations of that. I can give one offhand. As a rule, mining areas are rather isolated places where there are no secondary trades, and the young people, and particularly the girls, are sent away. The result is that in a given population the number of wage earners is very much less than, say, in a munitions area where both men and women are employed. Secondly, a mining area is not infrequently one where the density of population is very low and it is well suited to take in evacuees. The population of a savings area is calculated according to the number of ration books issued by the Ministry of Food, but in a mining area there is a stripping away of a large percentage of the wage earners and the importation, possibly, of a very large number of non-wage earners, which gives a far smaller pool of wages from which to collect savings. That may be a correct explanation of the position in the mining areas, I do not know, but the tragedy is that the National Savings Committee do not know either. They know nothing. Not only do they not know, but they are content to go on wallowing in ignorance.
      I know that they work hard. Every week, from every one of those 1,250 savings areas, comes a flood of meaningless figures, meaningless because there is no background with which to compare them. There is one valuable figure which they ought to have and that concerns the street savings groups. Anyone who has been in touch with savings areas knows perfectly well that the sheet anchor

      981
      of our savings movement will have to be the street group. Go to any war savings week campaign and ask, "What do you want me to talk about?" and they say at once, "Oh, talk about street groups." The only way of getting at the women who spend the money on things upon which we do not want them to spend it, is through the street groups. Every week they get meaningless figures of the savings per head, but they do not take the trouble to get the increase or decrease in the number of street savings groups more than once in six months.
      Let me give one other example. They are trying to build up a new organisation —the old peace-time organisation was negligible— and there can be only one basis for it, and that is accurate facts and plenty of them. I asked what statistical department they had at headquarters. They have two persons with some statistical experience and six clerks. As soon as I heard that, I telephoned to the Board of Inland Revenue. The Board of Inland Revenue is not building up a new machine, but has a machine which has been running on ball bearings for a century. It has compulsory powers and throughout the country it has a highly-skilled and technical staff. It cannot do with fewer than 60 persons in the statistical department at headquarters, yet Lord Kindersley is trying to build up a new voluntary movement with a statistical department consisting of two persons with statistical experience and six clerks. This example gives some idea of the importance which this organisation pays to facts and to accurate information.
      I am well aware how difficult is the job of running a vast voluntary organisation. Anybody who, like a member of the Labour party, has worked in voluntary organisations all his life, knows how appallingly difficult it is to keep the machine running. It is not impossible to do so, and it can be made very efficient, providing you have efficient staff work. The efficiency of a voluntary organisation depends entirely upon the efficiency of your staff work. The National Savings Organisation has a very large paid staff.
      I have dealt with the small importance which this organisation attaches to data compiled with knowledge and accuracy. Let me look for a moment at its staff work. The country is divided into
      982
      12 savings areas—not the local savings areas but the divisional areas. At the head of each is an area commissioner, and below him is a number of sub-commissioners. In each constituency, town or village, the local organisation is in the hands of a voluntary organisation with a voluntary secretary. The voluntary secretary is the key to the whole organisation. Everybody who runs a voluntary society knows that the local secretary can make or mar it. If you ask one of the commissioners, or deputy-commissioners, in the Savings Organisation: "What is your main trouble? "you will get but one answer: "Inefficient secretaries. "If you ask: "What is your next trouble?" the reply will be: "Inability to get rid of the inefficient secretaries, due almost entirely to the obstructive policy of the head office. "The Chancellor of the Exchequer may look a little surprised at that statement, but perhaps he will let me tell him what happened in one case.
      In one area, and I will not say any more about its position than that it is on the south side of England, the organisation in a fairly large and important market town was in the hands of a completely inefficient secretary, a rather important person, but hopelessly inefficient and lazy. The area commissioner went there to try to get this person removed and to get some competent and efficient person in his place. He failed. The secretary in question wrote to the head office, protesting. What did Lord Kindersley—or whoever it was—reply to that letter? Did he back the regional officer? Did he point out that if the work was not done efficiently it would be as well to make a change? No; he sent back a letter of apology and requested that local inefficient secretary not to take any notice of "the indiscretion of a subordinate official." That instance is typical.
      The position now is this: If any savings secretary, no matter how inefficient or incompetent, in a local area has any social standing, the area commissioners leave that secretary alone and do not attempt to remove him, because they know that they will merely get a rap over the knuckles from the head office for doing so. The heart is being knocked out of your regional commissioners. It is being knocked out owing to the inefficiency and incompetence of Lord Kindersley and his head office organisation. Perhaps I have spoken too long, but I have given one or

      983
      two facts; there are numbers of other facts which anybody who is making inquiries can find out. I put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: How long is he going to allow Lord Kindersley to remain there, to uphold incompetence and to radiate paralysis?
      Wing-Commander James: As far as I have been able to listen to the Debate, I think that not sufficient has been said about the lamentable failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one or two very important directions, and I propose to be critical for a few moments. It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as long as he has been in that office, has failed lamentably to curb extravagance and to look at that aspect of expenditure from the public purse which is his responsibility. That failure makes it much more difficult to encourage saving or to expect people to make sacrifices. The initial mistake was the failure to insist upon stabilisation of wages and prices. A memorandum was issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department nearly two years ago, stating that it was necessary that prices and wages should be stabilised, but, as far as I can discover, virtually nothing has been done to put that memorandum into practical effect.
      In another direction, the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to have displayed a very high degree of sheer political cowardice. The spirit of the country is far in advance of the spirit of the Government in this matter, because the country is ready to make sacrifices, but people are not told how to do it. People are being urged to save. I have spent the past week-end in my constituency at Warships' and Weapons' Weeks. Yet there is hardly a rural area in which people have not before their eyes examples of the most shocking waste in aerodrome construction. Wherever you go in the Midlands, you will find people saying: "Why should I save or make sacrifices while hundreds of men up there, at so and so, are drawing enormous wages and are not producing the results?" One is always being told—I do not know whether it is true—that the Minister of Labour says he does not mind what he spends, so long as he gets results, and that is a justifiable point of view if you get the results. But the payment of these
      984
      fantastic wages to utterly unskilled labour does not produce results. That is the tragedy of it.
      There is a tendency all over this country, due to the weakness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for people to say, about the war, "What am I getting out of it?" This war is becoming a profiteering ramp on a vast scale. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gives out honeyed words, and appears to have no sense whatever of his responsibility to the taxpayer and to posterity, for tackling this terrible evil. If he is frightened by the Minister of Labour, as he apparently is, let him get out and make room for somebody who is not frightened. If he is not frightened, let him tell us the reasons for his failure and why a solution of this fundamental problem of stabilising wages and prices escapes him. Another form of extravagance which is having a most deleterious effect on the willingness of people to save is the fantastic wages which are being paid to unskilled youths.
      ?Mr. Gordon Macdonald: The hon. and gallant Member appears to be repeating wild statements about high wages. Instead of continuing to do so—which is not a helpful attitude—will he bring forward specific instances in which such wages have been paid?
      Wing-Commander James: I gave specific details, chapter and verse, to the appropriate Department of the Ministry of Labour, to which the Minister of Labour referred me, and they have been checked and could not be denied. Will my hon. Friend accept that? If he likes to see me afterwards, I will give him a file which will enable him to see for himself whether I am accurate or not. I was referring to this matter only in relation to savings. I ask the Chancellor to realise the harm that is being done in the country by his failure to encourage savings by curbing waste, and if he himself has not got the courage to tackle this matter, will he please make room for someone who will do so?
      Mr. Woodburn: Expenditure is really the measure of our war effort, and one would welcome a higher expenditure than is disclosed in this Vote of Credit if one could be sure that all the extra money represented additional effort. There is, however, very serious ground for doubting

      985
      whether that money does in fact represent increased effort in proportion to the Vote of Credit. A great deal of attention has been devoted to saving, but I suggest that it would have been better if we had devoted more attention to not paying the money out, so that we should not have to take it back. There is no doubt at all that expenditure is the side on which this great expansion of money can be kept down.
      Money is really a counter which represents activity, and the mere multiplication of the counters does not multiply activity at all. I have told friends of mine who suggested that we should receive more for this and more for that, that it would be an easy matter for the Chancellor to agree to every demand for more money. It is one of the simplest things in the world to go on printing more and more notes, or for the banks to issue more and more credit, but that does not add one pound of tea to the tea-box or one ounce of sugar to the larder, and it certainly does not add one piece of material to the war effort. Therefore, the mere multiplication of money is of no avail, and if the Chancellor allows the multiplication of money to go on, nothing can prevent the inflationary results that he would so much deplore.
      Now, of course, it comes to a question of measuring the war effort, and I am of opinion that it must he done, principally, in the field of organising the man-power of the nation. It must be done by curtailing the power of individuals to use man-power for their private purposes. I agree to some extent with what has been said by the last speaker, about the reactions in the minds of the workers. If money is being poured out without control, even to themselves, they have the utmost contempt for the idea that they ought to save to pour out more. It is a curious thing that, even if a man is getting money for nothing, he does not like the idea of himself paying money to somebody else for nothing. Therefore, the efficiency of the conduct of the war in regard to man-power is of tremendous importance, not only from the point of view of results, but also from the point of view of the morale of the workers and of the nation.
      There are one or two outstanding examples which may not be of great consequence as regards the number of men
      986
      involved, but are important as regards appearance. Most hon. Members will remember the great dispute known as the General Strike. It was a curious thing that as soon as the tramway men began to go back to work during that strike, the impression was created that the whole strike was collapsing, although tramway men were not an essential part of the hold-up of industry. But it struck the public imagination, and there is no question that the holding of race meetings, to which people who are apparently living in idleness, seem to be able to drive motor cars in great numbers, or the flaunting sales of jewellery which have taken place —with the obvious implication of the use of labour to manufacture it—together with many other examples of that kind, are extremely shaking in their reactions on the people generally.
      I would, therefore, suggest that the Government ought to take some of these outstanding examples and do something about them. The hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) referred to waste in connection with aerodromes. I have now spent over two years on the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and all the time of that Committee, divided into eight sub-committees, has been spent on investigating just that sort of charge. Of course the question as to whether labour is working here or working there is not, in the present state of society, a matter for the worker. The managements of aerodromes or of the contracting organisations do not, in the great majority of cases, allow the worker any share whatever in the management, and the men that he was talking about, if they exist in the numbers he indicated, will have nothing but contempt for the inefficiency of the management of the organisation to which they are attached. It must, therefore, resolve itself into a question of the tightening-up of the responsibility of the people who are handling the country's labour. That starts right at the beginning.
      My own opinion is that this country is too much committee-ridden, as far as running the war is concerned. There is too much shifting about from pillar to post to find out who is responsible for doing the job. A greater statesman perhaps than any we have in our midst to-day—Lenin—once said that committees were all right for settling policy, but were

      987
      the worst means in the world for carrying it out; there must be personal, individual responsibility. I think this idea has to be introduced into the whole war effort. Some person must be given a job to do, and if he does not do it, we should either kick him out or punish him for not doing it. That idea must go right down through the whole of the war effort. More than that, there are people drawing incomes in this country who are not carrying out the responsibilities for which they draw the incomes. They are continually "passing the buck," and it goes along a whole series of steps until the poor Minister at the top has to make decisions which a man down at the bottom should make right away on his own responsibility.
      The Governor-General of Burma has just issued advice to people throughout Burma that they must take decisions and he will back them up. Must we wait in this country until the Germans are on our own soil before the Government tell their subordinates that they must make decisions and get on with the job? It is simply intolerable in an engineering works, where a production engineer has a piece of copper, and because there is a small stain upon it he cannot put it into the job until he sees the inspector. If it happens that the inspector is a girl, and does not think that that piece of copper ought to be used, she passes it to the next inspector, who has never seen a mark like that on copper before, and who says it cannot go in. Eventually it reaches the chief in the Ministry, and after a long delay they are told to put it in, because the mark on the copper turns out to be the result of some raindrops falling on it when it was in a railway truck, and makes no difference in its use. The man who is using it knows that, but because of the long system of checks by people who do not know their job, production is delayed and waste and irritation are caused. It is just those little things that are harassing and irritating people all over the country.
      I would, therefore, suggest that it is necessary for the Government, through its production departments, to insist on cutting out a great number of the intermediaries between the Government and getting on with the job. The fewer people there are between the man who has ordered the job and the man who produces it, the better. I think it is true
      988
      to say that, even at this late date, there is not a sufficiently close co-ordination between the idealist who plans the perfect job and the man who has to carry it out. The man who wishes to design a perfect aeroplane will naturally design everything on a Rolls Royce standard, but the man who has to produce the machines on a mass production basis must eliminate from that ideal design, every unnecessary spit-and-polish fitting that can be cleared out. In the Air Department I think there is still a tremendous amount of spit and polish. One example, which, fortunately, happened before the war, shows what waste can take place in this matter. The petrol tank of an aeroplane has a screw cap just like the petrol tank of a motor car. The engine of an aeroplane must be finished to the highest degree of physical accuracy because of the need for extreme dependability—perhaps to one-ten thousandth of an inch in some cases. At the Air Ministry the man who designed the perfect aeroplane stipulated the same degree of accuracy for the petrol tank cap as he stipulated for the engine itself, with the result that the aluminium cap, which should have been produced for is. 3d. cost 5s. Of course, it did not cost 5s. but by the time you got the micrometer gauges and all the inspection which become necessary the price went up exactly four times. Greater care has to be taken that the people who are designing are in touch with the people who are producing, in order that all these stupid frills shall be eliminated from production in the midst of war.
      With reference to another point in regard to the expansion of our expenditure, I am not satisfied that the Chancellor has yet sufficient control over the purchases that are being made outside the normal trade channels. There is a possibility that a considerable increase in currency is taking place by the use of r notes for illicit transactions up and down the country. One hears stories of people going about with cases full of ordinary Treasury notes, purchasing wood and other materials without any bookkeeping transactions. If that is so it means that a large amount of the extra currency now demanded in the country is not required for the trade of the country but to bolster up illegal trade, the participants in which dodge everything—Purchase Tax, Excess Profits Tax, and Income Tax. One hears stories, and I have evidence which I am

      989
      not at liberty to divulge here, of many details of what is going on. I suggest to the Chancellor that we need to break down the water-tight compartments which exist between his Income Tax inspectors, the Purchase Tax investigators and all the other inspectors under the Treasury. There ought to be the possibility of any one of these officials who discovers illegal transactions reporting to the Department which has power to take action to stop it.
      I suggest that the investigation departments of the Treasury should be looked at from that point of view. I am satisfied that, if they were given the powers, his own officers are capable of bringing a great deal of this illegal trading to a very quick end. I made a suggestion in a Question which I repeat now. It ought to be made illegal for anyone to pay in cash on a transaction of, say, £20 or over. There should be a limit to the amount, and it should be possible to punish a person who is caught in a transaction which is unjustifiable and is in the interests of a black market or anything of that kind. The last point with which I should like to deal is the question of waste in connection with the collection of working men's Income Tax. I think the Chancellor will agree that Income Tax, because of the faulty methods of collection—
      The Deputy-Chairman(Colonel Clifton Brown): That is a matter which should be discussed on the Finance Bill, not on a Vote of Credit.
      Mr. Woodburn: I am not discussing the raising of money, but the spending of it on clerks and other people who collect Income Tax, which, I take it, is part of the expenditure of the nation.
      The Deputy-Chairman: That would seem to come more suitably under Supply than on a Vote of Credit.
      Mr. Woodburn: The point I wish to make is that in cutting down wasteful expenditure it is necessary to economise in the labour of the Civil Service. A great deal of the labour in the Civil Service and in the Chancellor's own Department is taken up with this elaborate system of collecting workmen's Income Tax. I have to accept part of the responsibility because I believe I was the first person to suggest that it should be collected weekly, although at that time I did
      990
      not understand that it would be impossible to collect it when it was earned. If it is not collected when it is earned, this means that elaborate calculations have to be made before it can be levied. I would like to suggest ways of saving some of that expense as far as the Civil Service is concerned.
      It should be done by altering the method altogether. Instead of the sum being collected at the end of the year, it should be collected provisionally at an earlier period, and, if necessary, an adjustment could take place at the end of the year. I am satisfied that the workers themselves would be prepared to agree if that were done on a pro rata basis. In the case, say, of the single man with £2, nothing would be collected at that moment; and similarly in the case of a married man with £3, and a married man with a child who has £4, and so on, up the scale. If the Income Tax could be collected at a rate per pound and not by the system of allowances, I am satisfied that the efficiency of the system would be increased, and that the amount the Chancellor would receive in the long run would be very much greater. From the point of view of production, much waste would be saved because workers in production would not be harassed trying to calculate their Income Tax, nor would they be worried whether they were getting fair play in its collection. I hope the Chancellor will take note of what has been said in this Debate on this subject. I have interpolated it as skilfully as I could, because the matter will not brook delay. In time of war we have to surrender formality for the sake of getting on with the job, and I am using this opportunity to impress on the Chancellor, while there is still time, the need for introducing a better and more efficient way of collecting that Income Tax with a view to saving himself worry, the Civil Service expense, and getting production with a minimum of interruption.
      Mr. Loftus: I have listened to every speech in this Debate, and I would like to make some comment on some of the contributions to what has been a very widely ranging discussion. First, as regards my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Woodburn) who urged that we should act in this country now upon the message sent out by the Governor of Burma, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, I thoroughly endorse

      991
      that suggestion, and also the plea that we have to enforce a sense of personal responsibility. Men must be given definite jobs, and if they fail they must be discharged. If you are to introduce that principle, it must be introduced in the Civil Service. These great Government Departments must be divided into sections, with a man responsible in each section for making decisions for the section, instead of referring questions to the head of the Department. If the man does not make decisions he must be displaced. There were various references by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) to the question of inflation. I thought my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a shade optimistic about that. I hesitate to use the word "complacency," or to apply to him certain lines by Rudyard Kipling. I certainly do not apply them to him directly; but I must say that, occasionally, listening to speeches from the Front Bench, these lines run through my mind:
      "Whatever we do we shall fold our hands, and suck our gums, and think well of it.
      Yea, we shall be perfectly pleased with our work; and that is the perfectest hell of it."
      I would not as I say apply that to my right hon. Friend, but there was a touch of undue optimism in what he said. After all, deposits have risen by nearly £1,000,000,000 since the outbreak of war, and prices of every kind of goods not controlled have been and are, rapidly rising. That is a sign of an inflationary tendency. I echo the appeal which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson). They pointed out that grave trouble, and the danger of inflation, would come at the end of the war. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster went in some detail into the question of how it should be avoided. I would endorse his suggestions. I thoroughly support the idea that for long periods after the war, when there is a shortage of consumption goods, we should maintain, and perhaps even increase, the strict Government control which now exists, and then, as goods come on to the market, gradually relax the control, keeping purchasing power and prices regulated in accordance with the
      992
      increased quantities of consumable goods coming on the market.
      We must get value for this huge Vote of Credit. Are we getting that value today? No hon. Member believes that we are. No hon. Member believes that sufficient sacrifices are yet being made by the country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) who, I regret to see, is not in his place, appeared to contradict himself when he said, first, that the spirit of the country was far in advance of the spirit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government in imposing burdens and sacrifices, and, then, that this war was, for a great multitude, becoming a profiteering war. We must arouse this country to a new and better spirit. If we want this Vote of Credit to be so spent as to get the utmost return, we must, somehow or other, revive the spirit of Dunkirk. Everyone of us knows that the spirit of the country to-day is nothing near that of flaming zeal which existed in June, 1940. I feel that, in view of the news that we receive daily and hourly, in view of the appalling statement that the Foreign Secretary made in this House today, we have to rouse this nation to a sense of dedication, to a high resolve to sacrifice everything and spare nothing and give all we have and all we are to fight this war to the end. My hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) said something about bringing home to our people what we are fighting this war for. Surely that is unnecessary. Surely the statement of the Foreign Secretary alone is enough to convince our people what we are fighting against.
      I feel that we are fighting this war for the continued life and the continued influence of the great Christian civilisation of Europe, a civilisation which embodied all that was best in Greece and Rome, which spread throughout the world, and which in every country has brought human ideals of mercy, justice, and pity. I feel that we are fighting to save our lives and liberties, and I feel that we are also fighting for the great heritage which our fathers gave us during the past centuries, not only the material heritage but the heritage of spiritual values. We have to sacrifice many things in this fight and we require inspiring leadership. The Prime Minister carried the great burden

      993
      at the time of Dunkirk, but we cannot rely on him or any one man, however eloquent or distinguished he may be. Every Member of the Government should introduce in every possible speech that note of urgency, that note of appeal, that crusading note; and I regret a little that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did not use the opportunity to-day to emphasise the urgency and the need in a far wider sense than he did. He can use an opportunity of such a speech to help to raise the morale of the nation. I know that it would be out of Order to deal in any detail with the subject, but I think it a pity that my right hon. Friend did not cast aside all the old conventions about not anticipating the Budget and so on, conventions inapplicable at a time like this, and suggest, in an aside, that he would, before the Budget, deal with the question of the workers' Income Tax thereby using it as an instrument to raise the morale of the nation.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise, in introducing the next Budget, that one of the factors that lessens morale and hinders the full spirit of self-sacrifice in our people and, above all, in our work-people, is that the consciousness of the unemployment which followed the last war has bitten deeply into our people, and that many in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and in the factories and mines to-day are filled with fears as to what will happen after the war and whether they may not again be thrown upon the scrap-heap. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman cannot in his Budget speech give a detailed blue-print of a new system that will avoid that kind of thing, but he can raise morale by giving definite assurances that he will so use and adjust the financial instrument—and will begin doing so to-day—that never again can that state of affairs arise which we saw to our shame in that long armistice between the two wars. I can assure my right hon. Friend that throughout this country and the Dominions there are men awaiting such an assurance from the Government and that it would be helpful in raising the morale of the people. There have been references, most of which were ruled out of Order, to war weapons' weeks and therefore I will not go into that subject. I would only say that the speech of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), which was full of detail, deserves some reply and some study. I
      994
      cannot say whether the facts he gave were correct or not and I cannot join in the criticism he made of the chairman of the National Savings Committee, but his point deserves an investigation and a reply. There are other subjects upon which I would like to touch. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) referred to Excess Profits Tax on farms. These again are points that I cannot go into, but they deserve investigation.
      My final point is that surely, in this war, when we see a vast amount of debt piling up, we should see to it that the burden on the future will be made as low as possible, both for us and our children and our grandchildren. Is it just or expedient that the State should pay the same rate of interest on genuine savings invested by people as it does on the created credit of institutions? Surely, on the created credit, it should pay the cost of creation and there have been hundreds of millions of such credit created. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should adopt the advice tendered by the "Economist" three years ago and repeated constantly, that that created credit should be at a 1 per cent. maximum. It is true that my right hon. Friend pays 1⅛th per cent. to-day on these deposit receipts. That is admirable, but these are in due course changed into 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. long-term loans. It means that, despite new technique and the strict control by the Treasury of interest rates, we are financing this war exactly by the same methods as the last war, except that the rate of interest is 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. instead of 5 per cent.
      Again, I appeal to my right hon. Friend. People, when they realise that we are adopting similar methods in the financing of this war to those which were adopted in the last war will think there is a possibility, indeed a probability, that after the war we may have like results: colossal unemployment and deflation. That is another reason why I beg of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be perhaps a little more progressive and to introduce a little more of the new ideas of the modern world, not only in his methods of finance, but also in the speeches he makes. I ventured the last time that I spoke in this House on 8th January to say that I believed that we had to face disasters in the near future. Unfortunately, my words have proved true.

      995
      I believe that we have a bitter and a hard time before us. It is the duty of each one of us, and of every member of the Government, to mobilise every possible ounce of public opinion, including the clergy and so on, in order to make our people realise the truth of what is happening in the world to-day, and how, unless we are careful the prestige of and domination by Europe and European civilisation, will end and, unless we are very lucky, the great Empire we have inherited will pass away from us. I think that much can be done to help in that matter. I hope that every member of the Government will, in future, speak very bluntly to our people, because I believe the people would rise to the height of a great occasion if their leaders told them the unvarnished truth of what is facing them and us to-day.
      Mr. A. Edwards: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) returned to a subject which was discussed by a good many of the early speakers in this Debate, namely, the question of the Warship Week, which has raised a good deal of the Money needed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been stated that a good deal of this money is not genuine savings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer steadfastly refuses to let us know what proportion he considers to be a genuine saving, but I would go as far as to say that not less than 90 per cent. is not genuine savings. I do not know whether he could make out a case to prove that 10 per cent. of the money raised represents savings in any sense of the word. It comes from the banks and is returned to the banks.
      When one raises a subject like this, he is told that he is attacking the bankers, but such criticism is nothing of the kind. We have the finest banking system in the world, and I would not like it interfered with until the party with which I am associated has an opportunity of presenting a better one. It is the best and soundest thing we have. Nevertheless, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is insisting by his methods upon the banks receiving twice the interest for which they ask on their money. It must be a sad reflection for some of those innocent admirals who are going round the country. I have talked with some of the
      996
      admirals and they are positively bewildered. They give the impression that, in some way, we can get more battleships if people put their money into war loans. Of course, it has not the remotest connection with the building of ships. You will not get an extra rivet and people ought to understand that. It is time we stopped deceiving the people. The Prime Minister once said that our people could take it and he gave it to them, but on this question of finance we continue to tell people silly fairy tales and they innocently believe they are helping the war effort by taking money out of deposit on which they get no per cent. interest and accepting 2½ per cent. interest on it. The Chancellor says that small savings are very important indeed. Lord Kindersley went so far as to say that there was too much money sewn up in old stockings—
      Mr. MacLaren: That is where his brains are.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I thought they were in his feet.
      Mr. A. Edwards: I cannot think of anything more inane than Lord Kindersley's statement. If there is any man in this country who is patriotic it is the man who sews his money up in an old stocking and puts it away. It is in effect lending it to the Government free of charge. To say that it should be brought out and used at 2½ per cent. interest is sheer nonsense and is not true. These poor admirals go round the country persuading people to invest their money in War Loans and all they have done at the end of the week is to double the cost of the interest on that money. Money does not mean a thing to-day until it is translated into terms of man power. That is true wealth, and the Chancellor made that clear to-day. Last week we had 120 warships weeks and I took a rough estimate of the number of people who would be giving their services in all good faith. I estimated that as much energy and free labour would be put into these weeks as would amount to the man-hours in a factory employing 7,000 to 8,000 people. Think of that labour put into production. At the end of the week all that these people achieved was to increase the cost to this country from£11,250 to £25,000 on every £1,000,000 which was raised.
      Mr. Beverley Baxter: Is not the hon. Gentleman taking a chartered accountant's view of all this? War savings weeks have a great energising and vital influence. They make people believe—[Laughter.] I am sorry to hear that laughter from the other side. At one moment we are being lauded for raising a criticising spirit and then we have a chartered accountant's speech and laugh at it.
      Mr. Edwards: I would like to quote from an ancient philosopher who was asked what was to be gained by telling an untruth. He replied, "Not to be believed when you tell the truth." The time will come when we shall have to tell the truth and people will not believe it, because they have been lied to so much. We are saying to them that they must not spend their money and that they have no right to spend it. There should be nothing on which they can spend it. The Chancellor has no right to say to me that I must encourage the production of goods, if people are not to buy my goods. The intelligent thing is to tell me to stop manufacturing. You have no right to use a single man-hour in this country which is not for the war effort. We had to say, "Too late" in Singapore, Java and Burma. Let us cut out all this nonsense and rubbish. It does not stand a moment's investigation. Week after week people are going out to tell others to save money and the only effect of these savings weeks is to double the interest. I wish the Financial Secretary would listen—
      Captain Crookshank: I am listening.
      Mr. Edwards: I think sometimes it would he most helpful if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would listen. He-exercises his wit too frequently when he should be exercising his intelligence. It is a very serious matter. He has encouraged other people to spend hours in increasing the cost of raising money in this country. We have a banker sitting here and I am sure he will corroborate what I am saying. He and his colleagues have emphasised this, time after time. We employ thousands of people in bookkeeping for these savings weeks and the net result is that the money ends up where it began—in the bank. I am sorry that the Chancellor is not here—that he has run away. I have discussed this matter
      998
      before and perhaps he feels guilty about it—
      Sir F. Sanderson: Is that really fair to my right hon. Friend, who has sat here for four hours and has only just gone out to get something to eat, as everybody knows.
      Mr. Edwards: I did not mean that seriously. I do not get on too badly with the Chancellor. I did not mean to be offensive.
      Mr. Baxter: The hon. Member was merely exercising his wit.
      Mr. Edwards: The Chancellor has emphasised this question of man-power. There is waste of man-power in Departments which come under his control. I wonder if the Committee will believe me when I say that the Government, at this moment, are paying a man £1,000 a year to sweep a cook-shop floor. He may not be doing this at the moment, but he is a man who occupied a high position in the Civil Service and had to join up. On doing so he was given a no more useful job than that of sweeping a cook-shop floor. Then he was put on to clerical work— almost unskilled labour. The Government, of course, make up his salary to what it was before he was called up so that he continues to draw £1,000 a year for his unskilled labour. If the Chancellor took the trouble to find out he would discover a number of cases like that. When I spoke last, on production, I showed how waste had taken place through Treasury interference and I invited the Chancellor to investigate this matter. He did so, but he did not come out of it graciously. The fact is that the Treasury, through their obsolete methods, at the time of the Atlantic sinkings took very grave risks through interference and delay in a matter in which there was no financial risk and in which therefore they had no right to interfere. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would follow up things like that and stop this waste of time and man-power.
      I was sitting in the office of a Cabinet Minister a few weeks ago, and I pointed out to him the dead waste, through the interference of a Department, of 800,000 finished shells. The Minister said: "How did you get that evidence?" and I replied: "If you give me authority I will get the actual report." The Civil

      999
      Service does not know what speeding-up means. Everybody is being urged to realise that there is a war on and that we are in danger of defeat, yet I cannot find anyone in the Civil Service with any sense of urgency. In regard to the wastage of man-power, if the Chancellor will read the reports of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, on which I have laboured unceasingly for two years, reports to which the Departments have paid only the slightest attention, he will find plenty of scope for speeding-up things and eliminating wastage of manpower.
      Another case to which I want to refer concerns the secretary of a company with which I am connected, a brilliant man who was an accountant, although not a chartered accountant. As a result of incompetency, there was a case of swindling recently involving £500,000. It was agreed that there ought to be some kind of check on these things, but there was a shortage of accountants. Now, the young man to whom I have referred offered himself for interview, and got an interview, but because he was not a chartered accountant—although he was a first-class accountant—he was not allowed to do a job that might have saved hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Government have spent 12 months in turning a first class accountant into a third-rate mechanic. That is a waste of man-power. Only a few weeks ago I was talking to a chartered accountant who described to me his job in the Army by saying, "I spend my days cheating soldiers out of their legitimate allowances."
      The Chancellor should realise the great scope he has for eliminating wastage in Government Departments. Ministers come and go, big business men come and go, but I have yet to hear of a civil servant—and they are mainly responsible—being removed. Everyone knows that primarily they are the men who carry the great responsibilities. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for War must have been one of the most brilliant men there, and I shall be interested to see how he develops when he comes to the House. I hope he will have great success. I have no objection to new precedents in these days. We ought to insist that the Chancellor should resolve money into terms of man-power and man-hours, and put a magnifying
      1000
      glass on to the Government Departments where there is more waste than in any other place in the country.
      Mr. Mander: My hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) referred to the use of man-power in connection with Warship Weeks. Although one must recognise that enormous sums have been collected in this manner, and although one cannot be too grateful to those individuals who have given their time and service to the country in this way, one must feel that the time has come when different methods ought to be employed. It seems to me to be humiliating that Admirals, senior officers and others should have to beg the public to do what it is enormously in the public's interest to do, to invest money at a fair rate of interest in the best security in the world. It is true that local propaganda has its value and that processions give a little colour, but I think that on balance, at this stage of the war, we ought to employ different methods and allow the gallant officers and others concerned to devote their time to something more directly connected with the prosecution of the war. I suggest that the method which the Chancellor should employ should be collection through the machinery of the Finance Act. There would be no difficulty in obtaining the money. What people want now is to be compelled. They realise that this is no time for deciding whether they will or will not invest. The State ought to say, "Your duty at this time is to do this thing," and people will respond. Without depreciating the great efforts that have been made during the last few years by all connected with the National Savings Movement, I feel that the time has come, when the present effort is over, to adopt methods more in keeping with the gravity of the times.
      Sir Irving Albery: Will the hon. Member tell us what methods he suggests?
      Mr. Mander: The Finance Act is the method I suggest. I suggest that the Government should do it through the machinery of the Inland Revenue and make use of the Finance Act. A certain amount was done through the Finance Act last year, and I suggest an extension of that means.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury(Captain Crookshank): The Committee has had a fairly long Debate for a Vote of Credit. Generally we deal with such Votes of Credit very much more briefly, and then discuss other matters, but on this occasion hon. Members have referred to a whole variety of subjects. I have noted one or two of them—Warship Weeks, indiistrial conscription, the advertisements in "Vogue"—curiously enough, raised by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), an expert no doubt—extravagance, Mr. Norman, post-war conditions, Income Tax for workers, inflation, the black market, and various other topics.
      Mr. MacLaren:Lord Kindersley.
      Captain Crookshank: I will come to him in a moment. It is quite beyond my competence to deal with most of these topics, and in fact, it would be difficult for me to deal with them, because the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) took grave exception even to my whispering to my hon. Friend sitting next to me to make quite sure I understood what the hon. Member meant in one of his more obscure sentences. Apparently, the hon. Member wishes me always to be as solemn as an owl. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) wanted me to introduce into my speech a sense of urgency. I think that that sense of urgency on this occasion will be brevity.
      Very few questions have been asked, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. PethickLawrence) asked how we are getting on compared with the expenditure in the last war. It happens that I have the figures with me, and I can give an answer to that question. The right hon. Member wants to know whether, with this Vote, we have passed the expenditure up to the end of 1918. I am not sure whether he means the two Votes together, but I will give him the facts, and he will see the position. The House granted, from 1914 to 1918, £8,742,000,000, of which £8,417,000,000 were actually spent. By the addition to the existing Votes of Credit of the Supplementary Vote of £250,000,000 which we are now discussing, the House will have granted to the Government up to the end of this financial year £8,050,000,000. Therefore, up to the end of this year it will be within
      1002
      measurable distance. If we include the £1,000,000,000 we are now discussing, which is the first grant for the next year, the House will have granted £300,000,000 more. That is the general position.
      It is interesting to find that these are the figures and to be reminded that the cost of the borrowing which is involved in these Votes is very different from the last war. Even for the shortest loan we had to pay 5 and 6 per cent. in the last war. We have not reached anything like that in this war. In fact, the actual costs of borrowings during this war have gone down, because we have been able to get, instead of 3 per cent. for 19 years on the first War Loan in March, 1940, 3 per cent. on Savings Bonds, which ran for 25 years, and are therefore cheaper to that extent. It is remarkable to find there is that great difference, even though the totals so far are somewhat alike. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) asked a whole lot of questions; needless to say, he gave me no notice of them, and, therefore, he will not expect me to answer them without notice. He asked me a question which had floored the Brains Trust. Apparently I am supposed to be able to answer off-hand what they were unable to answer.
      Mr. Stokes: May I correct my right hon. and gallant Friend? I did not say the Brains Trust refused to answer. I explained that in the general conspiracy of silence about monetary affairs the Brains Trust were probably not allowed to deal with the matter, although, no doubt, Professor Joad would protest that he knew the answer.
      Captain Crookshank: Professor Joad would have asked what exactly we meant by "money." I understand the question to be, How is it that we can lend and spend so many millions to-day when in peace-time we had some difficulty in balancing our Budgets? That raises a question which neither I, the Committee nor the hon. Member would wish to discuss now, remembering the sense of urgency and that the hon. Member wishes to get on with the next Business. Of course, there is one simple answer, and that is that financial matters and economy in war and in peace are on a very different basis. In war-time we are not attempting to balance a Budget in the sense in which peace-time Budgets have to be balanced. All war-time methods of finance are quite different.
      Mr. Stokes: That was not my question. I asked where the money came from.
      Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. WardlawMilne) said we would hesitate before the war to spend £1,00,000,000, and if the hon. Member had the same point in mind—
      Mr. Stokes indicated dissent.
      Captain Crookshank: Then I need not pursue it any further, beyond repeating that it is not sensible to try and put financial matters in the same category in wartime Budgets as in peace-time Budgets. That really is the short answer to the question.
      I do not know why the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) launched such a tremendous, vigorous attack on Lord Kindersley. I must say that I thought it was somewhat uncalled for; nor can I see what useful purpose is to be served by it. After all, Lord Kindersley is the head of the savings organisation. The hon. Member and anyone else is entitled to criticise what is done this way or that way, but the broad fact remains that the Savings Movement has achieved magnificent success in bringing in vast sums of money, both from the small savers and the larger savers, to help the war effort. Lord Kindersley is the head and has been most active until his recent unfortunate illness, and he certainly has the fullest confidence of my right hon. Friend, as he had of his predecessor, in the work which he is doing. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough and other hon. Members ask what was the good of Warship Weeks.
      Mr. Benson: I gave a number of instances of gross incompetence in the head office of the War Savings Committee. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman deny the accuracy of these statements, and does he in spite of them think that Lord Kindersley has the confidence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
      Captain Crookshank: When the hon. Member makes a statement as being true, I have to accept it. I have had no time to check it up and find out what are the facts. I am merely saying the organisation has done most wonderful work and that Lord Kindersley has the full confidence of my right hon. Friend. As regards the hon. Member who criticised the general trend of Warship Weeks, there again everyone is entitled to his own
      1004
      opinion. I am certain that a number of people have been very glad to use the platforms provided by these Warship Weeks to address their constituents and people in other parts of the country to bring home a sense of urgency in this war.
      Mr. Mander: And attack each other.
      Captain Crookshank: Hon. Members have certainly had a lot of pleasure out of these meetings. After all, various distinguished people who are asked to take part in these meetings have to use the best arguments which present themselves to their minds, and it seems to me that sufficient emphasis has not been placed on the vital need of spending less. The important part is that people should not make any claims on the manufacturing capacity of our country or its man-power, and, certainly, "Spend less" should be the fundamental motto which we ought to try and put across at these weeks. If the remarks made to-day tend to make others who may be speaking in the future pay more attention to that point, they will certainly have done no harm. The fundamental idea of these weeks is to try and bring home to the people the need to spend less by refraining from consumption, and it is by using the machinery of bands, demonstrations and so on, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Beverley Baxter) referred, which help to drive it home. Not all are so highbrow and intellectual that they do not like these things. I am glad that in London's Warship Week there are to be large numbers of bands and demonstrations. Some hon. Members ask why we do not have bands, and other hon. Members ask why we have them.
      The hon. Member for Ipswich contradicted himself in two consecutive sentences. In one sentence he asks the Chancellor why he does not have far less Treasury control, because some contract in which he was interested has been delayed for months, and in the very next sentence he says, "Why does not the Treasury have more control because of the scandalous things that are happening at an aerodrome that he knows?" It is difficult to please everyone when they take such different views according to circumstances. So it is with regard to bands. Some people want more and some less. The fact remains that having these Warship Weeks, more than any other savings effort of that kind, fulfils a useful pur-

      1005
      pose, because it uses local patriotism for what we always have in mind in this savings campaign—increasing the number of savings groups and trying to see, not that the money raised in that week reaches a particular total more or less, but that thereafter the amount of money collected week by week goes up as the result partly of new groups created during the savings week and partly because of the general propaganda and the interest that has been aroused, together with the acceptance of the message that people's duty is to spend less money in war-time on every kind of expenditure in order that thereafter week by week the regular flow of savings may be increased.
      Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman arrange for a band to open the proceedings on the Report stage of this Vote?
      Captain Crookshank: That might be quite a good idea., though somewhat novel, but far more Members would object than would approve the suggestion.
      Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is it the burden of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument that money put into Warship Weeks by banks is saving?
      Captain Crookshank: "Bands" was the word—not"banks."
      Mr. Hall: The criticism has been made of the amount put in by banks during Warship Weeks. Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer that criticism?
      Mr. Loftus: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend deal with the point which has been raised so often, why created credit should bear the same rate of interest as genuine savings, why it should earn more than 1 per cent.
      Captain Crookshank: When my hon. Friend says "raised so often" I think he means raised so often by himself. As regards contributions by banks, I should say it depends on whether the money is regularly invested or not. There is no reason why banks should not invest their money at that time as well as anyone else if it is money intended for investment.
      Mr. Craven-Ellis: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this point on interest, may I ask if it is not a fact that bank money comes into existence by the Bank of England purchasing investments and when settlement takes place the seller pays into his Joint Stock Bank
      1006
      the draft he has received from the Bank of England which creates a deposit, and this in turn is pyramided up nine times by the joint Stock Banks? If so, does it not mean that the Bank money, quite properly brought into existence by this financial operation, and upon which the Government pay 1⅛ per cent. when lent to the Treasury, is equivalent to over 10 per cent. on the actual money provided by the Bank of England, and not 1 per cent. as mentioned by the hon. Member for Lowestoft?
      Captain Crookshank: I cannot accept that.
      Another point that I wanted to deal with is how far it is right and proper that in these savings efforts people should be encouraged to liquefy some existing investment and place the proceeds into War Savings. I think it is probably true that there are some people who, unfortunately, think they have done their full duty if they have done that. I hope everyone who is taking part in these functions will stress that the object is that everyone should be spending less. A really good War Savings Week in a particular area is probably best tested if, after it is over, every shopkeeper says, "It is the worst week I have ever known." [Interruption.] It is quite right that hon. Members should support that attitude, because, after all, the shopkeepers will suffer as much as anyone else if anything goes wrong with our financial affairs or with the possibility of our victory. The first thing to do is to persuade people that the business in hand is to spend less and, secondly, that no useful purpose is to be served in transferring existing savings from one pocket to another.
      It may swell the total, but it does not do any good. What we require is new savings, that is to say, getting what we can week by week out of the incomes of the people. So I still think, in spite of the criticisms which some hon. Members have made, that these efforts which are being made up and down the country are well worth while. They bring home, or give an opportunity for others to bring home, to the people some of the more important aspects of the war as well as the financial, and they provide a platform on which a great deal of useful speaking can be done, and my right hon. Friend is only too grateful to those who have supported him in making speeches of that kind. They

      1007
      certainly have helped in the chief object, which is to draw off increasingly as far as possible genuine savings to help the war effort.—[interruption]—I do not like to give figures offhand now. I do not know whether they can be given or not, but certainly not impromptu.
      Whatever you can stop people from spending is all to the good for the war effort, because, after all, we are dealing to-day with very large figures. The cost of the war has increased and increased and increased. My right hon. Friend is making every endeavour to see that there is no extravagance and no wasteful expenditure. We are grateful to the Committee of Members of the House who give us advice on this subject. My right hon. Friend would wish me now, as always, to repeat that, if it comes within the knowledge of any hon. Member that there are such cases going on, whether they are on the Select Committee or not, no one would be more glad than he that he should be informed in order that we and other Ministers can do our best to find out what can be done to stop it. Beyond that and keeping a very watchful eye on expenditure, I do not know that there is very much more to be done.
      Mr. Austin Hopkinson: What happened to the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure and its criticisms, and will the Chancellor of the Exchequer no longer connive at the hushing-up of cases such as the Militia camps scandal?
      Captain Crookshank: I must repudiate the suggestion that my right hon. Friend is conniving at the suppression of anything. I entirely repudiate that. The Select Committee has brought forward a great deal of information and given a lot of useful advice, primarily to this House, whose servant it is. It is the business of the Departments to go through the Committee's Reports, and at regular intervals they make reports to the Committee of what they have done.
      Mr. Hopkinson: As the word "connivance" involves a grave accusation, it is only right that I should justify it. The Government of which the Chancellor is a member was responsible for suppressing the report of the Departmental Committee on the Militia camps scandal.
      Captain Crookshank: I am sorry, but these are not matters within my personal knowledge.
      Mr. Hopkinson: The Treasury ought to know.
      Captain Crookshank: I daresay the Treasury does know. It has a great many things to deal with. I only said that I, as a Minister interrupted in the middle of a speech, am not in a position to say one way or another, because I do not know. The hon. Gentleman would not want me to say I did know if I did not. I am certain, however, that my right hon. Friend has not connived at anything of that kind. I do not know the details of the case the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I say it is not the kind of accusation I should expect to be made about the Chancellor in Debate.
      Mr. Hopkinson: I reiterate it.
      Captain Crookshank: I only hope that the Committee will allow us to have this Vote, because I understand that there are some Supplementary Estimates on which some hon. Members want to address the Committee.
      Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give some answer to the question why this money is not taken compulsorily, as the lives of men are?
      Captain Crookshank: A great deal of money is taken compulsorily through the Income Tax, as the hon. Gentleman is probably aware.
      Mr. Stokes: Will the Financial Secretary answer the Question which I specifically put to the Chancellor during my remarks, whether the Government approve of the practice in which assurance companies are indulging of offering £1,000 worth of war stock for an annual premium of £82 odd?
      Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman produced this in the course of his speech. I do not know whether they do or do not. No such offer has been made to me, and I am not able offhand to make any statement in regard to it. There is a Report stage of this Vote of Credit, and if there are Questions which require an answer, an answer will be given, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press me to make statements about things on which I am not at the present moment fully advised.
      Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to give any indication that he will consider the question of the machinery of the workers' Income Tax?
      Captain Crookshank: My right hon. Friend has answered Questions at Question time about that.
      Mr. Hopkinson: I would like to call attention to the matter I raised a moment or two ago. That is, that on the admission of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, it has no knowledge apparently of the fact that the Committee on National Expenditure—
      Captain Crookshank: I cannot have that. I said that I have no personal knowledge. I did not say anything about the Treasury.
      Mr. Hopkinson: As the Chancellor is now present, I will repeat what I said. The Committee on National Expenditure drew attention to very grave scandals—there is no other word for it—in the Militia camps contracts. I take it that the Treasury is there to be the watchdog of the taxpayer. Apparently it has connived at the firm which is mainly responsible for these scandals and which was struck off the War Office list being put back on that list, and it is now upon the list of the Ministry of Works and Buildings.
      Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Chancellor was thankful to Members for making speeches. I want to ask him whether his right hon. Friend is thankful to the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Major Churchill) for the speech he made about the Municheers, and whether any action will be taken?
      Question put, and agreed to.

    VOTE OF CREDIT, 1942.

      (EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR.)
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943 for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the Realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
      Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Crookshank.]
      Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

      WAYS AND MEANS.
      Considered in Committee.
      [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]
      Resolved.
      "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, the sum of £254,809,562 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."— [Captain Crookshank.]
      Resolved,
      "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, the sum of £1,198,882,300 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Captain Crookshank.]
      Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  I move this Motion for the purpose of enabling me to make an announcement to the House on a question of which I promised it information at the earliest possible moment, and that is to say that the Prime Minister will make a statement tomorrow after Questions as regards India. With the leave of the House, I now beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion which I have moved.
  Mr. Stephen: Will there be a Debate?
  Sir S. Cripps: I think the hon. Member had better wait until the statement is made.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SUPPLY [17th February].
  Resolutions reported:
  SUPPLY [17th February].
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1941.
      CLASS IV.
        BROADCASTING.
        1."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,300,000, be granted to His, Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for a grant in a id of the British Broadcasting Corporation."
      CLASS II.
        COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.
        2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £724,257, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid."
      CLASS V.

        MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE.
        3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2, 450,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, grants to local authorities, associations and other bodies in respect of Unemployment Insurance, Employment Exchange and other services; expenses of transfer and resettlement; expenses of training; contribution towards the expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); expenses of the Industrial Court; and sundry services."
        First Resolution agreed to.

    COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.
    Second Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. Creech Jones: Before this Vote is disposed of, there are one or two matters to which I should like to draw attention. It would be unfortunate if this further grant of £500,000 towards local expenses in Malta went by without this House expressing its great sense of appreciation of, and paying its tribute to the Maltese and to our military forces there for, the splendid and gallant stand they have made during the past few years. They have had to endure something like 2,000 air raids, sometimes as many as 17 in the course of 24 hours. During the last 18 months there have been only three nights I think, on which they have had freedom from air raids. They have stood up to this ordeal with magnificent spirit and the gratitude of the House ought to be expressed to them for the fine courage they have displayed. In the circumstances I hope that we shall begrudge our gallant defenders there and
    1012
    the Maltese people nothing which would help them in the difficulties which now confront them. I understand that certain social changes which they had hoped for and which had been anticipated by them have had to be postponed, but I hope that as regards comforts, medical supplies and housing arrangements as much as possible will be done to help them.
    I also want to refer to the grant which for the first time is being made on behalf of Welfare. The Colonial Office are to be congratulated on establishing a Welfare Department in London. We are a very great Empire, but it has been one of the curious features of our relations with our Colonial peoples that those who have from time to time visited us have had to rely largely on voluntary services and voluntary organisations to help them in their special difficulties or to arrange for their welfare in cases of need. At last, the Colonial Office has assumed directly this responsibility. Personally, I am gratified to see the type of civil servant and official appointed to do this work. Their services will be very much appreciated by the Colonial peoples here, particularly at the present time, when there are large numbers of technicians and tradesmen in this country playing their part in the war effort, together with many students who in wartime require assistance during their stay. I am sure that the new Department in dealing with the day-to-day problems will not be too official and too paternal in its attitude, and I hope, further, that this is only the beginning of a great development. I should like to see assistance given in the establishment of hostels for our colonial friends in various parts of the country, places to which they may go feeling that it is a home or centre where they can get reasonable recreation and refreshment. Perhaps also here, in the very heart of the capital, some great Colonial House might be established which would serve the needs of all types of colonial peoples, irrespective of colour, race or creed, providing not only recreation and club rooms but also restaurants and hotel accommodation. Students and others often experience great difficulty in finding suitable accommodation in the great capital city of the Empire, and too often have to put up with conditions which, to say the least, reflect no great credit upon us as an imperial people. I hope, therefore, that this new welfare department which the Colonial

    1013
    Office is now building up, will greatly develop and in time bring a great deal of happiness to the colonial peoples who come here from time to time.
    The Vote also includes a grant to Nyasaland in respect of the Trans-Zambesi railway. I do not pretend that I can unravel the very long and tangled story of Trans-Zambesi railway finance. I tried for some hours to master the famous report by Mr. Bell on Nyasaland finance, but I confess that at the end of my reading I was still almost as baffled as ever. We have been making grants which seem almost endless in respect of this railway. It has been like pouring money into the bottomless pit. We have extinguished £1,250,000,000 under the 1940 Colonial Development and Welfare Act. We gave £800,000 from the Colonial Development Fund and we made a further grant last year of £143,000. This year we are asked to make a grant of £185,000.
    I would like to know whether the recommendations of the Bell Committee which inquired into the finances of the Trans-Zambesi Railway have been adopted and further, whether the Colonial Office are taking any action, in view of the fact that the State guarantee comes to an end in 1945. Is it proposed, even now, to make certain changes which ultimately will have the effect of relieving the British Exchequer of a great part of the payment now being made to keep things afloat and to keep the local treasury accounts balanced? I believe that the Government have a representative on the board of directors of the railway company; to what degree is he exercising authority upon the policy of the company and in securing effective economies in management and general working? Who really controls policy? Is it possible to readjust or reconvert certain of these loans in order that the charges might be a little less? May I put the point also that I am not clear about the effect of railway finance on the general finances of the local government? What is being done to secure some kind of general economic reconstruction in Nyasaland so as to make the railway more worth while? Are any steps being taken now to co-ordinate the whole of transport and to bring roads and road services in with the railways, so as to get something like a unified transport service in the Protectorate.
    A further grant relates to the local forces in Nigeria and Gambia. Appar-
    1014
    ently, this is little more than a book-keeping item. We made a loan, and now we are making a grant to wipe it out—a free grant of £43,000, for the refitment of the African local forces. A great deal of criticism has been urged in the last few months, as a result of the events in the Far East, that sufficient attention has not been paid by the Colonial Office to the matter of civil and local defence arrangements. I suggest that in the first place this payment ought never to have fallen on the local government at all. I feel that at present, we are largely responsible for the protection of the Colonial peoples. Accordingly, it becomes all the more necessary that, if defence works are to be at all efficient and effective, the charges for them should not fall on impoverished or poor local treasuries, but fall on the Treasury of this country. Now that it is recognised that this loan should be wiped out and a free grant made I hope we are going to pay more attention, not only in Gambia and Nigeria, but over the whole Colonial Empire, to making certain that mistakes which have been happening in the Far East will not recur in other parts of the Empire.
    I want to stress the vital importance of securing the whole-hearted co-operation of the colonial peoples themselves in the civil and local defence services which are being put in hand. It is the job, not only of the local administration but of the Colonial Office, to harness the colonial people in this great effort and largely under their own leadership. I therefore hope that, in addition to what we are doing to-day, we take this matter of defence and local co-operation very seriously. We should see that there is a broad recognition of the fact that the war is in truth a war of the colonial peoples in the sense that they lose everything if Britain goes down. At the same time, it is important that we should hold out very definite guarantees in regard to the social, political and economic development of the peoples in the days to come.
    I intended to say a word about the additional grant to Trans-jordan, but I will not detain the House on the point, except to say that I sincerely hope that if these very substantial grants are made in the Near East, definite guarantees should be received in respect to them of a sound social and economic policy in the areas in which the grants are being paid.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I should like to say a word in reference to the grant for the welfare of Colonial people in the United Kingdom. I am exceedingly glad that this grant is being proposed. My only regret is that, even at a time when the utmost economy is needed, a larger grant than £4,300 is not available for this purpose. In past years, we have had reason to be ashamed at the way in which fellow subjects of the British Crown who have come to this country from Africa have had to live, and the very difficult conditions which they have sometimes had to face. The establishment of hostels and the provision of assistance for students will be of the utmost value, not only to individuals, but, through them, in the promoting of good feeling and understanding in Africa when they return to their own people. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to hold out the prospect of an increase in the future of this most valuable Vote, which is not just the giving of assistance, charity or personal help to a limited number, but is of importance in, promoting a better spirit of fellowship and a healthier relationship between all peoples of the Empire.
    Dr. Morgan: There are two points in this limited Vote on which I should like to speak. The first is in regard to the welfare grant for Colonial people resident for the time being in Great Britain. I should like to pay a tribute to the work done at Aggrey House, which is being very well run. It is a pity that the Colonial Office, instead of asking a representative committee some years ago to do this work, did not start doing it "on their own." Even now, there is still scope for improvement. Aggrey House is very small; surely more expenditure could be made on the welfare work for the Colonial peoples, not only in London, but in the various seaports where they are. It, is a pity that the directorate of the hostels in this country could not be more democratic. The selection by the Colonial Office tends to be rather towards the unrepresentative and undemocratic type of man.
    I suggest to the Colonial Office, while admitting that they are doing very good work from the point of view of the welfare of Colonial people, that not only should this arrangement be kept up in peace time but that it should be looked
    1016
    at again and constantly reviewed with a view to making these institutions more representative and more democratic. I have often queried some of the appointments inside the Colonial Office, as the hon. Member knows, but that is a matter for the Colonial Office itself. There is only one other point on this Vote on which I should like to make a few remarks. It is a question of savings effected in some Colonies like St. Lucia and Antigua. I hope that the saving will not be at the expense—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not suggest that there should not be so much saving, as he would thereby be making a charge.
    Dr. Morgan: I want the money to be saved and I would like more to be saved if possible, but not at the expense of certain things which ought to be encouraged. I think the money could have been saved in Antigua and St. Lucia in a hundred different ways, and more wisely expended in different directions. For example, there could be alternative employment for the women engaged in coal bunkering, a question which I have already raised with the Colonial Office and which the Colonial Office have never attempted to answer except to say that the women themselves, who are not organised in any trade union, might object. But as I have pointed out in the House, this particular type of work for women, carrying loads of coal three feet by two feet upon their heads for five or six hours at a rate of Id. per basket, is work which should not be encouraged in our Colonies. I think an alternative scheme could be introduced by which money could be saved to the Colony and revenue brought into the Colony by providing alternative employment for these women and by making a saving in other directions. I only wanted to make these two points, but I wish the discussion on the Vote could have been wider, so that we might have spoken of some of the very discreditable things which are avoidable but which are happening now in certain of our Colonies. I am, however, satisfied with having made my points, and I hope I have not made them in any ungenerous way.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I thank the House for the way in which this Estimate has been received and for the very friendly comments which hon. Members

    1017
    have made. May I deal with some of them in detail? The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) referred to a question of savings, but Mr. Speaker I am sure would not allow me to go into the very interesting subject of the various ways in which we might spend more money. The reason for this appropriation is that because of an improvement in revenue, it is not necessary to ask for this sum, and it is therefore our duty to put it under the heading of returns. It would be out of order on this occasion to go into any question except that of the savings to be effected, and it would also be out of order to describe alternative methods of spending the money.
    With regard to welfare, I am grateful indeed for the observations made by the hon. Members for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) and Rochdale. I am sure their remarks on the character of the work which the civil servants who are in charge of this new Department are doing will be very gratifying and encouraging to them. It is a new and important departure, and we hope it may be an earnest of things to come and that it will be taken in that spirit. At the same time, I know that my hon. Friends would agree that it in no way depreciates what must always run parallel to the official efforts of the Government, the work of voluntary associations and of those who are interested in these problems, because their voluntary work, service and support is of equal value with the more official methods which Governments must themselves use.
    On the question of the finances of the Trans-Zambesia Railway, the hon. Member for Shipley is an ardent student of colonial affairs and I am afraid I cannot yet claim to have grasped the peculiar financial problems of this particular undertaking. I will not, therefore, go very deeply into the matter, but this I will say. There are certain considerations which must be borne in mind. First, there must be a railway and somebody had to build it. It might have been built by Government money or by privately raised loans. Secondly, we are under an obligation, and a bond has been entered into to pay the interest on the debentures up to the year 1945. Thirdly, part of the debentures belong to the Nyasaland Government itself, and therefore, to that extent, the payment is from one pocket to the other. Lastly, the negotiations
    1018
    with regard to what is the most hopeful method of making some saving, the reduction of interest charges, have yet to take place and their success, like that of many other business negotiations, depends upon not disclosing too easily or too readily the cards which are in the Government's hands, as well as those which are in the hands of the owners o the debentures. It is important that arrangements should be made before the date of expiry of the guarantee, which will be more satisfactory to the finances of the Protectorate.
    Then a point was raised as to the Vote for the defence of Nigeria and Gambia. This is a little more than a book-keeping entry. What really happened was this. In the period before the war arrangements were made for defence equipment to be provided by the Colonies on loans. By the end of the financial year, which ended in March, 1940, very few had, in fact, been able to make expenditure on any substantial scale. These two Colonies were able to do so, and the purpose of this Vote is to see that, because they were more rapid, they should not be put in a worse position than the others. In the case of all the others, since they were not able to spend the loans, they come under the new system by which all this expenditure is paid for out of Imperial sources, without, of course, prejudice as to the final settlement to be arranged after the war. As these two Colonies had been able to spend part of their loans, it was thought to be unfair to leave them in that position and therefore they are to be brought into the same position as the rest, and this item has to be put into the accounts in order to ensure that their expenditure will now be paid for out of grants and not out of interest-bearing loans. They, therefore, are put in the same position as all the other Colonies, and are not penalised because they made a more rapid development. Perhaps on the further questions my hon. Friend will forgive me for not entering into details, although I think he can rest assured that the problem of defences, both physical and moral, has not escaped my Noble Friend. It is one to which he has given his early attention, and it may be that a moment is approaching when it will be appropriate for him to give some account of his work.
    Lastly, there is this Vote to the island colony of Malta, which offers an oppor-

    1019
    tunity to the House to express, as my hon. Friend expressed very eloquently, our sense of gratitude and pride in the magnificent defence which its people have put up against the attacks made upon them. Under the leadership of Lieut.-General Sir William Dobbie, one of the most gallant officers who have ever held the position of Governor and Commander-in-Chief, there has been an inspiring defence. To that His Majesty has paid his own personal tribute in a series of messages much appreciated by the people of the Colony. Successive Secretaries of State have paid their tribute, and it is a happy opportunity on this Vote to have the privilege of adding for myself, and for the House as a whole, a tribute to the defence which has been put up in one of the most gallant pieces of our military history.
    Question "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE.
    Third Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. Lawson: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question in respect of this Supplementary Estimate. It seems very wide, but in fact it is limited to one simple point, as I understand it, that is, the payment by the Treasury into the Employment Fund of their share of the contributions of those extra workers who have been employed. That, of course, prohibits me from asking questions on some matters we wish to deal with affecting the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what is the state of the Unemployment Insurance Fund at present? In the rush of business, and with the paucity of information, we find it rather difficult to know just what the position is. This is a very important fund and there will undoubtedly be a very great strain upon it when the war comes to an end. It is only right that the House should know exactly what the position is at the present time.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is quite right when he says that this Vote is really on one narrow specific point, and therefore I do not wish to detain the House with it. With regard to the question he asks, I understand that, at the moment, the Unemployment Fund has to its credit a sum of about £99,000,000, having paid off all the debt. Of that £99,000,000, some £5,000,000, I believe, belongs to the Agricultural Fund and £94,000,000 to the main Fund. It is, of course, increasing rapidly each week at the rate of something over £1,000,000 a week.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, DALMUIR.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]
  Mr. David Adams: I desire, in accordance with notice given a considerable time ago, to raise the question, which has many considerations worthy of attention, of the transference of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Dalmuir to Messrs. Beardmore. This took place on 1st August last year, and the cause of it was that the workers were dissatisfied with the output of the factory and called the attention of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Supply to the situation. Lord Beaverbrook was then Minister of Supply. He came to the factory in person, and without much ado decided upon a change of management, and indeed a change so far as the employees were concerned. Without giving any intimation to those who might be considered as somewhat primarily concerned, the workers, he effected this transaction. The first news appeared in the Press, and protests resulted from that from the Amalgamated Engineering Union, whose workers were directly concerned, and the Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and various other organisations. The two main grounds of protest were, shortly, that the trend of the nation was

  1021
  towards the nationalisation of essential industry, and this transference of a Royal Ordnance Factory, with all that was therein, including the staff, to Messrs. Beardmore, was in a contrary direction. Then, the Ministries of Labour and Supply had continually inculcated the doctrine that the management would be expected to take the workers into their confidence in order to create as much interest in production as possible.
  I was invited by a delegation from the Amalgamated Engineering Union to raise the matter in the House. I addressed a Question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. My Question asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether he had any statement to make relative to the control of a certain Royal Ordnance Factory being placed in the hands of Messrs. William Beardmore and Company. I had a pretty long reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that while there had been a certain amount of discontent in the factory at this remarkable transference, yet matters had now settled down and were working smoothly. As soon as that reply appeared in the public Press there was a telegram addressed to me, and possibly to other Members of the House, to the effect that the Royal Ordnance Factory's staff unanimously refuted the statement in the House re harmony in the factory. The telegram said that harmony did not exist. The next stage in the proceedings was the staff appeal to the Ministry of Labour against their dismissal from this Royal Ordnance Factory and their transfer to Beardmores under the Essential Work Order. Their grounds of appeal were that as not only the management but the whole of the employees were transferred to Beardmores, the position of the workers of that Royal Ordnance Factory was that there was a loss of status to many of them. Many ceased to be Civil servants and would not receive regular increments where current rates being paid provided for this, and that prospects of establishment and of promotion through transfer to other ordnance factories had disappeared. Then, they alleged, there were longer hours to be worked without extra pay, shorter holidays and lower sick benefits.
  There was an undesirable wage situation set up, as it will exist where there are
  1022
  in the factory pre-war temporary personnel alongside temporary war-time entrants on flat rates. Pre-war personnel will, in some cases, receive lower rates than wartime entrants, without the advantage of incremental progression in future. The workers transferred from the Royal Ordnance Factory to Beardmores do, in fact, retain their original payment, but the recruits from Beardmores receive only the lower rates for local engineering in the Glasgow district. That will cause unrest, as there are two rates operating in the same factory at the same time. The staffs, both technical and clerical, allege that they are worse off under Messrs. Beardmore than they were in the old days when the factory was a Royal Ordnance Factory. A question which might well have been put to Lord Beaverbrook was: if he wanted a change, why did he not take over Messrs. Beardmore which was fairly contiguous and handy, instead of allowing Beardmores to take over the Royal Ordnance Factory? Another, question which might arise is: why not other gun-making firms, and other high technical organisations which could provide suitable management, be invited to do so? Why was this transaction limited to Messrs. Beardmore? It will be for the Minister concerned to look into these grievances which the workers undoubtedly have, and which should have been looked into long ago. I was informed only last week that discontent prevails, and it probably has a detrimental effect on production. The situation appears to have gone from bad to worse so far as output is concerned.
  The delegation met one or two engineers in this House, including myself, last week, and pointed out that a most serious situation had arisen in this factory in the matter of non-usage of valuable machinery. The workers allege that the transfer has caused no improvement in production; and they sent a deputation here, which, I understand, after seeing Members of Parliament, saw the Minister of Supply; and inquiries are to be set on foot. While the workers pledge themselves most specifically to do their utmost to get the maximum output, they think that the public generally ought to be advised of what is happening in the factory. They give an account of the idle

  1023
  machines. I will give one or two cases as an illustration:
  "Bays 1 and 2 medium turnery…The state of idle machinery is this: —Of four grinders we have two working and two completely idle. Of 10 lathes one and sometimes two are on small production. The rest are on maintenance and other odd jobs that can be picked up. Eight of these machines are double shifted. Of eight milling machines four are working, four are idle. Only one is in production. The others are on odd jobs. Two Butler planes—one is working, the other idle. There are 30 machines. Of these, we have one turret lathe idle and one single-shifted. Six gear cutters are completely idle, two shapers, two vertical drills, three slots are also completely idle. Two horizontal borers and two automatics are only single-shifted. The automatics are only working periodically. One Bullard lathe idle, while the Craven lathe has only been used on a few occasions. One grinder idle."
  Then they refer to the other bays in the factories, going through them all, and the situation is presented so that it might well be alleged that from 50 to 75 per cent. only of the very valuable and necessary machines are being utilised. It is mentioned further in this communication that the heavy Department has some of the finest machinery in the country laid down, of which there are lathes capable of machining a gun-barrel forging of 100 tons in weight and 120 feet in length. Some of these lathes were originally destined for Soviet Russia under contract, but were retained because of the exigencies of the war. They have not so far turned a wheel. A gun-shrinking pit has two large cranes 150-ton capacity which have never been used. They add, as a finale to this letter, that on 6th September, immediately after the transfer of the factory, the management laid down a programme. They said, presumably to the workers, that they could man all the machine tools of the factory, and that their programme would require, in addition, five lathes No. 5 cap-stan; eight lathes 8-inch centres; 11 vertical mills No. 2; five horizontal mills No. 2; five 3-inch radial drills; three double - ended boring machines—in all,£ 31,650 worth of new machine tools. These new machine tools, however, were not delivered, and the position is, as I have stated so far as the factory generally is concerned and the idle machines therein.
  These workmen, who are patriotic people, who have declared again and
  1024
  again to the management their anxiety to speed up the factory, are entitled to know who is responsible for the present situation. If one factory more than another should have been an example of great production, it should have been this Royal Ordnance factory at Dalmuir. There does not seem to have been any particular answer given to the question whether the trouble is just slackness on the part of the management, or whether there is incompetence to maintain and distribute the necessary orders which have been forthcoming. Whatever the cause, the matter is of most serious moment. It might have been reasonable for Lord Beaverbrook to apprise this House that he was making this transfer, which was supposed to be in the public interest, but he pursued the course that he has pursued on other occasions, of directing attention to output without considering other factors. If the Parliamentary Secretary is able to answer some of the questions and set this factory going as it was before, although not perhaps too well handled, I shall have done something useful.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Assheton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) for giving me the opportunity of saying a few words on the question of the management of this factory. The House will appreciate, I am sure, that the transaction to which he refers took place some seven months ago, in the days before I had left the Ministry of Labour for the burly-burly and bustle of the Ministry of Supply, and the House will also agree that at that time the Ministry of Supply was in the charge of a Noble Lord who has never, so far at any rate, been accused of lack of speed and decision. I approach the matter therefore from the point of view of giving to the House a clear historical account of what took place and of reciting to hon. Members the reasons which led the Minister to take the decision which he took and to make a change—a change, I should like to make clear, it is not intended to reverse.
  In the first place, the House should appreciate that this factory has not been transferred to private ownership, but Messrs. Beardmore have been appointed as the agent of the Minister to manage this factory, which still remains a Royal

  1025
  Ordnance Factory. It was considered at the time, and it is still considered, that there were very great technical advantages to be gained.
  Mr. David Adams: That is to say, that not only was the management changed, but the whole of the employees were dismissed from the Ordnance Factory and re-employed by Messrs. Beardmore.
  Mr. Assheton: I will touch upon the employees in due course. I want to make it clear at the start that this factory has not been transferred to the ownership of Messrs. Beardmore, but that they have been appointed agents of the Minister to manage the factory, and, as I was saying, there were technical advantages in making this; transfer. In the first place, it brought together under one control all the gun production in that area, and it will be remembered by hon. Members who are interested in this problem that this factory was originally one of the Beardmore factories working in conjunction with the main centre of gun production, which is near by. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the present Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies said when he answered a question which the hon. Member for Consett put to him, the transfer of certain of the managerial staff helped the Ministry of Supply to overcome the urgent and the difficult problems of providing sufficient trained management for the ever-growing number of Royal Ordnance Factories with which they are concerned. The reason for the transfer was not a theoretical reason but an entirely practical one. The agreement which was made with Messrs. Beardmore contains a clause that the agents shall carry out their services without any financial reward, nor do they have any option in that agreement to purchase the plant or the buildings, and, in addition, a statement was made on the authority of the late Minister of Supply with regard to the position at the end of the war. It was a statement made by Sir Patrick Dollan, late Provost of Glasgow, and it said:
  "I am authorised by Lord Beaverbrook as Minister of Supply to give his personal guarantee in writing that on the day that the Near ends the factory will revert to the control of the Director-General of Royal Ordnance Factories and as such will become a permanent establishment under State control and management."
  And now a word about the staff. As far as the non-industrial grades are con-
  1026
  cerned, the permanent established staff, they were all transferred to other Royal Ordnance Factories, and their pension rights have not been in any way prejudiced. The Minister was very glad indeed to have their services to help him overcome shortages in other Royal Ordnance Factories. Nearly all the unestablished staff exercised their option of transferring their services to the new agents, and some 20 of them, for personal reasons, preferred other employment and were immediately placed in it, with the assistance of the Ministry of Labour. Transferees retained their Royal Ordnance Factory rates, and their service under the management of Beardmores will rank as service which qualifies them for any award or gratuity under the Superannuation Acts for which they would have been eligible if they had served throughout in a Royal Ordnance Factory, as it had been, and where the scales were in operation enhanced rates were introduced by agreement with the staff concerned instead of incremental scales. Other conditions with Beardmores were substantially the same as in Royal Ordnance Factories. With regard to industrial employees, practically all were taken on by Beardmores at the same rates as in the Royal Ordnance Factory.
  The hon. Member put a specific point with regard to new entrants to the factory, and to-day I have consulted the management of Messrs. Beardmore and have ascertained that all new entrants to the factory receive Royal Ordnance Factory rates. I read the other day a speech made by a noble Lord, who is a member of the same party as the hon. Member for Consett, in which he used these words:
  "I do not think we shall set the utmost production out of our splendid industries if we approach the problem with political leanings, whether Socialist, Conservative or anything else. There is only one problem, I take it, before the Minister—how is he best to do it—and I am quite sure he will he the man to put no other consideration before him."
  I have to assure the House that nothing but the furtherance of the war effort was in the mind of the Minister when he made this change. There are three times as many agency factories as Ordnance factories, and, therefore, no question of principle was involved. I would remind the House, if I may, that when circumstances demand it the Ministry of Supply takes over private firms and under Regulation

  1027
  55 appoints an authorised controller. This has been done already in several cases. In addition, under Regulation 78, there is power to remove directors and to purchase shares of companies, and this also has been done in cases where circumstances have demanded it.
  I merely say this to show that the one consideration in the mind of the Ministry of Supply is to secure the best results in getting production and in prosecuting the war as vigorously and as sternly as it is possible to do.
  I cannot accept all the criticisms which the hon. Member made in the latter part
  1028
  of his speech with regard to present conditions in the factory. He made some charges with regard to machinery which, he said, was not being properly used. Well, the representatives of the men who have this week been interviewed at the Ministry of Supply were satisfied that the non-use of certain machinery was appropriate, and that there were adequate reasons for its non-use, although these are reasons which it would not be proper for me to state in public in the House. I will, however, be happy to make them known to the hon. Member if at any time he cares to come and see me about them.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

  DOCKS (BLACK-OUT ACCIDENTS).
  DOCKS (BLACK-OUT ACCIDENTS).
  TEACHERS (RETIREMENT, MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  TEACHERS (RETIREMENT, MONMOUTHSHIRE).
ROYAL NAVY.
  EGG SUPPLIES (TENDERS).
  EGG SUPPLIES (TENDERS).
  CRUISERS AND DESTROYERS.
  CRUISERS AND DESTROYERS.
  FIRE GUARDS (TRAINING).
  FIRE GUARDS (TRAINING).
  LUBRICATING OIL (RE-USE).
  LUBRICATING OIL (RE-USE).
  LORRY THEFTS (PENALTIES).
  LORRY THEFTS (PENALTIES).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  CANNED FISH (DISTRIBUTION, SCOTLAND).
  CANNED FISH (DISTRIBUTION, SCOTLAND).
  FRUIT JUICE.
  FRUIT JUICE.
  FLOUR (CHEMICAL BLEACHING).
  FLOUR (CHEMICAL BLEACHING).
  PROPOSED BRITISH RESTAURANT, RHYL.
  PROPOSED BRITISH RESTAURANT, RHYL.
  OFFENCES (PROSECUTIONS).
  OFFENCES (PROSECUTIONS).
  MILK SUPPLIES, SCOTLAND.
  MILK SUPPLIES, SCOTLAND.
  GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL (RULES).
  GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL (RULES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  UTILITY LIGHTERS.
  UTILITY LIGHTERS.
  PURCHASE TAX (RETAIL PRICES).
  PURCHASE TAX (RETAIL PRICES).
  RETAIL TRADERS (WAR-TIME DIFFICULTIES).
  RETAIL TRADERS (WAR-TIME DIFFICULTIES).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  TAX RESERVE CERTIFICATES.
  TAX RESERVE CERTIFICATES.
  WARSHIP WEEKS.
  WARSHIP WEEKS.
  LONDON UNIVERSITY (GRANT)
  LONDON UNIVERSITY (GRANT)
  TREASURY DEPOSIT RECEIPTS
  TREASURY DEPOSIT RECEIPTS
  ARMY VEHICLES, UNAUTHORISED USE (ACCIDENTS).
  ARMY VEHICLES, UNAUTHORISED USE (ACCIDENTS).
  FLOATING AEROPLANE BASES.
  FLOATING AEROPLANE BASES.
Preamble
The House met, THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

JAPANESE ATROCITIES AT HONG KONG.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make any statement as to the treatment by the Japanese of their prisoners of war and of the civilian population in Hong Kong.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity. Out of regard for the feelings of many of the relatives of the victims, His Majesty's Government have been unwilling to publish any accounts of Japanese atrocities at Hong Kong until these had been confirmed beyond any possibility of doubt. Unfortunately, there is no longer room for doubt. His Majesty's Government are now in possession of statements by reliable eye-witnesses who have succeeded in escaping from Hong Kong, and their testimony establishes the fact that the Japanese Army at Hong Kong perpetrated against their helpless military prisoners and the civil population, without distinction of race or colour, the same kind of barbarities which aroused the horror of the civilized world at the time of the Nanking massacre of 1937.
It is known that fifty officers and men of the British Army were bound hand and foot and then bayoneted to death. It is known that ten days after the capitulation wounded were still being collected from the hills, and the Japanese were refusing permission to bury the dead. It is known that women, both Asiatic and European, were raped and murdered, and that one entire Chinese district was declared a brothel, regardless of the status of the inhabitants. All the survivors of the garrison, including Indians, Chinese and Portuguese, have been herded into a camp consisting of wrecked huts without doors, windows, light or sanitation. By the end of January, 150 cases of dysentery had occurred in the camp, but
192
no drugs or medical facilities were supplied, and the dead had to be buried in a corner of the camp. The Japanese guards are utterly callous, and the repeated requests of General Maltby, the General Officer Commanding, for an interview with the Japanese Commander have been curtly refused. This presumably means that the Japanese High Command have connived at the conduct of their Forces.
The Japanese Government stated at the end of February that the numbers of prisoners in Hong Kong were: British, 5,072; Canadian, 1,689; Indian, 3,829; others 357—a total of 10,947. Most of the European residents, including some who were seriously ill, have been interned, and, like the military prisoners, are being given only a little rice and water and occasional scraps of other food. There is some reason to believe that conditions have slightly improved recently, but the Japanese Government have refused their consent to the visit to Hong Kong of a representative of the Protecting Power, and no permission has yet been granted for such a visit by the representative of the International Red Cross Committee. They have in fact announced that they require all foreign Consuls to withdraw from all the territories which they have invaded since the outbreak of war. It is clear that their treatment of prisoners and civilians will not bear independent examination.
I have no information as to the conditions of our prisoners of war and civilians in Malaya. The only report available is a statement by the Japanese official news agency of March 3, stating that 77,699 Chinese have been arrested and subjected to what is described as "a severe examination." It is not difficult to imagine what that entails. It is most painful to have to make such a statement to the House. Two things will be clear from it to the House, to the country and to the world. The Japanese claim that their Forces are animated by a lofty code of chivalry, Bushido, is a nauseating hyprocrisy. That is the first thing. The second is that the enemy must be utterly defeated. The House will agree with me that we can best express our sympathy with the victims of these appalling outrages by redoubling our efforts to ensure his utter and overwhelming defeat.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount

193
and to ask him this question: What steps will His Majesty's Government take to broadcast and disseminate this appalling story not only in this country but throughout the world?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to take every step to give the fullest publicity to this story.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I should like to draw attention to the very lamentable state of affairs which my noble friend has disclosed to your Lordships, and to compare it with what happened in the Russo-Japanese War. At that time, as your Lordships will remember, we were the Allies of Japan, and Japan was at war with Russia. I was then at our Embassy at St. Petersburg, and we undertook to communicate with Tokyo to obtain news of Russian prisoners of war. I should like to say that at that time we had very good reports of the treatment of the prisoners. I think that it is desirable to take note of that in order to contrast their conduct then and their conduct nowadays, and to express the hope that they may revert to more civilized practices than they seem to think desirable at present.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount, after the terrible story he has told us, which has moved all your Lordships as it has moved me, whether there is any Red Cross connexion with the Japanese Government in relation to whatever prisoners they may hold.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the Japanese Government, I understand, are not actually parties to the Prisoners of War Convention, though they have stated that they will observe its spirit. But we have been in touch with the International Red Cross with a view to trying to get some contact with our people in Hong Kong, and up to now the Japanese have rejected every approach.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask a further question? The Russian Government is in diplomatic relations with Japan. The noble Earl opposite has drawn attention to cur action in the Russo-Japanese war in using our good offices in St. Petersburg for the alleviation of the lot of prisoners. Could we not invite the Russian Government to use its good offices
194
in Tokyo to have something done for the sake of these helpless people?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is a new point to me. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to pass it on to the proper quarter.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (REQUISITIONED LAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Effect of notice of disclaimer.
(4) Where any holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, is disclaimed under this Act—
(a) the tenancy shall, for the purpose? of Sections nine and ten of that Act, be deemed to terminate at the date on which the notice of disclaimer becomes effective in accordance with subsection (1) of this section;
EARL MANVERS,EARL MANVERS, on behalf of Lord Phillimore, moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), after "ten" to insert "and subsection (2) of Section sixteen". The noble Earl said: This Amendment, which I am moving on behalf of my noble friend, is little more than drafting. It is needed to prevent a legal difficulty arising in construing the Bill as passed in another place together with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. Under Section 2 of the Act of 1923 claims to which subsection (1) of that section applies, cease to be enforceable after the expiration of two months from the termination of the tenancy unless certain particulars are given before the expiration of that period. Under this Bill as it stands, read with the Act of 1923, the time for the giving of such particulars would be related to a date from the material date when possession of requisitioned land was taken—that is, prior to the passing of the Bill, the date of such passing, and, in future cases, the date when the land was taken; whereas, having regard to the necessary sequence of events under the operation of

195
the Bill it should be related to a date from the date on which the notice of disclaimer becomes effective, which in normal cases would be the expiration of one month from the service of the notice of disclaimer. Amendments for very similar objects and reasons were made in the House of Commons in what is now Clause 2 (4) of the Bill, and the present Amendment can conveniently be made at the same place.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, after ("ten") insert ("and subsection (2) of Section sixteen").—(Earl Manvers.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I am obliged to my noble friend for moving this Amendment. It does meet a difficulty which might arise on the Bill as at present drawn, and I accept it as moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Multiple leases.
3.—(1) Where possession of all the land comprised in a multiple lease to which this Act applies has been taken and is retained on behalf of His Majesty in the exercise of emergency powers, and all the separate tenements comprised in the lease are tenements (hereafter in this section referred to as "disclaim-able tenements") which the tenant holding under the multiple lease would, if he held them under separate leases, be entitled to disclaim under Section one of this Act, he may serve a notice of disclaimer under that section in respect of the lease, but, save as aforesaid, Section one of this Act shall not apply in the case of multiple leases, and the following provisions of this section shall have effect in lieu thereof.
(3) If, on any such application for permission to serve a notice of disclaimer in respect of the lease as a whole, the Court is satisfied, having regard to the extent to which possession has been taken and retained as aforesaid of the land comprised in the lease and the extent to which the tenements are disclaim-able tenements and all the circumstances of the case, that it is equitable to allow the tenant to disclaim the lease as a whole, it shall direct that the tenant shall be at liberty to serve, within such period as may be specified, a notice of disclaimer in respect of the lease as a whole.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "lease," where that word last occurs, to insert "and subsection (3) of that section shall apply to any such notice as if the reference to the
196
conditions specified in subsection (1) of that section were a reference to the conditions specified in this subsection." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. The clause deals with a multiple lease, that is to say, a lease which, though a demise to a single tenant, is a demise of premises which either are being used in a series of separate occupations, or arc so adapted that they can be so used. The obvious example, of course, is the case of a block of flats. It is desirable to make quite plain, as this Amendment would do, that in a case of that sort where there has been a notice of disclaimer given by the tenant, that is to say, the tenant of the whole block of flats on the basis which the Bill provides in Clause 1, the landlord should have the same right to go to the County Court and challenge the basis on which the claim is made as he would have under the provisions of Clause 1. I have looked at the Amendment carefully, and I am satisfied that it is necessary to put it in for the purposes of clearness.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, after ("lease") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert:
"Provided that, if the Court gives such a direction in a case where possession of any tenement comprised in the lease has not been taken or is not retained as aforesaid, the Court may, if it thinks just, direct that the rent payable under the lease and, if the tenement is sub-let, the rent payable under the under-lease shall, notwithstanding the disclaimer, be payable, to such extent as may be directed, in respect of the period beginning with the material date and ending with the date on which the notice of disclaimer becomes effective, and the provisions of this Act relating to the apportionment of rent shall have effect subject to any such direction."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is of rather more interest and importance, and perhaps I may be allowed in two or three words to explain the situation with which it deals. If you have a multiple lease and the requisitioning authority takes the whole block of flats, then of course the tenant goes out, and there is nothing more that need be provided beyond what is already in the Bill. But you may have a case where a requisitioning authority takes, not the whole block but perhaps one or two or

197
three floors, and leaves something un-taken. In many eases the right course then would be to split the premises into two—the portion requisitioned and taken over, and the portion not taken over which remains under the previous tenancy. But you may have a case where so much of the premises has been taken as really to make it quite unfair to require the tenant, who is the tenant of all the premises, to remain under liabilities in respect of a little bit. In those circumstances it is important to provide, as the Bill now does provide, for a decision to be taken as to whether it would be right for him to be allowed to disclaim the whole premises or not. But if it is eventually decided that it is equitable to allow the tenant to disclaim the whole of the lease, there will be an interval of time between the moment when possession was taken by the Crown authorities of the greater part of the premises and the time when the tenant gets rid of the whole of his tenancy. It is necessary to provide under the procedure which is laid down in the Bill that in such circumstances a reasonable amount of rent should be fixed that he should be required to pay; otherwise he would be living for a certain time or using the small portion that has been left, with no liability to pay for it at all. That is the object of the Amendment. It is entirely consistent with the scheme of the Bill and I commend it with confidence to the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Provisions in case where tenant is abroad.
5.—(1) Where possession of land comprised in a lease has been taken" on behalf of His Majesty in the exercise of emergency powers and the tenant was outside the United Kingdom for the whole or the greater part of the period of three months from the material date, and the Court is satisfied, on an application made by the tenant within a reasonable time after his return to the United Kingdom, that it was not reasonably practicable for him to exercise his rights under the provisions of this Act relating to disclaimer, or to give the neces-say authority for the exercise of those rights on his behalf, the Court may, if it thinks fit, extend the period for the exercise of those rights.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "application," to insert "made on behalf of the tenant or." The noble and learned Viscount said: If the Chairman agrees, the three Amendments on this clause can be taken together. The provision that is here sought to be made by this Amendment is to meet a case which has not been quite sufficiently provided for. As things are in Clause 5, two kinds of relief are given. The clause deals, it will be observed, with the case where the tenant is abroad at the time when he would otherwise be anxious to exercise his rights under the Bill. When premises are requisitioned, the Bill gives a power to the tenant, within three months, to serve a disclaimer of tenancy. If he is abroad he will not be in many cases able to do that. He may be serving with the Forces; he may be at the other end of the world. We have already provided for two kinds of case, but we have not provided for the third. We have provided for the case where the tenant is away during these three months in which he will be allowed to serve disclaimer and where he cannot authorize an agent to act for him during that period. The provision already in the Bill is to this effect, that when the tenant returns, though the three months are already up, he may make an application to have the time extended within which he may give notice of disclaimer. That kind of provision is to be found in many branches of our law. But there may be cases where the tenant will not be able to do that himself until the end of the war.
There is another case provided for where the tenant is absent from the country, but cannot be communicated with at all. We do not know where he is. None the less there may be somebody here who can satisfy the Court that he is in such relation to the tenant that the Court will treat him as what is called an "agent of necessity." His solicitor may be some person who is known to be, on ordinary occasions, acting for him. In that case it is possible for the Court to treat the "agent of necessity" as speaking for the tenant, and proceedings can take place without delay. A third case, which might not often arise, but which must be provided for and has not been provided for so far, is where the tenant is away and is able to communicate with his agent, but is not able to communicate with him in

199
time before the end of the three months. The object of the Amendment is to secure that in such a case also it may be possible for the Court, in proper circumstances, to give relief. It is important for us to make this provision because in many cases tenants who are away doing dangerous public duty are people who certainly ought to be protected by the legislation which those of us at home are engaged in passing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 26, after ("application"), insert ("made on behalf of the tenant or").—[The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next two Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 30, after ("disclaimer"), insert ("within the said period"), line 31, after ("behalf"), insert ("within the said period").—[The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Notices and Certificates.
(4) A certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the authority by whom possession of land comprised in a lease was taken on behalf of His Majesty in the exercise of emergency powers, and to specify the land of which, and the date on which, possession was so taken, shall be sufficient evidence for the purposes of this Act of the facts contained therein, unless the contrary is proved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4), after "taken," to insert "or was given up." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the only other Amendment with which I have to trouble your Lordships. This is really only a provision with regard to evidence in Court. We have already made provision for evidence as to the date when possession was taken by the requisitioning Department. It would be intolerable to have to call people who are busy in another part of the country to come to Court to testify on a matter of that kind. But we omitted from the Bill the equally important provision that the certificate of the requisitioning Department will be evidence as to when the premises were yielded up—that is, at the other end of the requisitioning period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 17 after ("taken") insert ("or was given up")—[The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

PALESTINE.
LORD DAVIES LORD DAVIES rose to direct attention to the situation in Palestine; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. I confess I do so with a considerable amount of reluctance. Obviously the last thing any of us want to do in these critical days is to embarrass the Government in any way. The second reason is that my noble friend who has so recently taken up his duties at the Colonial Office obviously has had very little time and, therefore, I imagine, none of us will expect him to give a very long or reasoned reply to-day. At the same time, one feels it one's duty to draw attention to the policy that has been pursued, and is still being pursued, with regard to Palestine, and to register a protest, because some of us, at any rate, believe that it is not calculated to help in winning this war. After all, that is the main and chief consideration. The third reason which induced me to put this Motion on the Order Paper was the urgency of the matter, because I do not believe there is any time to be lost in reversing the policy we have hitherto pursued in regard to our treatment of the Jews and our treatment of this difficult problem.
There are two recent events to which I should like to draw attention which demonstrate the need for urgency. First of all, there was the unfortunate loss of the steamer "Struma" in the Black Sea, which we read about a few days ago. Secondly, we have been informed in another place that a certain number of the followers of the Mufti have been readmitted into Palestine. With regard to the "Struma," this is, as your Lordships are aware, the second case of a ship bringing Jewish refugees to Palestine being sunk. On the first occasion, about a year ago, the "Patria" was sunk at Haifa, and at least one hundred of the refugees were drowned. My noble friend Lord Wedgwood on February 26 asked a question in this House with regard to the

201
"Struma," and in his reply the noble Viscount said that he understood the "Struma" was a converted yacht of about 200 tons, and that it left Constanza in October with some 750 Jews on board with the object of effecting their entry illegally into Palestine. I have been wondering what precisely was the illegality, because under the provisions of the White Paper there is a quota due for the present half-year of 3,400, which is applicable to Jews who wish to go to Palestine, and I imagine that these unfortunate refugees were anxious to be taken in as part of the quota for the current half-year. Therefore I fail to see where the illegality of these proceedings comes in, and perhaps the noble Viscount will be able to explain to us more fully what he meant when he described it as an illegal act.
We all know the facts with regard to the loss of the "Struma." Here were a lot of refugees fleeing from the Nazi tyranny in Rumania and in other Balkan countries, men, women and children who otherwise would have found themselves in concentration camps subject to all the tortures and sufferings which they would have had to undergo in those camps. For ten weeks they remained at Istanbul under the most horrible conditions of overcrowding on this very small steamer. One can imagine what they had to undergo. Then there was the refusal of the Palestinian authorities, who, I suppose, had received their instructions from Whitehall, to allow these unfortunate refugees, flying from the Nazi terrors, to enter into Palestine and join their co-nationalists in that country. I do not suppose there is any other country to which they could have gone. Obviously they could not have gone to Greece, where a large part of the population is on the verge of starvation. It is difficult to imagine where they could have found any refuge or asylum other than in Palestine. As your Lordships are aware, there were a considerable number of children on board this steamer. After ten weeks of negotiating the authorities apparently did relent so far as to be prepared to allow the children under sixteen to be admitted.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Over eleven and under sixteen.
LORD DAVIES: To allow children over eleven and under sixteen to be admitted into Palestine. Unfortunately that instruction
202
arrived too late, and when this ship went down all persons on board, men, women and children, were drowned. I have tried to imagine what were the reasons that induced the Palestinian authorities to refuse admission to these unfortunate refugees. Were they spies? Did the authorities think that enemy agents or spies might have been included in this ship load of refugees? If they did, then the obvious answer to that was the one which I think the Jewish Agency suggested to them, that all these people should first of all be interned, and that then they should be very carefully sifted and weeded out. No doubt the Jews in Palestine would have assisted the authorities in this weeding-out process. Clearly it is not a superhuman performance to carry out such sifting and to place under arrest any person who could not give a satisfactory account of himself.
It might be said that these refugees did not come under the quota. As I understand it, under the quota of the present half-year, which as I have already said amounted to 3,400, there was plenty of margin to allow them to be included, and therefore that could not possibly have been the reason. Then there is the expense of transporting them from Istanbul to Palestine, but that I understand was guaranteed by the Jewish Agency. Moreover, a society in America was prepared to put up £6,000 in order to provide training facilities so that these people could be properly employed when they reached their destination. The last possible explanation is that if these people had been allowed into Palestine we should have incurred the hostility of the Arabs. I want to ask, what Arabs? Obviously we should have incurred the hostility of the Mufti and his followers, but that does not mean we were going to incur the hostility of the vast majority of the Arabs, who, after all, I believe are decent people and not entirely without human feelings. I cannot help thinking that the refusal on the part of the authorities to allow these refugees to enter the country can only be characterized as a stupid, callous and inhuman act, and that the only reason for the refusal was the wish to curry favour with the Arab recalcitrants.
What can we imagine are some of the repercussions which have followed this most callous behaviour on our part? I wonder what the Arabs think about it?

203
I cannot help feeling that the majority at any rate of the decent Arabs will regard our action with contempt, and that it will colour their minds in listening to the German and Italian broadcasts to the effect that we have become spineless and effete people who have no regard whatever for our friends and who are not prepared to stand up for our friends when they are in trouble. What sort of repercussions do we suppose this act is going to have upon our Allies in Russia and, "especially, in the United States? I understand that meetings have already been held in many parts of the United States to protest most vehemently against the refusal on our part to allow these refugees to come into Palestine. And what will be the repercussion on the Jews? Obviously their feelings of enthusiasm for our cause will be changed. What about the 10,000 Jews in Palestine who have been recruited for the British Army and have been fighting on all the fronts in the Middle East, in Greece, in Crete, in Syria and in Libya? What will their feelings be like when they read about this horrible incident? Lastly, I wonder what Hitler thinks about it. He must be rejoicing to feel that 750 more Jews have been done to death and that those whom he is fighting against have been more or less a party to this incident.
I cannot help feeling that from whatever angle we regard this question it is going to do us a great deal of harm. But, after all, it is only a continuation of the policy which we have been pursuing for a very long time in Palestine. May I contrast this treatment with the treatment which apparently is being meted out to some of the followers—not all, but some of the followers—of the Mufti? A question was asked in another place last week, what had become of the followers of the Mufti, refugees in Iran and Iraq, who had been handed over to us. It appears that some of these refugees, together with their women and children, who had been handed over by the Persian authorities, were permitted to return to Palestine. None of these men have been the subject of criminal charges, but the question one naturally asks is why they were refugees, why they bolted from Palestine and joined the Mufti in Iran and Iraq, unless at any rate they had been suspected of plotting and of assisting in the terrorist movement. I think the presumption at any
204
rate is that these followers of the Mufti were undesirables who had been connected with the intrigues of their leader and who should never have been allowed to re-enter the country.
There is the presumption, on the other hand, that the refugees on board the "Struma" were our friends, who, if they had been allowed to come into Palestine, would have helped us in our war effort. No doubt many of them would have enlisted in the British Forces whilst others would have done their very best to produce food and essentials for carrying on the war. I cannot help feeling that we have been giving the cold shoulder to our friends and that we have been trying to appease our enemy. The followers of the Mufti can be roughly divided into four groups—firstly, the immediate entourage of the Mufti who are at present, I believe, in Berlin; secondly, the group in Athens, who I suppose are recruited more or less as storm troopers and are preparing to do their utmost to start a new terrorist campaign in Palestine; thirdly, the group in Turkey; and, lastly, the refugees who were handed over to us. Some of them have been sent to Rhodesia—I think more might have been sent to Rhodesia, the worst of them at any rate—and I am very glad to know that has been done. The others, as I say, have come back in the garb of the prodigal, and apparently the authorities in Jerusalem have been satisfied that they will not do any harm and will not become a new menace to our Administration.
I feel that this is really a very urgent question. I beg the Government to give us assurances, first of all, that no more of the Mufti's followers will be readmitted into the country; and secondly, that those who have been sent back shall be interned so that they may not make preparations—no doubt in conjunction with their friends in Athens, Turkey and elsewhere—for a new terrorist movement which, when perhaps we are engaged in fighting the enemy in the north, may suddenly spring into life so that we shall be stabbed in the back once again. These two incidents—the loss of the "Struma" and the re-admission of these followers of the Mufti into Palestine—are only two examples in a long chain of incidents which have been based, as far as one can understand them at all, on a policy of appeasement. I always imagined that

205
when the war started the policy of appeasement was dead, but now I do not believe it is, at any rate so far as Palestine is concerned. It will be remembered that on the very first day of the war a Jewish Congress was sitting in Geneva and they dispatched Dr. Weizmann post-haste to the Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, in order to assure our Government that the manpower and the material resources of the Jews were at our disposal in carrying on this war. There were two ways in which Jewish man-power could have been used to assist our war effort—first of all, recruitment in Palestine itself, and secondly, recruitment of Jews from abroad. Unfortunately these offers have never been accepted and given effect to. I believe at the outset, when Mr. Malcolm MacDonald was Colonial Secretary, he turned them down, and he of course, was one of the arch-appeasers, who was not only prepared to sacrifice other people in a policy of appeasement but even to make a present of our ports on the West coast of Ireland which has caused us intense embarrassment ever since.
After him came Lord Lloyd. He was always regarded as a friend of the Arabs, but he realized the importance of accepting with both hands the offers which had come from the Jewish Agency of help in order to prosecute the war. He, I believe, did away with the stupid regulation of parity between the Jews and the Arabs in the matter of recruitment. Up to that time, I believe, only a certain number of Jews were allowed to be recruited, and that number could not exceed the number of Arabs who volunteered. Another thing which he did was to abolish the distinction between the combatant and the non-combatant categories in which Jews could be enlisted. At the outset they were allowed only to enlist in the Pioneers, but subsequently they were also allowed to enlist in the combatant units of the British Army, and many of them did so. The third thing which he did was to agree, in principle at any rate, to the formation of a Jewish Division, which would be recruited overseas, recruited in what are now—but were not then—enemy-occupied countries and in South America and other places. This Division was to be prepared to fight anywhere—not only in the Middle East but in any theatre of war. Unfortunately, Lord Lloyd passed away, and as your Lordships are aware he was
206
succeeded by my noble friend Lord Moyne, and, regrettably, this proposal for the Jewish Division, as he explained to us here a few weeks ago, did not come to fruition. It was postponed, and more or less rejected. Now, of course, all these Jews who could have been mobilized at that time in what are now enemy-occupied countries have become, in effect, slaves of Hitler, and they are entirely lost to us.
I cannot help feeling that we have been guilty of pouring cold water upon the enthusiasm of the Jews to assist us and to aid our cause. In fact, there has been a succession of snubs. First of all, as I have said, we insisted upon the stupid rule of parity of enlistment. Then we said the Jews must only enlist in Pioneer units—they must not be allowed to join combatant units. Then we refused to allow them to have their own badges, or to form distinctively Jewish units. I cannot understand why, because that concession has been made to the Druses. Fifty thousand Druses in Syria have been allowed to form a Druse Legion alongside the British Forces in Syria, and each of the allied nations gets credit for whatever it contributes to the common cause. If it could be done in the case of the Druses, why not in the case of the Jews? Then, I believe, we have a Division in Egypt which has been recruited from the Senussi tribe. They are called the Senussi Division. May I ask why is it that the same privilege, or, at any rate, the same treatment, should not have been accorded to the Jews? After all, any person who is prepared to wear a badge knowing that if he is caught by the enemy he will be put up against a wall and shot simply because he is wearing that badge, shows an offensive spirit and also that he has taken his courage in both hands.
Lastly, we have never recognized, so far as I am aware, the services which Jews have already rendered on all fronts in the Middle East. If you go to their Commanders you will hear lots of praise of the Jews, but when it comes to reporting it in the Press or to extending any official recognition, not a word has been said or published. And so I cannot help feeling that this is a stupid and a wrong policy. It is the sort of policy that we adopted at the beginning of the last war, when great efforts were made by the Nationalist Party, and especially by Mr. Redmond and his followers, to recruit men in Southern Ireland. I remember

207
that when Mr. Redmond and his colleagues asked that the men it was proposed to recruit should have a special badge, and when it was suggested that they might have a special uniform, bands of their own, and other things, it was all turned down by the War Office at that time. The result was that the enthusiasm of the people of Southern Ireland who were being asked to serve alongside us against the common enemy was killed; and, subsequently, there was the Easter rebellion of 1916. I think that if we go on pursuing this stupid policy we shall again land ourselves in similar disasters. What it means is that we are giving the cold shoulder to our friends in a vain attempt to appease their detractors.
I must apologize to the House for continuing for so long, but I wish to bring to the notice of your Lordships two more instances which illustrate the kind of atmosphere which has prevailed in Palestine, and the attitude of our Administration there. Twelve months ago—it took a long time before it was published in this country—Dr. Norman Maclean, an ex-Moderator of the Church of Scotland and a King's Chaplain, chanced to be in Jerusalem. He was asked by the Editor of the Palestine Post to write an article for publication in that paper because it so happened that the celebration of Christmas by the Christians and the celebration of the Jewish Feast of Lights coincided that year. He was invited, as-I say, to send an article for publication in this newspaper. What was the result? The result was in the publication which I hold in my hand. When this article appeared, the censor had got hold of it and out of 139 lines he had struck out 100 lines. If your Lordships will read the article you will find that there is not a single word about any political subject at all. It is simply an endeavour to put the case from the standpoint of the Christians and from the standpoint of the Jews. I cannot help feeling that it was not only an affront to the Jews but an affront also to the Christians that this article should be dealt with in the way that it was. I wonder whether the censor has been reprimanded. The whole thing has a Nazi smell about it, and I cannot help feeling that it does show the extraordinary way in which our Administration carries on affairs in Palestine.
208
There is a second instance to which I must draw the attention of the House, and which happened quite recently. Dr. Weizmann, who, as your Lordships are aware, is the head of the Jewish Agency, sent a cable to Palestine on the occasion of a great recruiting campaign, in order to encourage people there to join not Jewish regiments but the British Army. He said:
"My heartiest greetings to the Palestine Auxiliary Territorial Service at the outset of its recruiting campaign. I know how eagerly our women will welcome this opportunity to share with the ten thousand of their men already serving in defence of their lives, homes and of all that Palestine means to them."
That was the message, but the censor refused to allow it to be published in the Jewish papers in Palestine. I cannot help wondering how we can ever hope to win this war if this is the way in which we treat our friends and their efforts to help us in fighting the enemy. It is a stupid policy. It brings us into contempt with the Arabs, and it brings us into disrepute with our friends.
Let me recall to you the view expressed by the present Prime Minister as recently as May, 1939. This is what he said:
"To whom was the pledge of the Balfour Declaration made? It was not made to the Jews in Palestine, it was not made to those who were actually living in Palestine. It was made to World Jewry and in particular to the Zionist associations. It was in consequence, and on the basis, of this pledge that we received important help in the war, and that after the war we received from the Allied and Associated Powers the Mandate for Palestine. This pledge of a home of refuge, of an asylum, was not made to the Jews in Palestine but to the Jews outside Palestine, to that vast, unhappy mass of scattered, persecuted, wandering jews whose intense, unchanging, unconquerable desire has been for a National Home. … It is not with the Jews in Palestine that we have now or at any future time to deal, but with World Jewry, with Jews all over the world."
Does not that apply to these unfortunate refugees who sought refuge in Palestine, who journeyed there on the "Patria" and on the "Struma," who were refused admission, and so many of whom were sent to their doom? I cannot help feeling, therefore, that this policy is not really the Prime Minister's policy; I cannot believe that he has joined the ranks of the appeasers.
I come now to another declaration, which was made in November of last year, when General Smuts said:

209
"The case for the Balfour Declaration has become overwhelmingly stronger. Instead of the horror of new ghettos in the twentieth century, let us carry out the promise and open up the National Home. The case has become one not merely of promises and International Law, but for the conscience of mankind. We dare not fold our hands without insulting the human spirit itself."
That, I think, goes to the root of the matter. This is not merely a question of expediency; this is really a moral question. Since Hitler has for years past made the Jews the target of his persecution and of his outbursts of hate, I feel that anyone who refuses to accept the challenge is playing a double-faced game and is injuring the cause for which we are fighting. I do not believe that there can be any neutrality in this matter, and I believe that the whole attitude of the administration in Palestine has been in complete contradiction of our declared war aims, the rescue from oppression of all the oppressed peoples of the world.
In conclusion, therefore, I would respectfully and earnestly appeal to my noble friend. I am sure that we shall not make a real effort to win this war if we go on in this way, and indeed if we continue on these lines it is doubtful whether we shall win it. I ask myself whether we shall deserve to win it if we treat in this way people who are prepared to help us to the limit of their capacity, and who arc willing to pour out their blood and their treasure for our cause. I am not a pro-Jew or a pro-Arab, and I hope that most of us, at any rate, take that line and will welcome assistance from both Jews and Arabs. If the Arabs want to have their own Division and their own units, why cannot they have them, and why cannot the Jews have them as well?
I know that the Jews are not popular in this country, for reasons which we all know, at this moment, but I should like to point out that there are good Jews and bad Jews, just as there are good Christians and bad Christians. Although we see in the Law Courts every day "black-market" prosecutions, and so on, obviously the thing to do with people who are guilty of these offences is to put them up against a wall and shoot them, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. That would soon put a stop to this sort of thing. That, however, does not mean that the Jews in Palestine are of this type. They, as I have said, have helped us, and are helping us even now; they are exhorting their
210
people to join our Forces and to fight against their arch enemies. I think that it is only reasonable, just, fair and wise, therefore, to give them every encouragement and ever recognition. I would end by reminding your Lordships of the words of Tennyson:
"Since right is right, to follow right Were wisdom in the scorn of consequence."
I beg to move.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, before I begin to lose your sympathy I should like to say a ward on which all of us will agree. Dr. Weizmann has long been the leader of the Zionist Movement, and I have known him for twenty-five years. He has done a great work for the Jewish people. The other day one of our bombers did not return, and Dr. Weizmann's son is dead. I think that we ought to say a word of tribute and sympathy to Dr. Weizmann now that we are discussing a question which relates to Palestine.
I think that the whole gist of the speech of my noble friend Lord Davies points to one self-evident truth, which is that the Administration in Palestine is Anti-Semitic. I think that all our troubles in connexion with that country have come from this constant Anti-Semitic bias of the Palestine Administration. The evidence of that Anti-Semitism has been given in the speech of my noble friend, and, in addition to the things which he mentioned, I should like to refer to certain other facts. I will quote as evidence the toleration shown by the Administration to the Arab side in the riots of four years ago, and the escape of El Fawzi and the Mufti from that country when the riots were suppressed and their capture could have been effected. Then there was the question of the imprisonment of those Jews who dared to drill. They attempted to drill with the rifles that had been issued to them. It was against the law. They were all sent to prison, with sentences which range up to seven years' imprisonment for merely drilling in order to learn how to defend themselves. Some of them are still in prison. That, I think, is evidence of Anti-Semitism.
Then there was the prohibition of the right to buy land in Palestine. You do not find any other part of the British Empire where a certain number of British citizens are denied the right to buy land, except in the Punjab where it is denied to the Hindus. I think they may

211
buy land which was not previously owned by Moslems; but the Jews in their home land are refused permission to buy or lease land. Another piece of evidence was the case of the partition of Palestine. You will remember that the first partition included Galilee in the Jews' part of Palestine. The Administration there objected very strongly. A fresh Commission was appointed which acceded to their point of view that Galilee should be excluded from the Jewish area. In all these cases there may be two sides to the question, but I am merely citing them as evidence of the consistently Anti-Semitic attitude of the British Administration in Palestine.
I pass to the case which has just been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the case of the "Patria." The "Patria" had about 1,300 Jews on board. It got into Haifa harbour and they were not allowed to land—they were to be sent on to Mauritius. The Jews blew a hole in the bottom of the ship and those who managed to get ashore were allowed to land: the rest were drowned. The "Patria" case was a pretty bad one, but at any rate those Jews were allowed to go to Mauritius; they were not to be sent back to Hitler. But what I would draw your Lordships' attention to, because it is such evidence of Anti-Semitism, is the fact that Sir Harold MacMichael on that occasion went to the microphone and broadcast messages to the Jews in which he specially pointed out that even at the end of the war these people whom he was sending to Mauritius would not be allowed to land in Palestine. It was not necessary to say that at all: there was no reason for it; besides, who knows what will happen at the end of the war? It was simply that he wanted to show that he did not want these people to have a chance of feeling safe or coming to Palestine. I think it was a particularly brutal thing, when you remember that the sons and other relations of those people on the "Patria" were actually waiting on the shore ready to receive them.
Next I come to the consequences of the "Patria," which everybody realizes, except the Administration there—the case of the "Struma." The "Struma" was not allowed to get as far as Haifa, be-
212
cause after the "Patria" trouble the Government arranged with the Turkish Government not to allow ships to sail for Palestine. Therefore the "Struma" never reached Haifa and remained in the Bosporus. It remained there for three months—760 people on a ship of 200 tons, with no food and no medical appliances. Nothing more nearly approaching the Black Hole of Calcutta can be imagined. Meanwhile the Colonial Office were pestered with telegrams from America and all over the world, begging them to allow these people to proceed to Palestine. I do not know who it was that refused, but, moved by some feeling of humanity, they said, "Oh well, if we must have any Jews, take the children between eleven and sixteen." I do not know whether that offer ever reached the "Struma," but I can imagine that the parents of the Jews on board the "Struma" would not have accepted the offer—I doubt whether the children would. They could not take the little children, but they could take the children between eleven and sixteen.
Your Lordships know that when garrisons surrender they sometimes pick out by lot the people who will be shot: here the Palestine Administration were more humane, they picked out those who might be saved. But they were not saved. Whether they had the chance or not I do not know. They went back, or rather the ship went back—back to Hitler. You must remember what had happened to Jews in Rumania already. They had had thousands murdered. There were tales of people being roasted alive in bakers' ovens. Every atrocity and inhumanity had been perpetrated on that unfortunate people. The Rumanians are almost worse than Hitler. We sent the Jews back there. It is no wonder they did not go. But when the sinking did take place we got the final, beautiful comment of The Times correspondent in Palestine. I am told that this gentleman is a clergyman of the Church of England. This is what he said, as quoted from The Times:
"It is not fully appreciated by outsiders, or even by the Jews, that Hitler's policy would be doubly served if Great Britain were jockeyed into the position of having to accept in Palestine any Jewish refugees forced out of countries under Hitler's rule, for this would reduce the number of Jews in those countries and would arouse disquiet among the Palestinian Arabs."

213
That, I think, is typical of the frame of mind not only of this Times correspondent, but of the whole Palestine Administration, and it is on such evidence as that that I base my first charge that the Administration there is Anti-Semitic.
The argument that has been used to me, and i think is going to be used here this afternoon, is that it would have been dangerous to allow these refugees to come into Palestine because they might contain among their numbers some who were in Hitler's pay. That was said at the time of the sinking of the "Patria." That is why most of the people who managed to swim ashore then are still interned, though some have been allowed out to do work of national importance. It has been the argument used in this country. It has been used by my noble friend Lord Croft—we ought not to allow refugees into this country because some of them might be in Hitler's pay. That is the argument on which we based the internment of all refugees a year and a half ago—some of them might be in Hitler's pay. There has never been a particle of evidence which would convince anybody that any of the refugees have been in Hitler's pay. It is manifestly improbable that Hitler would employ a Jew in any circumstances. It is ridiculous to suppose that even our own Intelligence system would employ in Germany a person who spoke German imperfectly. There is the further reason that the Jews have certainly more cause to hate Hitler than anybody else in this world. In Palestine you have the additional argument that Hitler can get Arab agents more easily and cheaply than anybody else.
That allegation regarding the Jews is a bare-faced excuse which supplies fresh evidence of Anti-Semitism on the part of people who admit quite openly, "We do not like Jews" What is the excuse given by the Colonial Office? I am sorry it will be given by my noble friend opposite (Viscount Cranborne). The need to appease the Arabs! The Arabs have rebelled. They have never fought for us, and they never will fight for us. The probability is, if the Germans get there, they will fight against us. Hitler's propaganda continues to advertise and jeer at our weakness in Palestine. It keeps on telling the Arabs in Palestine that this is a Jewish war. Mussolini, I believe,
214
avers that he is the protector of the Mahomedans, and indeed we have seen in Iraq how successful this propaganda was. The rebellion in Iraq was due principally, I believe, to the weakness we showed in Palestine—a weakness that indicated fear. Iraq rebelled, and we repressed the rebellion with the most perfect kid-glove diplomacy. Egypt will not fight. By this sort of appeasement we only give Orientals the impression that we fear them. Are we afraid of them? If we are afraid of them, arm the Jews, and then we shall not need to fear the Arabs. If we are not afraid of the Arabs, then we really ought not to continue conciliating our enemies at the expense of our friends.
The last example I shall give of this policy of appeasing our enemies and injuring our friends is the refusal of the Colonial Office to allow Home Guards to be formed in Palestine. It is four months since some of us went to see Lord Moyne on this question. We thought it was going to go all right, but nothing has been done. The danger has certainly become more obvious—danger not only from Germany, but also from Japan. Why has nothing been done? For the same reason—because we must not annoy the Arabs, because of this continual passion for appeasing at the expense, in this case, not merely of the Jews, but of our honour. If we abandoned the Jews in Palestine as we abandoned the unfortunate Chinese in Malaya and Hong Kong, we should blacken our history beyond repair. To refuse people the power to defend themselves, to refuse them the right to carry a rifle, own a rifle, and to drill when their most deadly enemy is on the borders, with a knife at their throats, is neither the act of a sane man nor of a gentleman. That is the crime we are committing in Palestine to-day. I have said that the real reason of all our troubles in Palestine is that the Administration does not like Jews. All other reasons they may give are excuses on the part of a pro-Arab, pro-Italian clique who are the enemies of this country and the abettors of Fascism.
What is the Secretary of State going to do about it? Is the policy going to change? We have had twenty-two years of this policy—this attempt to appease the Arabs, this continual bias against the Jews. Now we are in the middle of a desperate war fighting for our own lives.

215
Cannot we, even now, revise that policy and provide ourselves with friends who can fight and die—friends who dare not surrender. If we had that support, our morale in this country would be better than it is. We might get as good an example from these people in Palestine as we are getting from the Russian morale. We are throwing it all away through a stupid prejudice carried to excess in Palestine and, believe me, my Lords, carried to excess in this country also.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, tabled for discussion to-day is a very wide one. He draws attention broadly to the situation in Palestine, and in the course of his speech, and in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, many questions have been raised both of detail and of general policy. It may be for the convenience of the House if I deal very briefly with some of these questions of detail first. There is, first of all, the question of a Jewish Army about which there has been a good deal of talk this afternoon. The House will forgive me if I do not deal with that question to-day. There is a Motion already on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, which is directed to this specific point. It is to be debated at an early date, and will be replied to by my noble friend Lord Croft. I do not propose to make Lord Croft's speech for him to-day, nor do I propose to inflict upon the House a double dose of Government oratory on this particular problem.
Then there is the question of the return of the adherents of the Mufti to Palestine, which was mentioned first of all by Lord Davies and later, I think, also by Lord Wedgwood. There has been a sort of suggestion in both these speeches that in the interests of a policy of appeasement of the Arabs, which is supposedly being carried on by the Palestine Administration, a stream of undesirable and dangerous persons is being allowed to go back into Palestine. I do not really know where the noble Lord, Lord Davies, got his information. I am quite certain he did not mean to mislead the House, but I do not think that the facts bear out, the impression he gave. Perhaps he will allow me to finish. What are the facts in regard to those refugees who
216
were apprehended in Persia? Some of them no doubt were very unsuitable people to allow to return. Those apprehended in Persia numbered only thirteen, and out of this thirteen, six, I think the noble Lord himself said, have not gone back to Palestine. They have gone to Southern Rhodesia and there they are interned, and there in fact they will remain.
What the noble Lord did not say was that among them were the really dangerous people Jamal El Husseini, Amim Tamimi and others of the close associates of the Mufti. They are the people who were capable of causing danger and disturbance. The remaining seven were mere hangers on; they were unimportant people, and to that extent harmless. As I think the noble Lord said, quoting from a reply given in another place, they are not open to any criminal charge. Those seven people have been brought back, but only in full agreement, and after careful consultation, with the Security Authorities. They are under constant observation, and they can be apprehended at any time if they misbehave themselves. The impression that the noble Lord gave that a stream of people of a dangerous character has come back is not justified.
LORD DAVIES: May I intervene for a moment? The noble Viscount has attributed something to me that I did not say. I did not say a word about a stream of people. I quoted the number of six, I think, and their women and children, which had been given in another place. I did not mean to suggest that there was a stream of people. I referred specifically to the six, and, it seems to me, we can ask this question: Why did these six ever go away and leave Palestine at all unless they came under suspicion as being followers of the Mufti and therefore undesirable people?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No doubt they have been hangers-on of the Mufti. They have been in very undesirable company, and people who have been in undesirable company are very apt to bolt in a crisis. But, in any case, they have been allowed back only after very careful consultation by the Security Authorities. It is considered that they are not dangerous, but they are being kept under constant observation.

217
Then there is the question of the Palestine Administration, and especially the High Commissioner himself. As noble Lords know, there have been considerable attacks upon him and upon the Palestine Administration both in this House and outside. There seems to be a strange misconception, which has gained ground, that the Administration of Palestine is pursuing a completely different policy from that of His Majesty's Government here. They are talked of as an independent entity, as if they were doing whatever they felt inclined to do, and as if they were in fact, quite apart from His Majesty's Government, pursuing a violent Anti-Semitic policy. Even so great an authority as Dr. Weizmann himself, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, said, is a man we all respect for his integrity, has fallen into that error in the speech he made on Sunday last. In reality, that conception of the Administration has no foundation at all. It is impossible to make any differentiation between the policy of the Palestine Administration and the policy of His Majesty's Government here.
The High Commissioner and those devoted people who assist him are merely public servants appointed to carry out the policy which has been approved by the British Parliament. I think it is very important to make that clear. That they are doing with, I believe, complete integrity and great courage, in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty, and to suggest anything else, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, did, is in my view, if he will forgive my saying so, both undesirable and dangerous, because it can only injure the authority of the Administration and that can only lead to disaffection and unrest. To suggest, as the noble Lord did, that the Administration is harsh, unfair and animated by Anti-Semitic bias—he will not deny that was the impression he gave—is bad. To assert that they have deliberately tolerated Arab riots and even condoned the escape of the Mufti is particularly shocking. I think it would be impossible for anyone in this House to say anything more undesirable and dangerous, and, if I may say so with all deference to the noble Lord, it comes very near to an incitement to violence.
The real truth is that the Palestine Government and His Majesty's Govern-
218
ment have been trying to carry out a policy based, not on appeasement either of Arab or of Jew, but on impartiality. Many things may be said about the policy which has been adopted, but that was certainly the intention of it, and that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, wants, nor what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, wants. They do not want a policy of impartiality. To accuse the Palestine Administration and eminent public servants of anti-Jewish bias is, I submit, not fair, and I do hope we shall have no more attempts, either inside this House or outside it, to drive a wedge between His Majesty's Government and the Palestine Administration. I am the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I accept full responsibility for the conduct of affairs in Palestine. I am very glad to make this quite clear so early in my tenure of the Colonial Office.
As a by-product, if I may so describe it, of this strange attack upon the Administration there has been a sustained campaign against the censorship in Palestine. No censorship is perfect. In every country where censorship is in operation errors and mistakes are made. I do not believe the Palestine censorship in that respect, any more than any other censorship, is entirely blameless. The purpose of the censorship as it is applied in that country is to prevent the publication of material that is likely to inflame public opinion and lead to disturbance. It may be that there are cases in which it has operated too strictly. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned two instances, one about the Christmas message. I have seen that document, and inquiry has been already instituted in Palestine to find out what the facts are. I have not had a reply yet, but I wanted the noble Lord to know that. Then there is the second case of a message by Dr. Weizmann to the rally in Palestine. Our information is that that was published in the Palestine Post. We are making further inquiries also into this point, in order to make absolutely certain what the facts are. It certainly is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that the censorship in Palestine should be unduly rigid. We want as much freedom as is possible, and should any other examples of undue rigidity come to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, or the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, or anyone else, if they will send them to me, I will make the fullest

219
inquiry. But that there should be a censorship is, I am afraid, in existing circumstances, inevitable.
Finally, both the noble Lords who have spoken have raised the question of our general policy towards Palestine. While I fully appreciate the integrity and the purity of the motives which have inspired the noble Lords to-day—which one could see from the passionate earnestness with which they spoke—I cannot feel that it has been a happy inspiration to raise this particular problem at the present time. I would remind noble Lords that this is one of the most critical moments of the war. We have had serious setbacks in the Far East. We are likely to have more. We read in the Press and elsewhere of great preparations for German offensives both through Russia towards the Caucasus and through Turkey towards Iraq and Syria. The whole of the Middle East at the present time is under a potential threat of attack. We may have need of every friend we have got in that area, both Jewish and Arab, and we have many friends in both of those two communities. Parliament has approved a policy for Palestine. I am not going to say for a moment that it is a policy which is wholly acceptable either to Jew or to Arab or indeed to numbers of people in this country—that was probably impossible—but it was a genuine attempt to find an impartial solution of the problem. Now, at this vital, critical moment the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and others who feel like him think fit to suggest that His Majesty's Government should embark on a totally new and entirely untried experiment. I cannot believe that there could be anything more calculated to lead to disturbances and disquiet throughout the Middle East than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, stated his case, if I may say so, with great moderation, and I think we should be very grateful to him for that. The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, spoke with his usual zeal and fire. He made, I am afraid, some exceedingly controversial statements. In an interview which the noble Lord gave recently to the Press, I notice that he said he was happy to be in your Lordships' House, because now he felt free to say anything he felt inclined. I do hope the noble Lord will not confuse the words liberty and licence. That would be very sad for him, for your Lordships'
220
House and for the country as a whole. Noble Lords may remember that during one of those recurrent crises that used to come our way in the years before the war, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, used a famous metaphor in which he compared the situation in Europe to that which sometimes occurs in high mountains, when any sound, even that of the spoken word, may precipitate an avalanche. I hope the situation in the Middle East to-day is not as delicate as that. But I must say that I do not think that the loud provocative shouts of the noble Lord are very likely to reduce the danger. At any rate, whatever he may feel, however legitimate it may seem to him to say what he has, I cannot allow myself such latitude. The situation is, to my mind, far too delicate. I believe that general statements by the Government on Palestine policy at this moment could not do any possible good and might be fraught with danger. Therefore I do not propose to make any statement on policy to-day, and in doing so I am confident that I shall receive the support of the overwhelming majority of your Lordships' House.
There remains the question of the "Struma." In the present unhappy situation of the world, it is, I suppose, to a certain extent inevitable that we should be hardened to horrors. But I do not think there can be anyone who was not profoundly shocked by the terrible sinking of this ship. The whole facts are not yet known. Possibly they never will be known. She may have been destroyed by a torpedo, she may have run upon a mine, she may have tried to beach herself and struck a rock, or she may, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, suggested the other day, have been deliberately blown up by the wretched passengers themselves in a moment of despair, though there has been up to now no evidence to support that most horrible of all explanations. All that is certain is that she sank with practically all hands. We must deeply regret that the plan of His Majesty's Government to transport, at any rate, the children between the years of eleven and sixteen to Palestine, could not be carried out. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who suggested that the failure of this plan was due to the Palestine authorities. I would assure him that that is not the fact. The Turkish authorities refused to allow them

221
to land from the vessel at all. There was complete agreement with the Palestine authorities to take these children, and the scheme fell through for reasons for which we were not responsible. In any case there is nothing now which can be done for the passengers of the "Struma," who have so unhappily lost their lives.
Noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon have asked me what steps His Majesty's Government can take to prevent the recurrence of such a tragedy. We are as anxious as noble Lords themselves that the tragedy should not be repeated. But I must make this proviso. We cannot take any measures which would undermine the policy regarding illegal immigration into Palestine. Even if these immigrants were not to exceed the quota for the year, to admit them to Palestine would be contrary to the policy approved by Parliament which stated categorically that "His Majesty's Government are determined to check illegal immigration." To depart from this; policy would at once raise those wider issues and invite those wider dangers to which I have already referred. Within these limitations I can give your Lordships' House an assurance that His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power. I cannot tell noble Lords to-day what steps can, or will be taken. That must depend upon the time and upon the circumstances. Nor can I give any absolute guarantee, because the circumstances clearly might be beyond our control: But His Majesty's Government are as horrified as any noble Lord at this dreadful event and will do all that is practicable to prevent it happening again. I have spoken this afternoon very frankly to your Lordship's House. This is no time, I think, for beating about the bush. It is a time for plain speaking. Never was there a moment when it was more necessary for us all to show a sense of responsibility. I would appeal to noble Lords in whatever part of the House they may sit to show that same discretion which is imposed upon us who sit upon the Front Bench; for upon our capacity to show wisdom and self-restraint may well depend the survival of free speech here and throughout the world.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I would like to thank the; noble Viscount for his reply to this Motion, but I confess I cannot help feeling rather disappointed. However, as
222
I said at the outset, he has held his present post for a very short time and one may hope that when he has had more leisure to look into things he may modify his views somewhat. One cannot help feeling that the time has probably come for a drastic spring-cleaning, because it is not only in Palestine but in other parts of the world as well that we have: rather fallen down in our Colonial Office administration. There are one or two points to which I should like to refer before I withdraw my Motion. I think the noble Viscount said that this was not the time for untried experiments. Nobody has asked him—at least I have not this afternoon—to go beyond the provisions in the White Paper, and surely there is nothing in the White Paper which suggests that we should refuse to accept this assistance which the Jewish Agency and their friends have offered us from the very outset of hostilities. There is nothing in the White Paper, I believe, which should debar us from accepting with both hands what they offer, and from doing all that we can to encourage them in every possible way to put forth their greatest effort to help us in the conduct of the war.
Then, the noble Viscount said, it was very wrong—no, "wrong" was not the word, I think he said "injudicious"—to talk about these things, or to bring up these subjects at all at this moment, when we find ourselves in this very critical situation. I can assure him that the only reason my noble friend Lord Wedgwood and I have called attention to this matter to-day is that we wish to avoid another setback, and we believe that to pursue the policy which has hitherto been pursued is not the best way of doing that. I think he also said that we were partial. I have tried to point out that, so far as I am concerned at any rate, I am absolutely impartial. I am neither pro-Arab nor pro-Jew, and I am sure the noble Viscount did not mean to suggest that we were showing bias to one side or the other.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I, perhaps, would not suggest that against the noble Lord, Lord Davies. But I think, perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood would not refute or rebut the charge.
LORD DAVIES: With regard to the matter of the refugees, I never suggested that there was a stream of these people coming back from Iran and Iraq. The extraordinary thing is that they should

223
have been received back into this country, whereas the unfortunate people on the "Struma" were sent back to their doom. Finally, I would like to say that I am sure we all rejoice that my noble friend Viscount Cranborne has now assumed the duties of his very responsible position at the Colonial Office. We wish him every success in his Department. We know that he is not an appeaser at any rate, because he was one of the few men in this country who sacrificed their positions and resigned rather than become parties to this iniquitous policy which has brought all these disasters upon us. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FRAUDULENT WEARING OF DECORATIONS.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, how many convictions have been obtained during the past two years against persons charged with wearing of military decorations and medals without authorization; and how many prosecutions have taken place during the same period for contraventions of Section 156A (3) of the Army Act prohibiting the sale of decorations to such persons.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord Croft): My Lords, I regret that the information asked for is not immediately available, and could not be obtained without a disproportionate amount of labour.
LORD DAVIES: Arising out of that reply, may I ask my noble friend whether he can hold out any hopes that the information may be available some time, or can he give a very rough indication in regard to what I am asking?
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I am afraid I must answer my noble friend that, owing to the strain of the war, at the present moment all Departments are so occupied that it really would not be in the national interest to go to all the trouble which would be involved to obtain this information. There would have to be a great
224
number of inquiries amongst local authorities throughout the country. I understand, of course, the sincere motives which my noble friend has in asking for these particulars.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the practice of entering into contracts on the basis of cost plus a percentage of profit is still in operation, and how many public works now in progress have been allotted without obtaining tenders from a number of competitive firms.]
THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS (LORD PORTAL): My Lords, the undesirability of placing building and civil engineering contracts on a prime-cost basis is recognized by all the Departments concerned, but it is not possible to avoid the system entirely, particularly on maintenance and urgent works of a special nature. In such cases a fixed fee in preference to a percentage is adopted to cover overheads and profit, wherever possible. Arrangements have been made recently under which any proposals by Government Departments to place major contracts on a prime-cost basis must be submitted for prior consideration by a Committee representative of the six principal contracting Departments. In regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question, information is not readily available of the number of contracts now in progress which have been allotted without competition. So far as my Ministry is concerned, no major contract has been so placed in the last nine months

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Urban District of Bridgend;
Urban District of Whitley and Monkseaton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.